obama and afghanistan

i am so glad he is taking time to review facts and implications from numerous angles on the subject of whether to increase the troop level. i am hoping its a NO.

I think the Biden the plan is the way to go ... smaller forces more specialized missions.

So Biden knows more about what is needed than the commanders who are there? My hope is that Obama puts the heaviest weight on what they say. Specialized missions are fine but the bottom line is you have to know who the enemy is, and that can't be done without intelligence on the ground. There are people like Al Queda that want us dead, and then there are groups that don't want us dead but will protect Al Queda, and then there are groups who will help us. Figuring out who is who is the key.

Why don't they like us now?

The general making his pitch publically bothers me... I think the kebash was put on that tho. I also want to know what the plan is... this is 40,000 troops... not exactly a small force.

I heard a brilliant quote... "a small army cant control the insurgency in afghanistan, an army large enough to control the insurgency will likely starve to death"

While I agree Obama should look at the overall picture on what the stradigey should be, more troops are needed (whether 40K is the correct number or not I don't know, but more do need to be there) until that decision is made. Nothing wrong getting 40,000 troops prepared and outfitted to go to Afghanistan then have those orders cancelled.

My problem is administration trying to hush the request (not saying it was Obama, just his administration). This brings back the history of Johnson's administration in Vietnam where Generals on the ground were ignored and the administration got too involved and started to pick out where they could and could not bomb the North.

thought the admin felt it was a tad inappropriate for mcchristol to leak to media prior to providing his analysis to the prez?

we have been there how many years now? are we considered by the common folk to be helpers and wanted guests, or just as we are and have been in iraq--as occupiers? cant force your idea of a victory when your an occupier.

floridafun wrote:thought the admin felt it was a tad inappropriate for mcchristol to leak to media prior to providing his analysis to the prez?

we have been there how many years now? are we considered by the common folk to be helpers and wanted guests, or just as we are and have been in iraq--as occupiers? cant force your idea of a victory when your an occupier.

Nor can you enjoy freedom, or human rights, when your country is occupied by ruthless terrorists. Neither can you live safely at home without keeping those terrorists on the run.

americas freedom and rights depend on how many countries we can occupy? i dont agree with that.

floridafun wrote:americas freedom and rights depend on how many countries we can occupy? i dont agree with that.

Why not?

We've had zero terrorists attacks on our home soil since we've been at war with Afghanistan and Iraq...think that was simply a coincidence? Sept 11, 2006, the CIA announced 5,000 terrorists had been killed. Factor in the scare factor, on top of the number of detained terrorists, and you've got a safer America.

Do I agree completely with either wars? Absolutely not. No one ever wants a war; however, that does not mean that something good can become of it.

Sometimes the price of the freedoms we take advantage of every day is that of American and innocent lives.

I think it's a strategy of "bringing the fight to them". That said, I don't agree with the reasons for going to war to justify a safer America at the cost of innocent civilian deaths abroad.

A plaque above the toilet reads:

"Never wrestle with a pig, you both get messy but the pig likes it."

meta4 wrote:That said, I don't agree with the reasons for going to war to justify a safer America at the cost of innocent civilian deaths abroad.

Would it be unfair for me to ask: "Thousands of foreign civilians die and they will get a chance at a better freedom vs. thousands of Americans die in a terrible terrorist attack"

meta4 wrote:"Never wrestle with a pig, you both get messy but the pig likes it."

Haha, though I don't think I've ever met a pig whose enjoyed a hellfire from a Predator UAV.

sliptap wrote:

meta4 wrote:That said, I don't agree with the reasons for going to war to justify a safer America at the cost of innocent civilian deaths abroad.

Would it be unfair for me to ask: "Thousands of foreign civilians die and they will get a chance at a better freedom vs. thousands of Americans die in a terrible terrorist attack"

meta4 wrote:"Never wrestle with a pig, you both get messy but the pig likes it."

Haha, though I don't think I've ever met a pig whose enjoyed a hellfire from a Predator UAV.

Sorry, I must have misread the question...

Here's one for you, Do you believe there is such a thing as preemptive retaliation?

meta4 wrote:Here's one for you, Do you believe there is such a thing as preemptive retaliation?

As in, against a country that is (was) harboring terrorists which already committed a terrorist attack against our country?

In the case of Afghanistan, I don't believe our attack fell under the category of preemptive retaliation.

preemptive retaliation is, literally, a contradiction in terms... whereas something like "jumbo shrimp" is an oxymoron only when taken out of context... (I'm big in Japan)...

sliptap wrote:

meta4 wrote:Here's one for you, Do you believe there is such a thing as preemptive retaliation?

As in, against a country that is (was) harboring terrorists which already committed a terrorist attack against our country?

I do not believe preemptive retaliation is a policy any country should have. However, in the case of Afghanistan, I don't believe our attack fell under the category of preemptive retaliation.

That's funny, I thought all but a few terrorists that planned the attacks were killed on 9/11... how many of our troops were lost fighting in Iraq, only to discover that... hmm, Al Queda and the Taliban pick up roots and move to other countries. We respond by taking the fight to them and occupying Iraq, and now Afghanistan in efforts to "root out" terrorists, their leadership, financial backers, drafted militants, etc.

When does the justification for retaliation finally come to an end? As you've stated, there hasn't been a successful homeland attack since 2001. So we seem to have this aspect pretty well covered. We're no longer occupying Iraq and Afghanistan to protect ourselves, now we're doing this to create stability in the region we've torn apart by bringing them what they want... a fight. Who the F^ck are these people that deserve so much of our resources and time (and blood)? They/we are quite literally "rebuilding" their society with 'sticks and stones'... and we're still afraid of them pulling off an attack here?

meta4 wrote:That's funny, I thought all but a few terrorists that planned the attacks were killed on 9/11... how many of our troops were lost fighting in Iraq, only to discover that... hmm, Al Queda and the Taliban pick up roots and move to other countries. We respond by taking the fight to them and occupying Iraq, and now Afghanistan in efforts to "root out" terrorists, their leadership, financial backers, drafted militants, etc.

First off, it isn't just "now Afghanistan." I believe we started there first, war on terror wise. Anyway, how convenient of you to forget the amount of terrorists that we have killed in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The terrorists didn't just up and leave, as you seem to put it. Half of the original Taliban forces have literally been blown into a million pieces.

meta4 wrote:When does the justification for retaliation finally come to an end? As you've stated, there hasn't been a successful homeland attack since 2001. So we seem to have this aspect pretty well covered. We're no longer occupying Iraq and Afghanistan to protect ourselves, now we're doing this to create stability in the region we've torn apart by bringing them what they want... a fight. Who the F^ck are these people that deserve so much of our resources and time (and blood)? They/we are quite literally "rebuilding" their society with 'sticks and stones'... and we're still afraid of them pulling off an attack here?

...which is where I knew this argument was ultimately going. Do your research. Do you think these people enjoyed being dictated by the Taliban or Saddam Hussein? Saddam killed more of his own people than we EVER will. The Taliban ruthlessly tortured, raped, pillaged, and murdered thousands of innocent Afghan civilians. We've removed more terrorists, murderers, and vile persons than the previous governments ever could.

On top of that, we are (and have been) continuing to keep our country safe from terrorists attacks; as I said earlier: I think war is a terrible thing and don't absolutely agree with the Iraqi/Afghanistan wars. However, I do believe that we are making a positive difference in the Middle East and our country.

sliptap wrote:...which is where I knew this argument was ultimately going.

Dang, Ok. I'm hearing you say that at least you can count on the consistency of my viewpoint.

I'm counting on the consistency of your peculiar mix of myopia, hyperopia, and strabismus.

meta4 wrote:I'm counting on the consistency of your peculiar mix of myopia, hyperopia, and strabismus.

...didn't quite catch that you were a medical professional.

Damn, a political analyst, war strategist, philosopher, and now an optometrist...don't know why anyone would ever question you.

History will judge the good we are doing In the middle east as we are, at least ostensibly) protecting ourselves. While we did remove a brutal dictator from Iraq, we angered Iran...

sliptap... I did want to comment on your statement that the protection of Americans is so important that it is worth what we are doing in the middle east, including the deaths of innocent civilians. I think this type of thinking is the biggest failing of the Bush administration's foreign policy... Iran blames US and the UK for the suicide bombing that killed several high level officers this week. I doubt you would feel that Iran is justified in killing a few innocent Americans or Britons in order to ferret out those responsible.

sliptap wrote:

meta4 wrote:I'm counting on the consistency of your peculiar mix of myopia, hyperopia, and strabismus.

...didn't quite catch that you were a medical professional.

Damn, a political analyst, war strategist, philosopher, and now an optometrist...don't know why anyone would ever question you.

I'm no medical professional. Don't look too far past my comments as a creative metaphor of your viewpoint. I don't feel I've insulted your opinion, merely offered a reflective viewpoint.

meta4 wrote:

sliptap wrote:

meta4 wrote:I'm counting on the consistency of your peculiar mix of myopia, hyperopia, and strabismus.

...didn't quite catch that you were a medical professional.

Damn, a political analyst, war strategist, philosopher, and now an optometrist...don't know why anyone would ever question you.

I'm no medical professional. Don't look too far past my comments as a creative metaphor of your viewpoint. I don't feel I've insulted your opinion, merely offered a reflective viewpoint.

Dang, I was too slow...

I meant to post the snide remark of "told you" after I read Slip's analysis of you.

LTRT wrote:

meta4 wrote:

sliptap wrote:

meta4 wrote:I'm counting on the consistency of your peculiar mix of myopia, hyperopia, and strabismus.

...didn't quite catch that you were a medical professional.

Damn, a political analyst, war strategist, philosopher, and now an optometrist...don't know why anyone would ever question you.

I'm no medical professional. Don't look too far past my comments as a creative metaphor of your viewpoint. I don't feel I've insulted your opinion, merely offered a reflective viewpoint.

Dang, I was too slow...

I meant to post the snide remark of "told you" after I read Slip's analysis of you.

Yeah, some say I play a thick smokescreen.

I don't see how we can have a discussion on any conflict as if everything we think we know is fact. The stimulus, healthcare debate, etc. can be translated into dollars and cents. Decisions like sending troops to Afghanistan, on the other hand, are by their nature usually based on information we aren't privy to. That's why I was not quick to criticize Bush's foriegn policy, and likewise why I have not criticized Obama's.

Does anyone else feel like they would Be personally happier if they just ignored the fact that Washington exists?