General Message Board
President Obama's warnings and pledges about winning in Afghanistan bother me. I suppose he had to sound tough about something after he courageously and correctly opposed our invasion of Iraq. That's how American politics works. And American presidents, the good ones, change their focus and strategies as times and events redirect them. Now he is running the government, and he should break those promises, the sooner the better, before more of our men -- and the men of our NATO allies -- are left on Afghanistan's plains.
"We did not finish the job against al-Qaida in Afghanistan. We did not develop new capabilities to defeat a new enemy, or launch a comprehensive strategy to dry up the terrorists' base of support," Obama said during the campaign. We tried but failed. That's too bad, but the growth of terrorism and a multiplication of terrorist havens have made the job more complex and Afghanistan irrelevant.
We have been on the plains and in the mountains for seven years now, almost as long as the Soviets were there. We went to punish Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida for the bombing of the World Trade Center -- and we have certainly had some success diminishing that organization, even as others are arising, some because we are engaged in that part of the world. It is worth remembering that bin Laden and his people are not Afghans; they are Saudi Arabians and Egyptians.
So the relevant questions now are: Who are we fighting? Why?
NATO went into Afghanistan to deprive the Taliban and Al Qaeda of control of a sovereign nation to control and openly train terrorists in. This was a stunning success.
It's naive to think the terrorists will quit attacking the West anywhere and everywhere they can. What will withdrawing from Afghanistan accomplish, an end to attacks on the West? That kind of naive thinking is too easily discredited to be taken seriously.
- 1 Reply to A Yahoo! User
I understand why NATO is there. I also don't think withdrawing troops will lead to an end of attacks on the West. Why should it? We're never been attacked by Afganistan, never have been. So are we there as NATO to protect a nation's government? What govt, and protect from whom? And if so, when do we ever leave? What is our purpose and when is it completed.
Or are we there to capture the villians behind 9-11, assuming they are there?
The military issues guns. provided for safety, and with state of the art equipment of course. The guns don't make themselves. No sirreee ! For that to happen, M.I.T. grads and such in our massive industrial infrastructure must always have solid working jobs, reasonable salary, and a spouse at home - for the motivation to pump out more soldier juniors "cause next time we're gonna git 'em, right daddy ??!!".
Every President has had his piece of a war, We had no need to invade El Salvador, Granada, or Nicaragua. etc. etc. etc.
Learn some history man ! We are NOT there to win. There's no profit in it. It is simple long term strategy. We are there to PRACTICE. Its a big dirty scrimmage so we stay sharp. That's all there is to it.. So lighten up and let the grunts exercise, and work to do this shitty job we got to so - - we can all remain alive, oh - and free to. Toke it up man. That's what freedom's all about right ? Or is it ? Mmmmmm.
Anyway, been readin' that damn book. Man, It has been this way for hundreds of years. It is all religion cloaked by politicians, or vice versa. It always seems to be about whatever it takes to keep the damn money moving, and the land protected ( especially from them damn evil smoke dealing , albeit so very polite Canadians, or them weird talkn' Mexicans, just ready to invade us all ) That's right ain't it ? But we got it all covered though right ? Just keep out the demon weed and we'll all just motor into heaven some sunny day, cruisin' on our clean burning V8 gasoline engines.
And here you are sittin'. You're just a simple flag wearing fool at the bottom, trying to figure it all out, making more new baby soldiers and forking up 'em big plates of propaganda. Tastes gooo-ooood don't it ??
And speakin' of good - how my new tattoo honey ? Only cost me $650.
So sit back again' stare at that old faded picture of Obomas Sen Laden.....trying to remember why....what did I sign up for again ? Ah...like it even matters......
What a great fucking country !
Um.........isn't afghanistan the main training home of al qaeda....according to both sides of the media those are the areas where the most training is done.....and there are the people standing in the street burning our flag and praising bin laden.....I would think that would give a pretty good idea that's where muslim terrorism starts
In the opinion of many military analysts increasing the troops in afghanistan to fight there would mean that Obama will done more for the actual war on terror then everything accomplished since 911, plus we would finally be fighting in a war that the rest of the world wouldn't mind helping with......
I usually agree with you, but as far as dealing with al qaeda going to afghanistan is the best plan. Bin Laden moves because he is being searched for. but the area in which most of the worlds terrorists are being trained is there. The reason we haven't gone until now is because there was no money to be made in the war there, where as there was mad money to be made in iraq plus it gave G Dub the chance to get back at saddam for shooting at daddy. Fortuneately for us, barack Obama understands that if he really puts a so called "boot in the ass" into the main facilities of al qaeda he will be seen as a hero not only here, but around the world. I think the reason he wants to do it too is because he figures if we are going to have all that military spending we might as well be doing something productive with it
and as for Osama Bin laden being in europe....possibility.... G Dub doesn't hang out on military bases alot.....but he's still the head of our military
- 2 Replies to flossin711©
If we worked with the "govt" of Afghanistan to get Bin Laden, as we should have done rather than be derailed into Iraq, then yes, that's a good reason to turn attention to Afghanistan. But if you read the last month's buzz from the US Govt/military, our intentions there seem to be expanding far beyond Bin Laden and even Al Quaeda. I'm not sure what you disagree with in my post, because I simply pose the question. Why are we there? And what will be the plan there? To fight whom? People who have lived there 4000 years? Or several criminals who might reside there (and in many other countries)? I think it's fair to ask the question, given our recent follies in Viet Nam and Iraq.
- 2 Replies to uncle chuck
So we should leave and let them continue to send their poppy over to poison the minds of our children. Let their women go back to being 4th rate slaves as in the pre Roman days. Allow the hills to be sanctuary as it's been to these people for thousands of years. Let their hatred fester and blossom all over again till we see the Empire State or the Golden Gate go down? Thats what you'd see within 5 years or sooner. We are at war. Bush knew it. The only thing i DO actually like about Obama is his hard on for Pookystun and going in there strong in Afghanastan. Let him flex the mighty power of the United Socialist States of America and watch those people get shook up real good.
Expert Fantasy Advice
A player on a 20/35 pace, like Mevin Upton Jr., should not be so easily attainable in fantasy leagues. … More »
Throwing Masahiro Tanaka and stacking Diamondbacks in Coors Field during Friday's DFS slate. … More »
There's no shortage of attractive DFS options among the Cubs and Diamondbacks rosters on Thursday. … More »