Obama is wrong on Afghanistan

blackascoal said:
Actually I was never with the "we need more troops in Iraq" thought. I've always believed that we need to get out of Iraq and never should have invaded it in the first place. More troops was never going to the the answer because we weren't fighting "al-queda", we were fighting the Iraqi people who wanted us out of their country. They knew us to be pirates, which is exactly what we were.

It's no different and I think no differently about Afghanistan, whose people are disposable pawns and fodder. More troops is not the answer in Afghanistan and the rest of the world is reluctant to place anymore of their troops into this quagmire.

We're repeating Iraq.
Click to expand...


The "we need more troops in Iraq" crowd was those that were being realistic. I did not want Iraq done at all, I did however know that what the Military advisors ( who got fired for saying so) were right about the proper size of the force needed to do the job. It was just the fact of the situation on the ground.
 
I've never been an unrepetent Obama apologist. He wasn't in my top three choices for the Democratic nomination. Do I think he might make a fairly decent president? Yes. But, I've never thought he was anything but a fairly centrist politician.

Afghanistan: I've never liked Obama's bellicose rhetoric on either Afghanistan or Iran. How many times does history have to teach us that occupying nations and bombing villages is anything less than macho chest-thumping? I came to the conclusion long ago that invading and occupying afghanistan was a fool's errand. Waging a "war" on terrorism has to be the most idiotic diversion from reality that has been perpetrated since the War on Drugs. Afghanistan is what it is. It is never going to accept a foreign occupation, and their culture and their history are only dimly perceived by the geniuses inside the Beltway and in our mainstream media. We are not going to force any system of government, or any of our Jeffersonian alleged ideals on them. Every woman, every child, every innocent man we incinerate in a missle strike on a remote village is just one more step away from the elusive "victory" that the wise old men in the puditocracy keep promising us: Just six more months.

Bin Ladin and his crew of whacked out criminals would, and should have be addressed through law enforcement, infiltration and covert ops. Killing aghanis or occupying their country doesn't serve that goal. This occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan is a repetition of the "Grand Game" that the european imperialists played in the 19th century. Can't we be honest about this? Occupying countries doesn't have a damn thing to do with capturing a relatively small group of criminals.

I have to say that I'm neither surprised nor dissapointed in Obama's belligerent rhetoric about Iran or Afghanistan. Desh is right about one thing. This is what he's been saying all along. Why would I be surprised or dissapointed? I knew this is what Obama was about. And while there are things I admire about Obama, this is one of the reasons he wasn't on my short list for the Democratic nomination.
 
Fucking ehh
BAC and Cypress for President
get us the fuck out of the business of Killing hodge's
Didn't they watch Johnny Quest Hodgi is kool.:clink:
 
Trying to stablize Afganistan before we leave it is not about killing Hodges.

Its about exiting this mess in an orderly way.

There is nothing wrong with what Obama wants to achieve.
Anyone who wants out knows that you can not just walk out of either in one week.
 
You can exit AFghanistan way faster than Iraq, it's not where near as big a shit pile.
Check our casualties by Country, and what is the goal in AFgany after 8 yrs of Killing Hodge's anyway???
 
Socrtease said:
We should just pile all our weapons up and melt them down. The left doesn't want the US to fight ANY wars. Just stay home and do nothing. Afghanistan really was the country were Al Qaeda was getting aid and comfort, well that and Pakistan. The Taliban really is an orginizations that believes in the use of terrorism to defeat the enemies of Islam. You would also think that the treatment of women by the Taliban would at least get the backing of lefty women. But no, we should all sing Blowing in the Wind and hope everything works itself out.
Click to expand...

Soc, I assume that by this you mean that you would think that "lefty women" would support a war on the taliban because of the taliban's treatment of women.

It has always interested me a great deal how the American male discovered his outrage over how women were treated under the taliban, after 9/11. I can tell you that pre-9/11, I never met a man who knew of it. However, so-called "women's magazines” - and by that I do not mean Bitch or Ms. I mean Marie Claire and Ladies Home Journal, were doing in-depth stories on the lives of women under the Taliban. I don’t recall any battle cries from American men “let’s invade Afganistan and free the women!”, so please, let’s not hide behind the women today. We don’t care about them. Our government, who <probably> unlike yourself and most men not reading Ladies Home journal, most definitely knew what was happening to those women, pre-9/11, don’t care about them. It is offensive to pretend otherwise.

Now, for those of us who do care, you seem to be proposing that we would be helping these women, or perhaps liberating these women, by bombing them and their children, yes? In order to save the village, we have to destroy the village?

If you read muslim female intellectuals, and they exist and they publish, you will discover that it is not so simple as the west riding in on a white horse and saving the women. I will leave this portion at that. If you want to know more, I can give you references for some very illuminating reading.

As for Al Qaeda on the afghan/pakistan border...is bombing poor people who have no control over their leader’s or even over their own destinies, the answer? You say that the left thinks that no war is a good war, and you say it as if this is a view that should be held in contempt. Why? It is the best of humanity that asks, always asks, is there another way? Especially when the way we are adhering to now, is basically, the murdering of children. Under what definition of morality can that ever be right? Can that ever be moral? What if there is another way? A way that works! A way that works better. Why are terrorists, who are nothing but criminals, so special that we cannot treat them as, and deal with them as, what they are, criminals? Why are we told, and unquestioningly believe, that the only way to deal with these particular criminals is to kill children, kill mothers, kill innocent teenaged boys? I question this. If that earns your contempt, I can carry it. Easily. It is no burden.
 
blackascoal said:
Obama could get elected without sending more people off to die and kill innocent people.

Let me say that again ...

The stabalizing that need be done in Afghhanistan should be under taken by NATO and the UN. The US IS NOT the world's police force and terrorism is a problem that only the rest of the world can effectively address.

How about we start having real conversations about Israel's impact on terrorism and nuclear profliferation?

Too sensitive of Americans? .. then how about we stop playing as if we really give a damn about terrorism or the rest of the world .. or actually being people of conscience.
Click to expand...


In my opinion, Desh is wrong about much on this thread, and I'm going to answer her post in a moment, but first bac, the one big mistake that you make is in your complete dismissal of the possibility that John McCain could win. You are wrong. You better start believing those polls, showing McCain far too close, and now moving ahead of Obama in some swing states like Colorado.

You are so right that John Mccain is the most seriously flawed candidate, certianly that I have personally ever seen. And like you, I cannot fathom that Americans will vote for him, but unlike you I understand that indeed, they will, and that indeed Obama cannot say that he is pulling out of Afghanistan and Iraq and hope to become President, that is just not a possibility, sorry.

Why is the election so close when R's have failed on every level and over 80% of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track, and all polls show that Dems will sweep the Senate and Congressional races? Because Barack Obama is black.

Why would he definitely lose this election if he announced he was pulling out of the so-called "war on terror"? Because Barack Obama is black, and his father was a Muslim.

I hope that Desh is correct (though she has absolutely nothing to base this on other than her irrational belief that Democrats=goodness) and that Obama is going to get us out of the Middle East by first leaving Iraq, and moving to Afghanistan when as soon as he hits a drop in violence, he will declare victory and leave. That is the best he can do. I do not know if that is what he wants to do bac.
 
Desh said:
If we left Afganistan NOW innocent people would die.

I dont want any innocents or even not so innocents to die Bac but no matter what we do some will die. All we can do is try to make the best choice possible for our country and the other countries effected by our choices.


When you go on like this about such subjects I just have to wonder who you are trying to make gains for.
Click to expand...

Desh you are making the exact same argument that the neocons and their message board rubes and lackeys made about the surge in Iraq and about staying in Iraq at all. They are wrong and so are you.

Innocent people are dying in Afghanistan NOW, just as they are in Iraq. There is no moral justification for our occupations, period. It is wrong no matter which party does it. You claim that "we" were complaining that Bush distracted from the real war on terror in Afganistan by invading Iraq. Well, who do you mean by "we" desh? You mean YOU, and other democrats. What you don't get is that people like me were never complaining about that, other than to note that it was a fantastic dereliction of duty for someone like Rumsfeld to send our troops into Iraq as sitting ducks because he refused to listen to the generals when they said, no, 150 - 200 thousand won't do the joh. Rumsfeld is a traitor to the troops, so what is new?

But that was never the "complaint" of people like me. My God I thought Rumsfeld should be hanged for many reasons, and that was just one of them. But my opposition to Iraq was never on account of Afghanistan. Its main moral failing was not that it was a distraction from "the real war on terror". Its main moral failing was that it was a preemptive, needless war that murdered hundreds of thousands of people based all, on what we all now know, but some of us always have known, were LIES.

Desh you are conflating the complaints and positions of elected Democrats, Democratic partisans, and paid and unpaid Democratic schills with liberals! Please, do not ever put their words and their ideas in my mouth. Never, have those words left my mouth!
 
Why do you people keep doing this??????


There were MANY fucking reasons the Iraq war was wrong.

One of them was that it took the eye off the ball of the real AQ stronghold in Afganistan.

When the genrals told Bush how many troops he would need to successfully contain Iraq they were dumped because the number was too big.

What are the percentages of Americans who thought the Afgan war was justified?

What Obama is sugesting is to concentrate back on the original problem which is Afganistan.

You go back in with sufficient troops and stablize it and hand it over to the world orginizations.

I really dont see the valid concerns behind your fears?
 
Cypress said:
I've never been an unrepetent Obama apologist. He wasn't in my top three choices for the Democratic nomination. Do I think he might make a fairly decent president? Yes. But, I've never thought he was anything but a fairly centrist politician.

Afghanistan: I've never liked Obama's bellicose rhetoric on either Afghanistan or Iran. How many times does history have to teach us that occupying nations and bombing villages is anything less than macho chest-thumping? I came to the conclusion long ago that invading and occupying afghanistan was a fool's errand. Waging a "war" on terrorism has to be the most idiotic diversion from reality that has been perpetrated since the War on Drugs. Afghanistan is what it is. It is never going to accept a foreign occupation, and their culture and their history are only dimly perceived by the geniuses inside the Beltway and in our mainstream media. We are not going to force any system of government, or any of our Jeffersonian alleged ideals on them. Every woman, every child, every innocent man we incinerate in a missle strike on a remote village is just one more step away from the elusive "victory" that the wise old men in the puditocracy keep promising us: Just six more months.

Bin Ladin and his crew of whacked out criminals would, and should have be addressed through law enforcement, infiltration and covert ops. Killing aghanis or occupying their country doesn't serve that goal. This occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan is a repetition of the "Grand Game" that the european imperialists played in the 19th century. Can't we be honest about this? Occupying countries doesn't have a damn thing to do with capturing a relatively small group of criminals.

I have to say that I'm neither surprised nor dissapointed in Obama's belligerent rhetoric about Iran or Afghanistan. Desh is right about one thing. This is what he's been saying all along. Why would I be surprised or dissapointed? I knew this is what Obama was about. And while there are things I admire about Obama, this is one of the reasons he wasn't on my short list for the Democratic nomination.
Click to expand...

Great post. I agree completely.
 
Bulshit Desh you warhawk baby killer, Afghanistan is only slightly less unjust.
We are still killing thousands of Afghani Hodey's that don't even know the towers ever existed.
 
Desh said:
Why do you people keep doing this??????


There were MANY fucking reasons the Iraq war was wrong.

One of them was that it took the eye off the ball of the real AQ stronghold in Afganistan.

When the genrals told Bush how many troops he would need to successfully contain Iraq they were dumped because the number was too big.

What are the percentages of Americans who thought the Afgan war was justified?

What Obama is sugesting is to concentrate back on the original problem which is Afganistan.

You go back in with sufficient troops and stablize it and hand it over to the world orginizations.

I really dont see the valid concerns behind your fears?
Click to expand...

Firstly, I'm not thrilled with your calling me "you people".

You're getting very shrill desh, and I'm sorry you feel this way, but in my opinion, making war on poor people in Afghanistan was not and is not the way to handle this criminal matter. You are stuck in the mind set of "Afghan war = good war, Iraq war = bad war". And you are frustrated because how can I not agree with that? Well, I don't, and why would you think I'd betray my own beliefs for the Democratic party?

I will say again, that unless Bush attacks Iran with Obama's full backing, I will be voting for Obama. However, i will also be out and about as a part of the activist grass roots, demonstrating against his, at this point, stated policies, and attempting to move him and the country to a rational and sane point. The point that says, hey, we don't have to murder children, and women, and teenagers, and innocent men who have a right to live too, when we have a problem with a few fucking criminals!

I agree with Top that when I see "them" whoever they might be, off the coast of Manhattan (or in his case, Louisiana), then I will go out and fight. That is what separates me from a pacifist.

how about we start trying some actual common sense and common human decency, to prevent anyone from wanting to be off our coasts! Does Canada have to worry about this? Ask yourself why not.
 
McNeill, who left Afghanistan on June 3 after turning over command of the International Security Assistance Force to Army Gen. David McKiernan, spoke with Pentagon reporters in Washington before taking his retirement physical at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

McNeill spent 16 months in command of what has become a 52,000-strong force drawn from more than 40 nations.

Pakistan wants its nascent paramilitary Frontier Corps to police the mostly lawless Federally Administered Tribal Areas along its northwest border region, considered a safe haven and training ground for a mix of insurgent military groups, including al-Qaida and the Taliban. The U.S. is supplying millions of dollars and trainers for the force.

But relying on the Frontier Corps as it is now constituted is a tall order, according to McNeill, who said members of the force are “pretty much tribals themselves” and are not really capable of standing up to the battle-hardened insurgent forces.

The mission, McNeill said, requires “well-trained, well-equipped forces.”

Relying on the Frontier Corps to take on the insurgents, Pakistan, McNeill said, will bring “challenges.”


McNeill said he doesn’t think Afghanistan can be stabilized without cooperation from the Pakistanis and the other five nations on Pakistan’s borders.

“They all have a role to play, as I see it,” he said, calling it “a regional issue.”

Trying to close the porous Afghanistan-Pakistan border “is probably not a goal we should aim for,” McNeill said. “I think that’s far too great of a challenge. ... Hard to achieve and maybe something that we don’t have all the resources” to achieve.

“We should look at it in a different way,” McNeill said. “Control borders better.”

It will be “a few years yet” before Afghani Security Forces can operate independently and control their own nation and borders, McNeill said. Meanwhile, more coalition forces, tailored to the Afghanistan effort, are still needed, he said.

“If you want a faster rate of progress, you need a more capable force,” McNeill said.

What’s needed more than raw numbers of troops, he said, are specific capabilities: more maneuver units, helicopters and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets.

Afghanistan can be stabilized with the current coalition force, he said.

“It will simply take longer,” McNeill said.
 
This is why Obama is willing to recommit to stablizing Afganistan folks.

The guys who know ( the military leaders) and are not in the Bush pocket know there is a good chance at progess.

We can bail on a country whos own people want us gone and have no real connection to AQ.

How wise is it to bail on the afgan front when the true threat of militant insurgence does have a foothold there?
 
There are significant differences between our presence in Iraq and our presence in Afghanistan. The biggest, and full justification for invading Afghanistan, is the fact that the Taliban openly supported Al Queda and other international terrorist organizations. Al Queda attacked U.S. assets outside the U.S. and Afghanistan basically cheered them on. That made Afghanistan an enemy government - something that is rare when talking about fighting against international terrorism.

In the fight against terrorists, we have four points of interest to worry about. Point one is ingress routes. Ingress routes are more than trails through the sand to the target. They can take many forms. When Al Queda sent agents in to take flight training in preparation for 9/11, that was a form of ingress.

The second point is target. Target is, of course, where or what they are going to hit.

Third is egress routes. Egress routes take two primary forms: getting agents out who are not on suicide missions, and communications routes before, during and after a mission, or training exercise.

And the fourth point is sanctuary. That is where the terrorist hang out, train, boast of their accomplishments and plan the next mission.

Intercepting ingress routes, egress routes, and protecting targets all have one common major fault when it comes to waging war against a group of people who want you dead. They all require a defensive posture. And as Robert Heinlein says in "Starship Troopers", no Department of DEFENSE ever won a war.

If we are to have a hope in hell of actually defending ourselves against these terrorist groups, we need to be proactive, and take the offensive against them. And the ONLY way to do that is to attack their sanctuaries. Afghanistan was know to be the primary sanctuary of the specific terrorist organization who attacked the U.S. As such, attacking and occupying Afghanistan makes the same sense as attacking and occupying Germany made in ridding the world of Hitler and his Nazi cohorts.

But unlike the situation where a nation state lke Germany is THE enemy, the situation in Afghanistan is they were AN enemy who was harboring and assisting the efforts of THE enemy: Al Queda. To disrupt Al Queda's abilities, we need to continue to prevent them from using their primary sanctuary. That means we need to be in Afghanistan. And of we need to be there, we need to be there in force, to keep the Taliban from even THINKING they have a chance to regain their seat of power there. It is unfortunate, but that is the military fact of the situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top