Obama is wrong on Afghanistan

Desh said:
http://rense.com/general82/usgen.htm

If we just walk away from Afganistan this is what we leave.
Click to expand...

I think you better read your own link. It is an argument for why we should not be there.

Desh, you could be Kathiann posting about Iraq right now.

I have never seen anyone so entralled to the Democratic party. I have seen many R's this enthralled, but the Democrats are so inept and boring, they rarely incite this sort of slavish devotion.

We part ways on this. I have said all I need to say on this thread. Every word a deeply held belief of mine, gained not by reflexive leftism, but by years-long seeking of what is right after 9/11, and what is wrong. I once supported the Afghanistan invasion, much to my everlasting shame.

It took Iraq, which I was against from the first stirrings of the idea, for me to take a good hard long look at the war machine, and at the American desire for revenge. Afghanistan was about revenge. And we avenged ourselves against people who were as innocent as those who died in the towers that day. It's all a mad cycle. Truly, just pure madness. If I were killed in a terrorist attack, I would die twice to know that anyone would use my death to get revenge on poor little children, and poor, oppressed women, who are more my brethren than the military complex can ever be.

Remember what Lincoln said Desh, pray that you are on God's side. That is something to reflect on. I know that I have.
 
Darla its an article about what we have wrought in Afganistan.

Its what the neglect of our original intent in Afganistan has created.

If we had stayed the course and routed out the taliban and empowered the native peoples to have a say in how they live then the Taliban would not be resurging for us to bomb.


Like I said and like Obama is saying we need to accomplish or original intent of destroying the Taliban rule.
 
If we just walk away these children will still starve.

We need to stablize this country before we just walk away from these people who hated the Taliban also.
 
We're from the US gov and we're here to help.
After we kill your daddy and all your uncles we'll give you and your mom some rice.
 
Darla, I was VP of New Mexico State University's chapter of Amnesty International and am a current member as well. I have known what the Taliban and other Moslem extremist groups have been doing to women for over a decade now. I know what women have been going through in Liberia and the widespread terroristic use of Rape in Darfur and Colombia. So for me, this is not a new found concern for women because I favor taking a military stand against the Taliban.

I agree with you, war is a horrible horrible thing and children end up bearing the burden greatest. Does that mean we should have found another way in Europe in 1942-45? Would European women and children been better off if we had let Hitler succeed? Have you ever seen the the childrens portion of the exhibit at the US Holocaust Museum in DC? close to 1.5 millions of Hitler's insanity were children, and more died in allied bombings. The world is better for it. Children suffer all the time under brutal governments. Sometimes it is better to shorten that suffering, though some may suffer even greater, than have generations just live with the continued suffering.
 
Socrtease said:
Darla, I was VP of New Mexico State University's chapter of Amnesty International and am a current member as well. I have known what the Taliban and other Moslem extremist groups have been doing to women for over a decade now. I know what women have been going through in Liberia and the widespread terroristic use of Rape in Darfur and Colombia. So for me, this is not a new found concern for women because I favor taking a military stand against the Taliban.

I agree with you, war is a horrible horrible thing and children end up bearing the burden greatest. Does that mean we should have found another way in Europe in 1942-45? Would European women and children been better off if we had let Hitler succeed? Have you ever seen the the childrens portion of the exhibit at the US Holocaust Museum in DC? close to 1.5 millions of Hitler's insanity were children, and more died in allied bombings. The world is better for it. Children suffer all the time under brutal governments. Sometimes it is better to shorten that suffering, though some may suffer even greater, than have generations just live with the continued suffering.
Click to expand...

You know, I am not a student of WWII or the events leading up to it. There might not have been another way in that particular case. (though I do believe that our dropping of the bomb on Japan was uncalled for). But you know, if you listen to, for instance if you watch the fog of war and listen to the words of General Lemay himself, you really start to rethink the things we have been taught. Certainly Hitler had to be stopped. But the firebombing of civilians? Lemay himself said that if we lost the war, he and other Americans would be tried as war criminals. Some of the things we did, just cannot be justified. And letting that in, in no way nullifies that there were things that (obviously) Germany did, but also that Japan did (the bataan death march springs to mind), that were in no way justifiable.

Anyway, this isn't WWII, and the Taliban are not Hitler. Why can't we bring these criminals to justice without killing poor people? This is what I don't understand. Maybe we can. What if we can? What if we can but we don't because there are many billions of dollars at stake in the military industrial industry? Shouldn't we at least be asking these questions? We should be discussing this, as a nation. Why can't we bring Osama Bin Laden to justice? I do not understand. Carlos the Jackal was brought to justice by the French, and they never knew where that guy was, he was all over the world. We know the general area that Bin Laden is in, and we can't bring him in? Come on, I just don't buy this anymore.
 
Topspin said:
Obama sold out the anti war backers.
He said "take troups out of Iraq and send them to Afghanistan".
The should Get the fuck out of both countries. How many millions of Afghanies to we need to kill for the 18 Saudis that attack on 911?
Click to expand...

LMAO... so the country that should be held accountable is the one in which they were born? Not the one that was currently harboring them at the time? That makes a lot of sense. Yes, funding comes out of Saudi for terrorist groups. I think we are all aware of that. However, funding for terrorist groups in Ireland also came heavily from the US. Yet it was from individuals within the country and not the government. Similar situation in Saudi.

The government banned Bin Laden and many of his ilk from the Kingdom back in the mid 1990s. The hijackers from 9/11 were not FROM Saudi, they were BORN there. If you cannot see the difference then you are truly blinded by the rhetoric.
 
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...

Little bit of helpful information....

The US is a part of both NATO and the UN.... BOTH of which currently has a presence in Afghanistan. Adding troops does not alter that.
 
blackascoal said:
I remember what was said .. didn't agree with it then, don't agree with it now.

I repeat .. PIPELINE.

We are there defending a pipeline and Bush installed a puppet government to help protect it.

Those are the facts.
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO... not the pipeline conspiracy again. So we went to war to get a company a pipeline contract?

So that Turkmenistan and Pakistan could benefit from it? You really are too funny somtimes.
 
Socrtease said:
Darla, I was VP of New Mexico State University's chapter of Amnesty International and am a current member as well. I have known what the Taliban and other Moslem extremist groups have been doing to women for over a decade now. I know what women have been going through in Liberia and the widespread terroristic use of Rape in Darfur and Colombia. So for me, this is not a new found concern for women because I favor taking a military stand against the Taliban.

I agree with you, war is a horrible horrible thing and children end up bearing the burden greatest. Does that mean we should have found another way in Europe in 1942-45? Would European women and children been better off if we had let Hitler succeed? Have you ever seen the the childrens portion of the exhibit at the US Holocaust Museum in DC? close to 1.5 millions of Hitler's insanity were children, and more died in allied bombings. The world is better for it. Children suffer all the time under brutal governments. Sometimes it is better to shorten that suffering, though some may suffer even greater, than have generations just live with the continued suffering.
Click to expand...

Soc, this logic is dubious to me.

I don't doubt your personal feelings about women's rights. But this line of logic is exactly like the NeoCon excuses for the Iraq Occupation. When the WMD went missing, they told us we had to stay because of mass graves, womens rights, or jefforsonian democracy. And the NeoCons were infamous for drawing parallels between Iraq and post-war Germany and Japan.

This invasion of afghanistan wasn't about women's rights. It was about getting Bin Ladin. And to tell you the truth, I'm not sure what we're actually accomplishing there for our half trillion dollar investment, in terms of women's rights. Afghanistan still has backwards islamic courts that are extremely hostile to women and to non-muslims. They may be nominally better than the Taliban, but I really can't point to this war, and our vast expenditure of treasure, and say we're liberating women.

Women's rights are never going to be established at the point of a gun by a foreign occupying army. Women's rights have always come organically, from indigenous women and their allies. International non-military support is always admirable, but you can't make cultures transform themselves at the barrel of a gun. I can't think of a single country in history, where women secured their rights because of a foreign occupying army. Long term and lasting change is going to come from islamic feminist groups. Which is how women have obtained their rights in every other country. And islamic feminist groups, from what I've seen and read, are just about the bravest people around. I'd have them in a foxhole with me. They are going to be the transformational force in conservative islamic culture ultimately, not the 101st Airborne Division.

What I'm saying is, I don't doubt your concern about women's rights. But, to me its not a reason to occupy afghanistan and continue to kill civilians. The US government was never really that concerned about women's rights in Afganistan. Clinton and Bush both tried to do business with the Taliban. And my God, look at our relationship with the Saudis. The saudis are just as abhorrant on women's rights as the Taliban. So, regardless of your personal feelings, there's no way that I'm buying that the US Government is - at taxpayer expense - going to occupy afghanistan to protect women's rights.

This war was about justice for the 9/11 attacks. And I simply haven't heard any one explain why we have to occupy afghanistan for years on end in order to capture a few hundred al qaeda fighters. We should have been smart about this. How many afganis have we killed? I bet its orders of magnitude greater than the number of people killed on 9/11. We should have used other tools at our disposal, to capture Bin Laden. I really don't think invading and occupying a country was the only possible way to address a horrendous criminal act perpetrated against us. Frankly, I really have a problem with the morality of what we've been doing. And I think if Obama wants to occupy Afghanistan, he could face the same sorts of problems that LBJ did.
 
Cypress said:
Soc, this logic is dubious to me.

I don't doubt your personal feelings about women's rights. But this line of logic is exactly like the NeoCon excuses for the Iraq Occupation. When the WMD went missing, they told us we had to stay because of mass graves, womens rights, or jefforsonian democracy. And the NeoCons were infamous for drawing parallels between Iraq and post-war Germany and Japan.

This invasion of afghanistan wasn't about women's rights. It was about getting Bin Ladin. And to tell you the truth, I'm not sure what we're actually accomplishing there for our half trillion dollar investment, in terms of women's rights. Afghanistan still has backwards islamic courts that are extremely hostile to women and to non-muslims. They may be nominally better than the Taliban, but I really can't point to this war, and our vast expenditure of treasure, and say we're liberating women.

Women's rights are never going to be established at the point of a gun by a foreign occupying army. Women's rights have always come organically, from indigenous women and their allies. International non-military support is always admirable, but you can't make cultures transform themselves at the barrel of a gun. I can't think of a single country in history, where women secured their rights because of a foreign occupying army. Long term and lasting change is going to come from islamic feminist groups. Which is how women have obtained their rights in every other country. And islamic feminist groups, from what I've seen and read, are just about the bravest people around. I'd have them in a foxhole with me. They are going to be the transformational force in conservative islamic culture ultimately, not the 101st Airborne Division.

What I'm saying is, I don't doubt your concern about women's rights. But, to me its not a reason to occupy afghanistan and continue to kill civilians. The US government was never really that concerned about women's rights in Afganistan. Clinton and Bush both tried to do business with the Taliban. And my God, look at our relationship with the Saudis. The saudis are just as abhorrant on women's rights as the Taliban. So, regardless of your personal feelings, there's no way that I'm buying that the US Government is - at taxpayer expense - going to occupy afghanistan to protect women's rights.

This war was about justice for the 9/11 attacks. And I simply haven't heard any one explain why we have to occupy afghanistan for years on end in order to capture a few hundred al qaeda fighters. We should have been smart about this. How many afganis have we killed? I bet its orders of magnitude greater than the number of people killed on 9/11. We should have used other tools at our disposal, to capture Bin Laden. I really don't think invading and occupying a country was the only possible way to address a horrendous criminal act perpetrated against us. Frankly, I really have a problem with the morality of what we've been doing. And I think if Obama wants to occupy Afghanistan, he could face the same sorts of problems that LBJ did.
Click to expand...
First of all, I agree that some vague human rights concerns are not reason enough to wage war against a nation or to continue occupying a nation.

But that is not the reason we did so. Nor did we invade and occupy Afghanistan to capture OBL. Our strategic purpose for invading and occupying Afghanistan was to deny ALL of Al Queda an extremely important sanctuary. It is the ONLY way to assume an offensive stance against terrorism. And unless we do assume an offensive stance, we will be attacked again - and again - and again. Because no defensive posture is ever perfect.

You can complain about the morality of it and all that nice touchy feely type stuff, but when all the rhetoric is finished, the bottom line is the first duty of the United States government is to protect United States citizens. We do so using every reasonable attempt to minimize civilian casualties. But the sad fact of modern war - to include low intensity conflict (ie: terrorism/anti-terrorism) is civilians get hurt no matter how hard we try. And if we don't try at all (except in defensive measures) because of concern over civilian casualties it will be OUR civilians who are the ones getting hurt. And not because the enemy was unsuccessful in avoiding civilian casualties, but because civilians are their target.
 
Last edited:
supertool, the ones responsible for 911 vaporized.
Now, we have gone over and killed all the Hodji's that even knew them.
Now we are working on killing all the Hodji's from the rival High Schools.
Watch generation Kill, they call them Hodji's.
Try to keep up you false outrage chickenhawk.
 
Cypress, I entirely agree with your comments on the cynical misuse of concern for the human rights of women in Afghanistan or Iraq as excuses for the continued occupation of those countries. I would particularly endose the comments you made below:

Cypress said:
Women's rights are never going to be established at the point of a gun by a foreign occupying army. Women's rights have always come organically, from indigenous women and their allies. International non-military support is always admirable, but you can't make cultures transform themselves at the barrel of a gun. I can't think of a single country in history, where women secured their rights because of a foreign occupying army. Long term and lasting change is going to come from islamic feminist groups. Which is how women have obtained their rights in every other country. And islamic feminist groups, from what I've seen and read, are just about the bravest people around. I'd have them in a foxhole with me. They are going to be the transformational force in conservative islamic culture ultimately, not the 101st Airborne Division.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with Good Luck's view which, rather than reproduce his entire post, is most succinctly expressed in the following paragraph:

But that is not the reason we did so. Nor did we invade and occupy Afghanistan to capture OBL. Our strategic purpose for invading and occupying Afghanistan was to deny ALL of Al Queda an extremely important sanctuary. It is the ONLY way to assume an offensive stance against terrorism. And unless we do assume an offensive stance, we will be attacked again - and again - and again. Because no defensive posture is ever perfect.
Click to expand...

None of the islamist terrorism that has been visited in Europe in recent years was directed by OBL or Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. None of it. All of the terrorist outrages in London, Madrid and further afield in Bali, for example, were from home-grown, home-radicalised islamists. A significant number of these islamists had trained in Afghanistan but an even greater number had ben trained in Pakistan, the border area of which has become as lawless as anywhere in Afghanistan as a consequence of the occupation there. The radicalisation that provided the motivation for these home-grown terrorists occured, however, in Europe, in terraced houses in Manchester, Bradford and Birmingham or apartments in Hamburg and Madrid.

Far from reducing the threat posed from home-radicalised islamists the war in Afghanistan, along with Iraq and the Palestinain-Israeli conflict, has only further polarised disaffected muslim opinion in Europe.

Throwing more troops at the problem, a policy Obama ridiculed when it was proposed for Iraq, will only lead to a furtehr escalation in the conflict in Afghanistan and a further polarisation between young muslims and wider European society. Another more intelligent, more political approach is long, long overdue.
 
The taliban is resurging in Afganistan. The taliban is brutal to the people of Afganistan. There are many besides me who think we can stablize the country with a transfer to troops from Iraq. One of those people is the currently7 retired ex commander of the Afgan theater. He no longer is under Bush and is speaking in public about what is needed in the country to empower their people and to put back together a food distribution system so the people wont starve.
 
Darla said:
I think you better read your own link. It is an argument for why we should not be there.

Desh, you could be Kathiann posting about Iraq right now.

I have never seen anyone so entralled to the Democratic party. I have seen many R's this enthralled, but the Democrats are so inept and boring, they rarely incite this sort of slavish devotion.

We part ways on this. I have said all I need to say on this thread. Every word a deeply held belief of mine, gained not by reflexive leftism, but by years-long seeking of what is right after 9/11, and what is wrong. I once supported the Afghanistan invasion, much to my everlasting shame.

It took Iraq, which I was against from the first stirrings of the idea, for me to take a good hard long look at the war machine, and at the American desire for revenge. Afghanistan was about revenge. And we avenged ourselves against people who were as innocent as those who died in the towers that day. It's all a mad cycle. Truly, just pure madness. If I were killed in a terrorist attack, I would die twice to know that anyone would use my death to get revenge on poor little children, and poor, oppressed women, who are more my brethren than the military complex can ever be.

Remember what Lincoln said Desh, pray that you are on God's side. That is something to reflect on. I know that I have.
Click to expand...

Darla!

I know yur not some thumping religious nut and all.....but God Bless your soul! You are the only person on this board that truely has expressed in layman's words, the meaning and reasoning behind Jesus Christ's words on how to treat ones enemy, (by turning ones cheek when struck, by walking the extra mile by choice with him, by releasing the urge of vengence in to the hands of the Lord, by 'loving' thy neighbor as thyself)....all to eventually be ''burning coals'' on the enemy's head.....in other words, by fighting evil with good, will win the evil over to good....or....by fighting evil with evil, begets further evil....

Now granted, there wasn't a parable that i can think of that gave us a ''timetable'' on when this would happen....thus the term....in God's time....i suppose, but none the less...i agree with your synopsis regarding warring and who truely gets hurt by it....the innocent.

care
 
Desh said:
The taliban is resurging in Afganistan. The taliban is brutal to the people of Afganistan. There are many besides me who think we can stablize the country with a transfer to troops from Iraq. One of those people is the currently7 retired ex commander of the Afgan theater. He no longer is under Bush and is speaking in public about what is needed in the country to empower their people and to put back together a food distribution system so the people wont starve.
Click to expand...

I take your point Desh and appreciate that you're interested in meeting the needs of the Afghani people as well as the security needs of the West. The problem is that an escalation of the conflict in Afghanistan is unlikely to deliver those outcomes. That's the main reason why European countries like Germany are very reluctant to heed repeated US requests for more troops. It's not as if we don't like a good war as much as the next guy (!!!), it's because we know that it's a no-hope strategy.

The existing military campaign is evidence of a one-dimensional approach to Afghanistan's internal problems. The Taleban are not resurgent because of a lack of NATO troops and firepower. If you recall they were beaten into the ground when they were first ousted from power. They have re-established themselves across the country because they have been able to exploit the failures of the one-dimensional, military-focussed camapign of NATO and Kharzai's administration.

Afghanistan's future lies in our understanding how their politics works and building the network of political and institutional relationships that can sustain an economy and society that presents neither a terrorist threat to its neighbours (and us in the West) nor a drugs threat. That construction will need NATO support but much more importantly will need economic support to bed it down.

Throwing more troops at the problem will simply mean body bags returning from Afganistan instead of Iraq.
 
When you have sufficient resorces to protect the people of afganistan from the Taliban incursions you can make sure the people can get proper food and resources to rebuild their country.

This force will no longer be under the authority of the Neocons who seek only to use the country to continue their plans of oil field domination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top