Obama is ordering 30,000 more troops to the Afghanistan War. Why won't he leave Afghanistan alone? It's no threat to US as far as i am concerned.
Printable View
Obama is ordering 30,000 more troops to the Afghanistan War. Why won't he leave Afghanistan alone? It's no threat to US as far as i am concerned.
[url]http://www.loveforum.net/off-topic-discussion/35541-stay-afghanistan-dont.html[/url]
It will be a threat once US leaves and Taliban takes over the country again. The problem with Afghanistan is US never defeated it's enemy and they are coming back 10 times stronger.
S'what I'm talkin' 'bout.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mishanya [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Wipe out the inhabitants and colonize it.
It can be the 52nd state.
Has there *ever* been peace in that area?
obama is annoying me. he's taking bush's fuk ups and making them worse. my crystal ball says he won't see a second term.
It wouldn't be smart to abandon the operation that has already been started. The best thing to do is finish the job with a different strategy. The camps are training their people to become terrorists and there are MANY of them; many of participants as well. They need to be shut down. Their land needs to be colonized until they establish a stabilized and safe government that doesn't pose as a threat to our nation.
He's doing a fine job. The problems he inherited aren't to be solved overnight. There's always a crisis point before any solution can be made. I think part of his problem is his Secretary of State. What the hell is Hillary doing these days anyway?Quote:
Originally Posted by misombra [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
I am going to stand by my resolution of simply bombing that region of the world off the face of the earth.
Have they produced anything remotely helpful for themselves or the world?
Survivor: International Edition
It was doing fine as a republic in the early '70s, but of course having it as a cold war playground stuffed it all up.
And all of you hard-talking "Hey, let's just wipe it all out and be done with it", I hope you enjoy going down in history in the same class as other tyrants who had the same idea.
The problem Obama inherited is actually a gigantic one. Bush could have put an end to Taliban 7 years ago when they were in disarray, but he ignored them and let them rebuild and re group. Now they control one third of Pakistan and could topple both countries if the scales are tipped in their favour. I'm sure a few people would change their position once they saw a nuclear armed Taliban with free access by Al Qaeda to nuclear weapons. Though by that that time it will be too late to change anything.
I think Obama is doing the right thing. He is negotiating with Pakistanis how to squeeze the Taliban from both sides, what's needed is some kind of a pincer movement from east and west to flush them out from their mountain hide outs. But given the number of provinces they control, this will take many years to accomplish. US should ready itself for a long conflict in the region if it wants to eliminate this serious threat.
Rumsfeld, as the secretary of defense, advised Bush to not pursue the Taliban with full force because he feared a backlash from them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mishanya [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
When the worlds most powerful military stands down out of fear of retaliation, we have a serious problem.
---------------------
I am not military strategist, but honestly, I will never understand why we didn't just carve up the mountains with brute force to track them down. Sure, there will be international outcry from some countries, but at some point you need to put your foot down and make a statement.
If you harbor terrorists or enemies of world balance, we will systematically flatten every inch of your country until they are found.
This type of problem will persist until the U.S. decides to jump in with both feet when they launch a full scale assault.
Ignoring volatile areas of the world nearly lost us WWII. Things are even more connected today.
What's needed is a better global peacekeeping service with some actual teeth. Right now, US is taking the brunt, which isn't good for her either b/c there's always this delicate dance b/t national interest and being a good global citizen. If the US and other nations could be proud partners of a global peacekeeping force, actually capable of making cohesive decisions, then the whole issue of certain actions perhaps being against specific national interests could be tolerated.
Right now, Obama is stuck b/t rock and hard place for decisions related to the ME.
Point is, they aren't there alone. Nor should they be. Canada supports the activities in Afghanistan. Of course, for those who follow global news, we are going through a real shit-spatter right now re: detainee treatment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mishanya [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
See? US isn't the only country this kind of thing happens to. :P
One nation after the next has been poking Afghanistan and accomplishing nothing but making it a bigger threat. Honestly, I agree with CB. Peace will only be known once the sands are turned to glass and the cities to ash. Since that isn't really an option...
Another problem is the ease with which these wars got started. I bet when Bush was presented with an option to invade both Afghanistan and Iraq he was told, "give us a few hours and we will bomb them to stone age and everything will be over, no more worries". What he and people in US probably won't told was "give us the order and we will plunge US into a long quagmire stretching for decades and costing hundreds of billions of dollars and hundreds of lives of US soldiers if it's not planned properly". If you ask me Bush needs to be prosecuted for giving the order and riling up the country for war as an example for others in the future, so these kinds of decisions aren't made in haste.
That's exactly why any decision to go to war needs to be made with long term plans in mind and the public needs to be informed accordingly. The public needs to be weary of the real costs of starting a war and the price they will need to pay if they do not oppose it from the get go.
You would really promote bombing this??
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mazar-e_sharif_-_Steve_Evans.jpg[/url]
Want a radical solution? Make Afghanistan a world centre for peace and education or business for 100 years (like Hong Kong or India). I'm serious.
True. If we just went over the bombing every sq mile of their territory it would be a devastating to their culture, yes?
We can build another over the rubble in a few hundred years when the area's inhabitable once more.
I guess... not quite what I had in mind.
If any kind of indiscriminate killing in the area is carried out the effects and consequences for US will be both horrific and devastating. Most of those Middle Eastern governments now friendly to US will be overthrown by fundamentalist extremists who are already waiting for a perfect opportunity and not just small countries like Afghanistan, but Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia. There will be a move to forge a Middle Eastern Islamic Republic like the one which existed not so long ago. Forget Vietnam, there will be terror on a massive scale and hundreds of thousands of American lives will be sacrificed to the point that US will probably seize to be a superpower within a year. This coincidentally is exactly what Al Qaeda is fighting for.
Haha, he got you there Indi.Quote:
Originally Posted by IndiReloaded [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
I don't want to kill mass amounts of people in the name of world peace, but its proven time and time again. The only way to send a clear message is through a show of brute power.
People will die in order to reach a state of peace. What has to be weighed is the initial cost vs the long term cost. If we would have plowed Afghanistan into the ground the first time, we would have saved thousands of lives, both military and civilian.
We are a violent race, promoting peace during a volatile time has never worked well. You have to establish domination before peace can be achieved.....unfortunately.
Hiroshima... *and* Nagasaki...
??
Then you nuke them. And you nuke the next bunch. And the one after that. You keep nuking until there's no one left. Then you've got world peace.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mishanya [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
US is not the only place that has nukes. Once those nukes start flying, once the radars around the world pick them and unleash their own retaliatory payload that's it say goodbye to the nuclear proliferation treaties and the world. It will be a suicide homicide, nuclear winter and the end of human race.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gribble [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
For a moment there I thought y'all were joking around. Apparently not.
Maybe you'll realize what you're advocating once fighting an enemy that actually fights back, and not a dysfunctional country on the other side of the world where it becomes a matter of stepping out just for the sake of saving money and some military personnel.
Hell, any country getting nukes as protection is justified with this approach.
Alot of guys in the service who will talk about it, will tell you unless the rules of engagement are changed, we will accomplish nothing except getting more soldiers killed. They're in a total war and are ruthless, we're held accountable for every life we take.
Gribble & CB hit the nail on the head, the objective will only succeed with an extreme, all out, win at all costs effort.
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mishanya [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
World peace.
I was in the Middle East last summer. It was very beautiful, the people there were nice, and I am totally against bombing it.
There are still many issues that are of global responsibility, particularly of the USA. Sounds like some of you need to review what happened at the Summit meeting this Fall.
[Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
[Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Pearl HarborQuote:
Originally Posted by IndiReloaded [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
The Japanese Admiral Chuichi Nagumo said "awakened a sleeping dragon."
They knew exactly what they were doing. The US actually was attempting to stay out of that war, but Japan pushed us. If you're going to retaliate, do it ten fold better, that will crush morale and squash any counter attack.
"Knocking him down won the first fight. I wanted to win all the next ones, too. So they'd leave me alone."Quote:
Originally Posted by Cbrider [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
-- Ender's Game (after killing a bully who was tormenting him)
Can you turn that into an example based off of Where's Waldo? That's my kind of reading.Quote:
Originally Posted by IndiReloaded [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
E, you go get this book. Its excellent and you will love it. Trust me. My son read it when he was 7, if he can, you can.
I've seen and heard of it, I just am not a huge book reader. Now bike magazines...I can pour over those all day long.