Afghanistan s turning into a quagmire...

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I don't really agree with that. It's my belief that America was defeated on the field of battle because they didn't realize that they were posing as the British, fighting Americans.

Americans became the thing they fought against.

That's what makes it so hopeless and futile.

I feel really stupid that I'm an American sometimes.

I mean, get a grip, people.

America isn't going to save the world from anything. It has... 187 F-22's, the most awesome fighter aircraft ever made. Trust me, this sort of airplane hasn't been seen before. But what are they to do now? The USSR is gone. Russia has been reduced to a bunch of blustering idiots like Putin. And Medvedev, who talks very grand but gives great sexual pleasure to Putin each night. And yet the US is afraid to stand up them them.

"Suppose I said you were a Congressman... and suppose I said you were an idiot... but... I repeat myself." ~ Mark Twain

I'm not going to get into that war yet again (Have you read "Steel My Soldier's Hearts; David Hackworth?). Le_Trouve wanted to drag us down that path so he could ignore his hero of socialism and concentrate on the failures of Republicans as a justification for his ignoring the looming disaster of socialist thought...

 

[where]

No, I'm not. I said so way back.

No, it's not my solution as per my first answer, it's the ONLY solution if your response is a military response.

Which is why Obama will fail. He's taking half-assed measures to look tough because he painted himself into a verbal corner by blasting Bush for taking his eyes off the right war and invading Iraq, a war he assured us that had already been lost...

OK. so if you were the POTUS, what would YOU do?

 

[Ishmael]

Another point worthy of note. The Taliban WERE NOT the enemy per se'. Only to the extent that they were offering safe haven to the likes of bin Laden. To get to bin Laden we had to go through the Taliban, which of course they weren't too happy about. The Taliban, as disgusting at their policies were, posed no grave threat to the US, or anyone else for that matter.

But to hear the politicos talk today you'd think that they were the reason we went in there to begin with. All of a sudden the Taliban have been morphed into al Queda.

There are only two reasons for us to be in Afghanistan in such great numbers. One reason makes sense, the other makes no sense at all. The reason that makes sense is that the coalition forces act as a lightening rod for the jihadists and take some pressure off the wobbly Islamabad government. A government that has nuclear weapons. I don't think anyone wants to see the jihadists get the reigns of power in Pakistan. The question concerning this policy is, "Do we really need so many troops on the ground to accomplish this mission?"

The second reason is to back up the UN's 'nation building' endeavor in Afghanistan. And if that is the reason, then it's doomed to failure and a lot of US troops are going to die and a lot of national treasure is going to be pissed away in the attempt to back the play of a broken and corrupt organization.

It will be interesting to read the mission review, if and when it is ever published, to see which of the two plans we intend to follow. Given my gut feeling re. Obamas gut instincts, it's going to be the latter of the two plans and we're going to be stuck in a swamp created by un-elected UN functionaries.

Ishmael

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

OK. so if you were the POTUS, what would YOU do?

FIRST and MOST IMPORTANT!

End the drone attacks, it's a cowardly way to face a 13th century warrior and kills innocents for no reason what-so-ever thusly stoking the desire for Badal (revenge).

THEN:

Listen to Karzai, engage in talks with the Taliban, come to an agreement, and bring the troops back to Iraq and leave them there until it's time to bring the legions in from Japan and Germany too...



Finally commission a Peace Mosque of Saudi-like magnificence in recognition of the devastation wrought by the West over the course of the last century and by way of apology for not supporting them when they defeated the Soviet at great national sacrifice and place it where Taliban influence meets Kabul's influence.

 

[Jimi]

Oh, that's just the recent stuff Ksmy.

The Persians were the first to try to conquer Afghanistan back in 500 BC. After about 50 years of trying to bring the blessings of the Persian Empire to the Afghans, they gave up and paid tribute to the local tribes to keep the trade roads open.

Around 326 BC Alexander marched through Afghanistan on his way to India. He thought that the Afgahns would love to embrace the benefits of Greek culture. They really weren't that impressed. You have to give Alexander credit for learning from the Persians though, he started paying tribute to keep the trade roads open after only 3 years.

The Romans didn't even make the attempt.

Things stayed more or less quiet in Afghanistan for almost a thousand years until the Mongols got pissed at the Muslims and sent Halagu Kahn to take care of business. He marched through the place around 1250 AD on his way to exterminating the Assassins and then sacking Baghdad. They didn't even try to conquer the place either, they just garrisoned the trade routes and reached an understanding with the natives. "You don't bother us, we won't exterminate you."

Then came the British on their way to building Empire. You notice on Ksmy's list that the third Anglo-Afghan war was fought in 1919. The obvious implication being that there was a first and second Anglo-Afghan war and if the Anglos had been all that successful the first two attempts, the third war would have been unnecessary. The British didn't fair too well the third time out either.

The point is that NO ONE has ever conquered Afghanistan nor brought the blessings of civilization to them even though the attempts to do so go back 2500 years. The primary reason that no one has ever succeeded is that the place has no infrastructure and the cost of building infrastructure exceeds any mineral, agricultural, or industrial benefits that might be gained from building that infrastructure. It's a great big, mountainous, void that just happens to sit astride a couple of major trade routes.

You pay them tribute, smack them down if they get unruly, and otherwise leave the Afghans to their own devises. Nation building is a game that far wiser men than are in position of power today have tried and had the wisdom to abandon before their own nations wealth was sucked dry.

Ishmael

I agree with all that you've said, Ish. But I'm also on record here as introducing the "Q" word (in '02, I think?) as regards Iraq.

Afghanistan is not the objective... bin Laden and his cronies ARE, correct? So, I still support the NATO effrorts there much moreso than the specious tactics used to oust Saddass.

And AndyJack... I had no idea you were this Slug person... but my comments on the hyperbole stand, Old Trout.

Time to step back a bit and focus upon the Frog Princess' life rather than railing against what we cannot change, perhaps? Me, I enjoyed my hiatus immeasurably.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Another point worthy of note. The Taliban WERE NOT the enemy per se'. Only to the extent that they were offering safe haven to the likes of bin Laden. To get to bin Laden we had to go through the Taliban, which of course they weren't too happy about. The Taliban, as disgusting at their policies were, posed no grave threat to the US, or anyone else for that matter.

But to hear the politicos talk today you'd think that they were the reason we went in there to begin with. All of a sudden the Taliban have been morphed into al Queda.

There are only two reasons for us to be in Afghanistan in such great numbers. One reason makes sense, the other makes no sense at all. The reason that makes sense is that the coalition forces act as a lightening rod for the jihadists and take some pressure off the wobbly Islamabad government. A government that has nuclear weapons. I don't think anyone wants to see the jihadists get the reigns of power in Pakistan. The question concerning this policy is, "Do we really need so many troops on the ground to accomplish this mission?"

The second reason is to back up the UN's 'nation building' endeavor in Afghanistan. And if that is the reason, then it's doomed to failure and a lot of US troops are going to die and a lot of national treasure is going to be pissed away in the attempt to back the play of a broken and corrupt organization.

It will be interesting to read the mission review, if and when it is ever published, to see which of the two plans we intend to follow. Given my gut feeling re. Obamas gut instincts, it's going to be the latter of the two plans and we're going to be stuck in a swamp created by un-elected UN functionaries.

Ishmael

That's been one of my persistent beefs with Obama, that he treats them both as the same enemy when they are not.

Not a swamp, a quagmire!

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Shut up Jimi.

Iraq is the cradle of civilization. That they are capable of achieving while Afghanistan is the antithesis of all that.

Don't tell me what to do; I thought the tell of a Canuck was the ability to keep their noses out of other people's affairs.

My, times have changed.

Hell, for about a week, Le_Trouver regarded me as urbane, witty, and well-read...

 

[Byron In Exile]

I'm not going to get into that war yet again (Have you read "Steel My Soldier's Hearts; David Hackworth?). Le_Trouve wanted to drag us down that path so he could ignore his hero of socialism and concentrate on the failures of Republicans as a justification for his ignoring the looming disaster of socialist thought...

No, haven't seen it.

What I really like to do, though, is to get completely drunk and check you people out.

"Socialism" is basically about controlling people. Anyone who doesn't know that hasn't been paying attention. Have any of you read Orwelll? The word has been perverted. He understood how such a system cound be used, hence, "Animal Farm," and "1984."

"Socialism," in it's purest sense, is good thing. But it always goes south real fast, because once those people find out they have power over you, you're toast.

 

[where]

FIRST and MOST IMPORTANT!

End the drone attacks, it's a cowardly way to face a 13th century warrior and kills innocents for no reason what-so-ever thusly stoking the desire for Badal (revenge).

THEN:

Listen to Karzai, engage in talks with the Taliban, come to an agreement, and bring the troops back to Iraq and leave them there until it's time to bring the legions in from Japan and Germany too...



Finally commission a Peace Mosque of Saudi-like magnificence in recognition of the devastation wrought by the West over the course of the last century and by way of apology for not supporting them when they defeated the Soviet at great national sacrifice and place it where Taliban influence meets Kabul's influence.

another sarcastic answer?

 

[Jimi]

Shut up Jimi.

Iraq is the cradle of civilization. That they are capable of achieving while Afghanistan is the antithesis of all that.

Don't tell me what to do; I thought the tell of a Canuck was the ability to keep their noses out of other people's affairs.

My, times have changed.

Hell, for about a week, Le_Trouver regarded me as urbane, witty, and well-read...

Times have changed, indeed. I am far from taking your inventory, pal... just saying that the vitriol ain't healthy. I remember a guy from the Flatlands whose wit transcended all that...

In my case, my anger has gone to about zilch point two over the past year, so I was offering a branch, was all.

Be well, and try to be happy... your choice.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I hear you Byron...

__________
K-Belle...

No.

Gestures the Hill people would understand just like they understand war.

Ever see "The Outlaw Josie Wales?" We need to mount our horse and take war or peace to Ten Bears and let him choose.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Bye Jimi...

 

[unregistered]

 

[Byron In Exile]

I agree with all that you've said, Ish. But I'm also on record here as introducing the "Q" word (in '02, I think?) as regards Iraq.

Afghanistan is not the objective... bin Laden and his cronies ARE, correct? So, I still support the NATO effrorts there much moreso than the specious tactics used to oust Saddass.

And AndyJack... I had no idea you were this Slug person... but my comments on the hyperbole stand, Old Trout.

Time to step back a bit and focus upon the Frog Princess' life rather than railing against what we cannot change, perhaps? Me, I enjoyed my hiatus eimmeasurably.

Jimi, maybe your hiatus should have been longer.

You say all these strange things... are we both drunk?

Because then, maybe we could come together... as neighbors, you know?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Bring 'em home, let the chips fall, Obama has spent us into the poor house anyway...



His desire is a Brave New Norway.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Bye Jimi...

They have some kick-ass beer up there, I hear...

 

[Jimi]

Jimi, maybe your hiatus should have been longer.

You say all these strange things... are we both drunk?

Because then, maybe we could come together... as neighbors, you know?

Drunk? FAR from it... now who's being cryptic, man...

Kumbaya, dude...

 

[where]

I hear you Byron...

__________
K-Belle...

No.

Gestures the Hill people would understand just like they understand war.

Ever see "The Outlaw Josie Wales?" We need to mount our horse and take war or peace to Ten Bears and let him choose.

so out of afghanistan and back to iraq?

I don't do real life via cowboy films. it's more complicated than that.

I was being facetious. The original mission was to defeat, or eliminate, the Taliban, not "defeat the Afghans." Outside of killing them (the Taliban) by the tens of thousands in the initial stages of the war, we've allowed the effort to be degraded, much too early on, by politics, NATO, the UN, and nation building.

I think our mission there is no longer clear, clouded by politics both there and here. I think the rules of engagement no longer favor our military and are harming any real military effort to engage and kill the Taliban. I don't think the President really supports a military effort in Afghanistan. I don't think the Congress really supports our efforts there, and like Vietnam, lacks the will to see it through.

The American people do not want to see our troops hamstrung by pie in the sky ROEs and they don't want to see them killed in vain, as they were in Vietnam.

The Taliband can be defeated, that operation can be completed, but if we (the U.S.) cannot accept 799 dead in an 8 year combat operation, I doubt we can ever complete a major war in the future in which the enemy chooses to fight. Our expectations are too high it's time to bring 'em home.

point is, is the taliban are effectively the afghans as discussed earlier. the mission was never 'clear' for this reason, but i think it's interesting you still think it's winnable, but thank you for finally giving a straight answer and saying that pulling out is the right thing to do.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Yes, troops based in Iraq to show Iran and Israel that we are serious about Peace and not just dabblers.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Byron In Exile]

I hear you Byron...

It falls right into FDR.

And Obama wants to be that?

FDR was one of the most evil Presidents this country's ever had.

This is his model?

He hasn't ever read the US Constitution. He knows nothing about it, doesn't care about it, and doesn't give a damn.

That's FDR.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Our current administration believes in preemptive cheek-turning...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I think he sees himself as the smart FDR...

 

[Byron In Exile]

Drunk? FAR from it... now who's being cryptic, man...

Kumbaya, dude...

Hey, Jimi... you can be plastered and still know what's right, y'know?

It's the same thing you knew before, but now you can just say it.

You can even punch somebody in a bar over it.

 

[unregistered]