10 years later

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Everyone is slagging Jim off but he has made several points that are factual:

- It's been 10 years.
- The military has been given an incredible budget.
- The Taliban don't have tanks and such.
- There is no "victory" in sight.

How can anyone say that this war is anything other than a failure?

Yep, removing a government that prohibits women from getting an education and condones their torture by "men" is a complete failure. How dare we stand up for human rights.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[nanook 1]

Quote

Quote

Or do you not understand that the US military does not run the US government?

When the Generals dictate to the President what will happen, then the military runs the government.

When has this ever happened with these wars?

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[Bolas 5]

Quote

If you all believe that it is the civilian leadership hamstringing the soldiers and not allowing them victory then you should be on the phone every fuckin' day giving your congressmen down the road.

I think the press is more of the issue, just as it's been since Vietnam.

The real reason we haven't "won" yet is two fold:
* No clear criteria for winning.
* Attempting to fight a PC war. We're attempting to minimize colateral damage and civilian loss of life which they are using against us. It doesn't help when someone who was likely used as a human sheild is accidently killed and the press is right there to take pictures of it.

My stance on it is whether one feels why we're there is justified or not, we should just do what needs to be done. Go in hard, go in big, and accept there will be colateral damage and civilian casulties but the quicker the fighting stops, the less it will likely actually be,

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

.....

You may laugh now but you will not be laughing when you see the blood spilled in your own country.

If your (USA) arrogant and ignorant attitude prevails it will only be a matter of time beofre you see that happen.

This is what you are up against in the next episode;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3yNgcpdQ-w&feature=related

Wow, a new kid on the block - since few weeks ...

What a nice guy you must be.

How about filling in your profile with some more details?

I assume you're just a troll with a big mouth who's not even able to add a proper link.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[masterrig 1]

#1


Chuck

[billvon 2,400]

Your one warning. Cut it out.

[jakee 1,256]

Quote

My stance on it is whether one feels why we're there is justified or not, we should just do what needs to be done. Go in hard, go in big, and accept there will be colateral damage and civilian casulties but the quicker the fighting stops, the less it will likely actually be,

But since you're not actually fighting against a nation, the fighting doesn't stop when you've defeated what's first put in front of you.

Take Iraq, we went in hard with shock and awe, did what needed to be done, quickly, by defeating Saddam's forces and taking control of the country within a month - and when did the fighting stop there, exactly?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

My stance on it is whether one feels why we're there is justified or not, we should just do what needs to be done. Go in hard, go in big, and accept there will be colateral damage and civilian casulties but the quicker the fighting stops, the less it will likely actually be,

But since you're not actually fighting against a nation, the fighting doesn't stop when you've defeated what's first put in front of you.

Take Iraq, we went in hard with shock and awe, did what needed to be done, quickly, by defeating Saddam's forces and taking control of the country within a month - and when did the fighting stop there, exactly?

Exactly my point. We made the same mistakes in Iraq once we defeated Saddam.

Failure to aggressively eliminate the other threats and those that harbored them.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

If you all believe that it is the civilian leadership hamstringing the soldiers and not allowing them victory then you should be on the phone every fuckin' day giving your congressmen down the road.

I think the press is more of the issue, just as it's been since Vietnam.

The real reason we haven't "won" yet is two fold:
* No clear criteria for winning.
* Attempting to fight a PC war. We're attempting to minimize colateral damage and civilian loss of life which they are using against us. It doesn't help when someone who was likely used as a human sheild is accidently killed and the press is right there to take pictures of it.

My stance on it is whether one feels why we're there is justified or not, we should just do what needs to be done. Go in hard, go in big, and accept there will be colateral damage and civilian casulties but the quicker the fighting stops, the less it will likely actually be,

+1
Tough enough to fight while trying to avoid/minimize civilian casualties, 10X harder when your enemy is indiscriminately killing those same civilians.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[wsd 0]

This has been the effort of the media ever since Walter Cronkite announced the war in Vietnam was lost.

It did not matter that the Tet offensive was a decided defeat for the VC and North. All that mattered to the mindless masses who were following the General Giap handbook, is that they were succeeding in political measures where the military efforts of the NVA and VC had failed.

[billvon 2,400]

>Failure to aggressively eliminate the other threats and those that harbored them.

So we failed to eliminate the . . . civilian population? If so I am glad we failed.

[futuredivot 0]

You do a fantastic job of purposely misinterpreting, you know.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[doi 0]

Quote

...and just how good is it in your country?


Chuck

Not bad!

[doi 0]

Quote

When has this ever happened with these wars?

This is just the first incidence I cam across.

There are more, whay are you so unaware?

Quote

Generals tell Obama 'don't cut and run in Afghanistan'

By Robert Winnett in Washington

Friday August 13 2010

THE US military is to urge President Barack Obama not to withdraw troops from Afghanistan too rapidly.

Gen David Petraeus, who took command of the Afghan mission last month, is expected to use a series of interviews next week to say the military needs time to complete its work in the country.

The US President and Britain's prime minister David Cameron have both said troops will begin leaving Afghanistan in July next year, ahead of a planned total military pull-out by 2015.

Mr Obama is expected to come under pressure in the run-up to the 2012 presidential election for a rapid withdrawal of troops.

Yesterday, a poll showed that the majority of Americans were unhappy with his handling of the war.

Military concerns over the strategy in Afghanistan have emerged after fears were raised that the Americans are seeking to leave Iraq too quickly.

The US military will end combat operations in Iraq at the end of this month and troops will begin returning home.

However, the head of the Iraqi Army warned on Wednesday that the US army would be needed for another decade.

So the President may have wanted a rapid withdrawal from Afghanistan due to public pressure but the Generals want to stay and are urging him to. How does democracy work again?

I was under the impression that the Generals answered to the President and the President answered to the people.

Not while the Patriot Act is still in place though, eh?

[doi 0]

Quote

Wow, a new kid on the block - since few weeks ...

What a nice guy you must be.

How about filling in your profile with some more details?

I assume you're just a troll with a big mouth who's not even able to add a proper link.

Straw people that use ad hominem rather than addressing the argument seem very common in here.

In this instance I will give you a reply, but from now on I will use the simple abbreviation A.H. to suggest you (or your buddies) are using ad hominem rather than a valid argument.

Do not confuse this abbreviation with ass hole.

I will not post my details as I do not need to in order to make a valid argument, and you obviously wanted to use those details to judge me in some way or another.

In another discussion I was assaulted with A.H. insults. Is that all you people have.

Why not try some integrety?

It is peculiar that in discussions face to face in real life with real people at the drop zone and round and about I do not face such ridicule.

I would be interested to see how this discussion would end up if we were all actually sat round a bonfire with some beer and a few hours on our hand.

Don’t kill the messenger, respond to the message please.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

So the President may have wanted a rapid withdrawal from Afghanistan due to public pressure but the Generals want to stay and are urging him to. How does democracy work again?

I was under the impression that the Generals answered to the President and the President answered to the people.

Not while the Patriot Act is still in place though, eh?

Get back to us when the President tells the General to withdraw and he doesn't - until then, you've got shite.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[doi 0]

If that is your logic then you are not worth an iota of energy.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

If that is your logic then you are not worth an iota of energy.

By all means then, utilize that logic and show us where the President has ordered a withdrawal and been disobeyed by the General.

Oh, wait...that would involve actually have some PROOF to back up your claim - nevermind.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,400]

>You do a fantastic job of purposely misinterpreting, you know.

We killed 30,000 civilians in Iraq. And you believe we were not aggressive enough? Who else should we have "aggressively eliminated?"

[doi 0]

Quote

We killed 30,000 civilians in Iraq. And you believe we were not aggressive enough? Who else should we have "aggressively eliminated?"

That seems like a very conservative estimate, where did you get that figure from?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

It is peculiar that in discussions face to face in real life with real people at the drop zone and round and about I do not face such ridicule.

well, at the dropzone, do you go to your car and put on a clown suit to disguise your identity before you come back to the discussion?

[wmw999 2,123]

Quote

The real reason we haven't "won" yet is two fold:
* No clear criteria for winning.
* Attempting to fight a PC war.

And the second one is largely because of the first one. Not to mention the fact that it's in another country, and is not directly endangering the US.

Right after 9/11 the US had plenty of PC leeway to kick some Taliban ass. We lost it by going into Iraq, and by taking so long to get back to Afghanistan.

It's not the press's fault. Really. An open press gives us far more than it robs us (as long as you don't consider TV reality shows to be "press" ). It's our own fault for not having a well-enough defined achievable goal ("eradicating terrorism" doesn't count, as it's not achievable). And it has nothing to do with the soldiers who are over there -- their job is to try to execute what the government is telling them (generally damn poorly) to do.

Maybe the one thing that Iraq had in the beginning over Afghanistan was that it did at least have a well-defined goal -- get rid of Saddam. Unfortunately, that's not really adequate. There's supposed to be some sort of threat in there, or else a general acceptance that the internal situation is bad enough to warrant messing with another country's business.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[wmw999 2,123]

Quote

It is peculiar that in discussions face to face in real life with real people at the drop zone and round and about I do not face such ridicule.

At the drop zone, face to face, both you and the others have faces, and more context. It makes a difference.

Don't think context makes a difference?

Hey Asshole!













(sound off)

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[airtwardo 6]

WHAT?!

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

The real reason we haven't "won" yet is two fold:
* No clear criteria for winning.
* Attempting to fight a PC war.

And the second one is largely because of the first one. Not to mention the fact that it's in another country, and is not directly endangering the US.

Or it could be because of PC pressure, the actual criteria (as well as a profile) is not stated.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.