Taliban back in Afghanistan

[QueenAdrock]

A suicide bomber on a bicycle attacked Canadian troops handing out candy to children in southern Afghanistan on Monday. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/09/18/afghanistan.ap/index.html)

You know we should really should have devoted more troops to stabilizing Afghanistan. Instead, we jumped into Iraq and now there's rumors for Iran...which would be suicide, seeing as how recruitment is at an all-time low and troops are already stretched thin as it is.

Sigh.

[sam i am]

A suicide bomber on a bicycle attacked Canadian troops handing out candy to children in southern Afghanistan on Monday. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/09/18/afghanistan.ap/index.html)

You know we should really should have devoted more troops to stabilizing Afghanistan. Instead, we jumped into Iraq and now there's rumors for Iran...which would be suicide, seeing as how recruitment is at an all-time low and troops are already stretched thin as it is.

Sigh.

The Taliban is now being mostly fought by NATO, rather than exclusively by the US. Let's give the French and other NATO countries the chance to prove their martial spirit before we throw in the towel on them, mmmkay?

As for Iraq, although it sucks to have the death tolls we do, in the greater light of history, it's still not as bad as most would think. Heck, the USA lost more men during the invasion of France in WWII than we've lost in Iraq. When you're attempting to subdue a country of 20+ million people, well...it takes time, effort, and resolve to see it through.

Iran will not be an invasion target....Iran will not be an invasion target...Iran will not be an invasion target. Rinse and repeat as necessary to avoid buildup of unnecessary fears and anxieties....

[Pres Zount]

Yeah guys, 50 000 000+ people died in WW2, when the war in Afghanistan hits that target, then we can pass judgement.

[sam i am]

Yeah guys, 50 000 000+ people died in WW2, when the war in Afghanistan hits that target, then we can pass judgement.

It's been so long since I've seen or read such fantastic analysis. Sarcasm is like a second language to you, isn't it? Please.....continue to enlighten us with your fascinating grasp of detail and attention to the point at hand...

[Documad]

A suicide bomber on a bicycle attacked Canadian troops handing out candy to children in southern Afghanistan on Monday. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/09/18/afghanistan.ap/index.html)

You know we should really should have devoted more troops to stabilizing Afghanistan. Instead, we jumped into Iraq and now there's rumors for Iran...which would be suicide, seeing as how recruitment is at an all-time low and troops are already stretched thin as it is.

Sigh.
We messed up Afghanistan right from the get go. There was potential there, but we made so many mistakes. It's not just the troops, it's putting the wrong people in charge and spending our money on the wrong stuff. I agree that we should have done a better job instead of going to Iraq, but I also believe that Iraq isn't the only reason we failed. The people of southern Afghanistan feel that they are better off under the Taliban than under our warlords and corruption and power failures, etc. What a shame.

The Taliban is now being mostly fought by NATO, rather than exclusively by the US. Let's give the French and other NATO countries the chance to prove their martial spirit before we throw in the towel on them, mmmkay?

As for Iraq, although it sucks to have the death tolls we do, in the greater light of history, it's still not as bad as most would think. Heck, the USA lost more men during the invasion of France in WWII than we've lost in Iraq. When you're attempting to subdue a country of 20+ million people, well...it takes time, effort, and resolve to see it through.

I think that in Afghanistan it's more a matter of undoing the damage of our neglect over the past five years so I don't think that it's matter of whether NATO has enough martial spirit. I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean.

As for Iraq, the mistakes were made before we went in and we haven't adapted since it became obvious that there were huge mistakes made. I am interested though in what you think we're going to accomplish with "time, effort, and resolve." That sounds so nice, but we're already pulling out and even the president is starting to prepare us for a loss with dignity or some kind of nonsense like that. What exactly are we trying to "see through" at this point? I think it's so curious because even the administration isn't saying there's something we can "win" at this point.

[Pres Zount]

It's been so long since I've seen or read such fantastic analysis. Sarcasm is like a second language to you, isn't it? Please.....continue to enlighten us with your fascinating grasp of detail and attention to the point at hand...
Poor analysis breeds poor analysis. Just as much I guess that poor sarcasm breeds even poorer.

[sam i am]

As for Iraq, the mistakes were made before we went in and we haven't adapted since it became obvious that there were huge mistakes made. I am interested though in what you think we're going to accomplish with "time, effort, and resolve." That sounds so nice, but we're already pulling out and even the president is starting to prepare us for a loss with dignity or some kind of nonsense like that. What exactly are we trying to "see through" at this point? I think it's so curious because even the administration isn't saying there's something we can "win" at this point.

The mission has remained the same : to have a secure, stable Iraq, able to defend itself, with at least a nominally Democratic government, without Sadaam Hussein, as an ally in the war on terror.

[sam i am]

Poor analysis breeds poor analysis. Just as much I guess that poor sarcasm breeds even poorer.

Ooohhh....fascinating.

Please do continue....

What, specifically, was poor about my analysis? Elucidate us all....dazzle me with your brainpower...

[Pres Zount]

Ooohhh....fascinating.

Please do continue....

What, specifically, was poor about my analysis? Elucidate us all....dazzle me with your brainpower...

comparing death tolls now to death tolls 60 years ago. Times have changed, if you haven't noticed, people get more upset by casualties nowadays than back in the fourties, especially when you are in a far away country to "subdue" rather than genuinely liberate.

'It takes time and effort', you say, but I think the US is on the brink of a very large anti-war campaign, if the casualties were doubled I doubt people would be able to sit back and say "well, it takes time and effort to subdue a country."

[sam i am]

comparing death tolls now to death tolls 60 years ago. Times have changed, if you haven't noticed, people get more upset by casualties nowadays than back in the fourties, especially when you are in a far away country to "subdue" rather than genuinely liberate.

'It takes time and effort', you say, but I think the US is on the brink of a very large anti-war campaign, if the casualties were doubled I doubt people would be able to sit back and say "well, it takes time and effort to subdue a country."

I guess, unfortunately, you are right. People have way too much information today and are unlikely to continue to forge ahead against losses.

It's sad to see that we've devolved as a nation to the point where we can't see the light at the end of the tunnel and are unwilling to support our volunteer military to finish the job they started.

[QueenAdrock]

On the upside, we're willing to support the troops by wanting them home and safe.

On another note, I hate it when people say I hate the troops, because I'm against the war. I don't see how the two are correlated at all. I personally always thought that it would be counter-productive to the best interests of the soliders if I wanted them over there, being shot at.

I supported my friend emotionally when he was over there, and I support him even more now that he's back home.

[sam i am]

On the upside, we're willing to support the troops by wanting them home and safe.

On another note, I hate it when people say I hate the troops, because I'm against the war. I don't see how the two are correlated at all. I personally always thought that it would be counter-productive to the best interests of the soliders if I wanted them over there, being shot at.

I supported my friend emotionally when he was over there, and I support him even more now that he's back home.

Because the American military is an all-volunteer force. If those in the military didn't want to be in the military, they could have NOT volunteered in the first place.

BTW, all evidence points to the fact that the troops "over there" want to finish the job for the most part, not leave prematurely.

[QueenAdrock]

It's not whether or not they want to be in the MILITARY, it's whether or not they want to be in a wrong war fought for the wrong reasons. They sign up to defend our country against legitamate threats to our society. Iraq wasn't the place we should have been, since they did not pose an immediate threat to our country; Afghanistan was the right fight, and I'm glad we went there. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush says we went in there for WMD's. Whoops, never found. Then he says we went in there to fight terrorism. Well, you think we'd go to Saudi Arabia first, seeing as how majority of the hijackers were from that country. Then he says we went in there to fight "evil in general," which then begs the question, why not Darfur? If we wanted to stop tyranny and oppression, how about those 400,000 people that have been slaughtered due to genocide? I think it'd be pretty noble to go free them, don't you? It just seems kind of convienent that Iraq was picked from the get go - on 9/11 Bush asked his head of counterterrorism to see if there was some kind of link between Iraq and what had happened, even though he had been assured there was not. Seems like ulterior motives to me.


Either way, my friend certainly didn't want to be over there, he wanted to be home with his wife and daughter. He signed up for the military, under the idea that this government would send him to a war to be fought only for the right reasons. He certainly felt like it was the wrong thing to be over there. He was in a more dangerous zone of Iraq, and said he'd never ever want to go back again. I'm very glad he's back.

[DroppinScience]

He signed up for the military, under the idea that this government would send him to a war to be fought only for the right reasons. He certainly felt like it was the wrong thing to be over there.

But the government can send him to any war they please, whether it's the just war or the quagmire.

And he can't bow out of Iraq because he's against it. You can be given "conscientious objector" status, but you have to prove that you're against fighting in ALL wars. You can't pick and choose, unfortunately.

[QueenAdrock]

Exactly. This president promised him they'd send him to wars that were fought for the right reasons, that they'd never use our troops for "nation building" or anything else. So I don't see why I should say "Hey, you wanted to be over there." I blame our government. Needless to say, it WAS naive of him to believe the government when they he'd be fighting only just wars, but at one point he had faith that they'd send him to fight only when he was absolutely needed. Unfortunately, not many people will be signing up after this war, nor have they been signing up during the war. The government cries wolf, they respond, if they cry wolf again and it's for legitimate reasons, who knows who will respond, if any?

[fucktopgirl]

Afghanistan is the world biggest producer of opium/heroin, it is 70% of the world production. The amount of drug$ flowing into the us bank is approximately 250-300 billion a year.



Do you think it can be one of the reason why USA are there?

[sam i am]

Afghanistan is the world biggest producer of opium/heroin, it is 70% of the world production. The amount of drug$ flowing into the us bank is approximately 250-300 billion a year.



Do you think it can be one of the reason why USA are there?

Sure. It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that Mullah Omar and Bin Laden were based there and directed the 9/11 attacks from there :rolleyes:

[sam i am]

Exactly. This president promised him they'd send him to wars that were fought for the right reasons, that they'd never use our troops for "nation building" or anything else. So I don't see why I should say "Hey, you wanted to be over there." I blame our government. Needless to say, it WAS naive of him to believe the government when they he'd be fighting only just wars, but at one point he had faith that they'd send him to fight only when he was absolutely needed. Unfortunately, not many people will be signing up after this war, nor have they been signing up during the war. The government cries wolf, they respond, if they cry wolf again and it's for legitimate reasons, who knows who will respond, if any?

Where in the documents that new recruits sign for the military does it state that they will only be sent to wars that are fought for the "right reasons," whatever that means.

Wars are brutal, ugly, dangerous business and those who don't have the stomach for them should not have signed up in the first place.

[fucktopgirl]

Sure. It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that Mullah Omar and Bin Laden were based there and directed the 9/11 attacks from there :rolleyes:

you know what..you should like read more , because you have a little constipated view on things. You just ingurgitated everything that your admnistration has been feeding you!

9/11 was the reason of their invasion there as they all told us but....what else there is to gain by invading afghanistan?

Put the hand on the production of opium seem like a good scored to me.

Or did you ever heard about the " Trans-afghan route"?

[QueenAdrock]

Where in the documents that new recruits sign for the military does it state that they will only be sent to wars that are fought for the "right reasons," whatever that means.

Wars are brutal, ugly, dangerous business and those who don't have the stomach for them should not have signed up in the first place.

I'm not talking about papers, I'm talking about Bush's promises when he was elected. Bush saying that he didn't believe troops should be used for "nation building" definitely threw my friend off when he was told he'd be used for "nation building." He also kept spewing that he had a "compassionate and conservative philosophy," which somehow led my friend to believe he wasn't a war mongerer. However, I thought it was common knowledge that they'd be sent to wars that were just. Bullshit wars are not really something that they should be sent to in the first place, thus him being upset that he was sent to Iraq.

He has the stomach for wars. He thought he'd be fighting for America, a noble cause, something WWIIesque. He wanted to be in the military to defend America, if need be. If we were attacked by someone, he wanted to go and fight them for us. If we were invaded, he wanted to be the one to go and fend them off. He didn't want to be sent to fight in a country that was picked because it was in the best interests of the administration.

[Ali]

Sure. It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that Mullah Omar and Bin Laden were based there and directed the 9/11 attacks from there :rolleyes:
That was Iraq (http://wsws.org/articles/2006/sep2006/inte-s13.shtml) - according to SOME people;)

[Schmeltz]

to have a secure, stable Iraq


And how's that working out?


People have way too much information today


I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that democratic societies set limits on the quantity of knowledge available to their citizens. Would you kindly describe to me exactly where the limits should lie on information and why we should trust any government to define the parameters within which we are able to learn about their activities? How much information is "too much" and where would you draw the line in the public's right to know about its government's involvement in the world?


If those in the military didn't want to be in the military, they could have NOT volunteered in the first place.


QueenAdrock touched on this, and I've said the same thing before: volunteering to defend your homeland against its potential adversaries is not the same thing as volunteering to be deployed on the other side of the world to combat phantom threats and tin-pot dictators and poisonous foreign ideologies. And it is certainly not the same thing as volunteering to serve as a pawn in struggles between the rich for raw materials or the advancement of private political agendas. The American military has been badly misused by its civilian bureaucratic leadership - a pity, since it should serve as the model for fighting forces around the world instead of the private mercenary thuggery of financial elitists and transnational bullies.

DroppinScience, I'm surprised to read your advocacy for the abrogation of ultimate responsibility for the military by the civilian government. Soldiers of free societies are not and should not be mindless drones who abdicate their sense of responsibility to the civilized mores of their consciences and societies; that is a heavily politicized corruption of the doctrine of military obedience. Surely you've noticed our own troops dying in greater numbers than before under Harper's alignment of our foreign policy with that of Bush and Blair and Howard - what has our society gained from this, exactly?

Governments have a responsibility to use their military resources (which include the lives of many of its youngest and most promising members of its next generation) with strategic care and diplomatic frugality, not to exploit the desire of citizens to protect their country in order to further their own ideological ends. Soldiers are servants of their communities, not the bureaucratic apparatus. It might not be stringently documented, samiam, at least not in formal legal terms, but that's the principle of a really democratic society.

sam, I find your rhetoric disingenuous and hollow. You are blaming the citizenry for failing to support policies they deem unworthy of it, when it is the citizenry who is supposed to define those very policies in their own best interests. To condemn dissidents for failing to unequivocally support the military because of their own degradation is insulting, shallow, and ignorant at best. It's your attitude that shows the level to which American politics has fallen, if you ask me.