30,000 more troops = win war

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by Rex_B, Dec 3, 2009.

  1. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,733
    The civil war was not a guerilla war and neither was the Revolution. Both were fought with regular troops against regular troops.

    The correct response would have been the Indian Wars. We "won" against guerillas by attrition eventually, but it took 100 years. And what did we win . . . a hundred sovereign Indian Nations that are still somehow wards of the US government.

    And we still occupy the land.
     
  2. gumborue

    gumborue Painfully Pessimistic

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2003
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    573
    didnt you see "the outlaw josey wales"?
     
  3. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,733
    I saw the Wizard of Oz, too. What is your point?
     
  4. gumborue

    gumborue Painfully Pessimistic

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2003
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    573
    bushwackers. but, i know, its a matter of degree.
     
  5. Bandit88

    Bandit88 Old Enough to Know Better

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Messages:
    6,068
    Likes Received:
    511
    I purposefully did not use the word "victory". Standard Red tactic...misquote, then challenge on the misquote. Are you sure you don't work for a poltical party? :grin:

    "will to win" means, in this context, the gonads to see this thing through to an acceptable solution.

    Afghanistan is a fantastic foothold, regionally, for many, many reasons. A forward thinking Administration would be willing to anchor for the long haul and help the Afghan people (over at least a decade, probably multiples) to rid themselves of corrupt, violent, anti-modern elements and establish a system of government that works for them and doesn't harbor terrorists and anti-western ideologues.

    Where's that patented Liberal nuance?

    If you want to fight this war, that we didn't ask for and are engaged in whether you like it or not, you have to go to the darkness, not the light. Afghanstan. The Mahgreb. Very soon, areas north of Iran that most Americans have never heard of.

    Or, you can take the Clinton approach - nugget in sand, fire a few missiles at nothing, get some good press, and hope the bad stuff falls on someone else's watch.

    Reread what you wrote. Pakistan is a nuclear power. They have leverage on everyone. If you think Mr. Hopeandchange is going to play tough with Pakistan, you're on drugs. Just through his apologist rhetoric, he's weakened the foreign policy power of the US. Liberals always confuse popularity with power/respect. Most Liberals want foreigners to LIKE the US. So they deprecate US power and play to international stereotypes. Ignorant of the damage they do to our ability to weild true power. Which is not generated from hope and warm, fuzzy feelings...

    I'm not that emotional. :hihi:

    The only difference between a full scale withdrawal in the next six months (almost impossible) and a withdrawal on Obama's ridiculous timeline is the mid-term elections in the US and the "manuvering room" he needs to change his mind.

    I am HIGHLY SKEPTICAL of any meaningful withdrawal of forces on the stated timeline. It's a farce (and a failure of a farce at that) to appease the surrender monkeys on the Left.

    If the President were a Republican, this would be called a LIE! LIAR! :hihi:
     
  6. Rex_B

    Rex_B Geaux Time

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2003
    Messages:
    3,926
    Likes Received:
    187
    Using the term war doesn't help your argument. It's much like the "war" on drugs. Just a sensationalist word.

    And then you use the term surrender like we leave in defeat. Again another emotional word.

    There is no accurate solution. It's a damn quagmire over there. Hell even Cheney said it before we even went over there.

    We are wasting valuable resources for no meaningful gain.
     
  7. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,733
    OK, that's what I wanted you to say. That win and victory are synonymous and that "winning" in Afghanistan will not be a military triumph leaving a defeated enemy dead in its wake.

    I'd like to hear some of these reasons. Economically Afghanistan has no oil or strategic minerals and essentially has no trade with the US. Politically is is a tar baby that is hurting us mote than it is helping us. Strategically it is one of the worst places in the world for us. It is mountainous and essentially roadless. It has no ocean boundaries and it is surrounded by our enemies and "friends" of dubious nature (Pakistan and Uzbekistan) both of whom restrict our use of air and road corridors and require huge ($billions) contributions in foreign aid in return.

    Logistically, Afghanistan is expensive and tenuous to maintain. We can only fly things in over Russia or over Pakistan or use a single road through Pakistan for supplies, which we are required to contract to Pakistanis. It fabulously expensive to keep troops in Afghanistan and trouble with Russia or Pakistan could leave us unable to support what we have already got there. This business needs to be wrapped up.

    They got nuthin' we need and all we really want from them is to not allow Al Qaida to retun and use the place as a base.

    A pipe dream. Bush thought like this--that inside every raghead there was an American trying to get out. In fact Afghanistan has never been democratic and never will be. Nation-building here where most people dislike us and are illiterate, getting everything they know from illiterate mullahs who memorize the Koran is just not feasible.

    There is not enough money and time in the world to be nation-building ragheads. What a colossal waste. What kind of republican are you?

    What can we do that has not been done in 8 years there? Even in Vietnam we realized after 8 years that we had done all that we could do there and were just supporting our gooks versus their gooks and we didn't even need or like "our" gooks.

    He's already playing them tougher than Bush did. They are going after the Taliban which Bush never forced them to do. It is a fantasy that Pakistan's mere possession of nuclear weapons makes them have any leverage on the United States. They have no capacity to hit us and insufficient weapons to destroy our weapons if they could. Any use or even a credible threat of nuclear attack from Pakistan would bring on a US nuclear retaliation that they would not survive and they know it very well. They have nukes for one reason . . . because India and Israel have them and they need retaliatory capability against them, not against us.

    Obama has not apologized to anybody that I'm aware of. What are you referring to.

    Silly sterotypes do not become you.

    Does keeping them there for 50 years at $400 Billion a year appeal to you more. What will it buy us? Will bin ladin and Al Qaida disappear?

    Why do you love these ragheads so much? What do we owe them? Even our "friends" over there dislike us immensely. Fugg 'em.

    You seem to prefer Presidents who start unnecessary wars and fail to finish them than presidents who try to clean up messes and move forward.
     
  8. Sourdoughman

    Sourdoughman TigerFan of LSU and the Tigerman

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    12,314
    Likes Received:
    560
    I think the same about Mexico.
    Not saying we should invade or occupy either.

    I disagree.
    The problem in Afghanistan is that it is an endless money pitt not to mention the our men and women in uniform over there.
    You will never get rid of violent and corruption, there is plenty of that in our own country.
    Bush gambled, had a noble plan in the middle east, time will tell if it worked in Iraq.

    There is no guarantee that all the blood and money we put into Iraq and Afghanistan will have an outcome that we would hope for whether it is 2 years from now or 100.
    The problem in Afghanistan is much worse since it borders Pakistan.
    It is impossible to fix Afghanistan with the trouble in Pakistan.
    They can easily go back and forth.
    We can't control or fix our own borders much less theirs.

    As far as I'm concerned the mission in Afghanistan is over.
    Maybe other countries as well, Germany, etc.
    Time to bring the troops home.

    We would be much better off fixing our borders and spending money in Mexico to help slow down the Illegals coming into this country.
     
  9. Bandit88

    Bandit88 Old Enough to Know Better

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Messages:
    6,068
    Likes Received:
    511
    I recognize that not everyone shares my opinion of strategy in international relations and national security. For the record, I'm not keen on interventionist policy.

    Azerbaijan, Armenia, and that entire region is a ticking time bomb.

    Iran is a ticking time bomb.

    China's western provinces are a ticking time bomb.

    Check a map.

    My preferences aren't possible to PROVE - they're just what I would choose to do.

    We had plenty of money to stay in Germany, stay in the Pacific, stay in Korea. The money argument is a red herring. This is about political will to accept our role in the world. Obama and the Left do not accept it.

    But that doesn't change reality. There is only one power for good in the world. And it aint China or Europe.
     
  10. Sourdoughman

    Sourdoughman TigerFan of LSU and the Tigerman

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    12,314
    Likes Received:
    560
    I understand, no doubt we had to do this after :911:.
    The whole middle east is a ticking time bomb.
    Even if we have changed Iraq and Afghanistan some dictator similar to Saddam could come in and change everything in a heartbeat.
    Those people are simply wacko over there.
    I have to give Red credit on this one, he made me realize that throughout history the people in the middle east come and go and ruled by dictators.
    Just because you establish a democracy doesn't mean it will stay that way, it might but might not.
    I think it was a noble effort by Bush but the history isn't finished yet.
    And this is the reason why I am so hell bent on getting out of Afghanistan NOW!
    I don't want people in uniform killed once the political will isn't there.
    What is the point of bulking up forces and setting a deadline or even staying there at this point?
    This just makes me think that a bunch of Americans will die because we have to be there until a certain deadline has passed.
    You just have to wonder what more we can accomplish by being there at this point.
    As soon as we leave a vacuum may be created and change everything we did!
    I don't want to get in a quagmire there like the Russians either.
    I would feel differently if the situation was different.
    I agree with you and I'm sure we are in total agreement on a lot of issues.
    I just wish we would take care of things at home such as fixing the Illegal Immigration problem.
    Lets build a Las Vegas in Mexico and fix the borders.
     

Share This Page