Obama approves troop surge...

[SteamWake]

WASHINGTON (AFP) – President Barack Obama has approved the deployment of an additional 13,000 US troops to Afghanistan beyond the 21,000 he announced publicly in March, The Washington Post reported Tuesday.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091013/pl_afp/usafghanistanmilitarytroops

[Dowly]

More meat to the grinder. :yep:

[AVGWarhawk]

Welcome to Obama's war:-?

[ETR3(SS)]

Clearly the tactic that should have been employed all along was a zerg rush. Effective in Starcraft, so why not RL?

[SteamWake]

Clearly the tactic that should have been employed all along was a zerg rush. Effective in Starcraft, so why not RL?

Because Starcraft is a game?

[AVGWarhawk]

Because Starcraft is a game?


:yep:

[GoldenRivet]

funny.

no G.W. Bush style booing and hissing

whats with that? :06::06::06:

[longam]

Were running out of troops, they better make some more. We are getting spread pretty thin around the world.

[Skybird]

One could say: about time. Just too late, and I doubt it is sufficient.

One also needs to rename it, because it now is more a war on and in Pakistan than anything else.

Since YEARS I am preaching that the road to winning in Afghanistan, however unlikely that has already become, leads over neutralising Pakistan. And the enemy in Pakistan is two-folded: the Taliban, and their supporting smypathisers inside the structure of the armed forces and the intelligence services. The existence of the latter is what makes any prospect of lasting victory extremely unlikely. For that you would need to wage war against Pakistan itself.

I think the window of opportunity for Afghanistan has closed already many years ago, and the first step towards that outcome was shifting the battle focus from Afghanistan to Iraq. Now it is just about saving one's face by delaying admittance of failure as long as possible, at best cosmetical corrections of a failed outcome.

I tend to think that any troops being left there, are willed to be put at risk for nothing.

Deserting under such conditions imo becomes an at least morally legitimate option. If the government betrays it's obligations for the wellbeing of the troops and their legitimate and just committment, then the troops must no longer feel bounded to their obligations to that government in return. Because that obligation is a two-way road.

Quite drastic, but I stick to it.

Western nations should be forbidden to wage wars. They are too stupid for it.

[Skybird]

Were running out of troops, they better make some more. We are getting spread pretty thin around the world.

Have you never wondered why the Russians in the 90s almost invited, at least accepted it without resistance when you established that chain of military bases along their former southern provinces and around China? ;)

[JHuschke]

Maybe he'll approve of his own assassination..:woot:

[Dowly]

funny.

no G.W. Bush style booing and hissing

whats with that? :06::06::06:

We've booed and cried for so many years already that we are too tired to do it for another 8 years. :O:

[ETR3(SS)]

Deserting under such conditions imo becomes an at least morally legitimate option. If the government betrays it's obligations for the wellbeing of the troops and their legitimate and just committment, then the troops must no longer feel bounded to their obligations to that government in return. Because that obligation is a two-way road. I don't know how they do it in Germany, but here in the US you better stand by to go to Court Martial. When you enlist in the military here you swear an oath and sign a contract stating that you will follow all orders of your superiors. The only time you can defy orders is if it violates the Geneva Convention. That's why a lot of us denounce these guys that say that Iraq and Afghanistan are unlawful wars. They are violating their oath and contract of service.

[SteamWake]

Maybe he'll approve of his own assassination..:woot:

Holy bleep ! :o

[Skybird]

I made a moral argument, ETR3, to illustrate that sending troops into a war that is a betraying effort in itself and an abuse of these troops is an illegal act in itself. In other words: if the civilian authority giving orders to the army fails by intention, it shall not complain if people wearing uniforms are no longer willing to follow orders that put their lifes at risk just to save the skin of some political a$$####s.

And Pakistan slowly but surely becomes a risk that can no longer even be calculated. We will regret in the future that we allowed that to happen.

[MothBalls]

We need to pull out, send all the troops home. This is a no win situation. More troops = more Taliban will hide in Pakistan. Unless we decide to cross that border, there's no point in sending in more troops. This is going to be another Vietnam, a never ending war that's just going to cost money and lives with no hope of victory.

[Platapus]

Maybe he'll approve of his own assassination..:woot:

I think that is an inappropriate thing to post.

[Platapus]

Before we get too excited about any surge, these support troops are replacements for other support troops who are or are about to rotate back.

[Stealth Hunter]

Maybe he'll approve of his own assassination..:woot:

FBI is watching you.:up:

[SteamWake]

Before we get too excited about any surge, these support troops are replacements for other support troops who are or are about to rotate back.


Yup....

[Ducimus]

You know what im fuzzy on, is why we we focused on Iraq and not Afghanistan in the first place. I mean... last i checked, "the war on terror" was kicked off when some ragheads decided to park a couple airliners into twin towers, and the masterminds behind it all, was in Afghanistan, right? So where does the Iraq part come in? Oh that's right, i forgot, the WMD's that well..... it was an epic intelligence failure. So, what aside from "The terrorists might use NBC's on us!", does Iraq have any relation to September 11th? That one's a bit fuzzy to me.

Now, obviously, it's been my opinion that Afghanistan should have been the focus all along. Now, i'm certainly not trying to be a desktop general, but its definatly a place where using the right strategy is crucial (not called the graveyard of empires for no reason), cause the current one doesn't appear to be working if this is any indicator:

http://burnpit.legion.org/2009/10/the-battle-for-cop-keating-and-how-to-donate-to-help-the-troops-of-361-cav/

That link, really brings the reality of it home.

[Aramike]

You know what im fuzzy on, is why we we focused on Iraq and not Afghanistan in the first place. I mean... last i checked, "the war on terror" was kicked off when some ragheads decided to park a couple airliners into twin towers, and the masterminds behind it all, was in Afghanistan, right? So where does the Iraq part come in? Oh that's right, i forgot, the WMD's that well..... it was an epic intelligence failure. So, what aside from "The terrorists might use NBC's on us!", does Iraq have any relation to September 11th? That one's a bit fuzzy to me.Wait - you're unclear as to why we focused on a strategically significant part of the world versus a strategically INSIGNIFICANT part of the world?

Are you serious?

Hmm, let's see - one region has tremendous natural resources, is unstable AND borders a sworn ENEMY, while another ... is just there.

How does this confuse you exactly?

Liberals LOVE to pretend that they are all about being thoughtful, but in the end, they can only judge the current so-called "wars" on that it would be better to seek revenge than a strategic foothold.

Hilarious.

[Freiwillige]

We focused on Iraq because the Neo-cons that held the reigns of power wanted Iraq and were foaming at the mouth for it for years.

We focused on Iraq because Afghanistan is not nearly as threatening to Israel as Iraq was.

We focused on Iraq because of WMD's (Weapons made of dreams) and for humanitarian reasons. Forget that in Africa Genocide is common.

[Aramike]

We focused on Iraq because the Neo-cons that held the reigns of power wanted Iraq and were foaming at the mouth for it for years.Not smart.

The neo-cons could have more easily had Iraq in 91 during the first Gulf War.We focused on Iraq because Afghanistan is not nearly as threatening to Israel as Iraq was. That's true in as much as Afghanistan is not nearly a threat to ... well, ANYONE, that Iraq was. There's practically no resources and economy to speak of and no real benefit to building a nation there.

The fact that you single out Israel is foolish and exposes your ideological ignorance and bias, considering the same statement could be made regarding any nation on the planet.We focused on Iraq because of WMD's (Weapons made of dreams) and for humanitarian reasons.Yeah, that's right - Iraq never had WMDs, and never used them.

You're in la-la land. It was all just dreams.

Arguable, they didn't have weapons at the time of the invasion. Either way, the suspicion was no way unfounded.Forget that in Africa Genocide is common. Stellar logic: if you can't help them all, don't help any.

Good one.

[Castout]

....:hmmm: How about one more theater of war! Korea! Maybe soon?

And how about any faction intending to take advantage of US forces strain.
WWIII is looming:nope:.

[Aramike]

And how about any faction intending to take advantage of US forces strain.
WWIII is looming:nope:. As much as I'd love to crown you with a tin hat, I don't think you're wrong.

World War III won't look the same as the previous world wars, but it is indeed looming. The thing I'm most afraid of is that, even without nuclear weapons, the environmental impact of any global conflict will be catastrophic. Destroy just a few of the modern oil tankers for instance, and you have a serious problem.

[Castout]

As much as I'd love to crown you with a tin hat, I don't think you're wrong.

World War III won't look the same as the previous world wars, but it is indeed looming. The thing I'm most afraid of is that, even without nuclear weapons, the environmental impact of any global conflict will be catastrophic. Destroy just a few of the modern oil tankers for instance, and you have a serious problem.

I don't think tin hat works :rotfl2:. Not that I ever tried it lol

Just a hypothetical scenario:
Kim Jong Il and his regime are frustrated by talks that's going nowhere, at least nowhere he wanted it to be. So the regime decided to play a game of chicken by launching their medium range ballistic missile, the Rodong I or II this time over South Korea(over not aimed at), the South panic because it's accepted that the North is known to have nuclear warheads capable to be carried by the Rodong missiles. So the South thinking it was an attack or even if it knew it wasn't is not not going to do anything after a couple ballistic missiles went over their country so they decided to launch an air campaign against the North nuclear weapon infrastructures and systems.
Then I leave the rest to your own imagination . . .:O:

if you think that's a far off illusion then here it's confirmed the North has in possession at least two nuclear warhead capable to be carried by their Rodong system: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=aMDehZBzI84I

Or what if Iran decided to fish. . .and China along with Russia followed suit. It would then force India into the global conflict and with India comes along Pakistan another nuclear power. I better dig my nuclear shelter tomorrow lol

And do you realize that this war against terrorism is actually making terrorism flourishing . . .:shifty:
We never knew terrorism before 9/11 now we are familiar with the acts! From church bombing to embassy bombing to two Bali bombings to several hotel bombings. Good job! Your war against terrorism is making it more popular and rampant. Or is that what is expected? Since you give them all the more justification.

[Aramike]

And do you realize that this war against terrorism is actually making terrorism to flourish . . .:shifty:Castout, you were doing well until this... :salute:

Perhaps the so-called "War on Terrorism" (a misnomer if there ever was one) is creating more terrorist recruits than ever, but it certainly is impacting the ability for those recruits to effect any kind of major attack. Frankly, I don't give a damn how many Muslims (or whoever) are running around in camps with AK-47s ... what I care about is whether or not than can effect any kind of actual terrorist attack.

I wonder what you mean by terrorism flourishing. If you mean by terrorist attacks, you're flat out wrong. If you mean by terrorist recruiting - well, that's highly speculative any way you go. The suggestion that our enemies, culturally speaking, have been pushed over the very edge that CAUSED the WTC attack seems kind of foolish.

[Castout]

Castout, you were doing well until this... :salute:

Perhaps the so-called "War on Terrorism" (a misnomer if there ever was one) is creating more terrorist recruits than ever, but it certainly is impacting the ability for those recruits to effect any kind of major attack. Frankly, I don't give a damn how many Muslims (or whoever) are running around in camps with AK-47s ... what I care about is whether or not than can effect any kind of actual terrorist attack.

I wonder what you mean by terrorism flourishing. If you mean by terrorist attacks, you're flat out wrong. If you mean by terrorist recruiting - well, that's highly speculative any way you go. The suggestion that our enemies, culturally speaking, have been pushed over the very edge that CAUSED the WTC attack seems kind of foolish.

No offense :O: I know most Americans are highly sensitive over their war against terrorism issue but terrorist acts have been on the rise here where I live. We never knew terrorism before 9/11 now it's like a bi annual date with explosives.

[Aramike]

No offense :O: I know most Americans are highly sensitive over their war against terrorism issue but terrorist acts have been on the rise here where I live. We never knew terrorism before 9/11 now it's like a bi annual date with explosives.I didn't suspect you meant any offense but if terrorist attacks are on the rise in Jakarta it's a stretch to blame the US for it, don't you think?

Besides, the US is responsible for defending the US. Thus far the US has done a good job of that. If the rest of the world feel that cause is responsible for an increase on their soil, well ... that's tough sh!t. If they can't protect their country as well as we do ours, that's NOT our problem.

[Skybird]

Bush senior said he shied away from taking Iraq in 91 becasue of the costs in lives if attacking Bagdhad. which I take as not the real reason, but the real reason was that one wanted to leave Saddam in place to take care of certain other power factions in the region. That he was allowed to use helicopters in the onslaught against the Shia rise, and that one first talked the Shia into rebellion, then betrayed them and let them run into their massacring, is telltaling. also, there was very strong Arab opposition to a complete taking of Iraq or an invasion of the capital (still seen as brother nation of the Arabs) by the infidel Americans, also, most Arabs are Sunni muslims, and leaving Saddam in place promised the prospect of him taking care of the numerically strong potential opposition in Iraq, which were the Shia, plus shia Iran which always has had strained relations to the sunni Arabs. It was about maintaining the kind of stability that was lost once saddam was removed from power in 2003. As we all know, since then we have chaos in Iraq, and religious fanatism dominating.

Not before some time later, Wolfowitz and two or three others sat down and authored a paper that called for a second war on Iraq to remove Saddam and bring the flow of oil in that region under strategic control of the US, especially by economically controlling the keypoints in the economic network in the region, and Iraq. the massive engagements of Halliburton and associated subcontractors needs to be seen in this light, too. It was also to retake ground from French business actors who in the past years had taken over the once dominant role of anglosaxon oil companies in Iraq. This war was planned roughly ten years before the actual war in 2003 brake lose. It was willed the day Bush got elected. The plan dissapeared in a drawer during the Clinto years, and reappeared again immediately when Bush was elected, together with the gang that had written it. the war on Iraq was wanted since long BEFORE 9/11.

Then 9/11 happened, which was a happy thing, becasue it boosted Bush'S approval ratings that before were on a record low, he was openly mocked about and we still remember when on the way to his inauguration, I think, his limousine had stood several minutes in the rain because there was so much protest and laughter in the streets. At that time Bush was more seen as the king's jester than the president. 9/11 had two consequences.

First, the plan to attack Iraq had to be delayed, because Afghanistan puashed itself into the focus of attention violently.

Second, 9/11 gave the opportunity to produce a lot of pathetic and patriotic phrases that helped Bush to boost his public recognition and "correct" the broken image of his person. He used the attack not only to justify the reactive war against Afghanistan, but to create a mood in the public that saw the war on Iraq as justified as well and (wrongly) assumed that the Iraq war and Saddam were in any way linked to 9/11 and al Quaeda.

Afghanistan was a war of need. Iraq was the war of choice and desire. Afghnaistan served both as an unwelcomed and welcomed delay to the original plan to attack Iraq anyway. It delayed the war, but it also assisted in creating the public support for it.

All this is no consoiraton theory, but historic truth open to verifcation. It is jnicely summarised in thos docu I repeatedly pointed at in the past years, but do once again. not becasue the findings in it are unique, they are not, but because the docu excels in presenting the obvious truths that already were known long before the film was published (and became a big success). That way it is not so much brilliant in being investigative, but in presenting and summarising the back then already known background information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_end_in_sight

[Aramike]

All this is no consoiraton theory, but historic truth open to verifcation. It is jnicely summarised in thos docu I repeatedly pointed at in the past years, but do once again. not becasue the findings in it are unique, they are not, but because the docu excels in presenting the obvious truths that already were known long before the film was published (and became a big success). That way it is not so much brilliant in being investigative, but in presenting and summarising the back then already known background information.Skybird, you know this as well as I do - there are plently of position pieces to the contrary, and it would be foolish to accept any one as absolute truth.

But I have to query, previously I typically regarded your interpretation of international events to be fairly spot-on. Even on economics we have more in common than not. But lately you seem to be thriving on conspiracy theories ...

What gives?

Okay, I kind of know the answer to that - US Presidents in favor of America-first policy = conspiracy. That's the pattern. Either there's a global conspiracy perpetuated by the people lefties consider the least "bright", which involve all of us, or there is an incredible amount of US resentment eminating from your veins.

Either way, you're smarter than that. Your unbiased analysis' are almost always spot on. The problem only arises when you attempt to track down the tin-hatters.

[Skybird]

Your unbiased analysis' are almost always spot on. The problem only arises when you attempt to track down the tin-hatters.
The problem arises when I do not obey your political orientation, you mean. But it is nothing new what I say, and since many years a very prominent majority of people around the world, and even in the US, I would say, sees it like I described it. Also, many actors and time witnesses who had been in responsibile positions and offices and at location, confirm it. The preplanning of the war also is a fact, not a theory. One of the co-authors, Pearl, even called it a mistake years ago, when he stepped down from the stage of global attention. He cannot call a plan a mistake if it did not exist.

It all is so very obvious if putting all the pieces together that the conclusions spring into the eye all by themselves. One needs to intentionally close both eyes not to see it. But doing so is your problem - not mine, and nobody else's.

[Aramike]

The problem arises when I do not obey your political orientation, you mean.Why, goodness why, do people not understand that I am as politically independant as anyone? Whenever I defend either party, the opposite always just assumes that my political orientation must be just so.

Skybird, the problem is that you openly have declared your mistrust for anything and all things Republican, and you have seemingly biased your positions that way. I could possibly give you credit for an idea here and there regarding Republican treachery ... but the problem is that you consider ALL ideas of Republican treachery to be factual.

Sometimes you have some loose points that make up a whole (Iran hostage crisis, for example - although your interpretation is not only wrong, but largely discarded be even the liberal media). Sometimes you make some sense. But, by and large, your focus is always on the Republican US administrations, although at least economically they agree with you most.

Furthermore, you've not been at all shy about your condemnation of Islam and the ME - a very American-conservative stance. Yet, you seemingly constantly only find fault with REPUBLICAN foreign policy stances.

My BS meter works like this: it's easiest for me to take into account the perspective of the person who does NOT think consistantly along one ideological border. Just think about it - being able to stand up against one self is the greatest ability a thinker can have (yes, that quote is by me and recorded for posterity). Being able to say, "sh!t, I'm really stretching" is a good thing.

Skybird, you are smart enough in a lot of ways. But, you are indeed predictable. There isn't a liberal conspiracy theory you don't love. Moreso, I've NEVER seen you indict the left on their own conspiracies.

Hence, the joke.

[Skybird]

My stand on the Iraq war is not because my stand on the Republicans. It is based on the motivation and intention, the execution, and the outcome of that war, and the long-term consequences. It all was planned and executed dilletantic to the max.

You often tend to think of single oieces supoorting your view as being representative for a wide majorty of such hints and opinions and claims, by that you end up discrediting opposing other views as "minority thoughts" and dismissing them as being meaningless, "tin-hatting" and conspiration theory build along party-ideologic orders. But, well, that says more about you than about others. The history of the Iraq war is such a case. Your characterization of the octobre surporise story being a minor view only after you googled it, also is such an example. Becasue meanwhile, after that discussion, I googled it a bit, too, and found it to be like I described it to CaptainHaplo: that it is ciontroversially discussed, and that those supoorting the idea at least are as strong in camp soze than those dismissing the idea. I said to Haplo that I tend to agree with the story becasue most pieces and hints I got seem to indicate that it is true, while some speak against it. And right this way it is being described by very, very many people, some of them being poltical analysts and book authors. that'S what Google told me, and I cannot imagine that I have used so different search terms than you have. in that thread I gave a link to Neal that is a site giving a nice list of the pros and cons. Read that and then tell me that the evidence it all is just conspiration theory is overwhelming! It is not, the hints and views and arguments are pretty much balanced in numbers, with a slight advantage for the "it's true" camp.

Comparing two camps is no issue of finding a politically correct numerical balance between the two. If the one scores 3 positives and 2 negatives, and the other scores 7 negatives and 2 positves, then the one scores +1 and the others scores -5, and then I am not willing to distort it all to come to a conclusion about claimed "justicee" and seeing it "balanced and fair" when calling it a -2 for both, and both camps are claimed to score equally often in positives and negatives. I see republicans more often overstepping the line during the last campaign, in tone and agressiveness, than their opponents, and I see that to be a pattern that repeats itself since at least my late youth when I started to observe poltiics with at least some interest. I see them using big-mouthed bullying more often as a replacement for argument tha n the Democrats seem to do it. the republicans generally are the more aggressive and unscrupelous demagogues, and it has become especially clear in the absolutely unaccptable attacks on Obama over the health insurance story (Nazi claims, Palin: death camps for old people, etc). This is not free speech. This is the destruction of free speech. whenever in our local media a new info is published on some defaming event having taklen place, some overly aggressive phrasing: chances are that it has not been coming from the democrat'S sides. And when Pelosi for example called for some more self-restraint and that hate-filled language will necessarily lead to hatefilled violence on the streets sooner or later, or Carter pointing at latent racism, they get attacked by these very same voices for being just that "bitching Pelosi", and just that "whining Carter". I was as well, although back then people could not know my attitude towards Pelosi (I have none, btw, neither a positive nor a negative).

I base my thinking along party-ideologic borderlines, you say? I don't. But many people attack this or that politician or figure just he represents the wrong party. what (s)he actually said, does not interest them much. How's that for basing one's thinking along party-ideologic frontlines? the current level of bipartisanship in american politics seems to be unrivalled in the western world. I have no example on mind that compares to that, currently.

I will not slam Obama as massively as I slammed Bush, because so far Obama has not commited stupidities and crimes as serious as those of Bush. Nevertheless it should have become clear by now that I am far from being a great fan of him, and that I am a critical observer of him. as I said repeatedly: I recognize he is a brilliant speaker in that he is extremely clever in using those phrases that trigger the emptional responses in the audience that he wants to see being triggered. that I take anything as gold and as true what he says - I never have claimed. He makes instrmental use of his ability to effect the audience emotionally, and only sometimes, not always, intellect and emotions are in match. For example his famous speech on religion i found very convincing. His speech in Berlin however, was poure effect only, a rethoric masteropiece, yes - but by content? It was phrases. And the crowds cheered. He is very skilfull a speaker, no doubt. Compared to him Bush was a melancholic bull in a china shop. He was a lousy speaker, and only could beat that same old dead horse once again and then more: nationalistic and relgious pathos, and that was it. Like a musical score by Hans Zimmer turned into verbal phrases. Most scores by Zimmer I hate, really.

I could put it sharper and say Obama is the most skillful verbal manipulator I have ever seen, using words like a fencer uses a sabre, Errol Flynn style. But speeches do not really impress me. I want to see deeds. So far he has not delivered anything really remarkable, and some of the deeds he aims at I find quesitonable. But he has not produced desatewrs and fualures and betrayals like the decision to invade Iraq, or to massively favour big business linked to close buddies who are running his government, like Cheney and Halliburton et al. That's why all in all the current balance between Obama and Bush nevertheless is positive for Obama, all in all. I think he will not make that great an impact as was hoped for by his fans, for expectations have been pushed to too exaggerated heights. But he also will not mark such desastrous decisions like Bush has made, as far as we can tell until today.

If this assessment qualifies as being biased against republicans becasue I do not see both presdients as comparable in negative attraction, then so be it. I couldn't care less for an understanding of justice being limited to numerical euqality only. I try to see things unbiased, no matter the results this priduce. That is what I consider to be just.

[Tribesman]

I didn't suspect you meant any offense but if terrorist attacks are on the rise in Jakarta it's a stretch to blame the US for it, don't you think?

As its a worldwide war on terror America has then its no stretch .
As its apparenty America against Al-qaida and America says the Jakarta attacks are al-qaida linked then its no stretch at all.
I wonder how it is possible to link the recent increase in terrorism across pakistan to americas foriegn policy and the war on terror?
Or would that be a stretch?


If the rest of the world feel that cause is responsible for an increase on their soil, well ... that's tough sh!t.
Well what a surprise, that looks just like the attitude that led to idiots from the arsend of nowhere getting together and flying planes into downtown NY.

[stabiz]

More soldiers will be needed, as it appears the Italians are there on holiday.

[SteamWake]

As you can see the politicos are taking the situation quite seriously.


Senators diverted $2.6 billion in funds in a defense spending bill to pet projects largely at the expense of accounts that pay for fuel, ammunition and training for U.S. troops, including those fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to an analysis.

Among the 778 such projects, known as earmarks, packed into the bill: $25 million for a new World War II museum at the University of New Orleans and $20 million to launch an educational institute named after the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy,


http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/15/troop-funds-diverted-to-pet-projects/

[Ducimus]

Wait - you're unclear as to why we focused on a strategically significant part of the world versus a strategically INSIGNIFICANT part of the world?

Are you serious?

Hmm, let's see - one region has tremendous natural resources, is unstable AND borders a sworn ENEMY, while another ... is just there.

How does this confuse you exactly?

Liberals LOVE to pretend that they are all about being thoughtful, but in the end, they can only judge the current so-called "wars" on that it would be better to seek revenge than a strategic foothold.

Hilarious.


So cut the verbose fat away, and what your really saying is we went there for the oil. Yeah i suppose, though i don't like that idea. Again, all this **** started because of 911 (go go overused acronyms). Since then its been plainly obvious to the average american we have a little terrorist problem. One major root of the problem is Osama Bin Laden who finances and organizes alot of this, and was the one who was ultimately responsible for all the deaths that occured. Justice should be served.

That raghead, doesn't live in Iraq. Iraq, aside from oil, means two ****s to us. Infact, removing Saddam has arguably destabalized the region. If anyone would be a problem, it would be Iran. Iraq was a known factor, we could deal with them. By taking down saddam and his government, we did Iran a huge favor.

Afghanistan should have remained the focus until we got Osama, and we should have been using any and all means neccessary to nab him. Unfortunatly, focusing on it ,now, as skybird said, is too little, too late.

Oh, by the way, im not liberal, but since were making assumptions here, im guessing your some neocon. Neocons crack me the hell up. They're so quick to want our nation to go to war, and yet so many of them are either UNWILLING or DO NOTHING to support it except wave the flag around like a god damn set of pom poms at a high school football game. My loathing of these people defies description. All talk, and no walk. How many neocon's you see enlisting these days? That's what id like to know.

[Castout]

I didn't suspect you meant any offense but if terrorist attacks are on the rise in Jakarta it's a stretch to blame the US for it, don't you think?

Besides, the US is responsible for defending the US. Thus far the US has done a good job of that. If the rest of the world feel that cause is responsible for an increase on their soil, well ... that's tough sh!t. If they can't protect their country as well as we do ours, that's NOT our problem.

That they are targeting westerners doesn't bother you?:nope:
Of course if there were Indonesian victims they just said they were collateral damage. But I could use your logic here likewise.
Why would then the US ask the world to stand together to fight terror? It's either you're with us or against us kind of thing. I mean the 9/11 happened on American soil why would it be an international concern.

[August]

How many neocon's you see enlisting these days? That's what id like to know.

Probably way more than commie liberals would be my guess...

[Schroeder]

I think more troops alone won't solve anything down there.
We need to establish a decent (what ever that is) economy in Afghanistan otherwise every other gain will only be temporarily. As it is now corruption is the norm. There is nothing you can trust in in Afghanistan. The politicians are corrupt, the police are corrupt, the military are corrupt. As long as a lot of people take bribes (are in need of taking bribes) nothing will change.
Just a few days ago it was reported that thousands of formerly German pistols that were delivered to the Afghani police ended up in unknown hands and can be bought on basars now.:nope:
As long as things are going like that there will never be an Afghani police or military that can be taken seriously.
But that is not only the fault of the west alone. It's the Afghani's as well IMHO. They have been given the chance to build up the country again, but the personal profit thinking of some will ruin it for all. As long as policemen, soldiers, warlords and politicians take bribes to look the other way nothing will turn to the better.
That's why a solid economy is needed that can pay wages that make the security personnel independent from taking bribes.

I know that this is just wishful thinking that won't come true (were is that economy supposed to come from?) but as it is now I would say we have lost that conflict (or are at least not winning it).
Whenever the ISAF pulls out of Afghanistan the Taliban will be in charge again three weeks later.:dead:

[Ducimus]

Probably way more than commie liberals would be my guess...

Oh yea, more assumptions, or at least, a veiled insinuation. You know nothing about me. I'll tell you this much, before i enlisted, i was very much a little extreme right wing conservative, rush limbah listening, gun nut neocon. 7 years total time in service later, my tune changed. Drastically. Don't really care much for guns anymore (though i do own some), Rush limbah needs to run for office or STFU, and i'm not too keen on sticking our noses in other countries business. I'm entitled to that opinion and change of attitude i think, I did my time as the worlds policeman, have you?

Getting out of the service, i found that I'm neither liberal, or conservative. Im something both parties hate, an independant. Both parties are full of schitt. So you can take your barn yard (donkey) and circus animals (elephant) antics, and shove em somewhere.

As an aside, i love how some folks use "liberal" as a deragatory term for anyone who doesn't agree with their views. Too funny.

[August]

Oh yea, more assumptions, or at least, a veiled insinuation. You know nothing about me. I'll tell you this much, before i enlisted, i was very much a little extreme right wing conservative, rush limbah listening, gun nut neocon. 7 years total time in service later, my tune changed. Drastically. Don't really care much for guns anymore (though i do own some), Rush limbah needs to run for office or STFU, and i'm not too keen on sticking our noses in other countries business. I'm entitled to that opinion and change of attitude i think, I did my time as the worlds policeman, have you?

Getting out of the service, i found that I'm neither liberal, or conservative. Im something both parties hate, an independant. Both parties are full of schitt. So you can take your barn yard (donkey) and circus animals (elephant) antics, and shove em somewhere.

As an aside, i love how some folks use "liberal" as a deragatory term for anyone who doesn't agree with their views. Too funny.

You seem to have a really, really big chip on your shoulder Ducimus but the fact is that I didn't call you a liberal or a commie or anything else so you don't get to play the "outraged at being called names card" with me. Especially not when you engaged in the exact same thing in your previous post to Aramike.

[Tribesman]

More soldiers will be needed, as it appears the Italians are there on holiday.

They were not there on holiday, they were being very effective in using the same tactic America used in Iraq.
OK it was a bit bad for the French because when they took over the Italian area they were not told why it had been very quiet.

[Aramike]

So cut the verbose fat away, and what your really saying is we went there for the oil. Yeah i suppose, though i don't like that idea. Again, all this **** started because of 911 (go go overused acronyms). Yes, exactly.

Perhaps not so much for directly securing the oil, but - like it or not - oil is the life blood of the INTERNATIONAL economy.

9/11 was an excuse to go to Iraq - I don't disagree with that. Hell, the citizens were motivated and, as Rahm Emmanual has said, no crisis should go to waste.

I'm sorry but I can stomach strong actions geared at keeping stability in the world economy.Since then its been plainly obvious to the average american we have a little terrorist problem. One major root of the problem is Osama Bin Laden who finances and organizes alot of this, and was the one who was ultimately responsible for all the deaths that occured. Justice should be served.Justice and strategic interests are two different things.That raghead, doesn't live in Iraq. Iraq, aside from oil, means two ****s to us. Infact, removing Saddam has arguably destabalized the region.Really?

Do you really think that?

The region is no more or less stable than it was prior to Iraq. However, the difference is we now have 1000s of troops on the border of Iran, the most strategically dangerous nation in the world today.If anyone would be a problem, it would be Iran. Iraq was a known factor, we could deal with them. By taking down saddam and his government, we did Iran a huge favor. Your analysis of the situation is absurd, I'm sorry to say. By taking down Saddam and occupying the country, we've PREVENTED Iran from having the opportunity to seize the natural resources they so desperately covet.

Further more, Iraq was a secular nation - Iran is fundamentalist. We would have been hard pressed to gain ANY Middle Eastern foothold to launch an invasion of Iran due to the fact that the nation is based upon Islam. Iraq, on the other hand, was considered quite a nuisance and therefore gaining the necessary cooperation to invade was relatively easy.

In the end, however, we now have the capability to attack Iran directly, which is undoubtedly a great DETERRENT in the region, allowing for less bloodshed.Afghanistan should have remained the focus until we got Osama, and we should have been using any and all means neccessary to nab him. Unfortunatly, focusing on it ,now, as skybird said, is too little, too late.Two different situations.

What you're suggesting is akin to the US not defending against an invasion because the FBI is working on a kidnapping case.

We've paid for a military capable of fighting 2 and a half wars - there's no reason that we can't focus on both, and anyone thinking that one distracts from the other in the physical sense is fooling themselves. Ultimately, the only real distraction is from the media - they hate having to track two conflicts.

The military, on the other hand, is BUILT to do so.Oh, by the way, im not liberal, but since were making assumptions here, im guessing your some neocon. Neocons crack me the hell up. I didn't say you were a liberal.

Oh, and by the way - I'm not a neocon. I'm conservative in some ways and liberal in others. However, I'm well-schooled in the functions of internation affairs.

But misguided assumptions are fairly common with you, I suppose, having read your discourse with August.They're so quick to want our nation to go to war, and yet so many of them are either UNWILLING or DO NOTHING to support it except wave the flag around like a god damn set of pom poms at a high school football game. You can't possibly believe that rubbish is in any way poignant or applicable...

Plenty of people agree with causes they don't directly support for many, many reasons - on both sides of the aisle, and in the middle.My loathing of these people defies description. Then, like August said, you just have a chip on your shoulder.

I've never met someone so idiotic as to believe that agreement with an idea must be met with direct action. I highly doubt you actually believe that, and I suspect you either wrote that in jest, or really never thought about the people you loathe so greatly (which presents a whole different set of issues).

I mean seriously, can ANYONE be that foolish? The people "waving flags" and cheering are often running businesses that pay the taxes that allow for these evolutions to be executed. Or they are simply working and paying taxes. Or they are building the supplies we need.

I could go on forever. You really don't want to pursue that idea that you "loathe" anyone, if its based on such ignorance.All talk, and no walk. How many neocon's you see enlisting these days? That's what id like to know. What August said.

And seriously, what the HELL do you base that upon? Frankly, it seems like the mindless rhetoric of yet another drone who's only thought process is "this is bad", assigned to him by he who screams the loudest.

That is the type of person I loathe. I hope you're not that.

[Tribesman]

I'm sorry but I can stomach strong actions geared at keeping stability in the world economy.
And strengthening Irans control of the oil does what exactly ?

Justice and strategic interests are two different things.
Yes, but it was not in anyones strategic interests, apart from Irans.

The region is no more or less stable than it was prior to Iraq.
Thats true, he stability hasn't changed much it is just that the balance has shifted in Irans favour.
However, the difference is we now have 1000s of troops on the border of Iran, the most strategically dangerous nation in the world today.
:har::har::har::har::har::har:

By taking down Saddam and occupying the country, we've PREVENTED Iran from having the opportunity to seize the natural resources they so desperately covet.

You don't occupy the country , you have put a bunch of people who have been working with the Iranians for years in power. You helped the supreme council for islamic revolution do what they had been trying to do for decades.
We would have been hard pressed to gain ANY Middle Eastern foothold to launch an invasion of Iran due to the fact that the nation is based upon Islam.
errrrrr....Iran is shia , just like a lot of Iraq is, the rest of the nuts in the middle east thinks they are ungodly heretics who should be killed for contesting the true succession.
In the end, however, we now have the capability to attack Iran directly,
Under the terms of the agreement that allows American troops to remain in Iraq you cannot attack Iran from there.
The other facilities the US have in the Gulf all have conditions attached where their governments have said they will close them if America attacks Iran. All the gulf satates have declared that in the event of any attack all airspace will be closed to the US and territorial waters will be closed to both military and civilian shipping.
You made a claim about the importance of the area strategicly and for the world economy . But then completely ignore the reality of it.
America can do bugger all in the gulf, and the other states don't want america to try and do anything at all because they know how vital the flow of goods through the straight is.
But the real irony is that you write...
which is undoubtedly a great DETERRENT in the region,
when the mad mullahs in Iran are laughing their heads off because they understand the situation America has put itself in

[August]

FWIW I still believe we were right in taking out Saddam. He was like a dagger poised to strike the second we turned our back. I firmly believe he would have tried to get revenge for Desert Storm just as soon as the opportunity presented itself.

[OneToughHerring]

Because Starcraft is a game?

Are you saying the war in Afghanistan is not a game? OMG, what about the war in Iraq, has it been REAL people dying there all this time? ZOMG!1

[Aramike]

FWIW I still believe we were right in taking out Saddam. He was like a dagger poised to strike the second we turned our back. I firmly believe he would have tried to get revenge for Desert Storm just as soon as the opportunity presented itself.I agree, and the world is much better off with him gone.

It was yet another reason to support going into Iraq.

[Skybird]

The risks emanating from Iraq today are very much more dangerous than that of Iraq in 2002. The "liberation" has turned the country into what it was claimed to be in 2003, but in fact was not: a breedingground and playground for religious extremists willing to use terror and violence.

To assume that Saddam would have started troubles again "if given the opportunity", is wild guessing at best, becasue his teeth had been drawn in 91, and that he would have been given "the opportunity" again is unfounded theory at best. Militarily Iraq simply was not capable to be a threat to it's neighbours anymore. Simply that.

The region today has seen balances been shifted massively in favour of strategic interests of Iran. Iran does not even need to invets much into it anymore. They can afford to just lay in wait.

Iraq'S administration and security apparartus is deeply corrupted, divided by stronger ethnic-religious tensions than just some years ago, a stable, basic democratic order exists as intentions written on some paper at best, secret police and torturing is rule of the day again like under Saddam, and not a few say the latter are even worse than before. The level of bloodshed the removal of Saddam has caused especially amongst the civilian population surpasses that of what Saddam would have done in these 6 years, or used to do before. The assessement of US military professionals who had written reports about the capabilities of Iraq's security apparatus - were devastating, so bad these analysts see things. I linked to that before.

What all this casino-like adventurism has been worth, will be judged when the occupation ends and the last major US contingent has left the country. THEN - and not one day before - we will learn whether there was at least something that was worth it, or not. I don't hold my breath.