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.

I think that is an inappropriate thing to post.

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.

FBI is watching you.:up:

Yup....

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/th...ps-of-361-cav/

That link, really brings the reality of it home.

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.

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.

Not smart.

The neo-cons could have more easily had Iraq in 91 during the first Gulf War.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.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.Stellar logic: if you can't help them all, don't help any.

Good one.

....: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:.

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?p...d=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.

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.

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.