Who does this guy think he is?!

GoldenRivet · 03-08-09, 12:54 AM

Did i wake up in some strange twilight zone episode???

W T F?

http://news.aol.com/article/obama-af...taliban/373693

he just bitch slapped every dead American soldier across the face.

nice.

Sea Demon · 03-08-09, 01:02 AM

Perhaps this is a reason we can see this reality....

Different Presidents, A Different Corps. Speaks volumes. These people know.

surf_ten · 03-08-09, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Perhaps this is a reason we can see this reality....

Different Presidents, A Different Corps. Speaks volumes. These people know.

I wonder how many military members wonder if the Obama administration itself classifies as a domestic threat to the constitution.

antikristuseke · 03-08-09, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

he just bitch slapped every dead American soldier across the face.

In what way?

Kapt Z · 03-08-09, 09:48 AM

"The idea of cooperation with some in the Taliban has been talked about for many months by American military commanders including Gen. David Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command."

"Last month, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that Washington could accept a political agreement between the Afghan government and the Taliban if the insurgents will lay down their arms and accept the government's terms."

Sounds to me like it's hardly just Obama's idea.

Whether it will work? Who knows. In order for us to get ourselves out of both Iraq and Afghanistan deals are going to have to be struck and struck with some unsavory characters. Like it or not we may have little choice in the long run.

CaptainHaplo · 03-08-09, 11:07 AM

"deals must be struck"

See - this is the definition of defeatism - instead of WINNING - which is imposing the conditions of peace upon your enemies - its now "lets talk about what they want so we can leave."....

If you think this is victory - or even a draw, you have NO understanding of the Arab mind. Their SURVIVAL and our withdrawal under condtions are all they need to claim victory.

Look at the history of Israeli withdrawals that have been agreed to, then placed under fire at the last minute so that the terrorist militias could and did claim that the enemy was "driven" away.

This is what so many said would happen. If it happens - it once again gives the impression of the US tucking its tail and running.

To be clear, no sane person likes battle - much less those of us who have been in one. But we are in one - and the sad thing is - we are not in it to win.... Between the image this could create, and the fact that "treaties" with terrorists never are followed through by them - this is going to truly create the biggest mess in known history before its over. Elements like this don't want peace, they want to fight, and only look for a ceasefire when they are getting their asses kicekd. Once they get one, they rebuild for another fight.

Schroeder · 03-08-09, 11:14 AM

And what would the alternative be? Send more troops? Good, but where to? The Taliban are already regrouping in Pakistan so victory can't be achieved by actions in Afghanistan alone.

antikristuseke · 03-08-09, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

"deals must be struck"

See - this is the definition of defeatism

No, it is the definition of diplomacy. This problem is not a nail that can just be hammered, a biger hammer will not help in this case.

Kapitan_Phillips · 03-08-09, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

"deals must be struck"

See - this is the definition of defeatism

No, it is the definition of diplomacy. This problem is not a nail that can just be hammered, a biger hammer will not help in this case.

CaptainHaplo · 03-08-09, 11:51 AM

Schroeder,

For an alternative - feel free to read the foreign policy discussion in the following thread:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=147353

Its a couple of pages in when it starts I believe. Effective, safe and cheap. VERY few US casualties and eradication of the problem.

Now - KapitanPhillips and Antikristuseke - you both seem to want to ignore the reality. How many times has "diplomacy" been tried with terrorists and been successful long term? Both of you totally ignored the WHY diplomacy wont work in my post above.

I am for diplomacy - coming to a reasonable agreement between reasonable people or countries or groups is a wonderful thing - and should be encouraged. However, when you make an agreement - BOTH sides should respect and live up to the terms stipulated, and to date there has not been one single instance where terrorists have done so, for any length of time longer than they needed to rearm and prepare to renew the conflict.

How quickly people forget their history. The name Cordell Hull ring a bell with you? He was negotiating with Japan when their bombs were falling on Pearl Harbor. A fanatical control structure in Japan, and a nutcase in Europe, caused us to be in world war 2. How many times did Hitler make an agreement and then break it? Its one thing to be diplomatic - its another to close your eyes to reality and think that if you hope long enough, the bad things will go away.

Sooner or later, history shows that those who cannot be trusted to live up to their agreements - must be dealt with in a very.... FINAL ... manner.

fatty · 03-08-09, 01:01 PM

The Japanese case study is good for that time period but ignores the modern realities of fourth generation warfare. The Japanese government and state were/are a cohesive decision-making body; the Taliban is a fractured non-state actor with varying elements and levels of extremism.

The moderate splinters of the Taliban are interested in ceasing their attacks in exchange for political inclusion and being given a permanent seat at the table with Karzai. If you think this is defeatism then you're in for a very long war.

CaptainHaplo · 03-08-09, 01:08 PM

Fatty, you have a very good point. I would agree that the moderates just want a seat at the table. However, you can't make a different agreement with every splinter - and how would you be able to tell if/when a violation occured who did it? You have to remember - your point of it not being a central controlling body is both right and wrong. There still is a heirarchy. Who do you make an agreement with, and then how do you know when things go to heck in a handbasket, which faction screwed it up for everyone? You surely don't expect them to police their own do you? After all - the entire Islamic religion has shown its incapable - or unwilling - to do so.

Therefore - any agreement made already has "deniability" for any violation by the terrorists build in. Not the right move.

Kapt Z · 03-08-09, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Schroeder,

For an alternative - feel free to read the foreign policy discussion in the following thread:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=147353

Its a couple of pages in when it starts I believe. Effective, safe and cheap. VERY few US casualties and eradication of the problem.

Now - KapitanPhillips and Antikristuseke - you both seem to want to ignore the reality. How many times has "diplomacy" been tried with terrorists and been successful long term? Both of you totally ignored the WHY diplomacy wont work in my post above.

I am for diplomacy - coming to a reasonable agreement between reasonable people or countries or groups is a wonderful thing - and should be encouraged. However, when you make an agreement - BOTH sides should respect and live up to the terms stipulated, and to date there has not been one single instance where terrorists have done so, for any length of time longer than they needed to rearm and prepare to renew the conflict.

How quickly people forget their history. The name Cordell Hull ring a bell with you? He was negotiating with Japan when their bombs were falling on Pearl Harbor. A fanatical control structure in Japan, and a nutcase in Europe, caused us to be in world war 2. How many times did Hitler make an agreement and then break it? Its one thing to be diplomatic - its another to close your eyes to reality and think that if you hope long enough, the bad things will go away.

Sooner or later, history shows that those who cannot be trusted to live up to their agreements - must be dealt with in a very.... FINAL ... manner.

Wait a minute. You're not talking about bombing holy cities again are you?

Enigma · 03-08-09, 05:25 PM

He slapped every dead American soldier in the face? Someone else asked, but I have to, also. In what way??

It has been a successful tactic of special forces units for decades, to hook with local forces and deal with them to America's advantage. I'm not sure I understand the outrage here.....

03-08-09, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Did i wake up in some strange twilight zone episode???

No , its just what the pentagon was saying before the invasion and what the new Afghan puppet/president has been saying for the past 4 years .
The twilight zone was back in the days of Bush where this sort of stuff was ignored. That was the bitch slap to the dead (and living)servicemen ....well that and the starving them of men and resources to go and play silly buggers in Iraq for Irans benefit.

Quote:

See - this is the definition of defeatism - instead of WINNING - which is imposing the conditions of peace upon your enemies - its now "lets talk about what they want so we can leave."....

If you can't win then it isn't defeatism its realism.

Quote:

Look at the history of Israeli withdrawals that have been agreed to, then placed under fire at the last minute so that the terrorist militias could and did claim that the enemy was "driven" away.

Sorry you will have to refresh my memory . What agreements ?
Israel has only had two agreements and they have both been stuck to , I think you are confusing that with unilteral declarations which don't mean bugger all and joint declarations where neither party has complied with the arrangements which makes them null and void

Quote:

and the fact that "treaties" with terrorists never are followed through by them

Are you entirely ignorant of history ?

03-08-09, 12:54 AM	#1
GoldenRivet Subsim Aviator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 8,726 Downloads: 146 Uploads: 0	Who does this guy think he is?! Did i wake up in some strange twilight zone episode??? W T F? http://news.aol.com/article/obama-af...taliban/373693 he just bitch slapped every dead American soldier across the face. nice. __________________

03-08-09, 11:07 AM	#6
CaptainHaplo Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,404 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	"deals must be struck" See - this is the definition of defeatism - instead of WINNING - which is imposing the conditions of peace upon your enemies - its now "lets talk about what they want so we can leave.".... If you think this is victory - or even a draw, you have NO understanding of the Arab mind. Their SURVIVAL and our withdrawal under condtions are all they need to claim victory. Look at the history of Israeli withdrawals that have been agreed to, then placed under fire at the last minute so that the terrorist militias could and did claim that the enemy was "driven" away. This is what so many said would happen. If it happens - it once again gives the impression of the US tucking its tail and running. To be clear, no sane person likes battle - much less those of us who have been in one. But we are in one - and the sad thing is - we are not in it to win.... Between the image this could create, and the fact that "treaties" with terrorists never are followed through by them - this is going to truly create the biggest mess in known history before its over. Elements like this don't want peace, they want to fight, and only look for a ceasefire when they are getting their asses kicekd. Once they get one, they rebuild for another fight. __________________ Good Hunting! Captain Haplo

03-08-09, 11:14 AM	#7
Schroeder Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Banana Republic of Germany Posts: 6,170 Downloads: 62 Uploads: 0	And what would the alternative be? Send more troops? Good, but where to? The Taliban are already regrouping in Pakistan so victory can't be achieved by actions in Afghanistan alone. __________________ Putting Germ back into Germany.

03-08-09, 11:51 AM	#10
CaptainHaplo Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,404 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	Schroeder, For an alternative - feel free to read the foreign policy discussion in the following thread: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=147353 Its a couple of pages in when it starts I believe. Effective, safe and cheap. VERY few US casualties and eradication of the problem. Now - KapitanPhillips and Antikristuseke - you both seem to want to ignore the reality. How many times has "diplomacy" been tried with terrorists and been successful long term? Both of you totally ignored the WHY diplomacy wont work in my post above. I am for diplomacy - coming to a reasonable agreement between reasonable people or countries or groups is a wonderful thing - and should be encouraged. However, when you make an agreement - BOTH sides should respect and live up to the terms stipulated, and to date there has not been one single instance where terrorists have done so, for any length of time longer than they needed to rearm and prepare to renew the conflict. How quickly people forget their history. The name Cordell Hull ring a bell with you? He was negotiating with Japan when their bombs were falling on Pearl Harbor. A fanatical control structure in Japan, and a nutcase in Europe, caused us to be in world war 2. How many times did Hitler make an agreement and then break it? Its one thing to be diplomatic - its another to close your eyes to reality and think that if you hope long enough, the bad things will go away. Sooner or later, history shows that those who cannot be trusted to live up to their agreements - must be dealt with in a very.... FINAL ... manner. __________________ Good Hunting! Captain Haplo

03-08-09, 01:08 PM	#12
CaptainHaplo Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,404 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	Fatty, you have a very good point. I would agree that the moderates just want a seat at the table. However, you can't make a different agreement with every splinter - and how would you be able to tell if/when a violation occured who did it? You have to remember - your point of it not being a central controlling body is both right and wrong. There still is a heirarchy. Who do you make an agreement with, and then how do you know when things go to heck in a handbasket, which faction screwed it up for everyone? You surely don't expect them to police their own do you? After all - the entire Islamic religion has shown its incapable - or unwilling - to do so. Therefore - any agreement made already has "deniability" for any violation by the terrorists build in. Not the right move. __________________ Good Hunting! Captain Haplo

03-08-09, 01:02 AM	#2
Sea Demon Ocean Warrior Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: USA Posts: 2,552 Downloads: 33 Uploads: 0	Perhaps this is a reason we can see this reality.... Different Presidents, A Different Corps. Speaks volumes. These people know.

03-08-09, 09:48 AM	#5
Kapt Z Grey Wolf Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: ...somewhere in the swamps of Jersey. Posts: 909 Downloads: 157 Uploads: 0	"The idea of cooperation with some in the Taliban has been talked about for many months by American military commanders including Gen. David Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command." "Last month, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that Washington could accept a political agreement between the Afghan government and the Taliban if the insurgents will lay down their arms and accept the government's terms." Sounds to me like it's hardly just Obama's idea. Whether it will work? Who knows. In order for us to get ourselves out of both Iraq and Afghanistan deals are going to have to be struck and struck with some unsavory characters. Like it or not we may have little choice in the long run.

03-08-09, 01:01 PM	#11
fatty The Old Man Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Canada Posts: 1,448 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	The Japanese case study is good for that time period but ignores the modern realities of fourth generation warfare. The Japanese government and state were/are a cohesive decision-making body; the Taliban is a fractured non-state actor with varying elements and levels of extremism. The moderate splinters of the Taliban are interested in ceasing their attacks in exchange for political inclusion and being given a permanent seat at the table with Karzai. If you think this is defeatism then you're in for a very long war.

03-08-09, 05:25 PM	#14
Enigma The Old Man Join Date: May 2005 Location: At comms depth, obviously. Posts: 1,476 Downloads: 7 Uploads: 0	He slapped every dead American soldier in the face? Someone else asked, but I have to, also. In what way?? It has been a successful tactic of special forces units for decades, to hook with local forces and deal with them to America's advantage. I'm not sure I understand the outrage here..... __________________ "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." -Mark Twain