Who does this guy think he is?!

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

GR - take a moment here mate. I understand the frustration - but you kind of implied a connection between other left wing issues and this - which isn't connected other than it being hard left agenda items. I understand where your coming from, but the post kind of appeared to be throwing things out there that aren't relevant to the topic you started. While I can probably agree with you on most of the issues - lets try to keep it on one so we can have a serious discussion. Otherwise it turns into a shouting match between ideologies - when it should be a discussion of specific ideas.

As a former wearer of a funny green suit for too many hours a day, for too many years, I don't agree with the policy. BUT - I don't see it as a slap in the face to the brave men and women who have given up life, limb or time to fight for the interests of this country. As a soldier, your duty is to carry out your oath to the country, and as long as your not violating that oath, follow the directives of the duly elected President. The President has changed, in a valid election, and thus the directives have changed. That does not reduce the sacrifice already given.

Tribesman - am I ignorant of history? Not on your life. I am a student of it. If you would like a little insight on the middle east and how terrorists cannot be trusted - here are a few links for you to review.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mitche..._b_154021.html

Hamas breaking an Egyptian brokered ceasfire.

http://olehgirl.com/?p=1867

Also - from a witness at the time....

And lastly.....

http://www.peacewithrealism.org/pdc/niceguys.htm

A historical view of a hudna and its true purpose - confirmed by the actions of Mohammed himself, as well as a more modern leader, Yasser Arafat in his stated intent to NOT abide by the Oslo peace accord.

I could give you links all day long. No, Israel is not blamesless, but the vast majority of duplicity is not perpetrated by them, but upon them. This is using one single group as an example, though I could do the same for others.

If you want a bit more on the history of the "honor" that Mohammed showed - check here:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Mu...-hudaibiya.htm

The end states it all - if your dealing with a muslim - their RELIGION says its ok for them to make an agreement and break it if its expedient, as long as the other person is a non-muslim.

That means any treaty or truce you make - is sure to be broken as soon as the follower of Islam feels its expedient. When you figure this out, you realize that open agreements, openly arrived at, are useless when dealing with the people of the middle east.

And just to keep some here from blowing off the sources, I even avoided putting anything in from foxnews.com.

Your approach is much appreciated and refreshing sir

[joegrundman]

then now that you are calm again, i repeat my question

What would you say are the key differences between this proposed strategy in Afghanistan and the policy Petraeus followed in Iraq (of making deals with various groups that were formerly united in opposition)?

[GoldenRivet]

Lets look at it this way.

If in ww2 there were Nazi sects that opposed some of Hitlers views - tactically you should try and take advantage if the rift.

But it doesn't change the fact that they are Nazis.

Same thing with the Taliban.

Unless you can form a strong and long term alliance with these "sects" (which given their nature I don't think you can) then ten years after we leave Afghanistan these guys are no less likely to go back to their old tricks.

It just seems like such an abrupt 180 in policy in my opinion.

I'm no general or head of state but I'm entitled to my opinion no less... And everyone here is free to agree or disagree as they please but for one member to call me a "moron" and another to call me a "strawman" because my views differ... That brings my piss to a boil rather quickly.

EDIT:

I would describe myself as "right of center" - whether thats a republican or not in some peoples eyes i dont really care. i have called out Bush on some of his shenanigans in the past - i dont follow the right blindly. I dont think McCain could be doing any better right now either.

im frustrated with politics in America as a whole... and the topic often stirs me to anger depending on the subject. Im frustrated with the left and im dissilusioned with the right.

it is an interesting place to be politically speaking

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

There is no such thing as an unwanted child.

Ha, I have to agree, just because a parent does not want the child, I'm sure the child wants itself, and will express this sentiment when it gets older, if given a chance.

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

I'm no general or head of state but I'm entitled to my opinion no less... And everyone here is free to agree or disagree as they please but for one member to call me a "moron" and another to call me a "strawman" because my views differ... That brings my piss to a boil rather quickly.

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

Thats not what I said. The strawman was your misrepresentation of the article posted, instead of arguing what was written you constructed a position that was not expressed and argued against that and I never called you an idiot.

In reclarification. Your post used a strawman argument, a logical fallacy, I never called you a strawman. That would be silly.

[GoldenRivet]

Ill repost me edit so it doesnt get missed

I would describe myself as "right of center" - whether thats a republican or not in some peoples eyes i dont really care. i have called out Bush on some of his shenanigans in the past - i dont follow the right blindly. I dont think McCain could be doing any better right now either.

im frustrated with politics in America as a whole... and the topic often stirs me to anger depending on the subject. Im frustrated with the left and im dissilusioned with the right.

it is an interesting place to be politically speaking

[joegrundman]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

Lets look at it this way.

If in ww2 there were Nazi sects that opposed some of Hitlers views - tactically you should try and take advantage if the rift.

But it doesn't change the fact that they are Nazis.

Same thing with the Taliban.

Unless you can form a strong and long term alliance with these "sects" (which given their nature I don't think you can) then ten years after we leave Afghanistan these guys are no less likely to go back to their old tricks.

It just seems like such an abrupt 180 in policy in my opinion.

I'm no general or head of state but I'm entitled to my opinion no less... And everyone here is free to agree or disagree as they please but for one member to call me a "moron" and another to call me a "strawman" because my views differ... That brings my piss to a boil rather quickly.

boiling piss notwithstanding, i think you still don't contrast the proposed strategy in Afghanistan with the one in Iraq that it was consciously modeled on. That also was a significant turn about in policy, when Petraeus decided to cut deals with those former adversaries that wanted something you could afford to give, and it seems to have been tolerably successful. Was it also a "bitch-slap to dead americans" in Iraq? If not, why is it in Afghanistan? Or you can at least show why your nazi analogy applies in Afghanistan but not Iraq.

I'm not tellling you that you are wrong, just asking you to explain your opinion.

Tribesman - am I ignorant of history? Not on your life. I am a student of it. If you would like a little insight on the middle east and how terrorists cannot be trusted - here are a few links for you to review

Well done , not only do you demonstrate your ignorance of history you post links that back up what I wrote too.
So is it a reading problem you have Halo ?

[SteamWake]

Sorry to interrupt the bickering here but I have to ask..

Where was this 'outrage' when Harry Reed stood on the senate floor and declared "This war is lost" ?

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

Sorry to interrupt the bickering here but I have to ask..

Where was this 'outrage' when Harry Reed stood on the senate floor and declared "This war is lost" ?

There was no outrage, Pelosi agreed with Reed. After all, no one wants to cross Pelosi

[Enigma]

Where was this 'outrage' when Harry Reed stood on the senate floor and declared "This war is lost" ?

Speaking personally, yes.

Whats the point?

[Oberon]

How do you win a war against an ideology anyway?

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Oberon

How do you win a war against an ideology anyway?

That is easy. Discuss it at the SS General Topics forum

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by joegrundman

boiling piss notwithstanding, i think you still don't contrast the proposed strategy in Afghanistan with the one in Iraq that it was consciously modeled on. That also was a significant turn about in policy, when Petraeus decided to cut deals with those former adversaries that wanted something you could afford to give, and it seems to have been tolerably successful. Was it also a "bitch-slap to dead americans" in Iraq? If not, why is it in Afghanistan? Or you can at least show why your nazi analogy applies in Afghanistan but not Iraq.

I'm not tellling you that you are wrong, just asking you to explain your opinion.

you misunderstand my argument i think.

Obviously the strategy applies to both theaters of conflict... however, this is not forming a strong, lasting, firm alliance with any one party which is what i think - if we are going to "reach out to them" is exactly what needs to be done - but i think one would have a hard time forming such an alliance with such people as the Taliban

the most radical reversal of policy IMHO - is taking 30+ years of "we dont negoatiate with terrorists" and spinning it around to "ok we will talk"

the slap in the face of it the way i see it is - i think in the article Obama should have been less quick to jump on the "we are losing the fight" band waggon.

look back to prior wars, i cant think of many leaders who have put forth such a defeatist attitude.

policies change and adapt... but what im referring to as a slap in the face is the defeatist attitude we have seen from the white house the past couple of months. not only defeatist on the economy but the war as well.

EDIT:

about leadership, an airline captain i am good friends with who also happens to be a former Air Force LC and Marine - his words are spot on about Obama and they include:

"Never dilute the hopes of your followers no matter how dire the situation."

"As a leader, people look to you whether you realize it or not, and whether they realize it or not... the attitude of a single man or a group of men can be radically changed by the characteristics he sees in his leader."

[CaptainHaplo]

Tribesman,

You asked me to give you specific agreements where terrorists have been the ones to break the agreement - I gave you one as an example, with 2 links to it.

You asked if I was ignorant of history regarding my statement that treaties with terrorists cannot be trusted, as if history indicated that my view was wrong. I provided two links to documented history demonstrating why my view is based on a knowledge of history.

Now you ask me if I have a problem reading? Apparently your intent on ignoring what the links stated - as each backs my point of view and refutes yours. Your posts indicate that this is a good move - showing you place a level of trust in the terrorists to abide by their agreements. History, as demonstrated by my posts, prove you wrong.

You can posture, but anyone actually reading - with some ability to comprehend what they read - will see that the links provided did NOT substantiate your view. Nice try though....