Reply With Quote
1) Take over the opium production...
2) Profit!!!!!!
please get serious
1) Take over the opium production...
2) Profit!!!!!!
Wow...please get serious
I see you are lacking in your Viet Nam history.
Congress made it impossible for us to win, so we pulled out.
Congress pulled out because of the large # of US casualties and the american public opposition. Neither of those 2 factors were going to go away, actually they were increasing.
Eventhen, what guarantee do you have USA would have won? NONE. talking out of your ass once again.
We were winning. Like it or not, the democrat controlled congress pulled the plug. I think they were afraid Nixon would get credit for winning a war.
keep telling yourself that.
thankfully the world has historians that employ historical data to tell us what really happened.
Yep, I agree.keep telling yourself that.
thankfully the world has historians that employ historical data to tell us what really happened.
What does "fooled by campaign rethoric" mean? That he was lying when he said he had a strategy? He said all those things before and after getting elected, he was the one deciding the troops increase. This isn't a proper way of handling these issues. There are more countries with troops in Afghanistan. Some send more troops just a couple of months ago after Obama toured Europe asking for more help in Afghanistan. Now you're saying those were just empty pla udes? I can't believe it. If so, the guy is either completely irresponsible, a dangerous liar or both.
Not quite. I just meant that Bush was easy to criticize for taking his eye off Afghanistan and OBL. And that it's one thing to say more resources will be committed when your SECDEF and commanders say two different things about the proper size of the US footprint.
It's fair to point out that Obama seemed to be more focused on things tactical than strategic during the campaign. Remember the tussle in the Presidential debate over drone strikes in Pakistan?
To be fair, the Afghanistan war has been strategically rudderless more or less since 2003: so the formulation of strategy at this point is, more or less, de novo.
As far as I know, he still is.He said all those things before and after getting elected, he was the one deciding the troops increase.
The whole war is based on empty pla udes and has been for some time. Our strategy is vaporware. You hadn't noticed this?This isn't a proper way of handling these issues. There are more countries with troops in Afghanistan. Some send more troops just a couple of months ago after Obama toured Europe asking for more help in Afghanistan. Now you're saying those were just empty pla udes?
Obama's an optimistic guy. He probably thought Afghanistan was winnable.I can't believe it. If so, the guy is either completely irresponsible, a dangerous liar or both.
I think he may be starting to realize he might be mistaken about that.
The greatest military in the world isn't going to change the idealism of an entire nation or people.
We can not, or never have been able to, change the views of a people if they are not accepting of our own.
It's what's happened in every war we've been in other than WWI, WWII and the Korean conflict when the majority of the people of the nation we were not popular to the idea of us being on their soil.
We did what we intended in defeating the Taliban at first. However...We did not chop the head of the snake in OBL and nor has he consented defeat.
Now with tensions running high in Iran...how do we fund (if it comes to that) a war against Iran and expect to pull our own nation out of economic despair?
War is ugly...it kills and mames many innocent people...but I would pull out of Afghanistan...rebuild our military for defensive purposes...let that part of the world dictate themselves into internal strife and pestulence...but let them know (whoever takes control) that if you attack us or our allies again there will be no mercy...no holding back...no prisoners...total annihilation. It's the only thing it seems that the people of that region of the world seem to understand. They don't value democracy, government, or hold regard for anything other than their religious beliefs and 1,000's of years of tribal conflict. We can't change that nor has any other country or dictator been able to in the past.
Financially...take care of our own. Stop throwing billions in aide and warfare to a region that will never believe in our philosophies. And as stated before...if any new government or dictator resides in power of that area...make it clear that we will not hesitate to annihilate that area if ever attacked.
Standing back and looking at what has been happening it almost seems that the radical dictators and religious leaders of that area are purposely wanting us to be militarily involved in that region. Maybe their secret goal is to financially bring us down through military conflict. It worked against the USSR.
Nixon was recorded saying he avoided as much as possible civilian areas. He targeted military routes and groups. I think WC meant the fields. Our technology on weapons has improved since that time.
Also I wonder if just getting out of nation-building but having troops there for quick response would do. I think the liberals would go against it because of the "indecency" of not helping the civilians of our enemies.
Look at the date.
The Declining Terrorist ThreatPublished: Tuesday, July 10, 2001
WASHINGTON -- Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.
None of these beliefs are based in fact. While many crimes are committed against Americans abroad (as at home), politically inspired terrorism, as opposed to more ordinary criminality motivated by simple greed, is not as common as most people may think.
At first glance, things do seem to be getting worse. International terrorist incidents, as reported by the State Department, increased to 423 in 2000 from 392 in 1999. Recently, Americans were shaken by Filipino rebels' kidnapping of Americans and the possible beheading of one hostage. But the overall terrorist trend is down. According to the Central Intelligence Agency, deaths from international terrorism fell to 2,527 in the decade of the 1990's, from 4,833 in the 80's.
Nor are the United States and its policies the primary target. Terrorist activity in 2000 was heavily concentrated in just two countries ? Colombia, which had 186 incidents, and India, with 63. The cause was these countries' own political conflicts.
While 82 percent of the attacks in Colombia were on oil pipelines managed by American and British companies, these attacks were less about terrorism than about guerrillas' goal of disrupting oil production to undermine the Colombian economy. Generally, the guerrillas shy away from causing casualties in these attacks. No American oil workers in Colombia were killed or injured last year.
Other terrorism against American interests is rare. There were three attacks on American diplomatic buildings in 2000, compared with 42 in 1988. No Americans were killed in these incidents, nor have there been any deaths in this sort of attack this year.
Of the 423 international terrorist incidents do ented in the State Department's report "Patterns of Global Terrorism 2000," released in April, only 153 were judged by the department and the C.I.A. to be "significant." And only 17 of these involved American citizens or businesses.
Eleven incidents involved kidnappings of one or more American citizens, all of whom were eventually released. Seven of those kidnapped worked for American companies in the energy business or providing services to it ? Halliburton, S , Chevron , Mobil, Noble Drilling and Erickson Air-Crane.
Five bombings were on the list. The best known killed 17 American sailors on the destroyer Cole, as it was anchored in a Yemeni port, and wounded 39. A bomb at a McDonald's in France killed a local citizen there. The other explosions ? outside the United States embassy in the Philippines, at a Citibank office in Greece, and in the offices of Newmont Mining in Indonesia ? caused mostly property damage and no loss of life. In the 17th incident, vandals trashed a McDonald's in South Africa.
The greatest risk is clear: if you are drilling for oil in Colombia ? or in nations like Ecuador, Nigeria or Indonesia ? you should take appropriate precautions; otherwise Americans have little to fear.
Although high-profile incidents have fostered the perception that terrorism is becoming more lethal, the numbers say otherwise, and early signs suggest that the decade beginning in 2000 will continue the downward trend. A major reason for the decline is the current reluctance of countries like Iraq, Syria and Libya, which once eagerly backed terrorist groups, to provide safe havens, funding and training.
The most violent and least reported source of international terrorism is the undeclared war between Islamists and Hindus over the disputed Kashmir region of India, bordering Pakistan. Although India came in second in terms of the number of terrorist incidents in 2000, with 63, it accounted for almost 50 percent of all resulting deaths, with 187 killed, and injuries, with 337 hurt. Most of the blame lies with radical groups trained in Afghanistan and operating from Pakistan.
I am not soft on terrorism; I believe strongly in remaining prepared to confront it. However, when the threat of terrorism is used to justify everything from building a missile defense to violating cons utional rights (as in the case of some Arab-Americans imprisoned without charge), it is time to take a deep breath and reflect on why we are so fearful.
Part of the blame can be assigned to 24-hour broadcast news operations too eager to find a dramatic story line in the events of the day and to pundits who repeat myths while ignoring clear empirical data. Politicians of both parties are also guilty. They warn cons uents of dire threats and then appropriate money for redundant military installations and new government investigators and agents.
Finally, there are bureaucracies in the military and in intelligence agencies that are desperate to find an enemy to justify budget growth. In the 1980's, when international terrorism was at its zenith, NATO and the United States European Command pooh-poohed the notion of preparing to fight terrorists. They were too busy preparing to fight the Soviets. With the evil empire gone, they "discovered" terrorism as an important priority.
I hope for a world where facts, not fiction, determine our policy. While terrorism is not vanquished, in a world where thousands of nuclear warheads are still aimed across the continents, terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way.
Larry C. Johnson is a former State Department counterterrorism specialist.
So you're saying a terrorist attack justifies spending lots of money on missile defense and violating Cons utional rights?
I'm about as conservative as they come and I'm not even gonna try justifying Vietnam. Afghanistan is gonna be Obamas Vietnam only worse. LBJ and Nixon didn't have the internet and cable TV to deal with.
Magik Negroid is being extorted by his careerist generals and their fellow-travellers the neo-c*nts and MIC corporate hit men.
If MN makes the right decision, they will rain so much on him, but "real Americans" will be happy to be out of there, which would easily benefit all Americans, and not just military + MIC
Oh I won't justify a cause for going to Viet-Nam either, but congress didn't allow us to finish a conflict of the military's terms, and look what happened. I wonder if congress would have insisted on continued funding if Humpry won rather than Nixon.
I truly believe they didn't want a Republic to win at a war they started.
How long do you think the military should be allowed to fight a war?
How long do you think the military should be allowed to fight a war without public approval?
I have no time-frame. The is why we pulled out. Especially after making significant advances. We were winning and congress pulled the plug.
War by polling?
Wow...
A good leader can honestly tell the people why we should continue. The military should be able to give the president sound projections. Once we engage in war, we fight to win. We fight unless the military says they cannot win. Not because of some cute activist like GI Jane.
The military shouldn't be allowed to fight wars without Congressional approval at all.
Should Congress decide to withhold funds necessary to the conduct of a war, legally speaking that would be 100% proper, wouldn't it, WC?
I don't think he meant "polling" This is a democracy, in case you forgot.
Considering that it is technically Congress's job to declare war, then we can deduce that war can only be waged with the consent of the people. Agreed?
That's not how it works though. Maybe if wars could be started by the President, this might apply. But wars are started through Congress for a reason. America can only fight with the consent of its people.
Tell me, what 'victory conditions' would signify a win in this 'war on terror'?
I agree. Heck, given the makeup of Congress nowadays, I don't think we should even be allowed to fight WITH Congressional approval sometimes.
So, he either was speaking the truth when he said he had a strategy but that strategy isn't working and he's back-pedalling now - meaning his first big strategic decision in one of the most important issues was an absolute disaster or he really didn't have a strategy, all the rhetoric about having one was just political propaganda and the decision to make the troop deployment was more dictated by the polls than any consistent plan.
I don't know which is worse. In any case, it's a tremendous failure for this administration - except if they keep on pursuing the strategy of total defeat of the Taliban.
just now being classified as a failure lol
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions