i still think this guy is a spy for the russians
It's like listening to Rummy for advice..
1. Get most of the troops out of Afghanistan
2. Hunt Al-Queda leaders using high tech weapons
3. Support Pakistan's Military in repressing Taliban sympathy in Pakistan and in hunting down any Al-Queda..
4. Keep the Taliban unstable by killing it's leadership
5. Find out who is supplying the Taliban with money and weapons and hurt them..
Fixed.
En serio, Dan, by my reading you're completely wrong about number one. Kissinger is for the change recommended by Gen McChrystal -- a massive counterinsurgency ramp up.
Kissinger is a SOB....let Dubya own this war...if Obama sends in the troops needed to regain control in Afghanistan, then this boon-doogle becomes his war....
If Obama pulls out, he'll wear the loss around his neck, even though his predecessor bollixed it up. He's no Ike.
But he could be an LBJ. If he ramps up, but fails to turn the tide, he may lose in 2012.
For the political fortunes of Mr. Obama, there appear to be no good choices in Afganistan, and Iraq could still bite him on the ass.
We can't win in the conventional sense, we never could. The country is beyond hole status and has been for decades, I don't think anyone other than literally a handful of people was alive the last time that country wasn't a hole.
Afghanistan needs an economic infrastructure and that's hugely difficult task to pull off period much less all at once. It's not that we can't win there so much as it is you can't knock someone down when they are already lying on the ground. We can't win there militarily because there is nothing left to bomb and the government in power is less competent than the Taliban is.
Not to mention that country is surrounded by 4 countries that aren't particularly fond of true Democracy and have zero desire have the US over there...those guys can wage war with us for pennies on thre dollar if we stay on the offense trying to control areas that are simply beyond our control because they border the powerful countries in that region.
You can't look at victory in terms of controlling the geographical boundaries of the country.
Pick a spot, be the government for that spot, I don't mean prop one up, as their government is incompetent and corrupt itself. I mean be the government for that spot turn it ino a non- hole with an infrastructure where women are actually treated as human beings and you mount your charge culturally and economically.
Offer unconditional shelter and aid to any female Afghanis and their children and you get the UN and other countries to pony up some of the money for it in the name of humanity and you use the one resource Afghanistan has in abundance(and I've had a hard time finding one), the fact that it is smackdab between Iran, Pakistan, China and (more or less) the Russian sphere of influence.
As for Kissinger, if I want to lose a war, he'll be the first guy I call up. I'm not a fan of unbridled idealism but Kissinger represents the extreme opposite end of the spectrum. I literally hate this guys opinion on conflict.
And you guys that just want to leave that a country a festering hole while still claiming to be members of the human race....May you be reborn an Afghani woman in your next life. Whatever you are you certainly aren't liberals...I suggest you get a clue what the word is supposed to mean(and I already know Kissinger isn't one).
I don't think it's wrong to say we can't win there...but there's something wrong with liberals saying em'...their problem not ours. Abivalence isn't liberalism...
Afhanistan, right? I mean, Pakistan is close to being a failed state with nukes. Let's let it fall to Taliban and other Al Qaeda sympathizers. What could go wrong?
The libs humanity need not extend beyond the borders of the United States. With that alone they attain and hold moral high ground.
Can't one understand the plight of others, even sympathize, without wanting to use our national resources?
Surely, if conservatives can discuss how people in America don't need handouts, they can see the idea transported overseas?
Sure you can....just stop operating under the delustion you are in any way a liberal.
Surely, if conservatives can discuss how people in America don't need handouts, they can see the idea transported overseas?
We are talking about a culture where where women are not allowed to become doctors and not allowed to see male doctors, one of maybe 2 countries in the world where men live longer than women...a country where the slave trade it still strong and a country that is used as a literal toilet by the surrounding countries...and is in that state entirely due to it being used as a proxy battleground.
If you think anything good is going to happen, by walking past the rape, you are truly deluded.
More to the point, their problem, most certainly can become our problem if we just do nothing, see September 11th 2001 for a better example here.
Personally I love this debate because all the bull you guys have been spewing for 8 years now gets exposed for being the complete bull it is...
There is no oil there. So you cannot pull the oil card.
They are not White, so you cannot pull your stupid racism card.
They are not Christians, so you can not pull your religion card.
They are not Arabs so you cannot claim it is merely their way and just let them go about their business.
I assure the women of that country do not consider being born into that life as...their way.
There is only one reason to attempt to win anything there, and that is simply because it is probably the most inhumane place on this entire planet and it and the hanfful of places like it speak poorly of us a species.
You simply don't want to spend the money.
You know, when they sit there and look at us and hate us for our wealth and say we are this big group of colossal decadent self absorbed assholes who care about no one but ourselves...I wonder which of the two of us here truly fits that bill...Mr. Liberal.
Like I said, I've got no problem with your extremely selfish and greedy position...I just have a problem with you operating under the delusion you are a liberal as you dehumanize pretty much everyone except the other non-liberal idiots thinking they are liberals.
And finally...we'll talk money since put that above human life, Mr. Liberal...
If you think shutting down all our overseas bases and bringing those people home is going to somehow improve our unemployment issues, you are really stupid. I suggest you go take a look at the depression era of the US...see what they did that compounded the problem.
This is what I've been saying for years...you guys aren't liberals, you guys are the greedy, racist, isolationists of historic note you claim the Republicans are....and the at ude you take on Afghanistan proves it.
So now the righties here are supporting never-ending war in Afghanistan for "humanitarian" reasons, and esp for female humans?
Seems like the righties' humanitarianism stops at the US borders, within which they don't GAF about the for-profit private insurance companies and for-profit health care system letting 10s of 1000s of AMERICANs die for want of health care and from avoidable medical errors, every year.
Whott, the US, esp not US Army, is never going to change the Muslim/tribal culture than treats women like disposable animals. It's not just the Taleban extremists who treat women horribly (by Western standards).
What's next? invade Africa to stop genital mutilation?
I don't think I've referred to myself that way. I could be mistaken. I'm certainly socially liberal. Not quite so much on foreign and monetary policy.
This is true. It's also true that I don't think we can effectively change a culture that has been around for centuries.
Nice strawman. The United States is more involved with the rest of the world than most other nations, so I don't see why they'd hate us more than other nations. There's also many people who hate us because we think the sun shines out our ass and we can fix any problem with enough guns.
Why is it any more extremely selfish or greedy to not want to spend money helping foreign countries instead of Americans?
It's the same argument that conservatives make when they complain about being taxed. I'm not against people deciding to donate to worthy causes to help out those third world nations, after all. I'm just skeptical of our government being able to effectively transform the culture of an entire country.
Oh well good...as long as you realize that.
But it hasn't been like that for centuries...it's much worse now than it has ever been before. In no small part due to the actions of our country and the other superpowers.This is true. It's also true that I don't think we can effectively change a culture that has been around for centuries.
I personally think it's our movie stars.Nice strawman. The United States is more involved with the rest of the world than most other nations, so I don't see why they'd hate us more than other nations. There's also many people who hate us because we think the sun shines out our ass and we can fix any problem with enough guns.
Why is it any more extremely selfish or greedy to not want to spend money helping foreign countries instead of Americans?
It's the same argument that conservatives make when they complain about being taxed. I'm not against people deciding to donate to worthy causes to help out those third world nations, after all. I'm just skeptical of our government being able to effectively transform the culture of an entire country.
The Republicans aren't the ones throwing around the greedy racist card claiming they abhor violence and value humanity...it is the liberals that do that.
And if you say you aren't one...well good for you, so then why are you answering for those who claim to be one? See your response to 101a's statement if you still don't get what I mean.
I guess they are in it for the oil.So now the righties here are supporting never-ending war in Afghanistan for "humanitarian" reasons, and esp for female humans?
Seems like the righties' humanitarianism stops at the US borders
Right, which is why we're having this debate right now.
I'm sure they care...I think it's more a case of they don't want the government becoming one of them.within which they don't GAF about the for-profit private insurance companies and for-profit health care system letting 10s of 1000s of AMERICANs die for want of health care and from avoidable medical errors, every year.
Furthermore, last I checked it was mostly the conservatives saying the insurance companies....as opposed to the libs who want to turn the government into one.
I'm not advocating a military war...the only application I'm in favor of using the military for is maintaining a presence.Whott, the US, esp not US Army, is never going to change the Muslim/tribal culture than treats women like disposable animals. It's not just the Taleban extremists who treat women horribly (by Western standards).
And it won't be endless...it will stabilize a region of that country and in a few decades they'll be claiming we're the problem and demanding that we leave, and the end result is that it will be less of a hole.
Spoken like someone who truly cares about slavery...What's next? invade Africa to stop genital mutilation?
Like I said, nearly everything you have ever said on this forum has been bull , and this debate proves it.
"Savages"
I remember when you said it about the Iraqis.
That's exactly what the slave owners said boutons... em they're savages.
I'll repeat what I said a while back...you guys are about as liberal as my butthole.
American foreign policy is liberal in nature only when its convenient to the realist goals. Darfur? Rwanda? What?
Well, I saw a few conservatives who championed our fight in Iraq as a fight for freedom over there.
I can appreciate those who want to fight for freedom in other countries; I just doubt our ability to effect change, and to do so in a way that doesn't spend a great deal of our resources and severely compromise our ability to defend ourself.
I somewhat see your point. I just wanted to clarify that one could have sympathy for an oppressed people without necessarily wanting our government to intervene.
Can someone photoshop the word, "impotent catchphrases" into this photo?
The bottom line as it pertains to Afghanistan...we are already there. Lives have already been lost, money has already been spent. More to the point, we, our country, our government, played a huge role in Afghanistan becoming the modern day hole that it is...
To the others championing the poor...there is no comparison between being poor in America and being poor in Afghnistan...
Let's do an exchange program of our poor for theirs...see which place they grade as being the better place to live.
I think not drinking your own sewage is a privilege many Americans take for granted.
"Lives have already been lost"
ah yes, the old dubya logic "We have to keep wasting more lives to honor the those lives we've already wasted"
Generals are supposed to offer their political leaders war strategies on how to win battles, not a withdraw plan, so in a way, McCrystal is doing what he is supposed to be doing....it is the political leaders who must decide whether to follow the General's advice ...and many times they don't...best case scenario, Obama sends in the troops needed to contain the Taliban....your never gonna kill all the Taliban....so your stuck with 100K troops in Iraq, who you can't withdraw or Iraq becomes a Iranian satellite state.... and Afghanistan where you won't be able to withdraw or that country falls to the Taliban...and lets say you over-throw the Taliban completely in Afghanistan...who is to say that the next Democratically elected leader won't be a religious nut who wants to instill Sharia Law....
Is that worth spending another trillion dollars on? Quit thinking that these people are gonna evolve politically just because the U.S. props up their govt....we could be stuck in Afghanistan for a very, very long time...and as we've seen with the poppy-fields, nothing for now will change...
I thought Obama was ferociously in favour of this war. He called it a "war of necessity", wasn't it?
According to reports this morning the administration is painting the 40,000 troop request as the middle ground option. If this is indeed true then you can be fairly certain they will be sending 40,000 more troops in.
I don't necessarily like it, but we'll see what type of results we get. I'm not holding my breath for an increase in success
I disagree. I don't think those goals are anywhere near being accomplished with the current situation. The Talibans have the momentum and perceptions matter so much that a momentum shift is essential. If the NATO troops withdraw now, how many months will it take till the Talibans enter triumphantly in Kabul, wavering shotguns on the top of trucks? 4, 5?
In Iraq the situation isn't exactly perfect but the terrorist insurgency was limited and weakened to a point where they won't pose a major threat in the future and a withdraw won't be confused with a defeat or used to propaganda effects, as Kissinger adverts.
The world should just nuke the entire ing middle east.
That place will always be a hole, always causing problems. If you are not going to nuke it, quit sending men and women over there to die for nothing.
Radioactive oil deposits could be more fuel efficient.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
