Reply With Quote
Don't forget cutting and running from Beirut.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dagobe..._b_319182.htmlIf the answer is no then it is time to a return to the successful strategy that we had used when we first invaded Afghanistan right after the 9/11 attack but that has been forgotten or ignored in the eight years since then. That strategy was to send in CIA operatives with bags of money to buy off the warlords rather than troops with weapons. John Lehman, the former Secretary of the Navy, noted in an editorial in The Washington Post in 2006 that, "What made the Afghan campaign a landmark in the U.S. Military's history is that it was prosecuted by Special Operations forces from all the services, along with Navy and Air Force tactical power, operations by the Afghan Northern Alliance and the CIA were equally important and fully integrated. No large Army or Marine force was employed."
Don't forget cutting and running from Beirut.
...and hooray for granada!
ronnie knew when to bolt.
I can't forget the big one - Iran. The beginning of fundamentalists running the muslim country. Stopping the funding of S. Vietnam, hey only a few million died from that right. Oh well
That is one of Kerry's points for what went wrong. All the Dems ran with it. I think that is a great idea. Not 100% but it could work. A reason why it wouldn't work is the Northern Alliance would get decimated if they were expected to hold territory in the east near Pakistan.
yes, it was a sad day when the butcher (shah) was booted.
....i can ask a half dozen guys in here that will swear we won in vietnam.
.....
What?
You continuously post things that simply baffle me.
It was a for tat reply to Chumpy, I think. SnC wants to emphasize that Carter, Clinton and the 92nd Congress were even worse *appeasers* than Reagan. I think it hurts him to think that St. Ronnie was an *cut and run appeaser* too.
Ronnie cut and run from Beirut, then sold missiles to fundamentalist Iran.
What an appeaser!
He said it before chump made his comment. Its just such an example of doing anything possible to make the information fit the paradigm you've envisioned. We're there as liberators therefor how could these 2 actions do more harm than slick willy running tail tucked between his legs? I simply couldn't fathom it!
ehhhh that's the good thing about being surrounded by oceans. Chances are they will just blow each other up.
China and Russia want to keep ing around with the stains, godspeed brahs.
For once I wish the anti-war left would not shut up on this....
We had the Soviets with Reagan. It was a different world. I believe us letting the muslim radicals take over Iran like that and hold our citizens hostage created more terrorists than going to war with Iraq and Afghanistan.
What do you base this belief off of?
You are very amused with yourself.
What do you base this belief off of?
I base my beliefs on my background, education, cultural surroundings and religion.
You are very amused with yourself.
What do you base this belief off of?
I base my beliefs on my family background, education, cultural surroundings and religion.
I'm actually very amused with you.
Would you care to be more specific? I'd especially like to know how your religious background plays into the belief that the Iranian revolution is the cause of modern day terrorism.
father of the iranian revolution
jun. 20, 2007
michael d. Evans , the jerusalem post
...
The truth is the entire nightmare can be traced back to the liberal democratic policies of the leftist jimmy carter, who created a firestorm that destabilized our greatest ally in the muslim world, the shah of iran, in favor of a religious fanatic, the ayatollah khomeini.
carter viewed khomeini as more of a religious holy man in a grassroots revolution than a founding father of modern terrorism. carter's ambassador to the un, andrew young, said "khomeini will eventually be hailed as a saint." carter's iranian ambassador, william sullivan, said, "khomeini is a gandhi-like figure." carter adviser james bill proclaimed in a newsweek interview on february 12, 1979 that khomeini was not a mad mujahid, but a man of "impeccable integrity and honesty."
the shah was terrified of carter. He told his personal confidant, "who knows what sort of calamity he [carter] may unleash on the world?"
jpost blogcentral: A personal note from carter let's look at the results of carter's misguided liberal policies: The islamic revolution in iran; the soviet invasion of afghanistan (carter's response was to boycott the 1980 moscow olympics); the birth of osama bin laden's terrorist organization; the iran-iraq war, which cost the lives of millions dead and wounded; and yes, the present war on terrorism and the wars in afghanistan and iraq.
when carter entered the political fray in 1976, america was still riding the liberal wave of anti-vietnam war emotion. carter asked for an in-depth report on iran even before he assumed the reins of government and was persuaded that the shah was not fit to rule iran. 1976 was a banner year for pacifism: Carter was elected president, bill clinton became attorney-general of arkansas, and albert gore won a place in the tennessee house of representatives.
In his anti-war pacifism, carter never got it that khomeini, a cleric exiled to najaf in iraq from 1965-1978, was preparing iran for revolution. Proclaiming "the west killed god and wants us to bury him," khomeini's weapon of choice was not the sword but the media. Using tape cassettes smuggled by iranian pilgrims returning from the holy city of najaf, he fueled disdain for what he called gharbzadegi ("the plague of western culture").
Carter pressured the shah to make what he termed human rights concessions by releasing political prisoners and relaxing press censorship. khomeini could never have succeeded without carter. The islamic revolution would have been stillborn.
gen. Robert huyser, carter's military liaison to iran, once told me in tears: "the president could have publicly condemned khomeini and even kidnapped him and then bartered for an exchange with the [american embassy] hostages, but the president was indignant. 'one cannot do that to a holy man,' he said."
iranian president mahmoud ahmadinejad has donned the mantle of ayatollah khomeini, taken up bin laden's call, and is fostering an islamic apocalyptic revolution in iraq with the intent of taking over the middle east and the world.
Jimmy carter became the poster boy for the ideological revolution of the 1960s in the west, bent on killing the soul of america. The bottom line: carter believed then and still does now is that evil really does not exist; people are basically good; america should embrace the perpetrators and castigate the victims.
in the '60s it was mass rebellion after the assassinations of robert kennedy and martin luther king. When humanity confronts eternity, the response is always rebellion or repentance. The same ideologues who fought to destroy the soul of america with the "god is dead" movement in the 1960s are now running the arts, the universities, the media, the state department, congress, and senate, determined more then ever to kill the soul of america while the east attempts to kill the body. Carter's world view defines the core ideology of the democratic party.
What is going on in iraq is no mystery to those of us who have had our fingers on the pulse of both iran and iraq for decades. The iran-iraq war was a war of ideologies. Saddam hussein saw himself as an arab leader who would defeat the non-arab persians. Khomeini saw it as an opportunity to export his islamic revolution across the borders to the shi'ites in iraq and then beyond to the arab countries.
Throughout the war both leaders did everything possible to incite the inhabitants of each country to rebel - precisely what iran is doing in iraq today. Khomeini encouraged the shi'ites across the border to remove saddam from power and establish an islamic republic like in iran.
carter's belief that every crisis can be resolved with diplomacy - and nothing but diplomacy - now permeates the democratic party. Unfortunately, carter is wrong.
There are times when evil must be openly confronted and defeated.
khomeini had the help of the plo in iran. They supplied weapons and terrorists to murder iranians and incite mobs in the streets. No wonder yasser arafat was hailed as a friend of khomeini after he seized control of iran and was given the israeli embassy in teheran with the plo flag flying overhead.
the carter administration scrambled to assure the new regime that the united states would maintain diplomatic ties with iran. But on april 1, 1979 the greatest april fools' joke of all time was played, as khomeini proclaimed it the first day of the government of god.
in february 1979 khomeini had boarded an air france flight to return to teheran with the blessing of jimmy carter. The moment he arrived, he proclaimed: "i will kick his teeth in" - referring to then prime minister shapour bakhtiar, who was left in power with a us pledge of support. He was assassinated in paris by iranian agents in 1991.
i sat in the home of gen. Huyser, who told me the shah feared he would lose the country if he implemented carter's polices. Carter had no desire to see the shah remain in power. he really believed that a cleric - whose islamist fanaticism he did not understand in the least - would be better for human rights and iran.
He could have changed history by condemning khomeini and getting the support of our allies to keep him out of iran.
the writer is a new york times best-selling author. His newest book is the final move beyond iraq. www.beyondiraq.com
You say that the Iran Revolution did more to make terrorists than the the 2 current wars and the way you justify this statement is by providing an op ed piece which supports denying human rights and press censorship while seeking to put all the blame on Carter.
Amazing.
I find it absolutely laughable you think Jimmy Carter was the cause of the revolution in Iran but that really does not even address your first statement.
So his background and education, culture and religion is basically googling after shooting off his mouth.
So his background and education, culture and religion is basically googling after shooting off his mouth.
I think Afghanistan is gonna be a very dangerous place to be for awhile...also a pretty strategic place. For many of the reasons already stated.
I'm also not sure running Al Queda out of Afghanistan (whether it's actually possible or not) is such a great idea either. I think the "fight them there rather than over here" probably has more merit in Afghanistan than Iraq. And in that vein, you want to keep them there...and try to keep them out of places like Pakistan. A serious balancing act.
Islamic terrorism ain't going away anytime soon, it's going to be a very long haul here. But, in a post 9-11 world, fighting and learning about them over there seems to be the wisest course of action...and it beats the out of the alternatives.
Not a great scenario that I think anyone likes. But, it is what it is.
There's a good editorial from Friedman today.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/op...4friedman.html
Not Good Enough
By Thomas L. Friedman
Published: October 13, 2009
...
Talking to Afghanistan experts in Kabul, Washington and Berlin, a picture is emerging: The Karzai government has a lot in common with a Mafia family. Where a "normal" government raises revenues from the people - in the form of taxes - and then disperses them to its local and regional ins utions in the form of budgetary allocations or patronage, this Afghan government operates in the reverse. The money flows upward from the countryside in the form of payments for offices purchased or "gifts" from cronies.
What flows from Kabul, the experts say, is permission for unfettered extraction, protection in case of prosecution and punishment in case the official opposes the system or gets out of line. In "Karzai World," it appears, slots are either sold (to people who buy them in order to make a profit) or granted to cronies, or are given away to buy off rivals.
...
Rampant corruption in Afghanistan is key issue: top general
The top commanding officer in Afghanistan has revealed a belief that “rampant government corruption” has given the Taliban and al-Qaeda an edge in the war
http://rawstory.com/2009/10/rampant-...e-top-general/
I read that the Pakistan military was saying only $500M of the $5B in US military aid had actually reached the military. the other $4.5B? hmmm
The US is wasting its people and its treasure in these hole, savage, backward countries.
Agreed with you on the first two, which is why I think people can reasonably argue that we should leave the place, as we have no set idea on whether the resources will be worth it in the long run.
Additionally, there's a chance that all these fire ants will stop bothering us or lessen their attacks if we remove ourselves from the equation, instead turning on each other (Not guaranteed, to be sure, but a chance.)
Finally, if we took even half of the money that was being spent overseas, and instead invested it in thinktanks and better forms of security, we might be able to protect ourselves better. Airports, for instance, still are designed horribly in regards to safety measures.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
