Thoughts on Afghanistan

[stebo0728]

Ive always been a big fan of just backing Israel, keeping them well armed (not that they dont make damn good arms themselves), and they will get sh*t done in that region without us ever having to set foot over there.

[WDRacing]

Funny...I have said almost those exact words for years. Israel not only knows what is required to wage and win but they have the will to do so. We haven't had the will since WWII. Everything we do these days is a half hearted attempt covered in a blanket of public appearance. Nothing against those that serve, it's not their fault that they are fighting with a handicap.

[bigbadberry3]

Inquisitive minds want to know your view on Iraq now?

[stebo0728]

WD ... I must admit some of my postion is based in religious belief. But I do believe Israel has proven itself more than capable of dealing with its red-headed step siblings (the muslim tribes) in that area. And not to forget, they are fighting for their very existence, whereas we are just fighting to gain "PC" face in the global perspective. I agreed with overthrowing Sadam, but I believe we got dubbed royally in the timing of it. And I think we took things too personally from Afganistan because of 9/11. Rather than making ourselves a new dog in the race over there, we need to get behind an already existing dog, back them fully, and let them do the work (Israel).

[WDRacing]

I try to leave religion out of my opinion if possible. I'm a WASP, so whatever drives the Jew's or Muslims isn't really something I fully comprehend so I don't like to speculate. I firmly believe that all faiths, at their core, are non-violent. Any twist taken by people where violence or force is a means to an end is all a misunderstanding of text. I don't blame faith, I blame people. People suck...the only thing we do well is kill each other, been that way since God lit the sun.

But religion is one of those subjects that we aren't supposed to talk about, regardless of the parties open mindedness and willingness to express thoughts without getting all emo. Again, people suck.

So with that said...

I would support Israel because they don't care what the world thinks and act accordingly. Their views don't clash with mine and I'm a firm believer in the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" thought process.

I can't really put into words how I feel about the entire Middle East without sounding like a racist or hate monger. Suffice it to say that I believe there will be no end to the violence over there or on our home soil...ever. If we're to "be at war" then we need to be at f*** war. What we're doing doesn't work, you either crush your enemy, or you don't war with them. There is no middle ground.

What would the Jihadist have to war about if we left their region? Why not just leave, give them the opportunity to win in their eyes. Let them have the victory of sorts. Let the evil empire that is the USA come on home and allow the other people of the world to run things how they will.

Then and only then can we truly say we're trying to resolve the conflict. We could fully rebuild the country for those that have been displaced. We could give any amount of aid that would be accepted and not come close to amount of money we spend daily by waging war. If the conflict doesn't end after we leave, then it's a war we didn't start or precipitate. Be damned all those that say "we have already done to much to be forgiven". If we are attacked after we pull out, then it highlights the fact that these people will never be reasoned with and there can be no winner in a "holy war".

I believe in freedom, personal and religious. The world has no place for a people nor religion that has no room for others. The only way to cleanse the issue is to be rid of it. It's a hard view point. One that lots of people have without saying it because it's ugly. IMHO using religion as a reason for violence is equally as ugly and perhaps worse do to the fanaticism inspired by faith. You can't fight fanatics with pamphlets and strategical attacks.

I'm tired of being at war when there is no way to win.

That and you could easily create more then 8 million jobs with the money we spend at war in 1 friggin quarter.

Inquisitive minds want to know your view on Iraq now?

Can't talk about Iraq in a thread about Afghanistan, the topics aren't similar enough other then we're at war with them to. I don't think we should be there anymore either, but for far different reasons.

[stebo0728]

Ive actually had alot of discourse with some people who are no longer muslim, and few who were hardcore, and left it because of what they saw. The perversion of Islam is the peaceful crowd that hangs out over here and plays nice. That is admirable, and is the way things should be, but the fact is, they are the ones perverting their religion, not following their holy book. According to Koran, you convert non believers, or you either enslave or kill them. No middle ground there. Like you said, its hard to handle a religion that has tolerance for other religions.

[IBCoupe]

Stebo, it's worth noting that you're getting that perspective from disillusioned fanatics.

Peaceful muslims are perverting Islam no more than peaceful Christians are perverting Christianity, or peaceful jews are perverting Judaism. The latter two, it should be known, actually involve a great many more lessons of violence within the pages of their holy books. Jews, for example, are commanded to commit genocide at times.

What makes violence more common among muslims (or what makes it appear that way) is the fact that, in certain parts of the world, muslims are far more observant than Christians and Jews are anywhere. The more strictly any group of people interpret the words of these violent religions, the more likely it is they're going to be violent. This holds true for any religion that contains violent text.

[WDRacing]

The true problem with religion is that the written text was interpreted by man. Thousands of years have passed and the one thing that remains is the will of man to press his will onto other men via all sorts of varied methods through times passed. We are no different today.

Which is one of the reasons I believe this isn't something you can "win" or achieve any sort of victory. So why fight, just leave. It's not our business to push democracy and freedom on others. If they wanted it, they'd have it.

[stebo0728]

Well said on both notes, and I dont wanna get into a religious flair lol, thats not the point here anyway, only to say that regardless of ours or anyone elses efforts in the middle east, that region will never know peace. Really the world as a whole will never know peace, but in the more civilized portions of the world we at least cling to some twisted version of peace. Im afraid even that is impossible in this region. Thats not to say that trying is worthless, but we should not be pouring LIVES into the slot machine. Money can be replaced, but the lives of our soldiers cannot. Send all the aid you want, have all the peace summits you want, sign whatever treaties you want, but lets stop pouring LIVES down the drain, in an area neither wants not appreciates our help.

[WDRacing]

I don't care if we send aid to other countries or not to be honest. I think the way we spread aid to countries is AFU. With the amount of money we send to Nations that don't do a damn thing with it we could have everyone in Africa drinking fresh water. But that's a whole different topic entirely.

As far as the topic of religion is concerned, I never understand why people get all bent out of shape at the first slander of their particular religion. Every religion I can think of is flawed in some way to some one...so who really gives a s***? Then again I get emotional over certain things that others don't I suppose...

Perspective is a b****

[AZhitman]

To get back on topic, and to bring this all back to a much more simplistic discussion (I've been out in the heat all day so I'm a little slow...)

Here's the deal: Right now, our troops are hamstrung. They're being told to operate under a very different set of rules than what they were trained to do, and it's smelling an awful lot like the last war we got sent home (unsuccessful) from.

War = killing the enemy and breaking all his toys. Period. We're either "at war" or we're "playing police", and we have NATO and the UN to do the latter. Either we start back to "shock and awe", or we go to some full-scale hardcore secret ops, or we get the hell out. I don't want MY tax dollars building schools and hospitals for people who'd just as soon piss on my kids than look at them. That's NOT what our military is for - They exist to kill people and break stuff, PERIOD.

Let the Middle Eastern factions duke it out. They were doing it before, they'll do it after.

[WDRacing]

Couldn't agree more, hence my statement about lacking the will power to do what's actually required to defeat an enemy in Afghanistan. Although I don't believe we can truly defeat anyone over there without some type of genocide. Which leaves controlling them as the only real option, which isn't something we should be involved in.

[stebo0728]

Theres just too damn many people on the earth, thats the whole problem ... lets move some to the moon, hey theres no bacon on the moon ...

[WDRacing]

Theres just too damn many people on the earth, thats the whole problem ... lets move some to the moon, hey theres no bacon on the moon ...

I see what you did there

[AZhitman]

I kinda see it this way:

If we're not willing to eradicate an entire city or two, or effectively cripple an entire country's infrastructure, then we're really not at "war", and we need to question our role going forward.

[IBCoupe]

I've always thought that the reinstatement of the draft could alleviate a lot of this.

Nobody opposed these "wars" from the beginning because it wasn't their kids at risk. People will continue to accept these "wars" because they've got no dog in the fight, so what do they care?

Yeah, okay, there's tax dollars at play, but it's not the same. People will whine about their money being taken away by taxes, and they'll whine about how it's mismanaged, but nobody's going to protest a war that's taken their loved tax dollars. In contrast, they will protest a war that's taken their loved children/parents/friends.

But, and here's the really messed up part: nobody mourns an all-volunteer army. They knew (or should have known) what they were getting into, and they made a choice of their own free will to be there.

[WDRacing]

I'm against the draft, but you're right.

We could indefinitely extend unemployment with ease if we weren't dumping so much money into a region of the planet that will never know peace regardless of what we do. You made a great point man, a perspective I didn't look at until now.

Sometimes I ask myself wtf our leaders are thinking, what are their motivations that lurk under that hazy blanket of BS politics and posturing?

Again this morning I heard something that makes me ache a little bit inside. Last month was again, the deadliest month since we started this damn "war". Every month yields more lives lost, more kids with no father or mother and for what? I mean...seriously, what is the end goal here? Surely our leaders don't think they can crush the will of a people bent of religious driven warfare. And if they indeed do think so, they need to be introduced to reality and soon. We're bankrupt as a country and we're killing off our children.

I'll put odds on Obamalamadingdong not taking steps to pull anyone out next year and he'll use Patraeus recommendations and past success as the token reason behind his change in plans. You wait...this is never going to end until someone sacks up and says we're fighting a unwinnable war. Obama doesn't have the balls my 2 yr old does FFS.

Hope and change my a**.

[IBCoupe]

President Obama's in a political predicament on that front, so I'm reticent to criticize him for whatever decision he'll make in the future. Ending a war is a lot more tricky than starting a war, which is why we should be extra careful about starting them in the first place.

If Petraeus makes a tactical recommendation, and Obama rejects it in favor of pulling out of Afghanistan, he will be skewered. Not just by the political opposition, but by the military. He's a civilian President with no military background, and he's going to stand up and say, "Yeah, I sent you 30,000 troops; now bring them back." Now he's being called spineless, but were he to do exactly what he's being criticized for not doing, he'd be called incompetent for it.

Having witnessed what was said about those who called for us to pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq while President Bush was still in office, though, I can't help but smell blatant political opportunism from the right on this one.

Edited to add:
As an aside, I'd like to state that I'm officially tired of the complaints about "hope and change" as a slogan. Just because the President doesn't do everything you want, and just because he hasn't painted the White House with purple polka-dots and instructed Congress to wear their suits inside-out doesn't mean he's not doing things differently from, if no one else, the previous administration.

[WDRacing]

You can be tired all you want, that won't stop the people that think he's a fool from saying it.

Yeah ending a war is tricky, but dude, we're out of money and people have starving children. When your bank account is being drained for no good reason you stop the f*** leak, period. It's simple, it just takes someone with balls to do it. The American people will jump for joy when we pull out of that POS country not only because we're not at war but because we'll have an influx of available cash.

Everyone over complicates things when they can be real simple.

PS, just because the past admins sucked, does not excuse the current one. We're supposed to learn from the past, not repeat it.

[IBCoupe]

I don't believe the war has much to do with American poverty - I think America's changing attitude towards welfare over the past 30-40 years has more to do with it.

And I'm not criticizing people for being critical of the President. I'm criticizing people for using the "hope and change" line as a crutch for their criticism. It's worn out. And I'm also not excusing current performance by pointing to past performance - I'm pointing out the logical flaws in using the line the way it's being used.

[bigbadberry3]

We're bleeding money and blood with no apparent success after 9 years, what is Petraeus going to be able to do with a couple more troops over there? Isn't there a supposed time table for the withdrawal of troops from Afgany?

PS I think the military industrial complex has gotten out of control.

[IBCoupe]

There's a timetable of sorts. There's a scheduled examination to consider withdrawing troops next year, but they were careful to state that they're not guaranteeing that the troops will be leaving.

[stebo0728]

Has no one caught onto the fact that part of the whole problem is the fact that we laid down a stupid time table? In boxing thats called telegraphing your punch. The insurgents can just lay low till we carry out our "time table" then kick right back in. I have been a HUGE opponent of the notion of a time table from day 1 it was suggested.

And on the "hopey changey thingy" my only complaint about that phrase is how vaguely it was used to win a freaking election! People voted just on the sheer notion that some sort of hope and/or change was going to take place, without any idea what that change would be, or what that hope would be for, and boy are we only now starting to realize just what that change is going to be about.

[WDRacing]

I don't believe the war has much to do with American poverty - I think America's changing attitude towards welfare over the past 30-40 years has more to do with it.

And I'm not criticizing people for being critical of the President. I'm criticizing people for using the "hope and change" line as a crutch for their criticism. It's worn out. And I'm also not excusing current performance by pointing to past performance - I'm pointing out the logical flaws in using the line the way it's being used.

I agree 100%

I have a laundry list of reasons that extend far beyond the "hope and change" slogan. But I see your point.

On the war I don't think it has to do with the US going into poverty, but it is an enormous expense. Billions a day...a day. I was on a mission trying to catch one terrorlst that excelled at teaching others to make bombs. We sat off the coast of the Philippines waiting to do a maritime interdiction. We floated for 97 days and didn't get him because the PI Gov kept messing things up, for instance blowing up his boat before he could leave. Anyway, the mission cost 3.6 Billion give or take a few bucks. That was one mission going after one man. Put that a global scale. The use of a C5 to transport 4 of our Pavehawks cost 1 Million and that was a one way trip.

Point being we spend a HOLY f*** amount of money every day over there. Money that could most definitely be used better IMHO then spent on a war with no end in sight. I consider every dollar spent over there to be a dollar wasted. If we were going to win, we would have already.

Has no one caught onto the fact that part of the whole problem is the fact that we laid down a stupid time table? In boxing thats called telegraphing your punch. The insurgents can just lay low till we carry out our "time table" then kick right back in. I have been a HUGE opponent of the notion of a time table from day 1 it was suggested.

And on the "hopey changey thingy" my only complaint about that phrase is how vaguely it was used to win a freaking election! People voted just on the sheer notion that some sort of hope and/or change was going to take place, without any idea what that change would be, or what that hope would be for, and boy are we only now starting to realize just what that change is going to be about.

Time tables and embedded press personnel are both huge mistakes made by Democrats.

Obama is only the POTUS because of other blacks voting for him souly because of his color and also the latino population. Those 2 things were enough to bring him over the top, not that the GOP put forth a worthy contender. McCain was a million years old and his running mate put more then one nail in his coffin. Sad really, like watching the perfect storm...

Oh yeah, I'm racist

[stebo0728]

I agree somewhat with your reasoning on how Obama won the election. I think there were more issues at play than JUST race, but I also try to see the other side of that token. Consider the tables turned, and white people had a history in the nation of first being held captive, used as property, and then only VERY slowly being given equal rights, having history involving segregated bathrooms, water fountains, and schools, and then fast forward half a century or so, and there is a black (i use the term loosely) man on the ballot. Not only a black man, but a black man that SEEMS educated, is VERY charismatic, seems to have at least some of the answers (regardless of what those answers are). I can understand why the vote went the way it did when considering all those aspects. It doesnt mean I agree with those reasons as means to determine your vote, and it doesnt mean that I am happy about it, but I think we will see in the lens of history, that this was an experiment in "equality" and though the nation is having gestational contractions at the moment, history was made. I just hope that history did not come at the expense of our childrens future.

[WDRacing]

I quit reading after you mentioned the what if, sorry dude...not gonna happen and I also dgaf about any past atrocities that white men may have had on black people. Yes racism is awful, but it's so over played that I simply don't care if it exists or not because it doesn't apply to me. Regardless of them wanting to see an African American as POTUS, point is that was their soul motivator.

You can look at it from a million different angles, facts are if he didn't have the Black vote he wouldn't be POTUS.

Off topic a bit...

[IBCoupe]

point is that was their soul motivator.

I can't tell if that was a typo or a super-clever pun.

Or both.

[mattblancarte]

I don't mind hearing people hold Obama accountable for his election promises. In fact, his similarities to the previous administration are what frustrates most people. We're getting the same runaround about our involvement in the middle eastern theater as we did before.

Sure, we'll begin a draw-down. Oops, just kidding, we'll set a timetable. Oops, just kidding, we're sending more troops and money.

I still remember watching a woman on TV talk about how she no longer would have to worry about her car payments, rent, etc. now that Obama was POTUS...

[IBCoupe]

I don't mind hearing people hold Obama accountable for his election promises. In fact, his similarities to the previous administration are what frustrates most people. We're getting the same runaround about our involvement in the middle eastern theater as we did before.

Sure, we'll begin a draw-down. Oops, just kidding, we'll set a timetable. Oops, just kidding, we're sending more troops and money.

I still remember watching a woman on TV talk about how she no longer would have to worry about her car payments, rent, etc. now that Obama was POTUS...

I don't mind that, either. What I do mind is that "This isn't the change I wanted!" has become a blanket, mindless criticism.

It's as if it is applied to anything.
"President Obama is just as liberal as Clinton! Is this really the hope and change we wanted?"
"President Obama isn't liberal enough! Where's your hope and change now?"
"President Obama reiterates his support for longstanding US policy! Hope and change?"
"President Obama wears the same suit two days in a row! Is this change we can believe in?"

Yes, that he's similar to his predecessor is what irks some, but it's not as if he's identical. For those people some change isn't enough. But for whoever it is that employs the tactic, appeals to campaign slogans as arguments are intellectually embarassing, especially now that we're coming up on two years since the slogans were used.

[mattblancarte]

"Hope and change" was the embodiment of his presidential philosophy during the campaign. Now that he's shifted away and made excuses for not going through with a some of his pillar promises, it's the easiest way to say, "Hey, this guy is full of it."

Although I agree that it's the most superficial way to express disappointment in this case, I don't assume inferior intellect when I hear it. I just ask for elaboration (if I care enough to ask).

The length of time since the last time he said his campaign slogans is irrelevant IMHO, as it was his promise to the people. If he didn't want people to call him out on such a blanket statement, he should have considered the message beforehand. He could also recant the slogan, and offer a new one. Perhaps this is what we'll see prior to the next election. He'd be crazy to use it again.

You're right in saying he's not identical to GWB, but he's close enough on a handful of very important issues where voters wanted to see real change (e.g., this thread's topic).

Anyways, I do agree that if people want to jab at the POTUS, they should be specific in their criticisms and avoid hyperbole. Smart folks like yourself will pick up on that right away.