# Time to Get Out of Afghanistan



## Skull Pilot (Sep 1, 2009)

washingtonpost.com



> "Yesterday," reads the e-mail from Allen, a Marine in Afghanistan, "I gave blood because a Marine, while out on patrol, stepped on a [mine's] pressure plate and lost both legs." Then "another Marine with a bullet wound to the head was brought in. Both Marines died this morning."
> 
> "I'm sorry about the drama," writes Allen, an enthusiastic infantryman willing to die "so that each of you may grow old." He says: "I put everything in God's hands." And: "Semper Fi!"
> 
> ...



I agree.  Do you?


----------



## Truthmatters (Sep 1, 2009)

He was for it before he was agin it


----------



## random3434 (Sep 1, 2009)

> So, instead, forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.
> 
> Genius, said de Gaulle, recalling Bismarck's decision to halt German forces short of Paris in 1870, sometimes consists of knowing when to stop. Genius is not required to recognize that in Afghanistan, when means now, before more American valor, such as Allen's, is squandered


.


That sounds like a good plan. Can it be implemented, and soon?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 1, 2009)

Truthmatters said:


> He was for it before he was agin it



who?


----------



## Colin (Sep 2, 2009)

Much as I would be among the first to see the withdrawal of ALL our troops - having a family member about to deploy there yet again - the situation is not that cut and dried.

I see so many platitudes of puffery written by journalists who know not what they talk about. This appears to be yet another example.

The objective is to provide security for the Afghanistan government while we build and train their own forces to take over the role of security. Remove all the troops and the opportunity to train an Afghan army and security forces is removed. The country would simply fall back into Taliban oppression and the lives of those who made the ultimate sacrifice would have been wasted.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 2, 2009)

Colin said:


> Much as I would be among the first to see the withdrawal of ALL our troops - having a family member about to deploy there yet again - the situation is not that cut and dried.
> 
> I see so many platitudes of puffery written by journalists who know not what they talk about. This appears to be yet another example.
> 
> The objective is to provide security for the Afghanistan government while we build and train their own forces to take over the role of security. Remove all the troops and the opportunity to train an Afghan army and security forces is removed. The country would simply fall back into Taliban oppression and the lives of those who made the ultimate sacrifice would have been wasted.



The "government" of Afghanistan barely controls one third of the country so in effect, there is no government.

It is not nor should it ever be the job of the US military to establish a government where there is none, nor to build roads, schools and hospitals for that matter.

There is no clear and present danger to our country from Afghanistan or the Taliban.

And the lives and valor of our troops have been wasted by the government for a cause that is not ours.  Surely, the answer is not wasting more.


----------



## Colin (Sep 2, 2009)

Once you've started something, you finish it. By the way. My relative is a British soldier. It isn't just the USA fighting this war you know...although it was started by you guys.


----------



## Truthmatters (Sep 2, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > He was for it before he was agin it
> ...



Mr Will


----------



## xsited1 (Sep 2, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> ...
> 
> I agree.  Do you?



Yep, time to leave.  Now.


----------



## Truthmatters (Sep 2, 2009)

How come you were willing to give Bush Years to fix it yet you are not willing to give Obama even months to do so?


----------



## strollingbones (Sep 2, 2009)

Colin said:


> Once you've started something, you finish it. By the way. My relative is a British soldier. It isn't just the USA fighting this war you know...although it was started by you guys.



why continue to pour men's lives into this mess?  we should have learned from russia's prolonged engagement in afghaniistan.  they have no fear of a modern army due to defeating the russians.  i see no reason to continue to engage in a war we clearly cannot win, no matter how many troops or cash we toss at it.


----------



## xsited1 (Sep 2, 2009)

Truthmatters said:


> How come you were willing to give Bush Years to fix it yet you are not willing to give Obama even months to do so?



Is your question for Colin?

Next time, click 'Quote' so we know to whom you are responding.


----------



## manu1959 (Sep 2, 2009)

Colin said:


> Once you've started something, you finish it. By the way. My relative is a British soldier. It isn't just the USA fighting this war you know...although it was started by you guys.



actually this is a continuation of a war started long before the usa existed............


----------



## manu1959 (Sep 2, 2009)

Truthmatters said:


> How come you were willing to give Bush Years to fix it yet you are not willing to give Obama even months to do so?



i wasn't ....we shouldn't be there ....we should not have one troop anywhere in the world other than on us soil or in a country that has asked us to be there and is paying the bill to have us there....

further we should not be spending one us tax dollar on anything but us soil and us citizens.....


----------



## Mr Natural (Sep 2, 2009)

I'll bet the Russkies are laughing their asses off at us.


----------



## manu1959 (Sep 2, 2009)

Mr Clean said:


> I'll bet the Russkies are laughing their asses off at us.



or the french or the english or the spanish......they have all lost there as well......


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 2, 2009)

Truthmatters said:


> How come you were willing to give Bush Years to fix it yet you are not willing to give Obama even months to do so?



who, me?

I was never willing to give bush a pass on Iraq or Afghanistan.

Neither action should have been taken.


----------



## Truthmatters (Sep 2, 2009)

Pakistani nuclear weapons.

Taliban going back and forth at their will over the mountains of tora bora.

How would you like to live in a world with the taliban having nukes?


----------



## manu1959 (Sep 2, 2009)

Truthmatters said:


> Pakistani nuclear weapons.
> 
> Taliban going back and forth at their will over the mountains of tora bora.
> 
> How would you like to live in a world with the taliban having nukes?



if we had no troops in the middle east and cut off all funding world wide.....the taliban wouldn't be fucking with us.....they would be someone elses problem....if the decided to launch a nuke at the us from whereever.....that would be the end of wherever as well as the taliban....


----------



## Mr Natural (Sep 2, 2009)

manu1959 said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > I'll bet the Russkies are laughing their asses off at us.
> ...



Yup, them too.


----------



## asaratis (Sep 4, 2009)

Mr Clean said:


> manu1959 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Clean said:
> ...


The French are still there.


----------



## namvet (Sep 5, 2009)

bring em all home. none of our kids should have to die for this imploded gov.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 5, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> washingtonpost.com
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agreed in 2005.  There is no military solution in Afghanistan.  We should be focusing on reducing our footprint.


----------



## geauxtohell (Sep 5, 2009)

Colin said:


> Once you've started something, you finish it. By the way. My relative is a British soldier. It isn't just the USA fighting this war you know...although it was started by you guys.



While I abhor American militarism and elective wars, it's a little bit of a stretch to say that we picked this fight.


----------



## RodISHI (Sep 5, 2009)

manu1959 said:


> i wasn't ....we shouldn't be there ....*we should not have one troop anywhere in the world other than on us soil or in a country that has asked us to be there and is paying the bill to have us there*....
> 
> further we should not be spending one us tax dollar on anything but us soil and us citizens.....


I agree.


----------



## stonewall (Sep 7, 2009)

Colin said:


> Much as I would be among the first to see the withdrawal of ALL our troops - having a family member about to deploy there yet again - the situation is not that cut and dried.
> 
> I see so many platitudes of puffery written by journalists who know not what they talk about. This appears to be yet another example.
> 
> The objective is to provide security for the Afghanistan government while we build and train their own forces to take over the role of security. Remove all the troops and the opportunity to train an Afghan army and security forces is removed. The country would simply fall back into Taliban oppression and the lives of those who made the ultimate sacrifice would have been wasted.



I certainly understand the idea that the effort will be wasted if we pull-out. 

The fact is we can be there for 100 years and not change a thing. 

We need to remove all troops from Muslim Lands, and then stop immigration from Muslim Lands.

Don't bring them here, don't train them. 

Because if we are gonna stay in Afghanistan and expect to win, then we have to change the religion that they follow. 

If we had occupied Nazi Germany with the idea that Nazism is peaceful and they just need moderate Nazi's in power... we'd still be trying to figure that out. It would still be a mystery to us. 

It's the Islam that is the problem.


----------



## The_Halfmoon (Sep 10, 2009)

manu1959 said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > I'll bet the Russkies are laughing their asses off at us.
> ...



bet Ghengis Khan's feeling good about himself now.


----------



## The_Halfmoon (Sep 10, 2009)

manu1959 said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Pakistani nuclear weapons.
> ...



if we had no troops in the middle East and cut off all funding world wide we'd be in deep shit on a thousand other fronts also.

And I know I'm Canadian, but I like to pretend I'm American for a minute and say "we"


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 10, 2009)

stonewall said:


> Colin said:
> 
> 
> > Much as I would be among the first to see the withdrawal of ALL our troops - having a family member about to deploy there yet again - the situation is not that cut and dried.
> ...


The West is the problem not Islam


----------



## Zander (Sep 10, 2009)

I say we "Declare Victory!" and leave.


----------



## stonewall (Sep 10, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> stonewall said:
> 
> 
> > Colin said:
> ...





The West is the problem in the sense that we have yet to accept what Islam really is. We want to pretend that Islam is compatible with the West and can live peacefully with it's neighbors.

Why we believe such a thing, I do not know. 

There is no evidence of that, anywhere.

I would like nothing more than a complete separation between Islam and the West. 

And, America should leave all Muslim Lands. 

Going into Afghanistan and Iraq was the worst possible thing. The only thing worse was stopping Saddam in Kuwait. That was a huge mistake. 

Who knew that Saddam was better than most in the region?

Oh well.


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 11, 2009)

Tens of millions of Muslims live peacefully in western countries such as America, Canada, France, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, and many other's with no problems.


----------



## stonewall (Sep 11, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> Tens of millions of Muslims live peacefully in western countries such as America, Canada, France, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, and many other's with no problems.





Yes they do.

But, what does that mean? 

Perhaps a Muslim Scholar can tell us:



*Our followers must live in peace until strong enough to wage jihad*

Andrew Norfolk

From The Times
September 8, 2007 


*One of the worlds most respected Deobandi scholars believes that aggressive military jihad should be waged by Muslims to establish the supremacy of Islam worldwide.

Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani argues that Muslims should live peacefully in countries such as Britain, where they have the freedom to practise Islam, only until they gain enough power to engage in battle.*

His views explode the myth that the creed of offensive, expansionist jihad represents a distortion of traditional Islamic thinking.

Mr Usmani, 64, sat for 20 years as a Sharia judge in Pakistans Supreme Court. He is an adviser to several global financial institutions and a regular visitor to Britain. Polite and softly spoken, he revealed to The Times a detailed knowledge of world events and his words, for the most part, were balanced and considered.

He agreed that it was wrong to suggest that the entire nonMuslim world was intent on destroying Islam. Yet this is a man who, in his published work, argues the case for Muslims to wage an expansionist war against nonMuslim lands.

Mr Usmanis justification for aggressive military jihad as a means of establishing global Islamic supremacy is revealed at the climax of his book, Islam and Modernism. The work is a polemic against Islamic modernists who seek to convert the entire Koran into a poetic and metaphorical book because, he says, they have been bewitched by Western culture and ideology.

The final chapter delivers a rebuke to those who believe that only defensive jihad (fighting to defend a Muslim land that is under attack or occupation) is permissible in Islam. He refutes the suggestion that jihad is unlawful against a nonMuslim state that freely permits the preaching of Islam.

For Mr Usmani, the question is whether aggressive battle is by itself commendable or not. If it is, why should the Muslims stop simply because territorial expansion in these days is regarded as bad? And if it is not commendable, but deplorable, why did Islam not stop it in the past?

He answers his own question thus: Even in those days . . . aggressive jihads were waged . . . because it was truly commendable for establishing the grandeur of the religion of Allah.

These words are not the product of a radical extremist. They come from the pen of one of the most acclaimed scholars in the Deobandi tradition.

Mr Usmani told The Times that Islam and Modernism was an English translation of his original Urdu book, which at times gives a connotation different from the original.

Copyright 2009 Times Newspapers Ltd.

Our followers must live in peace until strong enough to wage jihad



That explains a lot.

It's not like the warnings are not flashing out at us. It's not like we are traveling down this road blindly. Not at all. 

We are being fully informed.

Our problem is... ahhh, we just don't want to believe it. Just don't want to.


----------



## namvet (Sep 11, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> Tens of millions of Muslims live peacefully in western countries such as America, Canada, France, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, and many other's with no problems.



unless they see a condom


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 11, 2009)

namvet said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Tens of millions of Muslims live peacefully in western countries such as America, Canada, France, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, and many other's with no problems.
> ...


  ???


----------



## JW Frogen (Sep 15, 2009)

If we can not defeat these stone throwing, troglodyte women killing cave men, then we might as well pack up Western Civilization now.

Come on, give it some fucking effort. This effort is worth it.


----------



## Mr Natural (Sep 15, 2009)

JW Frogen said:


> If we can not defeat these stone throwing, troglodyte women killing cave men, then we might as well pack up Western Civilization now.
> 
> Come on, give it some fucking effort. This effort is worth it.



We defeated two military super powers in WW2 in four years.

We've been in Iraq and Afghanistan for over seven years now with no end in sight.  Time to recognize a losing proposition and get out now.


----------



## namvet (Sep 15, 2009)

if we had a real prez who knew his first job was C-IN-C  and not this ninny i'd say go ahead. since we don't. bring em home. he'll kill em all if we don't


----------



## Mr Natural (Sep 15, 2009)

namvet said:


> if we had a real prez who knew his first job was C-IN-C  and not this ninny i'd say go ahead. since we don't. bring em home. he'll kill em all if we don't



An historic moment in history for sure; peaceniks and war mongers all agreeing on the same thing.


----------



## Bootneck (Sep 17, 2009)

Haven't you heard?

The Pentagon announced TODAY the formation of a new 500-man elite fighting unit called the United States Redneck Special Forces (USRSF) 
These boys will be dropped off in Afghanistan and have been given only the following facts about terrorists : 

1. The season opened today. 
2. There is no limit. 
3. They taste just like chicken. 
4. They don't like beer, pickups, country music or Jesus. 
5. They are directly responsible for the death of Dale Earnhardt.
6. They think Daisy Duke is a slut.

So, the problem in Afghanistan should be over by Friday!


----------



## random3434 (Sep 17, 2009)

Bootneck said:


> Haven't you heard?
> 
> The Pentagon announced TODAY the formation of a new 500-man elite fighting unit called the United States Redneck Special Forces (USRSF)
> These boys will be dropped off in Afghanistan and have been given only the following facts about terrorists :
> ...



LOL! You forgot to add, 7. They love President Obama!


----------



## Bootneck (Sep 17, 2009)

Echo Zulu said:


> Bootneck said:
> 
> 
> > Haven't you heard?
> ...



Who the fuck is he?


----------



## random3434 (Sep 17, 2009)

Bootneck said:


> Echo Zulu said:
> 
> 
> > Bootneck said:
> ...



Someone who makes the  loonie righties cry.


----------



## Bootneck (Sep 17, 2009)

Echo Zulu said:


> Bootneck said:
> 
> 
> > Echo Zulu said:
> ...



Oh. So he's not like Gordon Brown then? That arsehole makes everyone cry!


----------



## obama2ndterm (Sep 17, 2009)

Gareth Porter, investigative historian and journalist, speaks to Paul Jay about the war in Afghanistan and Obama's recent appointment of Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal to replace General McKiernan as the US commander in Afghanistan. Porter says the McChrystal appointment won&#8217;t fulfill Obama&#8217;s supposed intention of investing in a civilian surge that will &#8220;win over the population,&#8221; through &#8220;services and political programs&#8221; because during his five year service in the Joint Special Operations Command and recently as the Director of the Joint Staff, McChrystal &#8220;has only been involved in targeted killings." Porter has also interviewed Graham Fuller, the CIA Station Chief in Kabul during US support for the Afghan Jihadi movement against the Soviet Union, and says that Fuller &#8220;now believes very strongly the United States has to get out. That there is no way the United States is going to be able to win, [because the US] has no understanding of the forces it has unleashed in Afghanistan.IT is time to come home We cannot win this battle. Do we want to be here fo 100years?!


----------



## JW Frogen (Sep 19, 2009)

Get out and the battle will come back to us, just like the last time we ignored Afghanistan.

There is no head in a hole in the sand peace to be found here, that just will not happen.

Of course the war is winnable, indeed it is necessary we do not loose, by which I mean keeping the Taliban from controlling the country or being totally safe to export terror in large parts of the country.

This can be done two ways. A massive surge, clear and hold and attempt to build the democracy from Kabul outward, slowly giving Afghans the benefits of that and hoping the inter ethnic animosity (which is centuries old) will succumb to the lure of a better life, a long war with large cost but achievable with long term will power .

Or

Stop nation building, give Kabul financial support and arms, but also arm any other group who opposes the Taliban, including drug lords who know long term a Taliban victory would eliminate them, and use Special Forces and predator drones to relentlessly hunt the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Allow more violence but reduce our cost and keep the Taliban and Al Qaeda pinned down fighting a relentless war with a growing enemies list, this war we could fight for decades.

So the choice is between idealism or ruthless realism.

Surrender is not an option.

There will always be terrorism, true, but they do not have to control entire nations and plan major attacks at their leisure, nor does the Noam Chomsky theory that we we cause it hold.

It will come if we do nothing.

The Islamo Fascists  have their own ideological motives that are not reactive, indeed the Taliban are proof of this. The US helped them (indirectly) against the Soviets (they did not exist as that group then, but the US help should not go unnoticed) and then left Afghanistan alone.

Still the Taliban harbored a terror attack on the US, because they have their own ideological motives.

Another example, one of Al Qaeda&#8217;s main grievances and the stated reason for the Bali attack (or in sympathy with it) was because Australia had reversed policy and allowed the Catholic population of East Timor decide their own future, let them leave Islamic domination.

So if you think we are the cause, you can only be correct in the one reason we are the cause, we will not submit to primitive Islamic domination.

That is a high price to pay for peace.

There is no way I am willing to pay it.

Send that defeatest bill back.


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 21, 2009)

Obama changed the fundamental nature of the war from an SF war to a conventional "surge" like Iraq.  He also set ROEs that prohibited shelling in civilian areas.  That guaranteed rebels would set up in civilian areas.
The was is being micro managed to death in a way that resembles Viet Nam.  The Soviets could not control that country from across a bridge.  We're not going to from across the ocean.
Set a semi permanent base somewhere in the country to keep the Taliban off kilter and get the heck out of the rest of it.


----------



## Bootneck (Sep 22, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Obama changed the fundamental nature of the war from an SF war to a conventional "surge" like Iraq.  He also set ROEs that prohibited shelling in civilian areas.  That guaranteed rebels would set up in civilian areas.
> The was is being micro managed to death in a way that resembles Viet Nam.  The Soviets could not control that country from across a bridge.  We're not going to from across the ocean.
> Set a semi permanent base somewhere in the country to keep the Taliban off kilter and get the heck out of the rest of it.



Another armchair expert doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about!

The Taliban has ALWAYS established themselves in, and fought from civilian areas! ROEs has made no difference to that!

The rest of your post is equally garbage. Just what We've come to expect from the fucking know-all brigade who spout their shit from an armchair.


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 22, 2009)

Bootneck said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Obama changed the fundamental nature of the war from an SF war to a conventional "surge" like Iraq.  He also set ROEs that prohibited shelling in civilian areas.  That guaranteed rebels would set up in civilian areas.
> ...


You clearly have your ass confused with a hat.  Get your head out of it and start making sense.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 22, 2009)

Bootneck said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Obama changed the fundamental nature of the war from an SF war to a conventional "surge" like Iraq.  He also set ROEs that prohibited shelling in civilian areas.  That guaranteed rebels would set up in civilian areas.
> ...



Bootneck clearly does not understand generally the principles of military strategy and specifically the problems of Afghanistan.  J W above gives a clear and concise answer.


----------



## Bootneck (Sep 22, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Bootneck said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



And how many fucking combat tours have you done in Afghanistan? Oh, none! I fuckingwell thought so. You stay in your armchair mate and kepp on spouting your fucking crap!


----------



## Bootneck (Sep 22, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Bootneck said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



I understand it a lot better than you dipstick. Yet another fucking armchair expert joins the fray!


----------



## random3434 (Sep 22, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Bootneck said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


Hey Jake S:

*That *is about the most stupid, ignorant thing anyone on here has ever said, and that's saying a LOT. IF you only knew you fool...............................


----------



## logical4u (Sep 22, 2009)

We have too many forces in Afganistan to be so indecisive.  Either we want victory (we tell the military to do what they do best: tear it down and build it back the way you want it) or we want defeat (the poiticians get our guys and other countries' guys killed by telling them to ask permission before defending themselves or their positions).  Those are the only two choices.  We may have been wrong, we may have been right to go, but now we are there and there is, only two choices.
The job done in and after WWII pretty much demonstrates that victory would be a good thing (rebuilt the Philipines and Japan and Europe).  The defeat (handed to us by politicians running a war) in Vietnam demonstrates that defeat is a bad thing (the domino effect on neighboring nations that still have not recovered from the loss of life and damage to that area of the world.
The elephant in the room: islam.  If we pull out of Afganistan without victory, there will be no peace in this country; the muslim extremist will terrorize this nation until one of the above decisions is made (victory or defeat).  If we do battle until extremists in Afganistan  are defeated, and build the nation back, the non-extremists will see what is possible and may choose to stop living like animals (might makes right) and move to keep civilization.  
This is the ugly decision that libs and politicians do not want to make.  Hint: not choosing victory IS choosing DEFEAT.


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 22, 2009)

Bootneck said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Bootneck said:
> ...


Hey dipshit.  I don't care how many shitters you burned.  It doesn't make you an expert.  You have an argument, give it.  Otherwise stfu.


----------



## Bootneck (Sep 22, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Bootneck said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



One key phrase in your post demonstrates just how much you DON'T know what you're talking about:

_He also set ROEs that prohibited shelling in civilian areas. That guaranteed rebels would set up in civilian areas._

As already pointed out, they have ALWAYS set up in civilian areas!!!!

As for your comment about "setting up  a semi permanent base somewhere in the country to keep the Taliban off kilter", That's just another illustation of a naive and ill-informed knowledge of the situation out there. Still it's the best fucking joke I've heard all week. Thanks for the laugh.


----------



## Bootneck (Sep 22, 2009)

Echo Zulu said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Bootneck said:
> ...



Don't waste your breath on them EZ. Leave 'em to the comfort of their armchairs.


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 22, 2009)

Bootneck said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Bootneck said:
> ...



OK, Ike.  So tell all us pikers here what it is we are supposed to be doing in Afghanistan.  Make sure to include all relevant experience as a SF sniper and how you had bin Laden in your cross hairs but couldn't get clearance from the six.


----------



## Bootneck (Sep 22, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Bootneck said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Not very good at deflection either, are you!


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 22, 2009)

Bootneck said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Bootneck said:
> ...



I wouldn't consider responding to the original post to be deflecting.
But obviously you have no idea on this subject.  I'd say something beats nothing.  And you've got nothing.


----------



## Bootneck (Sep 22, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Bootneck said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



 You really are like the proverbial cushion. The one that bears the imprint of the last arse that sat on it. And boy, I can tell a lot of arses have sat on you lately.

What people like you fail to understand is why the coalition forces are there. It's really quite simple. We are there to provide security for the government and people of Afghanistan, whilst at the same time building and training the ANA so that it will eventually be capable of providing its own security. That should be the day we leave.

Now go back to your armchair and pick a subject you know something about. Or, preferably, go forth and multiply.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 22, 2009)

The government and the ANA are as corrupt or even moreso than the South Vietnamese were back in the day.  We could not "fix" the SV leadership.  We will not be able to "fix" the Afghanistani leadership.  We cannot win the hearts and minds of the Afghani people.  It is time to come home.


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 22, 2009)

Bootneck said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Bootneck said:
> ...



Wow, what a genius!  Did you go to War College to come up with that one?
If the Soviets couldn't accomplish that (remember Najibullah?) what in the hell makes you think we can?
Your statement is a joke.  It betrays an incredible ignorance of history as well as the situation on the ground.
Go back to playing Call of Duty.


----------



## Bootneck (Sep 22, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Bootneck said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



 My word! That really is a large arse that sat on you!


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 22, 2009)

great defense of your position.  

Tool.


----------



## Bootneck (Sep 22, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> great defense of your position.
> 
> Tool.



  Have you tried posting in the humour section? You'd go down a bomb!


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 22, 2009)

I thought with your posts here it *was* the humor section.

Go ahead.  I want to hear you explain how we're going to stabilize the regime from across the ocean when the Soviets couldn't do the same thing from across the border.
Make sure to copy to the humor section while you're at it.


----------



## AmericasBrave58 (Jan 4, 2010)

manu1959 said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > How come you were willing to give Bush Years to fix it yet you are not willing to give Obama even months to do so?
> ...



 If the Republicans were re-elected and we had another Republican President, they would go "Full Steam Ahead!! and there would never be any hopes for Peace.They love to fight!!! now, we have a Democrat in office, and we are a Sinking Ship!!!. I never, ever, voted for Bush, not the first term or the second term, but i did vote for Obama, now i regret it, cause he is tasting the  same blood as the past president did, and i thought the Democrats were against this whole war mess,HUH!!!RIGHT!!!NOT!!!. Those 2 parties are alike and the War Vampire bit them both. Obama said, that within 18 months of his election, all Troops would be pulled from Iraq. Now they are fusing about training these people, so they could take over.HUH!!!Are we their babysitters? and protectors? Next month, my second oldest son is going to be deployed to Afghanistan for the 2nd time, with his unit from Fort Lewis.We are in it for keeps, and that's not right. Obama and Bush are so full of crap, it is leaking out of their ears.


----------



## Zander (Jan 4, 2010)

THREAD RESURRECTION!!!!

I say we "Declare Victory!", throw a party,  and bring our boys home. 

We need to close every base in Europe on the way out and sell the land to pay off the national debt. Those countries can afford to pay for their own defense and it is high time they did.  Why are we still in Germany? Or Italy? Spain? France? Or Norway? In Europe, there are 116,000 US military personnel including 75,000 who are stationed in Germany.  Bring them home too...


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 1, 2021)

Skull Pilot said:


> washingtonpost.com
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  Do you?


How come today Republicans are saying we should have stayed?


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 1, 2021)

sealybobo said:


> How come today Republicans are saying we should have stayed?


Because Republicans have to disagree with Democrats on everything.


----------



## asaratis (Sep 1, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Because Republicans have to disagree with Democrats on everything.


Not so much with what they do, but with how they do it.  Biden's abandonment created a clusterf--k that needlessly killed American soldiers, Afghani allies and sentence thousands of remaining Afghans to death.

After the Taliban ignored the conditions of the agreement that brainless Joe Biden claimed he had no option to put aside, he not only withdrew our forces prior to evacuating Americans and allies, he abandoned the most strategically located base (Bagram) and left $85 BILLION worth of sophisticated weaponry behind.

On a recently disclosed phone call record, the Liar in Chief had with the corrupt President Ashraf Ghani, Biden pressured Ghani to lie publicly about the dire conditions that developed immediately after he announced a total withdrawal.





__





						Biden pressed Afghanistan’s Ghani to ‘change perception’ that Taliban were winning, ‘whether it is true or not’
					

It was all about the poll numbers, and that was all it was about. "Exclusive: Before Afghan collapse, Biden pressed Ghani to ‘change perception,’" by Aram Roston and Nandita Bose, Reuters, August 31, 2021: WASHINGTON, Aug 31 (Reuters) - In the last call between U.S. President Joe Biden and his...




					www.jihadwatch.org
				




Joseph Robinette Biden is not worthy of his current position or any other position in our government.  Biden is a traitor.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 2, 2021)

asaratis said:


> Not so much with what they do, but with how they do it.  Biden's abandonment created a clusterf--k that needlessly killed American soldiers, Afghani allies and sentence thousands of remaining Afghans to death.
> 
> After the Taliban ignored the conditions of the agreement that brainless Joe Biden claimed he had no option to put aside, he not only withdrew our forces prior to evacuating Americans and allies, he abandoned the most strategically located base (Bagram) and left $85 BILLION worth of sophisticated weaponry behind.
> 
> ...


This was an utter failure of military intelligence.

If the idiots in charge of training Afghan troops didn't realize they were fucking cowards who wouldn't fight then that's where the blame lies.  No matter who wars resident the result would have been the same.


----------



## surada (Sep 2, 2021)

Colin posted in 2009:

Much as I would be among the first to see the withdrawal of ALL our troops - having a family member about to deploy there yet again - the situation is not that cut and dried.

I see so many platitudes of puffery written by journalists who know not what they talk about. This appears to be yet another example.

The objective is to provide security for the Afghanistan government while we build and train their own forces to take over the role of security. Remove all the troops and the opportunity to train an Afghan army and security forces is removed. The country would simply fall back into Taliban oppression and the lives of those who made the ultimate sacrifice would have been wasted.


----------



## asaratis (Sep 2, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> This was an utter failure of military intelligence.
> 
> If the idiots in charge of training Afghan troops didn't realize they were fucking cowards who wouldn't fight then that's where the blame lies.  No matter who wars resident the result would have been the same.


...except that Trump would never have abandoned Bagram before getting American citizens and Afghani allies (and service dogs) out.

Biden totally screwed up.  He is the most inept, incompetent, unqualified president of my lifetime.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 3, 2021)

asaratis said:


> ...except that Trump would never have abandoned Bagram before getting American citizens and Afghani allies (and service dogs) out.
> 
> Biden totally screwed up.  He is the most inept, incompetent, unqualified president of my lifetime.


Impossible to know


----------



## asaratis (Sep 3, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Impossible to know


The fact that he effectively cancalled the deal and maintained enough forces to keep the Taliban from attacking suggests otherwise.  The Taliban didn't start their takeover of Afghanistan until the pussy Joe Biden showed up.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 3, 2021)

asaratis said:


> The fact that he effectively cancalled the deal and maintained enough forces to keep the Taliban from attacking suggests otherwise.  The Taliban didn't start their takeover of Afghanistan until the pussy Joe Biden showed up.


Meaningless.  The Afghan army that we supposedly trained still would have gone belly up as soon as we started pulling out


----------



## asaratis (Sep 3, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Meaningless.  The Afghan army that we supposedly trained still would have gone belly up as soon as we started pulling out


Not meaningless.  Trump most likely would have not announced a firm date before offering all American citizens and other Afghan allies an opportunity to leave first.  He also would not have reduced our air support for the Afghani Army by abandoning Bagram.  He also would have taken the Afghani interpreters that aided our troops (and the service dogs) out with the troops.

The advance of the Taliban would have been a slow crawl at best.

Biden fucked up royally.

Obama was entirely correct when he said:






						Obama: “Don’t Underestimate Joe’s Ability to F**k Things Up” – EXPERIENCE AWARENESS
					






					www.abcbusinessnews.com


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 4, 2021)

asaratis said:


> Not meaningless.  Trump most likely would have not announced a firm date before offering all American citizens and other Afghan allies an opportunity to leave first.  He also would not have reduced our air support for the Afghani Army by abandoning Bagram.  He also would have taken the Afghani interpreters that aided our troops (and the service dogs) out with the troops.
> 
> The advance of the Taliban would have been a slow crawl at best.
> 
> ...


You're doing nothing but speculating.


----------



## asaratis (Sep 4, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> You're doing nothing but speculating.


As are you.  Hindsight is usually speculative.


----------

