Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#31
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#32
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#33
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#34
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#35
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#36
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote in message ... On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 10:24:51 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news ![]() On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:18:07 -0400, bpuharic wrote: On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:10:37 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 02:37:00 -0400, bpuharic wrote: We have hitched our hopes to a corrupt government in a country famous for grinding up super powers, somehow thinking everything will work out for us. you guys think that 'grinding up superpowers' is a profound observation it's a cliche. afghanistan has been conquered 3 times in the last 1000 years. People have occupied Kabul but the mountains we are in were never "conquered". tell it to ghengis khan. That is not history, that is legend and folk lore. We don't have a clue how effective Khan was in controlling the tribal areas of Afghanistan. For that matter, the people there could be descendants of the Khan army. I don't know of any US policy that claims we want to "control" the tribal regions. What we want is a stable gov't that doesn't harbor terrorists, such as Al-Qaeda. I don't believe the Kabul government really has much influence in the area where the AQ guys are hiding. That is why we failed at Tora Bora. We had influence in Northwestern Afghanistan but when we got down near the Pakistan border where tribal leaders are in charge we did not have enough local support to operate. More people will not do anything but drive the opposition farther underground and they will pop up like dandelions as soon as we leave. This is not Iraq. Currently they don't, but the policy is to give them more stability and less corruption. They may never "control" the tribal regions, but they'll be able (according to the policy) keep it under control. No... we failed in Tora Bora because Bush aka Rumsfeld failed to follow through. |
#37
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote in message ... On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 10:27:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 08:26:00 -0600, Canuck57 wrote: Afghanistan has very little to do with terrorism. There may be less than 100 al queda in Afghanistan and we are spending about 100 million dollars a year each to try to kill them. This is a stupid way to waste our grand kid's money at a time when the country is in so much fiscal trouble. I disagree. Locals are not turning in taliban. And the way taliban is used, it can encompass any radical islam organization. It isn't like there is just one. The Taliban is not al queda, although Washington would like us to think they are the same. Some in Washington. The adults don't think that nor promote that false notion. Then why are we saying this wart is about terrorism? There was not a single Taliban involved with 9/11. They were Saudis who simply traveled through Afghanistan. If that was all it took, we should be attacking Germany and Spain where the final plans were developed. Untrue. They may not have participated in the planning, but they refused to give up bin laden, etc. They didn't "simply travel" through. They took over and their extremist views allowed bin laden's crowd to have a safe-haven. Don't try and rewrite Bush's failures. |
#38
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Jim" wrote in message ... wrote: On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 10:27:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 08:26:00 -0600, Canuck57 wrote: Afghanistan has very little to do with terrorism. There may be less than 100 al queda in Afghanistan and we are spending about 100 million dollars a year each to try to kill them. This is a stupid way to waste our grand kid's money at a time when the country is in so much fiscal trouble. I disagree. Locals are not turning in taliban. And the way taliban is used, it can encompass any radical islam organization. It isn't like there is just one. The Taliban is not al queda, although Washington would like us to think they are the same. Some in Washington. The adults don't think that nor promote that false notion. Then why are we saying this wart is about terrorism? There was not a single Taliban involved with 9/11. They were Saudis who simply traveled through Afghanistan. If that was all it took, we should be attacking Germany and Spain where the final plans were developed. AQ was head-quartered in Afghanistan, and sheltered by the Taliban. They were asked to turn over Bin Laden and refused. You can't separate 9/11, AQ and Taliban. Not possible. Actually, you can to some degree. There are flavors of Taliban, apparently. If Taliban regain power, the cycle will repeat. Refute that. Probably true. With no Taliban refuge in Afghanistan, remaining AQ are forced into Pakistan, and the Pakis will deal with them, as they are increasingly doing. Besides that, the Taliban are criminal trash, and allowing them back will become a huge human rights issue, and we will have to re-invade with UN forces. Perhaps they'll deal with them. It's in the own best self-interest certainly. Keep in mind that when the Iraq "surge" started there was "no hope" for establishing a working government in Iraq. Many wanted to abandon the effort. There is a government there now, and time will tell if it succeeds. The memories of Saddam will help. I don't remember when the last American casualty occurred there. There will be a "progress report" on Afghan operations in December, and another in July/2011. We will know the progress in building Afghan armed forces, and be able to count our own costs in blood and treasure, and adjust as necessary. I expect success, and we can thank our military for it. As others have said, victory is establishing any government that isn't the Taliban, and doesn't approach the Taliban abuse of human rights. They'll be crooks, but like U.S. pols, "good crooks." Once they get cable or satellite TV installed in enough homes, and enough cell phone towers put up, the Taliban problem will go away. There is no other solution I can think of. You haven't offered any solution except "cut and run." GWB didn't do that in Iraq, and Obama won't in Afghanistan. Because there is no other moral choice but to "stay the course." Like it or lump it. Jim - Laying out the choices. Well, I'm not sure if I completely agree with "stay the course" entirely, forever. That's why there's a deadline in place... flexible, but a deadline. Only time will tell.. |
#39
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote in message ... On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 10:29:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:22:02 -0400, bpuharic wrote: So far this war is getting close to two times as long as WW II and no sight of peace. that's the nature of guerrilla insurrections. we don't have to 'win'. we just dont have to lose We did so well in Vietnam, what could possibly go wrong If you listen to the generals of that era, it was the politicians' fault for not letting them finish the job. I agree with Harry on this one. Generals are hammers, all problems look like nails to them. Did you ever see the movie "The battle of the Bulge"? Watch the Robert Ryan monologue at the end of the movie where he says he will do anything to keep wearing that uniform and waging war. I see the same thing in our military policy. That's why it's fortunate that the military are under civilian control. Not to beat it to death, but that's why McCrystal was booted. |
#40
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Woman proves gun effective | General | |||
OT Michael Moore proves he is the sicko | ASA | |||
Google proves MacGregor 26 is flimsy | ASA | |||
Ellen proves the Good Captain Correct! | ASA |