Escalating? What are you thinking?

We can still win them over if we kill enough of them.

Unlike some of those on the far left.

:think:

For eight god damned years we have sat in Afghanistan. If we were smart we would look at history and ask ourselves,
Why is our empire any different from the rest of them?
How many more people do we need to kill in order to justify the mission?
At what point do we ask ourselves, Why is it that spending Billions on war is justified, and taking care of ourselves is too expensive?

but believe what you want and I will also.

if somebody was dropping bombs in their neighborhood. we anti-war veterans who have actually been in a war don't let their name calling get to us much. we had 8 years of freeper hecklers screeching at us at our rallies so assclowns like the sad little worm you are responding to is just more of the same.

If only shit were that simple. No matter what decision Obama makes he will be flayed--even by those that are supposed to be on our side. It's a no win situation courtesy of Bush.

Obama only accomplishment in Afghanistan is going to be putting more graves in our national cemeteries. Is that the legacy he wants?

Not the flower power hippy give peace a chance version or the right wingers' kill them all and let God sort them out version. If we withdraw immediately, Al Queda will be emboldened and the Taliban will go on a killing spree and impose their strict version of Islam on the population. You think women have it bad there now? Obama will listen to ALL sides and make the best decision he can.

Hey, hey, Obama, how many....

in WWII.

How many more? :rofl:

...let him be flayed for ending a no-win war rather than prolonging it.

because everything i have read says just the opposite of the position you take.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113241784

"This has been the deadliest year for NATO troops in Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of U.S. and NATO forces, has said in a private memo that the mission will fail unless more troops are sent. NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, however, takes a more optimistic view.

"We're winning," Rasmussen tells Weekend All Things Considered host Guy Raz. But Rasmussen says he shares McChrystal's analysis. "The situation is serious, but success is achievable."

"I will not exclude the possibility that we need more combat troops," Rasmussen continues, "but I think it's premature to make any final judgment." First, he says, NATO needs to digest McChrystal's initial assessment before making decisions."

Who will be in charge of Afghanistan? What political party will have power?

What will become of the Taliban and the warlords? Will they be totally gone?

Military to stay.

Looks like Vietnam never touched you in any way.

:eyes:

Why don't you enlist and fight this war?

How white of you!

Chaves is a dictator.

Viva Chavez!

one using military families to back up your stupid assertions.

including the National Guard.

But they are willing to do it.

by committing them to a no-win situation.

lot more than any fool who doesn't know what they are talking about.

Why don't you send someone else to play war games instead of troops that we need to defend us.

Not the Greeks. They ruled Afghanistan for centuries and were kicked out by the Persians, not the Afghans.

Not the Persians. They ruled Afghanistan for centuries and were kicked out by the Arabs, not the Afghans.

Not the Arabs. They ... Mongols....

Not the Mongols. They ... Indians....

Not the Indians. They ... Brits....


Given that the indigeneous people have ruled Afghanistan only about 100 years out of the last 2300, this "empires go to die" meme doesn't exactly make you guys look like a bunch of geniuses. It isn't history. It's a line from a fucking poem.

And, of course, the United States has no intention of ruling Afghanistan. So the meme doesn't fit anyway. But then you already knew that.

Dupe

Or should we not draw parallels with that conflict? They ran out of money, I am sure that is impossible here in the U.$.

We have that same problem. Our ally was anti-Taliban, then pro-Taliban and is now anti-Taliban. Karzai is really just pro-Karzai. We should have restored the monarchy. Our best hope is that a strong military leader will emerge from the Afghan army and either prop up Karzai or do the world a favor and off the bastard.


As for running out of money, what's money mean to a communist nation? Need more tanks? Order people to build them. Need more ore? Order people to dig it. It was impossible for the Soviet Union to go broke as long as they stayed out of the international markets. On the flip side, they would be broke the second they decided to enter those markets. And that is exactly what happened after Reagan left office (Reagan apparently forgot why we were fighting the Cold War as he did everything he could to prevent Russia from embracing capitalism).

in past history...however no way it is US business now.
All we need to do is make sure Taliban does not take over
and bring back Al Qaeda training camps there.

Your military family needs some schoolin!

He reinstated shariah law.

If Afghanistan is concorde we will never eat steaks again!

If Afghanistan falls all of the middle east will go comminist just like in Vetnam and Kamboodia!

Or would you believe terrist?

How about all of western civilization will fall along with the white race?

If we don't stop them in Afghanistan they will all come here! Will you buy that one?

:rofl: :popcorn:

Enlist now!

:P

I will even pray for your well being when that day comes.

your incessant whining.

Got your number, bud.

You whine constantly. I just call them like I see them.

A million troops won't make a difference. Keeping our troops in Afghanistan only serves to save face of the politicians that sent them there.

And killing is not a sport.

Not even the gods can save us of the mess we chose to keep.

The bad PR of saying this might be the only thing that gets Obama to do the right thing.

crybabies need to get that shit straight.

Oh, SIMPLYB1980. You're cracking me up with your sense of humor.

:rofl:

You deniers and warmongers make me sick. :puke:

Compare:

First thing we did in Vietnam was assassinate a strong South Vietnamese leader, a hero of the wars against Japan and France, and anti-communist. A few days before 9-11, Al Qaeda assassinated Masood, leader of the Mujahadeen that fought the Soviet Union.

So who is our ally in Afghanistan? An ally of Masood's who switched to the Taliban side when they were winning then switched back when we entered the picture. With allies like this.... Our best hope is that a strong military leader emerges in the new Afghan army (and either props up the shit we have there now or kills him and takes over for himself). We probably should have just restored the monarchy.


Contrast:

We took over the war in Vietnam. For all our veterans bitching about ARVN, it was the US Army that told ARVN to get out of the way and let us win the war. A decision the USN/USMC argued against. (Note: it still took North Vietnam almost two years to conquer the South versus the 8 days it took them to conquer Cambodia and one month it took them to destroy a million man Chinese army; South Vietnam would have won that war if we had given them just minimal support instead of deciding we would win it or it wouldn't be won at all.)

In Afghanistan we are doing just the opposite. We are following the USN/USMC strategy. We are going to build up an Afghan army and let them take over just as we did in Iraq, in Korea, and in countless "Banana republics" over the course of a century.

North Vietnam received tons of support from the Soviet Union. The Taliban doesn't have a big brother like that.


My Conclusion:

This is a hell of a lot more NOT like Vietnam than it is like Vietnam.

Diem was Catholic in a largely Buddhist country, and he had very limited support. Diem got what he deserved!

There is no Afghan army because there is no sense of nationality in a land where tribal loyalties trump everything else.

Several factions of both communists and capitalists fought the Japanese. The man who changed his name to Ho Chi Minh was ONE of the leaders of that fight.

When Japan surrendered, the Japanese in Vietnam retreated to their barracks. The communists grabbed all the gov't offices while the capitalists grabbed all the industries and plantations. When the British showed up and took over those gov't offices, Ho first decided to consolidate his power within the communist community.

He did this in the time-honored fashion of having all his rivals executed purging the communist side of Trotskyites and all the other wrong types of communists.

Eventually, the French showed up to reclaim Vietnam, and the Brits pulled out. Ho and his capitalist counterparts again formed a coalition, this time to fight the French. Now Ho was the THE leader of the communist faction, but still only ONE of the leaders of a revolution by both communists and capitalists.

Ho, of course, signed a treaty with the French. The French left. Ho took his forces north. The capitalists took their forces south. A couple million civilians living in the north also headed south. While a few thousand communist guerillas remained in the south (I believe against Ho's wishes as this meant communists were the first to violate the treaty giving capitalists an added excuse to ignore it).

The communists already firmly in Ho's grasp were able to secure aid from the Soviets. While the communists built up their military and infrastructure, the capitalists fought among themselves for control.

Diem, like Ho before him, had his rivals executed thereby solidifying the capitalists under his control. But Ho's headstart made it possible for the communists to invade before the south was anywhere close to being ready. So JFK sent in the US Marines who drove back the invading NVA, wiped out the Viet Minh and held the NVA off for a couple years before preparing to hand over their positions to the now prepared ARVN.

Both ARVN and NVA included many veterans of the fight against Japan and France. There is every reason to believe the ARVN would have fought just as tenanciously as the NVA at that moment. Unfortunately, we listened to the "best and brightest" who thought we should "make a point" by fighting the war ourselves, and to the US Army and Air Force who said we could win the war ourselves and ignored the USN/USMC who pointed to their century of experience fighting such wars and suggested the others were idiots.

So we assassinated the South Vietnamese equivalent of Ho Chi Minh, took over the war ourselves, and let ARVN fall apart. When the North refused to fold, we left the South in no condition to defend themselves (though they still held for almost two years).


Again, the exact opposite of our Afghan strategy. Our Afghan strategy may also fail, but since it is the exact OPPOSITE of our Vietnam strategy, the "loss" in Vietnam is irrelevant. Far more relevant would be all the times we followed this strategy and succeeded (sort of) in Latin America and Korea.


Historical Trivia: Ho Chi Minh was a descendant of the line of kings who used French mercenaries to unify Vietnam for the first time, and whom the French eventually deposed. So when the North conquered South Vietnam, the "king" was essentially restored to his throne.

Oct. 13) -- In March, the White House announced the deployment of 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan to help fight the resurgent Taliban. But thousands of others are being sent to fill support roles, and White House and defense officials have said little about them, The Washington Post reports.

The White House has quietly authorized the deployment of 13,000 troops in addition to the 21,000 announced in March, the newspaper says. They include engineers, medical workers, intelligence experts and military police.

http://news.aol.com/article/little-said-about-additional-deployment/715492