• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Photos show U.S. GIs posing with dead Afghans[W:1146]

Boo Radley said:
It's always important to have the right person for the right reason, be it Zimmerman or al Qaeda. Iraq would be like us punishing Glen Beck for Martin's death. Sure, Becks a jerk, but he didn't shoot Martin.
Click to expand...

one would have thought that no logical nor rational connection could be drawn between the war in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda & the Taliban, and the Trayvon Martin killing.
 
Thunder said:
one would have thought that no logical nor rational connection could be drawn between the war in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda & the Taliban, and the Trayvon Martin killing.
Click to expand...

WYou would have thought, but we work woth what we get. ;)
 
j-mac said:
directly? no. In general for an overall antagonist in support of terrorism against the US....Sure.


j-mac
Click to expand...

It's a rather large leap. The Taliban largely had no interest in the US. Only Afghanistan.
 
Boo Radley said:
It's a rather large leap. The Taliban largely had no interest in the US. Only Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

The Taliban supported, and hid a man responsible for a substantial attack on this country killing 3000 of your fellow countrymen...


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
The Taliban supported, and hid a man responsible for a substantial attack on this country killing 3000 of your fellow countrymen...


j-mac
Click to expand...

A man passing through, not a leader. Hid? Not so much. Just distrusted us and didn't turn him over.

And yes, I understand your emotional appeal, and you're not likely to understand a non-emotional response, which is what got us tied up in two wars to begin with. But those responsible died on 9/11. Those who paid for it were in SA and Pakistan. OBL was a figure head, and not involved in the day to day planing. Good that he was eventually gotten, but in the larger picture, he meant very little. And invading two countries and nation building hurt us more than any of our enemies. I know that math and cost versus reward means very little to emotion, but the fact remains, we paid a lot, Iraqis and Afghanis paid a lot, and for very little in return. If we measured this like any other transaction, we would have to call it a poor deal.
 
Boo Radley said:
A man passing through, not a leader. Hid? Not so much. Just distrusted us and didn't turn him over.

And yes, I understand your emotional appeal, and you're not likely to understand a non-emotional response, which is what got us tied up in two wars to begin with. But those responsible died on 9/11. Those who paid for it were in SA and Pakistan. OBL was a figure head, and not involved in the day to day planing. Good that he was eventually gotten, but in the larger picture, he meant very little. And invading two countries and nation building hurt us more than any of our enemies. I know that math and cost versus reward means very little to emotion, but the fact remains, we paid a lot, Iraqis and Afghanis paid a lot, and for very little in return. If we measured this like any other transaction, we would have to call it a poor deal.
Click to expand...


Yep, like I thought....Fecklessness, and lack of any response would have been that of those who think like that Joe....


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Yep, like I thought....Fecklessness, and lack of any response would have been that of those who think like that Joe....


j-mac
Click to expand...

Translation: You can't deal with a discussion without going this direction. I understand. Actually addressing what is said is much harder.

:coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
Translation: You can't deal with a discussion without going this direction. I understand. Actually addressing what is said is much harder.

:coffeepap
Click to expand...


Yep, you're too damned smart for me dude.....:roll: Look, I am not going to play your usual game of vague statements from you, then me taking the bait and giving response after response only to have you endlessly shift around and tell me that isn't what you were saying....So tell ya what....Why don't you make it crystal clear, and give a direct answer to a simple question, I asked it long ago, and every time I bring it up, or ask it again, you run.....or dance....so here it is, and now the fine people of this board can see you revealed....

Hypothetical: Joe, if your daughter was one killed in the towers on 9/11, and there was direct reason to believe that others in your family would die if the US didn't go into Afghanistan, would you have approved of the war?


j-mac
 
Boo Radley said:
A man passing through, not a leader. Hid? Not so much. Just distrusted us and didn't turn him over.

And yes, I understand your emotional appeal, and you're not likely to understand a non-emotional response, which is what got us tied up in two wars to begin with. But those responsible died on 9/11. Those who paid for it were in SA and Pakistan. OBL was a figure head, and not involved in the day to day planing. Good that he was eventually gotten, but in the larger picture, he meant very little. And invading two countries and nation building hurt us more than any of our enemies. I know that math and cost versus reward means very little to emotion, but the fact remains, we paid a lot, Iraqis and Afghanis paid a lot, and for very little in return. If we measured this like any other transaction, we would have to call it a poor deal.
Click to expand...

No dice....Don't confuse 2 separate issues

1 The Taliban provided safe haven for Bin Laden and Al Quaeda to plan, finance, prepare, and train for terrorist attacks throughout the world, including 9/11. They protected Bin Laden and AQ and sheltered them. The Taliban permitted terrorist training camps throughout the country. Period

2 This is...the, why???? part....removing the Taliban and promoting democracy - Were added later (I don't have a ****ing clue why that decision was made)....Now, if you move the goalposts don't be surprised if you fall short. Originally, we really only went after the Taliban because to get to AQ we had to go through them.
 
I fully supported & continue to support our mission in Afghanistan. Those people deserve a future, and its a DISGRACE that other Muslim nations aren't helping us with troops.

wtf!!!!!
 
Thunder said:
I fully supported & continue to support our mission in Afghanistan. Those people deserve a future, and its a DISGRACE that other Muslim nations aren't helping us with troops.

wtf!!!!!
Click to expand...

It's a NATO mission, not an Arab League mission...
 
Thunder said:
I fully supported & continue to support our mission in Afghanistan. Those people deserve a future, and its a DISGRACE that other Muslim nations aren't helping us with troops.

wtf!!!!!
Click to expand...

Why should we still be there. Where have we killed more AQ than anywhere else? How long are we going to punish the Taliban for having bad house guests?
 
Thunder said:
because you shouldn't start a job unless you're willing to finish it.
Click to expand...

Do you know how the Taliban came to garner the support that led them to gain power in the first place? How are we changing that?

The Soviets also propped up a puppet government that supported their objectives and ideology and then when it was failing tried to prop it up with more troops.

What are we *the US* doing again?
 
ric27 said:
Do you know how the Taliban came to garner the support that led them to gain power in the first place? How are we changing that?

The Soviets also propped up a puppet government that supported their objectives and ideology and then when it was failing tried to prop it up with more troops.

What are we *the US* doing again?
Click to expand...

You are out of touch. The big bad "puppet government" stage is tired.

The Soviet Union was at war with the people and opposed the majority of the Pashtun. Historically, Afghanistan has always been best organized when the Pashtun were the government. The rest of the tribes allowed this governance because the Pashtun granted them autonomy within the government. *The US* is following the Afghan tradition and unlike the Soviet Union, has expressly announced departure. In other words, despite the delicious idea of the "puppet government" critique, *the US* is giving the Afghan people what they want. It's the Afghan police and the Afghan military that is "propping it up." It is the Afghan people that are "propping it up." It's their elections and parliament that are "propping it up." The last time more troops were sent in was to settle the disturbances and the violence within the Helmand Province in 2009. Since, there have been less and less troops. Today, the retrograde out of Afghanistan is such that the troops that are still in the fight are finding themselves without the support they need.

Therefore, *the US* is doing the opposite of the Soviet Union. The biggest difference is that we are leaving. Finding something legitimate to complain about.
 
Thunder said:
I fully supported & continue to support our mission in Afghanistan. Those people deserve a future, and its a DISGRACE that other Muslim nations aren't helping us with troops.

wtf!!!!!
Click to expand...


ric27 said:
It's a NATO mission, not an Arab League mission...
Click to expand...

Bahrain, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates are Arab nations inside the coalition in Afghanistan. Turkey is a non-Arab state, although Muslim, in the game. Of course, these are individual nations assisting without the support of the Arab League. Afghanistan is not an Arab state and would not get the attention of the League.

However, Afghanistan is just one more example of how a Muslim's greatest enemy is another Muslim. Islam prides itself with talk about the Ummah (Islamic community). It's a calling of unity for the whole Islamic world in the Qu'ran to join together. Hence the historical caliphate system of governance. Hence pan-Arabism. Islamic radicals and their organizations call to all of Islam when it comes to gaining support for their deeds. Mullahs throughout the region call upon the truly faithful to join in hate against foreign devils like the Great Satan (U.S.), Small Satan (Soviet Union), and the Little Satan (Israel). But what is the truth about the Muslim world? Where was the calling to protect non-Arab Muslims in Sudan when Bashir was slaughtering them and committing genocide? Where was the call to unify against Muslim belligerents when Syrian and lebanese troops were slaughtering Palestinians during the Lebanese Civil War? And what about Black September when Jordanian troops slaughtered Palestinians? Both events combined killed more Palestinians than Israel has managed to do in over sixty years of combat fighting. And was there any "Ummah" of unity when the entire Muslim region watched Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia allow Sunni fighters to enter Iraq in order to disrupt progress and slaughter Shia Muslims? And does the fact that the Taliban kills far more civilian Muslims than they do ISAF forces matter to the so called Ummah? Despite the Arab League's condemning of current Syrian behaviors right now, it would be the West that actually did anything. The truth is that if Muslims throughout this region spent as much energy condemning their own government instead of the parts of the world where Muslims are the freest, this Arab Spring would have a long time ago. Instead they have found comfort in relieving themselves of all responsibility by pretending that foriegn devils keep them impotent and powerless.

The disgrace is how people in the West pretend that Muslims are victims of anything other than their own culture. When Muslims walk out of their Mosques or turn off Al-Jazeera, they do so with a newly energized sense of hate towards that good old foriegn devil to explain away their miserable civilizational failures and inability to transcend the notion that a return to some imagined Golden Age will make it all better. The powerful Muslim nations won't ever lift a finger to help fellow Muslims because they really don't care. They used to all be managed by dictators who used to sustain their positions through pimped out Mullahs who ensured that the people's anger was directed elsewhere. This Arab Spring may eventually bring about an actual cry for Muslims to help Muslims instead of displaying apathy and absolute hypocracy. In a world full of hypocracy, Arabs may be the worst.

Culture is fate.
 
Last edited:
MSgt said:
The disgrace is how people in the West pretend that Muslims are victims of anything other than their own culture. When Muslims walk out of their Mosques or turn off Al-Jazeera, they do so with a newly energized sense of hate towards that good old foriegn devil to explain away their miserable civilizational failures and inability to transcend the notion that a return to some imagined Golden Age will make it all better. The powerful Muslim nations won't ever lift a finger to help fellow Muslims because they really don't care. They used to all be managed by dictators who used to sustain their positions through pimped out Mullahs who ensured that the people's anger was directed elsewhere. This Arab Spring may eventually bring about an actual cry for Muslims to help Muslims instead of displaying apathy and absolute hypocracy. In a world full of hypocracy, Arabs may be the worst.

Culture is fate.
Click to expand...

Don't forget who installed and/or abetted so many of those dictators. The West carved up the ME into synthetic countries that often didn't make sense from a historical/cultural standpoint, and generally supported whoever it thought would keep a lid on the pot and maintain the flow of oil. I think that we are hardly in a position to cast stones.
 
AdamT said:
Don't forget who installed and/or abetted so many of those dictators. The West carved up the ME into synthetic countries that often didn't make sense from a historical/cultural standpoint, and generally supported whoever it thought would keep a lid on the pot and maintain the flow of oil. I think that we are hardly in a position to cast stones.
Click to expand...


What do you suppose would be the ultimate fate of the ME if the west were to announce that they no longer would continue to purchase ME oil, and would further pull out and totally leave the ME for good?

j-mac
 
AdamT said:
Don't forget who installed and/or abetted so many of those dictators. The West carved up the ME into synthetic countries that often didn't make sense from a historical/cultural standpoint, and generally supported whoever it thought would keep a lid on the pot and maintain the flow of oil. I think that we are hardly in a position to cast stones.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, we live in a world where a Bible Scripture won't do. After all, we conducted our own Civil War, so who were we to interfere with Europe during both World Wars? And plenty of jurors condemn thieves even though they may have stolen something as a kid. "Not Casting the First Stone" merely allows the garbage to mount up.

To be more honest, it was Europeans that carved out the Middle East and rewarded those who maintained business. Americans came along after World War II, after these populations rebelled during the Age of Independence, after they backed military coups against former European appointed leaders. We dealt with what was there and assisted in a few ourselves (true) in a quest to kick the Soviets out of the region. But the Cold War is long over isn't it? Why then do we still insist on those rules of organization even as we criticize what we did to uphold them?

But in the end, most of the Middle East is a mess because of Muslims. People seem to forget this when they seek to blame the "foriegn devil" for all problems. Muslims rebelled against Muslim leaders right after World War I and settled for their new leaders, which were oppressive. If Turkey's military could coup against religious oppression and start a democracy, why couldn't the Arab Middle East? After World War II, military leaders like Nasser couped with the backing of his people and only looked to the West for support after the Suez War when the Soviets proved to be incapable of being an ally. Considering that we bombed Gaddafi in Libya during the 80s, how much of a supporter were we? Saddam Hussein was of use really only when Iran proved to be a belligerent, but he screwed that up when he crossed into Kuwait and threatened the perverse international order. Iran has the only real grievance, but considering that they took out the Shah in 1979, three decades later they don't get to complain about where they have taken their society and blame the outside.

The self-flaggelation that Americans do in regards to the Middle East has always been exaggerated. Muslims have tried every sort of governance since the Caliphate except for Democracy. Often enough they have chosen to support whoever was against Western Europe (there colonizers), which placed Arabs squarely in the Ottoman, Nazi, and Soviet camp. This meant that most of the Muslim leadership chose to be as anti-Western as possible. This also means that America, as the leader of the free world, was by association an enemy of God. They have failed every single time with their decisions, because it not only placed them constantly on the wrong side of history, but the one system of democracy that works is only being tried now. They have always considered it, but utlimately, the Muslim powers have chosen other routes. Much of this is because Islam is governance. This means that Western democracy, with its absence of God, was never an option. Imagine a Europe or an America where religion is government and there is no separation between church and state (a root prescription in Christianity).

But even if we want to exaggerate our roles in creating the Middle East, does this explain why the extreme slaughter throughout the region has always been Muslim on Muslim...and not from an external source? They behave in accordance to the demands of their own self delluded prides and egos. We can even fine tune this down to the Sunni Tribe. It's the Sunni that look down upon all other non-Arab players within Islam. It's the Sunni that prides itself on Muhammad's lineage and cast superior judgements on all others. It's the Sunni that created Islam. It's the Sunni that rebelled against the Ottoman Empire when they assumed stewardship of the religion and stagnated the civilization against Ottoman attempts to reform along side Christian Europe. And it is the Sunni today that make up almost the entirety of Muslim on Muslim violence throughout the region. This is why this Arab Spring (largely of Sunni base) is important to their historical development.

Culture is fate.
 
Last edited:
ric27 said:
No dice....Don't confuse 2 separate issues

1 The Taliban provided safe haven for Bin Laden and Al Quaeda to plan, finance, prepare, and train for terrorist attacks throughout the world, including 9/11. They protected Bin Laden and AQ and sheltered them. The Taliban permitted terrorist training camps throughout the country. Period

2 This is...the, why???? part....removing the Taliban and promoting democracy - Were added later (I don't have a ****ing clue why that decision was made)....Now, if you move the goalposts don't be surprised if you fall short. Originally, we really only went after the Taliban because to get to AQ we had to go through them.
Click to expand...

1) the financing came from SA and Pakistan. Afghanistan had nothing at all to with that. Didn't have anything to with the planing either. There were camps, as they had no way to really control those. But those could have easily been targeted by us without taking control and nation building.

2) We could ahve gone after OBL and al Qaeda there on 9/12. Went in, got them and left. We chose to invade and regrime change, which includes nation building.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom