• 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!

Head of the Pakistani Taliban Killed by US Drone Strike

Hard Truth said:
No one needed affirmation that drones are effective killing machines. Murder can be an effective political strategy for the short tem. It is not proven that killing leads to long term peace, justice and stability.
Click to expand...

The Japanese and the Germans, now both peaceful stable nations, would not agree.
 
Grant said:
The Japanese and the Germans, now both peaceful stable nations, would not agree.
Click to expand...
See, your post underlines the problem, Grant: people say the **** Hard Truth said and they honestly believe it. They believe it because it goes against "The Man" and so dumbasses from Occupy Wall Streeters to Tea Partiers all buy that same general nonsense.

And they don't even know that it's not true.
 
calamity said:
**** being diplomatic with people who promote throwing acid in girls' faces for daring to get an education.
Click to expand...
we don't have to be diplomatic; neither do we need to engage in their wars, or try to change their culture.

The best part of central Asia for the US is it's about as far away around the world that it can be.
 
Grant said:
What are you saying? That the Islamic aggressors are fighting to win but a free people shouldn't. I wouldn't worry too much abut 'international distaste'.
Click to expand...

I just said they aren't fighting to win.

They are fighting for Allah; or rather, a distorted version of Allah who wants them to kill as many infidels as possible, even if it means suicide bombing innocent civilians.

In such a religiously charged climate, with education being minimal and poverty rampant, do you think the richest nation in the world killing the Pakistani leader of the Taliban is going to change anything?

In other words, what are we fighting for exactly? What is the endgame? I do not wish to have this conversation again in 10 years, but people with your mindset make me acquiesce to the fact that we probably will, and you will pose the same argument and I will pose the same argument, meanwhile more death and wasted treasure with nothing to show for it.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
See, your post underlines the problem, Grant: people say the **** Hard Truth said and they honestly believe it. They believe it because it goes against "The Man" and so dumbasses from Occupy Wall Streeters to Tea Partiers all buy that same general nonsense.

And they don't even know that it's not true.
Click to expand...

As long as they keep looking at a date of withdrawal from a conflict rather than winning the conflict, America will lose. We ( the Allies) have to do what we did to the Germans and Japanese before they finally quit. The defeat of the Germans in WWI wasn't enough to convince them that peace was preferable, and the Japanese were willing to die to the last person before conceding.

It is the same with any war. Killing a few people here and there and announcing withdrawal dates will never convince an opponent to concede. In fact this novel attitude towards war is a sure-fire loser.
 
StringBean said:
I just said they aren't fighting to win.

They are fighting for Allah; or rather, a distorted version of Allah who wants them to kill as many infidels as possible, even if it means suicide bombing innocent civilians.

In such a religiously charged climate, with education being minimal and poverty rampant, do you think the richest nation in the world killing the Pakistani leader of the Taliban is going to change anything?

In other words, what are we fighting for exactly? What is the endgame? I do not wish to have this conversation again in 10 years, but people with your mindset make me acquiesce to the fact that we probably will, and you will pose the same argument and I will pose the same argument, meanwhile more death and wasted treasure with nothing to show for it.
Click to expand...

We have to win the war and by following through with 'lines in the sand' rather than dancing away from them is the only way.

We cannot be politically correct either. We have to define who the enemy is, where they are located and attack full force, just as George Bush said he would do in his speech following 9/11. The 'hearts and minds' theory is useless. Another poster rightly pointed out that wars are becoming politicized rather than doing what is necessary to win which is naming the enemy, attacking them, and killing them. At the same time re-education would begin as quickly as well.

We can't have third world religious fanatics who shoot little girls on their way to school having weaponry of any kind. A couple of large bombs taken from the stockpile and used strategically will save more lives over the long haul than any number of drones or outreach programs will ever achieve.
 
Grant said:
We have to define who the enemy is, where they are located and attack full force
Click to expand...

Sun Tzu would beg to disagree.

This line of thinking is part of the reason the US didn't win Vietnam.

It's simplistic thinking like this that gets nations into quagmires.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Sun Tzu would beg to disagree.
Click to expand...

Who cares?

This line of thinking is part of the reason the US didn't win Vietnam.
Click to expand...

No, it's why they didn't win.

It's simplistic thinking like this that gets nations into quagmires.
Click to expand...

'Quagmire' must be one of the first words a leftist learns. Dropping a couple of atomic bombs avoided any 'quagmires' in Japan. If Sun Tzu had access to them his entire philosophy would have abruptly changed.
 
Captain America said:
Facts, schmacks. They don't mean nothin' to an Obama hater. They think Factchecker's are commies. LOL!
Click to expand...

1. Factcheckers who disagree with Glenn Beck are commies (and also fascists) who hate America. That is true and anyone who disagrees probably hates Jesus and babies.

2. It's a good strike. Conservatives ought to point out that Obama's greatest foreign policy achievements have come from keeping and expanding Bush initiatives, while his greatest failures have (thus far) come from deviating from them. May this guy rest in a warm place :).
 
Jetboogieman said:
Sun Tzu would beg to disagree.

This line of thinking is part of the reason the US didn't win Vietnam.
Click to expand...

when did the United States invade North Vietnam, or indeed, bring it's "full force" to bear? Given that the United States had the ability (should it have chosen to exercise it) to reduce North Vietnam to ash-covered rubble, it would seem that it does not, in fact, stand as a remonstrance to the argument that warfare is properly conducted by bringing "full force" to bear, but rather as a remonstrance of the notion that one can perpetually fight a "limited force" engagement, which is what we attempted in Vietnam.
 
Grant said:
It's easier to take them out at 50 at a time then one at a time anyway. Those who have considered fighting for the glory of a religious fanatic might also be reconsidering their options.
Click to expand...
All the while radicallizing the ones living in the UK and US.
 
Vietnam was a civil war; while China did support the North, the partition of Vietnam was un-natural - it is a unified state by organic design.

I can't remember a lot of what happened in French Indochina -kinna sketchy on all that - but we had no real interest in whatever happened in Vietnam;
and one could make a very strong argumant the South was a corrupt gov't propped up by the US, and the N. Vietnamess were the true nationalists.

It was our "dominoe theory" paranoia, and the stupid SEATO, alliance that got us in there, and unable to leave, until the South Vietnamese army was over-run.
 
CRUE CAB said:
All the while radicallizing the ones living in the UK and US.
Click to expand...

What evidence do you have of that? Certainly some, like the Boston bombers, will react but, as we are reminded frequently, most Muslims are not terrorists. It is in the interest of everyone, including Muslims, that terrorist are eliminated. In fact most victims of Islamic violence are Muslims.
 
Grant said:
What evidence do you have of that? Certainly some, like the Boston bombers, will react but, as we are reminded frequently, most Muslims are not terrorists. It is in the interest of everyone, including Muslims, that terrorist are eliminated. In fact most victims of Islamic violence are Muslims.
Click to expand...

DC Sniper.
9/11 Hijackers.
Shoe Bomber.
Toronto 18.
Hamburg terror cell.
London Underground bombing.
Killing a Brit sodier in broad daylight.
Ft Hood shooting.
Need more?
 
CRUE CAB said:
DC Sniper.
9/11 Hijackers.
Shoe Bomber.
Toronto 18.
Hamburg terror cell.
London Underground bombing.
Killing a Brit sodier in broad daylight.
Ft Hood shooting.
Need more?
Click to expand...

Of course you've mentioned more than the UK and US and there were no deaths in a few of them.

Do you have a plan on how to fight Muslims terrorists without offending some of their Islamic sympathizers? Would you advocate, like FDR, sealing off Muslims in some remote camps until the war against terror is over? Or perhaps disallow any further immigration until Islamic terrorism stops? Perhaps allow Sharia Law as soon as a Richard Reid tries to light his shoes on an airplane? What would you suggest?
 
Grant said:
Of course you've mentioned more than the UK and US and there were no deaths in a few of them.

Do you have a plan on how to fight Muslims terrorists without offending some of their Islamic sympathizers? Would you advocate, like FDR, sealing off Muslims in some remote camps until the war against terror is over? Or perhaps disallow any further immigration until Islamic terrorism stops? Perhaps allow Sharia Law as soon as a Richard Reid tries to light his shoes on an airplane? What would you suggest?
Click to expand...
Oh, so if there are no deaths. Its all OK? Even though they keep right on trying and succeed many times.
Close our borders and tighten immigration? Hell yes.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Oh, so if there are no deaths. Its all OK? Even though they keep right on trying and succeed many times.
Close our borders and tighten immigration? Hell yes.
Click to expand...

No, it's not all okay but we have to act before they do and shouldn't prevent us from going after them.. What caused Fort Hood was nothing more than political correctness run amok and a denial of the obvious..

I agree 100% about tightening immigration.
 
Snappo said:
I'd start with executing every muslim on the planet; but that's just me......... And a lot of us would be happy to do it for free if Uncle Sam would just go ahead and declare open season.
Click to expand...

Hey, tell us how you really feel.
 
annata said:
what would you call it then? ( you said Vietnam was not a civil war, in response to the claim i made it was)
Click to expand...

If it was a civil war outside countries would not have been involved. It was part of the Cold War, just as most outbreaks were during that period.
 
Grant said:
If it was a civil war outside countries would not have been involved. It was part of the Cold War, just as most outbreaks were during that period.
Click to expand...

No. It was a civil war to unify Vietnam, which is a seperate culture, and nation then China/Cambodia.
Afgansitan is essentially a civil war also, but we seem to find some need to try to construct a nation from a feudal type society.

Stay out of foreign civil wars, they are not our business, and we cannot control the outcomes.
 
annata said:
No. It was a civil war to unify Vietnam, which is a seperate culture, and nation then China/Cambodia.
Afgansitan is essentially a civil war also, but we seem to find some need to try to construct a nation from a feudal type society.

Stay out of foreign civil wars, they are not our business, and we cannot control the outcomes.
Click to expand...

It was a war to 'unify' Vietnam under Communism. Did you know that?
 
Grant said:
It was a war to 'unify' Vietnam under Communism. Did you know that?
Click to expand...

The N. Vietnamese were communists, i think because they were tired of colonial powers (France/US) coming into SE Asia, and taking the resources.
I'm a bit foggy on this - it was long ago.

Either way, it was their counrty, they could run any gov't as the please - the US was in Cold War hysteria - why JFK sent advisers in the first place;
but the escaaltion by LBJ was just pure paranoia run wild. we lost 53,000 men and women their on nothing but hysterical policy

After the fall of Saigon ; Vietnam has nothing significant to do with the Cold War. Meaning it never did in the first place, except our insane "domino theory" constructs we invented.
 
MadLib said:
It's fairly likely that a more negotiable leader will take over the Pakistani Taliban. In any case, the more terrorists we kill the more it proves to the others that they cannot possibly win this war.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the theory the Russian's went with when they invaded and tried to hold Afghanistan?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom