Page 23 of 25 FirstFirst ... 132122232425 LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 250

Thread: Obama: 'Victory' Not Necessarily Goal in Afghanistan

  1. #221
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    12-15-09 @ 11:30 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    326

    Re: Obama: 'Victory' Not Necessarily Goal in Afghanistan

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    We left the place in shambles. We funded the Muju's war against the Soviets, defeted them and walked off. We left a perfect environment for the crazies to work with. It's the same thing that happened in Germany after WW1.
    Why was the country being in shambles our fault? It was the Soviets that invaded Afghanistan and not the USA. If anything it is them who owe us a debt of gratitude for aiding, supporting, abetting, and helping them to oust the Soviets.

    Indeed, it was a win-win proposition for both of us. They got what they wanted, the ouster of the Soviet occupiers, and we got to use them as proxies against our former enemy the Soviets.

    We had no obligation to rebuild what was an already very backwards country to begin with that we had no hand in creating, and neither would the Muslims have welcomed the American kafirs had we attempted, as they would have also regarded us as foreign occupiers exactly like they viewed the Soviets, and exactly as we are viewed over there today.

    Finally, who and what are the crazies? Muslims are not crazy. They just think and act completely different from the way we Westerners think and act. Study Islam and you will soon find out what I’m talking about.

  2. #222
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    12-15-09 @ 11:30 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    326

    Re: Obama: 'Victory' Not Necessarily Goal in Afghanistan

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Gotta remember what buffoons we send to Washington these days.
    I couldn't agree with you more, but unfortunately I don't see anyone today that at least in public demonstrates that he or she has the first clue.

    I don't think your plan would have worked even if we'd had the right people in office. to many uncontrolled factors.
    Could you please elaborate more on why you don’t think “my plan” wouldn’t have work?

    Now before you do, let me elaborate on my plan a little bit more for you. If I had been in charge instead of Bush, besides the aforementioned, I would have teamed up with our loyal ally Israel and at the same time we were taking care of business in Iran via air power and Special Forces alone, Israel would have also been very busy eradicating Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad, the Hezbos, etc. and Iran’s poodle Syria. Of course, we would have also militarily and logistically supported Israel in this endeavor as well.

    Then subsequent to the elimination of the aforementioned threats, we would have teamed up to eliminate the House of Saud, which is the lynch pin of the global jihad today. We would have also given a very stern warning to the Gulf States emirates to cease and desist their support for the global jihad unless they want to face the same exact fate as the Saudis.

    Finally, we would have concluded our actions with the confiscation and subsequent disposal of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons arsenal and also the destruction of their nuclear program.

    Therefore, with no more OPEC oil money funding the global jihad anymore, the Dar al Islam would have had no choice other than to suspend their perpetual jihad.

    With respect to who would have gained control of the countries in which the terrorist regimes were ousted, I could care less and neither is that any of our business. I highly doubt though that whoever subsequently rose to power would want to face the same exact fate as their predecessors.

    With respect to inevitable sectarian jihads between Sunni and Shi’a and any other cracks and fissures within the Dar al Islam, that would be a good thing for the Dar al Harb and a bad thing for the Dar al Islam since it would serve to weaken the camp of Islam. If anything else, I would look for more cracks and fissures inside the Dar al Islam to exploit and keep stoking the ones already stoked.

    Regarding possible oil disruptions, I highly doubt they would ever occur since oil is the lifeline of the region and only source of revenue, since other than bloodshed and lots and lots of misery, Muslims are totally incapable of producing anything on their own without the aid and assistance of kafirs, and thus they would be forced to keep the spigots wide open to rebuild the destruction we left behind as deterrence.

    Therefore, because the spigots would be wide open, the obvious price manipulation of oil that we faced during last year’s elections to intentionally influence our election in favor of Obama and the Dhimmicrats and to also weaken our economy via stealth economic jihad would not be able to occur anymore and thus we would all also enjoy much lower oil prices as a result with resulting stronger economic growth.

    However, the last thing I would have done would have been to foolishly occupy a Muslim country to pursue a silly fantasy based nation-building mission like Bush did in both Iraq and Afghanistan since that is a fool’s errand predestined to fail since it is premised on a myth.

    Finally, in addition to the aforementioned, I would have also advocated a complete disengagement of the West from Islam, because Islam has a universal mission to make the world sovereign for Allah and is therefore completely incompatible with the West.

  3. #223
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: Obama: 'Victory' Not Necessarily Goal in Afghanistan

    Quote: Originally Posted by Truth Detector
    What part of my assertions was specifically extreme? You're a Democrat, but my comments specifically were directed at Liberals regardless of their political affiliations.

    It is a general assertion, but fits about 98.5% of the Liberals who spend a great deal of time ranting in a vacuum of the facts and realities; Disney dude makes my case.

    What portion of my comments was "partisan" specifically?

    So what you are saying is that we are in agreement therefore it begs the question, what is the point of your response to my comments to Laila, a rabid uninformed Liberal who makes farcical comments in a vacuum of reality and the facts?

    I would love to see where MY statements or any Republicans have made this claim. Of course you will not find it, but it apparently is your OPINION and your PERCEPTIONS which I assure you are false and not supported by facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by tlmorg02 View Post
    How can you possibly make a blanket assertion that 98.5% of Liberals fit your given description, without a shred of evidence, other than your opinion, and then act as if I offended you?
    I perfectly willing to see your "evidence" to the contrary. The evidence supporting my statement, albeit the percentage was unscientific, is supported by TONS of valid evidence in any editorial, magazine article and comments by the rabid liberals who infest this forum.

    Quote Originally Posted by tlmorg02 View Post
    …. and then act as if I offended you?
    What part of my comments suggests I was offended? Once again we see a lot of perception and projection, but very little in the way of facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by tlmorg02 View Post
    As to the last claim you make, did I say that it was claimed? No, I said that in reading the posts on this forum on the subject, most conservatives act as though they are the only ones who understand what is needed to protect this country, and that those on the other end of the political spectrum are naive, fairy people who would be lost if it were not for the conservatives protecting this country. I say that such assertions are mere partisan rhetoric with no proof whatsoever to back it up.
    I am going to type this slowly so that you can follow along, this is a claim:

    “most conservatives act as though they are the only ones who understand what is needed to protect this country, and that those on the other end of the political spectrum are naive, fairy people who would be lost if it were not for the conservatives protecting this country. “

    Was that clear enough for you?


    Quote Originally Posted by tlmorg02 View Post
    Regardless, I am not here to argue who is best fit to protect this nation. Whether it be with the sword or negotiation and alliances, I feel that all views of every side are relevant, as that is the only way in this nation we can percieve the full picture, rather than a view through colored lenses of one party over the other. Iraq is no exception. Many feel that it never should have happened, and I am sure you will even admit there were mistakes made that we should learn from. In the end we should all pull together and focus on how to ensure that this endeavor succeed, for nothing could fight terror better, than a functional democracy in a region rid with tyranny.
    Here is the only area we perhaps disagree with on the above comments; after the decision was made to put our young men and women in danger and it was by a vast majority on BOTH sides of the aisle, the time for debate and hyperbolic BS ended and the time to fully support the effort regardless of political persuasion or feelings began.

    My comments are specifically directed at the Librul Democrat politicians, in particular ingrates like Kerry, who voted FOR the war and then did a 180 degree turnaround for political expediency. Kerry is as low and despicable as one can go as a politician and Hillary was closely following behind once she shed her fear of looking like a hypocrite.

    As for this statement;

    “and I am sure you will even admit there were mistakes made that we should learn from. “

    Absolutely, and there is a productive NON-Partisan way to pursue this. But this is NOT what we saw for almost 6 years or are seeing from the Librul Democrats now who voted FOR the war before they were AGAINST it, and those like Pelosi who sat through CIA briefings and claimed that it never occurred to them to ask any questions or evaluate the reasons they were being briefed.


  4. #224
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: Obama: 'Victory' Not Necessarily Goal in Afghanistan

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    We left the place in shambles. We funded the Muju's war against the Soviets, defeted them and walked off. We left a perfect environment for the crazies to work with. It's the same thing that happened in Germany after WW1.
    "WE" did nothing of what you claim. Yes we may have assisted the Taliban in their efforts to remove the shackles of Soviet Empire building by sending arms, money and intelligence perhaps, but the notion that we left anything is slightly bizarre.

    We didn't "leave" anything as "WE" were never "there."

  5. #225
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    12-15-09 @ 11:30 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    326

    Re: Obama: 'Victory' Not Necessarily Goal in Afghanistan

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    Nothing can frighten a Socialist more than the TRUTH; and nothing can frighten Obama more than REALITY

    OBAMA; One Big Ass Mistake America
    With respect to your tag line, I agree the problem is Obama’s principles are divorced from reality and he is irresponsive and impervious to facts that contradict them.

  6. #226
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,219

    Re: Obama: 'Victory' Not Necessarily Goal in Afghanistan

    Quote Originally Posted by Turbeaux View Post
    Why was the country being in shambles our fault? It was the Soviets that invaded Afghanistan and not the USA. If anything it is them who owe us a debt of gratitude for aiding, supporting, abetting, and helping them to oust the Soviets.
    It wasn't our fault, but at the same time it needed to be cleaned up and there sure as hell wasn't anyone else gonna do it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  7. #227
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,219

    Re: Obama: 'Victory' Not Necessarily Goal in Afghanistan

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    "WE" did nothing of what you claim. Yes we may have assisted the Taliban in their efforts to remove the shackles of Soviet Empire building by sending arms, money and intelligence perhaps, but the notion that we left anything is slightly bizarre.

    We didn't "leave" anything as "WE" were never "there."

    WE did leave the country a mess. Did we make the mess? Of course not. Should we, for own best interest helped clean it up? You betcha.

    BTW, we didn't help the Tallies do crap. American funding was directed to Ahmad Shah Massoud's forces.

    The only money the US ever gave the Tallies was when Clinton paid them several million bucks to stop growing poppies. I think, in hindsight, that that was a bad move.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  8. #228
    Advisor Tubub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    05-22-13 @ 03:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    521

    Re: Obama: 'Victory' Not Necessarily Goal in Afghanistan

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    WE did leave the country a mess. Did we make the mess? Of course not. Should we, for own best interest helped clean it up? You betcha.

    BTW, we didn't help the Tallies do crap. American funding was directed to Ahmad Shah Massoud's forces.

    The only money the US ever gave the Tallies was when Clinton paid them several million bucks to stop growing poppies. I think, in hindsight, that that was a bad move.
    Keep in mind we funded the general mujihadeen through the early years of the war, not discerning one rebel leader over another until later... We used Pakistani Intelligence Services to funnel our funds through and that was a mistake in itself since they sent the funds to their cronies like Hekmatyr, and Massoud received nothing or very little from them.

    As for the Taliban, the organization wasn't even created until a few years after the Communist puppet regime fell in 1992... And since we couldn't have given less of a **** at that point, we never supported the Taliban. We didn't come back to Afghanistan until 1996, with the creation of the Bin Laden Unit. At that point, the Taliban were already the de facto rulers of Afghanistan.

    Anyway, I usually disagree with you but you are right on the point in this discussion.
    Last edited by Tubub; 07-28-09 at 10:15 PM.
    “Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checked by failure...than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.”
    -TR

  9. #229
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,219

    Re: Obama: 'Victory' Not Necessarily Goal in Afghanistan

    Quote Originally Posted by Tubub View Post
    Keep in mind we funded the general mujihadeen through the early years of the war, not discerning one rebel leader over another until later... We used Pakistani Intelligence Services to funnel our funds through and that was a mistake in itself.

    As for the Taliban, the organization wasn't even created until a few years after the Communist puppet regime fell in 1992... We never supported the Taliban...

    Anyway, I usually disagree with you but you are right on in this discussion.
    No, we didn't. Mahssoud's forces were picked as the elite of all the mujas fighting in Afghanistan. They numbered about 130,000 strong. The money was directed to those fighters, however, because the money didn't pass directly from our hands to Mahssoud's hands, some of the money and weapons were side tracked to the dudes that later made up the ranks of the Taliban. So, yes, using the Pak intel services was a mistake, but we had to have Pakistan's help to smuggle the weapons into Afghanistan, so we had to play a little ball with them.

    There was no general fund for all the mujas to dip into like a grab bag. That myth has been proported for way too long. Being historically minded as you are, you should read "Charlie Wilson's War". Tons of specific first hand info about how it all went down.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  10. #230
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Obama: 'Victory' Not Necessarily Goal in Afghanistan

    Quote Originally Posted by Turbeaux View Post
    I couldn't agree with you more, but unfortunately I don't see anyone today that at least in public demonstrates that he or she has the first clue.



    Could you please elaborate more on why you don’t think “my plan” wouldn’t have work?
    Too complicated and runs too much against the mainstream of the dominant surrender monkey political ideology embraced by both major parties.

    Personally, I'm all for telling nations that harbor terrorists that it's going to snow cobalt-60 and strontium-90 at sundown. But it's not politically viable no matter how morally correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Turbeaux View Post
    Now before you do, let me elaborate on my plan a little bit more for you. If I had been in charge instead of Bush, besides the aforementioned, I would have teamed up with our loyal ally Israel and at the same time we were taking care of business in Iran via air power and Special Forces alone, Israel would have also been very busy eradicating Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad, the Hezbos, etc. and Iran’s poodle Syria. Of course, we would have also militarily and logistically supported Israel in this endeavor as well.

    Then subsequent to the elimination of the aforementioned threats, we would have teamed up to eliminate the House of Saud, which is the lynch pin of the global jihad today. We would have also given a very stern warning to the Gulf States emirates to cease and desist their support for the global jihad unless they want to face the same exact fate as the Saudis.

    Finally, we would have concluded our actions with the confiscation and subsequent disposal of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons arsenal and also the destruction of their nuclear program.

    Therefore, with no more OPEC oil money funding the global jihad anymore, the Dar al Islam would have had no choice other than to suspend their perpetual jihad.

    With respect to who would have gained control of the countries in which the terrorist regimes were ousted, I could care less and neither is that any of our business. I highly doubt though that whoever subsequently rose to power would want to face the same exact fate as their predecessors.

    With respect to inevitable sectarian jihads between Sunni and Shi’a and any other cracks and fissures within the Dar al Islam, that would be a good thing for the Dar al Harb and a bad thing for the Dar al Islam since it would serve to weaken the camp of Islam. If anything else, I would look for more cracks and fissures inside the Dar al Islam to exploit and keep stoking the ones already stoked.

    Regarding possible oil disruptions, I highly doubt they would ever occur since oil is the lifeline of the region and only source of revenue, since other than bloodshed and lots and lots of misery, Muslims are totally incapable of producing anything on their own without the aid and assistance of kafirs, and thus they would be forced to keep the spigots wide open to rebuild the destruction we left behind as deterrence.

    Therefore, because the spigots would be wide open, the obvious price manipulation of oil that we faced during last year’s elections to intentionally influence our election in favor of Obama and the Dhimmicrats and to also weaken our economy via stealth economic jihad would not be able to occur anymore and thus we would all also enjoy much lower oil prices as a result with resulting stronger economic growth.

    However, the last thing I would have done would have been to foolishly occupy a Muslim country to pursue a silly fantasy based nation-building mission like Bush did in both Iraq and Afghanistan since that is a fool’s errand predestined to fail since it is premised on a myth.

    Finally, in addition to the aforementioned, I would have also advocated a complete disengagement of the West from Islam, because Islam has a universal mission to make the world sovereign for Allah and is therefore completely incompatible with the West.
    One word against your proposal:

    Manpower.

    And lack thereoff.

Page 23 of 25 FirstFirst ... 132122232425 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •