Page 25 of 25 FirstFirst ... 15232425
Results 241 to 250 of 250

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

  1. #241
    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 Tubub View Post
    Yet your arrogant and ruthless policies would've lead to more anti-americanism.
    Uhm…when it comes to what is best for America, I could give a damn about anti-Americanism. Nevertheless, the notion that you can win the hearts and minds of Muslims is not only exceedingly ignorant but it is also extremely ludicrous as well, since Muslims are under strict obligation per the holy text of Islam to hate our guts no matter what we do since we are kafirs (non-Muslims). This also means that both nation-building missions in Iraq and Afghanistan were exceedingly fantasy based and predestined to fail because they were premised on a ludicrous myth.

    Indeed, the entire idea of nation building period is very absurd not to mention extremely immoral since it needlessly puts the lives of our military people at risk, not for the protection of the American people and the defense of the country, but for the good of others instead and that is altruism. Altruism should always remain outside the realm of government. If private people and organizations want to perform altruistic missions that’s fine, but keep altruism outside the purview of government.

    We need to get back to the real purpose and intention of warfare, which is to obliterate threats and then go home as soon as those threats have been eliminated. The death, destruction, pain, and sufferning we leave behind should remain to fester as a reminder to all and to serve as deterrence. Counterproductive nation building missions run exactly counter to this purpose and inevitably lead to more and greater warfare.

    Think about it…if we quickly and overwhelmingly always obliterate our enemies without exception, there inevitably will be far less wars in the future, because no one would dare face our inevitable wrath, which is their imminent death and destruction. Since no one would want to get on our wrong side because of what would be their inevitable fate, they would thus find ways to become our friends and loyal allies.

    Your amoral views of civilian lives would've only promoted our enemies and encouraged fence-sitters and potential allies to turn to the other side.
    Oh my gosh can you please link to where I advocated targeting and killing civilians please, like the Muslims primarily always do? Not to mention if anyone is immoral, it’s obviously you since you fully support altruistic nation building missions that needlessly put at risk the lives of our military people for the good of others, and in this case for the good of others that are mandated to hate our guts no matter what we do.

    You'll be creating more enemies than your defeating and costing the Free World the upper hand.
    That’s about as silly as it gets. The purpose of war is to obliterate your enemy before they obliterate you, and once they are eliminated to leave behind the death, destruction, suffering, and pain to serve as deterrence and a constant reminder to them lest they want it to happen again.

    Winning wars should never be about winning the hearts and minds of your enemy, that’s absolutely ludicrous, not to mention exceedingly counterproductive. It should only be about killing them before they kill you and deterring them and others from ever making that stupid mistake again.

    Moral superiority is one of our greatest advantages, losing that in Iraq in 2004 was one of our greatest defeats and you seem to be taking that overly-agressive outlook 10 steps further.
    Don’t give me that insane crap! The only morality in warfare should be to kill your enemy before they kill you and to create deterrence. As for as the silly fantasy based nation building missions to attempt to win the hearts and minds of Muslim no less in Iraq and Afghanistan goes, they were both about as mentally incompetent as it gets. Not to mention that Muslims will always hate our guts no matter what we do in any event! Thus, both missions were perdestined to fail even before they were implemented.

    How do we defeat Islamist forces? Do we just stoop in and kill a few then leave?
    Yes! Exactly! We obliterate and exterminate them with overwhelming brute force as fast as possible and then leave to create deterrence and let the pain, suffering, death, and destruction left behind to fester and send a very clear and very loud message to the Dar al Islam to either suspend their religious mandate to subjugate the world or face more death and destruction. It prevents wars! While, on the other hand, counterproductive attempts to win hearts and minds do just the opposite, emboldens the Dar al Islam and generates more wars.

    In the case of our present war, OBL and AQ should be obliterated of course to send the world a very loud and very clear message that the USA will not tolerate attacks on our homeland.

    Additionally, instead of trying to pursue silly counterproductive fantasy-based nation building missions that are premised on myths and predestined to fail, and also letting our enemies dictate the battlefield by stupidly fighting hydra-headed jihadis and engaging them in their preferred asymmetric warfare tactics which make a mockery of the Geneva Conventions, we should be targeting and eliminating the leaders and heads of the global jihad with overwhelming brute force. Primarily the House of Saud, the ruling Mullahs of Iran, and the Syrian regime should all be eliminated in order to send a very loud and very clear message to the remainder of the Dar al Islam, that the USA and the West will not tolerate in the slightest the continued pursuit of the global jihad. To do otherwise, will only mean more and greater war.

  2. #242
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Tubub View Post
    Yet your arrogant and ruthless policies would've lead to more anti-americanism.
    Yes -- dont make mad the people that hate us, as they might hate us more!

    Your amoral views of civilian lives would've only promoted our enemies and encouraged fence-sitters and potential allies to turn to the other side.
    Presuming, of course, that they do not share thesame amoral views.
    Can you provide an example of one of these fence sitters or potential allies that do not?

    You don't just **** up somebody's **** and expect them not to care. You'll be creating more enemies than your defeating and costing the Free World the upper hand.
    Seems to me we ****** up Germany and Japan's ****.
    What do they think of us?

    Moral superiority is one of our greatest advantages, losing that in Iraq in 2004...
    You say that as if the instances you cite are systemic and a result of a wholesale acceptance of that behavior.
    Anyone believe that to be the case isnt paying attention

  3. #243
    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 Truth Detector View Post
    Both of these events were excuses made by terrorist zealots to foment purposeless violence and fanned by flame of Global Liberal media frenzies.

    The sad part is how Liberals and Democrats used this for political gain which merely empowered the enemy and encouraged them to continue murdering innocents; this is of course my opinion grounded in common sense and reality.

    Yeah... whatever. Regardless of what you just said, it tarnished our reputation everywhere and lost us the moral upper hand.
    “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

  4. #244
    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 Turbeaux View Post
    Uhm…when it comes to what is best for America, I could give a damn about anti-Americanism. Nevertheless, the notion that you can win the hearts and minds of Muslims is not only exceedingly ignorant but it is also extremely ludicrous as well, since Muslims are under strict obligation per the holy text of Islam to hate our guts no matter what we do since we are kafirs (non-Muslims). This also means that both nation-building missions in Iraq and Afghanistan were exceedingly fantasy based and predestined to fail because they were premised on a ludicrous myth.

    Indeed, the entire idea of nation building period is very absurd not to mention extremely immoral since it needlessly puts the lives of our military people at risk, not for the protection of the American people and the defense of the country, but for the good of others instead and that is altruism. Altruism should always remain outside the realm of government. If private people and organizations want to perform altruistic missions that’s fine, but keep altruism outside the purview of government.

    We need to get back to the real purpose and intention of warfare, which is to obliterate threats and then go home as soon as those threats have been eliminated. The death, destruction, pain, and sufferning we leave behind should remain to fester as a reminder to all and to serve as deterrence. Counterproductive nation building missions run exactly counter to this purpose and inevitably lead to more and greater warfare.

    Think about it…if we quickly and overwhelmingly always obliterate our enemies without exception, there inevitably will be far less wars in the future, because no one would dare face our inevitable wrath, which is their imminent death and destruction. Since no one would want to get on our wrong side because of what would be their inevitable fate, they would thus find ways to become our friends and loyal allies.



    Oh my gosh can you please link to where I advocated targeting and killing civilians please, like the Muslims primarily always do? Not to mention if anyone is immoral, it’s obviously you since you fully support altruistic nation building missions that needlessly put at risk the lives of our military people for the good of others, and in this case for the good of others that are mandated to hate our guts no matter what we do.



    That’s about as silly as it gets. The purpose of war is to obliterate your enemy before they obliterate you, and once they are eliminated to leave behind the death, destruction, suffering, and pain to serve as deterrence and a constant reminder to them lest they want it to happen again.

    Winning wars should never be about winning the hearts and minds of your enemy, that’s absolutely ludicrous, not to mention exceedingly counterproductive. It should only be about killing them before they kill you and deterring them and others from ever making that stupid mistake again.



    Don’t give me that insane crap! The only morality in warfare should be to kill your enemy before they kill you and to create deterrence. As for as the silly fantasy based nation building missions to attempt to win the hearts and minds of Muslim no less in Iraq and Afghanistan goes, they were both about as mentally incompetent as it gets. Not to mention that Muslims will always hate our guts no matter what we do in any event! Thus, both missions were perdestined to fail even before they were implemented.



    Yes! Exactly! We obliterate and exterminate them with overwhelming brute force as fast as possible and then leave to create deterrence and let the pain, suffering, death, and destruction left behind to fester and send a very clear and very loud message to the Dar al Islam to either suspend their religious mandate to subjugate the world or face more death and destruction. It prevents wars! While, on the other hand, counterproductive attempts to win hearts and minds do just the opposite, emboldens the Dar al Islam and generates more wars.

    In the case of our present war, OBL and AQ should be obliterated of course to send the world a very loud and very clear message that the USA will not tolerate attacks on our homeland.

    Additionally, instead of trying to pursue silly counterproductive fantasy-based nation building missions that are premised on myths and predestined to fail, and also letting our enemies dictate the battlefield by stupidly fighting hydra-headed jihadis and engaging them in their preferred asymmetric warfare tactics which make a mockery of the Geneva Conventions, we should be targeting and eliminating the leaders and heads of the global jihad with overwhelming brute force. Primarily the House of Saud, the ruling Mullahs of Iran, and the Syrian regime should all be eliminated in order to send a very loud and very clear message to the remainder of the Dar al Islam, that the USA and the West will not tolerate in the slightest the continued pursuit of the global jihad. To do otherwise, will only mean more and greater war.
    Your comment is way too long to bother with. I'ts always the same stuff, and it never has substantial evidence complimenting it... It's just you ranting. It's a waste of time, so just cut down all the ad homm and rhetoric and in its place add some real-world evidence including citations and quotes and then I'll respond.
    “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

  5. #245
    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 Tubub View Post
    Abu Ghraib

    Damge to US image worldwide


    An excerpt from the book No True Glory: A Frontline Account of the Battle of Fallujah by Bing West

    The main thing about Abu Ghraib is that it makes America look weak in the eyes of the Islamic world, since if the shoe were on the other foot and it was American prisoners involved instead, the torture inflicted would have been far more horrendous and the victims would have all been summarily beheaded.

    Nevertheless, America doesn’t sanction what happened in Abu Ghraib. Indeed, that was totally against the military code of justice and everything America stands for, yet you are crucifying America and an entire nation for the crimes of a few misguided individuals acting in contravention to American policy. Not only that but those involved were quickly brought to justice as soon as their crimes were discovered. How could you be so morally confused? It boggles the mind!

    It appears you are completely mentally obsessed with America’s image abroad. Do you live your private life that way as well? I mean are you so obsessed about what people think of you on a personal level that you become paralyzed with fear and can’t live your life normally? You must be!

    Personally, I could give a crap what people think of America because I’m fully secure in the knowledge that America by far is not only the best country in the world, but also that it has done far more good in the world than all the other countries combined.
    Last edited by Turbeaux; 07-29-09 at 06:10 PM.

  6. #246
    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 Tubub View Post
    Your comment is way too long to bother with. I'ts always the same stuff, and it never has substantial evidence complimenting it... It's just you ranting. It's a waste of time, so just cut down all the ad homm and rhetoric and in its place add some real-world evidence including citations and quotes and then I'll respond.
    Give me a break, I could care less if you respond or not because I know I'm right and you are wrong and also because you are lost and morally confused as could be.

    The truth is you can't respond!

  7. #247
    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 Goobieman View Post
    Yes -- dont make mad the people that hate us, as they might hate us more!
    Elaborate. You think all of Iraq and Afghanistan hate us? So what are you proposing? Genocide?

    Presuming, of course, that they do not share thesame amoral views.
    Can you provide an example of one of these fence sitters or potential allies that do not?
    Do you know what a fence-sitter is? What do you think a person's response is if you act negligently, arrogant, and overly-aggressive in their country? Your rationale seems to sound like they will feel so tickled by freedom they won't care about anything else. You sound like Paul Bremer. The hell that kind of thinking did us.

    Winning the peace
    During the coordinated insurgent uprising in April 2004, Muqtada Al Sadr, as one of his first acts, gained control of the electrical substations in Sadr City. By providing uninterrupted power, something not seen since the fall of Saddam Hussein, he was able to sway support. A shadow government able to provide services, with governance by religious decree and enforcement by Sharia courts, Muqtada Al Sadr was able to provide a viable, attractive alternative to the coalition. Together, the Iraqi Government and the coalition must send clear signals of their own, directly targeting those waiting for direction through a full-spectrum campaign that mitigates the insurgent base with visible and tangible signs of progress within a legitimate context.
    The insurgency and its growth in 2004 and 2005 is my evidence that fence sitters do not share your amoral views of how they should be treated.

    Seems to me we ****** up Germany and Japan's ****.
    What do they think of us?
    We invaded Iraq on a false pretext that the Ba'athist Regime had WMD's and ties to Al Qaida. After that, we failed to provide average Iraqis their everyday needs, alienated the Sunni population, and befit the definition of an Imperial occupier. What actions in the occupation of Germany and Japan equate to those in Iraq? Did we have a legitimate rationale to attack Germany and Japan? Did we act negligently and agressively in the occupation of their country?

    Again, you think like a typical neo-con. You fail to see that unlike Germany, Iraq has 2 very different ethnic groups with a history of fighting and two very different religious sects. Iraq isn't ****ing Germany or Japan.

    You say that as if the instances you cite are systemic and a result of a wholesale acceptance of that behavior.
    Anyone believe that to be the case isnt paying attention
    Substantive. Really...
    Last edited by Tubub; 07-29-09 at 06:28 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

  8. #248
    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 Turbeaux View Post
    Give me a break, I could care less if you respond or not because I know I'm right and you are wrong and also because you are lost and morally confused as could be.

    The truth is you can't respond!
    Thanks for proving my point. Your an arrogant dumbass not worth anyone's time.

    “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. #249
    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 Tubub View Post
    Thanks for proving my point. Your an arrogant dumbass not worth anyone's time.

    Wow...you can call someone a dumbass on this forum and get away with it. Oh boy...am I going to have a great time over here then!

  10. #250
    Sage
    First Thought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    DFW, Texas
    Last Seen
    12-01-10 @ 03:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,218

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Turbeaux View Post
    Wow...you can call someone a dumbass on this forum and get away with it. Oh boy...am I going to have a great time over here then!
    No, you only get away with it until a mod gets wind of it.
    "An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." - Gandhi

Page 25 of 25 FirstFirst ... 15232425

Posting Permissions

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