• 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!

Cheney: Stop ‘dithering’ on Afghanistan troops

Devil505 said:
I tossed that video in because the topic is about Cheney & the value of his military recommendations which contradict themselves depending on who's in power at the time.
Cheney is a politician & does things for political reasons....period. (my opinion...of course);)

I think Cheney is wrong now for wanting to send more troops to Afghanistan. (he was right about Iraq....back in 1994)
Click to expand...

Of course, Iraq is a success. Now.
 
Devil505 said:
Only time Cheney was right was back in 1994.....(Watch the video above)
Click to expand...
And what makes you think they're only their for Afghanistan or al Qaeda or Iraq......and not for another classified purpose like Iran? What makes you think that if Israel strikes Iran, that we're not there for that?
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Everyone is screaming for Obama to make a decision for the sake of our troops HE has in harms way.


The indecisive buffoon is "dithering" or fiddling while afghanistan burns....
Click to expand...

My biggest problem with this is that it is not in the interest of an American General to admit when we just cannot win. You don't become a General by playing cautious, or even realizing mortality-- go hard or go home. Instead, we see the rhetoric of needing more guns, ammo, or men.

I think we could flood Afghanistan with troops and we'll still be sitting ducks. We could hold an entire offensive against Waziristan, but as soon as we do we're going to realize that Osama has slipped by us again. Osama and top Taliban/AQ officials are more boogey men than actual leaders.
 
Arch Enemy said:
My biggest problem with this is that it is not in the interest of an American General to admit when we just cannot win. You don't become a General by playing cautious, or even realizing mortality-- go hard or go home. Instead, we see the rhetoric of needing more guns, ammo, or men.

I think we could flood Afghanistan with troops and we'll still be sitting ducks. We could hold an entire offensive against Waziristan, but as soon as we do we're going to realize that Osama has slipped by us again. Osama and top Taliban/AQ officials are more boogey men than actual leaders.
Click to expand...
He doesn't have to admit he cannot win. You have not a shred of evidence to the contrary. Cheney says otherwise, and passed along the very plan that Obama is contemplating.
 
Arch Enemy said:
My biggest problem with this is that it is not in the interest of an American General to admit when we just cannot win.
Click to expand...
What makes you think that, even if this is true, it is relevant?
 
Il Duce will not stop dithering, the fascist bastard wants to lose the war in Afghanistan as do the vast majority of the jack booted corporatist thugs running Congress which is why Obama has only met with McChrystall twice (second time after he was shamed into it) and why the Senate Democrats voted party line and unanimously to block McChrystall from appearing before them.
 
Goobieman said:
What makes you think that, even if this is true, it is relevant?
Click to expand...

Because Afghanistan is a vacuum that sucks troops, money, and weapons. We've found some of the last remains of society that does not want to play the globalization game. Think a tribal leader within the Afghan mountains gives two squirts of piss whether or not Kabul has a fair and democrat regime? The leaders want what is best for their tribe, and that usually means fighting any centralizing power.

We're gonna either have to play hardball and expect extraordinary causalities over a horribly long time or leave.


Personally, I am not for mass producing letters to send to marine family members telling them that their children are dead for a mountain range between an illegitimate and corrupt government and Pakistan.
 
Arch Enemy said:
Because Afghanistan is a vacuum that sucks troops, money, and weapons.
Click to expand...
Lots of wars are like that.
How does that mean we cannot win?
 
American said:
He doesn't have to admit he cannot win. You have not a shred of evidence to the contrary. Cheney says otherwise, and passed along the very plan that Obama is contemplating.
Click to expand...

Do we know the details of that plan? Gotta link?
 
Goobieman said:
Lots of wars are like that.
How does that mean we cannot win?
Click to expand...

The new reports suggest a tactic of sitting in areas and defending the population. Our reason for invading Afghanistan was not to liberate the people it was to destroy the launching pad that AQ has been using to launch terrorist attacks. If we are to truly beat AQ then we're gonna have to hunt their ideology down wherever it goes. We cannot begin to speculate the range of the ideology, heck we don't even know for sure where their "base" is.

We're going to have to hold a military presence in that area. While the AQ and Taliban goons attack and disappear. It's going to be costly, it's going to be dangerous. With all that said... having a large military presence in Afghanistan... does that make you feel less vulnerable to a terrorist attack?
 
Arch Enemy said:
The new reports suggest a tactic of sitting in areas and defending the population. Our reason for invading Afghanistan was not to liberate the people it was to destroy the launching pad that AQ has been using to launch terrorist attacks. If we are to truly beat AQ then we're gonna have to hunt their ideology down wherever it goes. We cannot begin to speculate the range of the ideology, heck we don't even know for sure where their "base" is.

We're going to have to hold a military presence in that area. While the AQ and Taliban goons attack and disappear. It's going to be costly, it's going to be dangerous.
Click to expand...
How does that mean we cannot win?
 
Arch Enemy said:
Because the enemy is an ideology.
Click to expand...

The enemy has an ideology but the enemy itself is not an ideology. The enemy are practitioners of an ideology. The enemy can be defeated...if we remove santuaries - my concern.
 
reefedjib said:
The enemy has an ideology but the enemy itself is not an ideology. The enemy are practitioners of an ideology. The enemy can be defeated...
Click to expand...
...if the ideology is declared sufficiently unacceptable so as to commit the means necessary to defeat it.

Its never "too hard" to defeat a foe that -must- be defeated. You might not win, but if he -must- be defeated, then you expend every resource you have in trying.

I am further and futher convinced that if the kinds of people we have today were around in 1939, we'd have lost WW2.
 
This has to be the biggest hoot of the day, debating what a ("I had other priorities in the '60s than military service") Vice president has to say about a war, that he was second in command of the administration responsible for returning the talaban back into at least partial power when we had them on the run in 2003. :rofl



.
 
donc said:
This has to be the biggest hoot of the day, debating what a ("I had other priorities in the '60s than military service") Vice president has to say about a war, that he was second in command of the administration responsible for returning the talaban back into at least partial power when we had them on the run in 2003. :rofl
Click to expand...
THE question:

"Make no mistake. Signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries," Cheney said while accepting an award from a conservative national security group, the Center for Security Policy.

"The White House must stop dithering while America's armed forces are in danger," the former vice president said. "It's time for President Obama to do what it takes to win a war he has repeatedly and rightly called a war of necessity."

Is Cheney wrong?
 
donc said:
This has to be the biggest hoot of the day, debating what a ("I had other priorities in the '60s than military service") Vice president has to say about a war, that he was second in command of the administration responsible for returning the talaban back into at least partial power when we had them on the run in 2003. :rofl



.
Click to expand...

When did they return to even partial power?
 
reefedjib said:
Of course, Iraq is a success. Now.
Click to expand...

Still quite a few recent bombings & we still have lots of boots on the ground yet. What do you think will happen the second we leave?
(or should we stay there forever?....unwanted occupiers)
I think it will return to the same bloodbath it would have been the second their strong central government was no more. You really think they are capable of being a democracy??)
 
Arch Enemy said:
My biggest problem with this is that it is not in the interest of an American General to admit when we just cannot win. You don't become a General by playing cautious, or even realizing mortality-- go hard or go home. Instead, we see the rhetoric of needing more guns, ammo, or men.

I think we could flood Afghanistan with troops and we'll still be sitting ducks. We could hold an entire offensive against Waziristan, but as soon as we do we're going to realize that Osama has slipped by us again. Osama and top Taliban/AQ officials are more boogey men than actual leaders.
Click to expand...





Then lets pull em out. I don't trust our POTUS with this operation.
 
Goobieman said:
...if the ideology is declared sufficiently unacceptable so as to commit the means necessary to defeat it.

Its never "too hard" to defeat a foe that -must- be defeated. You might not win, but if he -must- be defeated, then you expend every resource you have in trying.

I am further and futher convinced that if the kinds of people we have today were around in 1939, we'd have lost WW2.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. But the enemy is Al Qaeda, not the Taliban. The objective is not to establish a democracy in Afghanistan. There are two ways to go after Al Qaeda, who are chillin with the Pakistani Taliban: send in local forces or go in ourselves. Are we training local forces to the extent that they can be spared from the Afghani theater to go after Al Qaeda? Don't think so. So what about us going in the Pakistan on the ground. Feasible? If neither option is feasible, WTH are we doing? How to win?
 
Last edited:
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I actually agree, I do not trust that this pressident has our troops best inerests as a priority.
Click to expand...


Oh right......He doesn't have the same concern for our troops that made his predecessor send the same guys back to Iraq for so many tours of duty that they commit suicide when they get home. :thumbdown
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom