• 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!

US presence in Afghanistan as long as Soviet slog

Chappy

Chappy

User
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
2,443
Reaction score
733
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
“Progress across the country remains uneven, with modest gains in security, governance, and development in operational priority areas.” — U.S. Defense Department report on “Progress Toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan,” November 2010 (pdf)​

It is a sobering thought that we have now deployed American combat forces to Afghanistan for as long as the Soviets did. And, all we can say after a significant escalation this year is that progress across the country remains “uneven.”

Excerpted from “US presence in Afghanistan as long as Soviet slog” By The Associated Press
[SIZE="+2"]T[/SIZE]he Soviet Union couldn't win in Afghanistan, and now the United States is about to have something in common with that futile campaign: nine years, 50 days.

On Friday, the U.S.-led coalition will have been fighting in this South Asian country for as long as the Soviets did in their humbling attempt to build up a socialist state. The two invasions had different goals — and dramatically different body counts — but whether they have significantly different outcomes remains to be seen. …
Click to expand...
 
Not even a “thank you” for locating the DoD latest Afghanistan status report. Rethinking my participation here.
 
Chappy said:
Not even a “thank you” for locating the DoD latest Afghanistan status report. Rethinking my participation here.
Click to expand...

You go out of your way to tell us how big of a failure our participation in Afghanistan is and you're feelings are hurt because no one powdered your butt in thanks?
 
Yeah Chappy... war takes a while sometimes. It's not an add water and voila proposition. It took how many years and countries to bring fown the Germans/Axis? 33 countries and 7-years. Perhaps you like terrorists having free reign and a country to train in unimpeded?

Chappy said:
Not even a “thank you” for locating the DoD latest Afghanistan status report. Rethinking my participation here.
Click to expand...
Thank you Chappy...
zimmer-albums-conservitoons-picture67113121-chappy-another-dog-post.jpg


apdst said:
You go out of your way to tell us how big of a failure our participation in Afghanistan is and you're feelings are hurt because no one powdered your butt in thanks?
Click to expand...
He's a Lib from SF, what the hell do you expect? They piss in your face, tell us how nice it is and expect to be thanked for it.
It's The Pelosi School.

Reminds me of Gilda Radner in her Mommy Dearest skit (Jane Curtain/Radner) where Gilda the young daughter is forced to eat raw meat and say... "Thank you". Wish I could find a clip.


(Where did Right in NYC's post go?)
.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
You go out of your way to tell us how big of a failure our participation in Afghanistan is and you're feelings are hurt because no one powdered your butt in thanks?
Click to expand...

Not only that, he only waited an hour before whining. Gee, a saturday morning on a holiday weekend, maybe not very many people even bothered to read this stupid thread?
 
Progress will always be slow or nonexistent as long as politicians continue to start wars then do everything they can to keep our Military from winning with constant interference and the fear that in a war people get killed.

Right now this war could have ended many years ago with a lot fewer over all civilian and American deaths had it been prosecuted just like WW-II was.

There is no such thing as a politically correct approach to war that will do anything other than cost billions more then it needs to last longer than it should and get more people killed.

It was true when we pulled out of Vietnam because Liberals couldn't handle it and it's happening now for that and the over whelming number of Firsters in the Liberal ranks, and number one on that list is now Obama.

That is not to say President Bush was in the clear on this point, because he's not he allowed Political correctness and just being a weak willy get in the way of victory.

Obama doesn't want to win, because it doesn't fit into his plans to destroy America.

Now let the name calling begin.
 
Councilman said:
Progress will always be slow or nonexistent as long as politicians continue to start wars then do everything they can to keep our Military from winning with constant interference and the fear that in a war people get killed.

Right now this war could have ended many years ago with a lot fewer over all civilian and American deaths had it been prosecuted just like WW-II was.

There is no such thing as a politically correct approach to war that will do anything other than cost billions more then it needs to last longer than it should and get more people killed.

It was true when we pulled out of Vietnam because Liberals couldn't handle it and it's happening now for that and the over whelming number of Firsters in the Liberal ranks, and number one on that list is now Obama.

That is not to say President Bush was in the clear on this point, because he's not he allowed Political correctness and just being a weak willy get in the way of victory.

Obama doesn't want to win, because it doesn't fit into his plans to destroy America.

Now let the name calling begin.
Click to expand...

In what way should the Afghanistan war been fought like WW2

Fire bombing of cities? 1 million US soldiers?

I keep hearing that the US should adopt WW2 tactics but without the specifics of what they actually mean by it
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
In what way should the Afghanistan war been fought like WW2

Fire bombing of cities? 1 million US soldiers?

I keep hearing that the US should adopt WW2 tactics but without the specifics of what they actually mean by it
Click to expand...

The Afghans were conquered by the Macedonians, the Mongols and the British in the Second Anglo-Afghan War. Anyone can be defeated. America is unprepared for the level of ruthlessness required to defeat Pashtuns. So America should come home. But don't think there is anything special about Pashtun military prowess, or the character of the Pashtun peoples.
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
The Afghans were conquered by the Macedonians, the Mongols and the British in the Second Anglo-Afghan War. Anyone can be defeated. America is unprepared for the level of ruthlessness required to defeat Pashtuns. So America should come home. But don't think there is anything special about Pashtun military prowess, or the character of the Pashtun peoples.
Click to expand...

Conquering is different then controlling. Afghanistan has been conquered many times, but generally it has been left to its own devices and ruled by a vassel. The running of it has generally been done by afghanis, one reason why Pastun culture survives to this day. Overall Afghanistan is not worth much to most empires certainly not enough to spend the amoung of resources not only to conquer, but control as well
 
Deuce said:
Not only that, he only waited an hour before whining. Gee, a saturday morning on a holiday weekend, maybe not very many people even bothered to read this stupid thread?
Click to expand...

Better be careful going after a fellow Libbos, like that.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
In what way should the Afghanistan war been fought like WW2

Fire bombing of cities? 1 million US soldiers?

I keep hearing that the US should adopt WW2 tactics but without the specifics of what they actually mean by it
Click to expand...

Yes, to all.
 
apdst said:
Yes, to all.
Click to expand...

You do know that the US has a presence in most Afghani cities dont you. Mass bombings of those cities will kill US citizens and soldiers
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
You do know that the US has a presence in most Afghani cities dont you. Mass bombings of those cities will kill US citizens and soldiers
Click to expand...

Obviously, in 2002, when we invaded, there wasn't an American presence in any Afghan city. Duh!!!

And, there isn't an American presence in the Tallie strongholds. So, I say bomb the crap out of them.

Wanna see a quick end to the war? Then fight it and stop *****-footin' around.
 
apdst said:
Obviously, in 2002, when we invaded, there wasn't an American presence in any Afghan city. Duh!!!

And, there isn't an American presence in the Tallie strongholds. So, I say bomb the crap out of them.

Wanna see a quick end to the war? Then fight it and stop *****-footin' around.
Click to expand...

America took over Afghanistan quite easily in 2002 did it not?
 
Looks like Chappy got all butt hurt, good riddance.
 
apdst said:
Obviously not. We're still there fighting the Tallies, aren't we?
Click to expand...

The US won the Afghanistan war quite easily, it has found exerting control over Afghanistan difficult

Other then the 1 million soldiers in Afghanistan, any other tactics from WW2 would result in far more civilian casualties then what Afghanistan is currently experiencing. The Taliban do not fight in massed units nor do they have large military bases that they congregate into. Using massed bomber attacks would kill 95% civilians and at most 5% taliban. This would not stop the Taliban, nor would it make Afghanistan more likely to fall under US control. The afghani population has gone from 14 million or so in the 80s to 24 million now. To make the Afghanis capitulate would require killing numbers that would make Stalin blush
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
The US won the Afghanistan war quite easily, it has found exerting control over Afghanistan difficult
[/b]
Other then the 1 million soldiers in Afghanistan, any other tactics from WW2 would result in far more civilian casualties then what Afghanistan is currently experiencing. The Taliban do not fight in massed units nor do they have large military bases that they congregate into. Using massed bomber attacks would kill 95% civilians and at most 5% taliban. This would not stop the Taliban, nor would it make Afghanistan more likely to fall under US control. The afghani population has gone from 14 million or so in the 80s to 24 million now. To make the Afghanis capitulate would require killing numbers that would make Stalin blush
Click to expand...

The war is over? I hadn't heard.
 
apdst said:
Um.......ok!
Click to expand...

I have been told by countless number of conservative the Iraq was was over by 2005, their was no civil war in Iraq. Given that the US was able to take "over" Afghanistan before invading Iraq, and the Iraq war was declared over I would have expected the Afghanistan war to be over as well
 
apdst said:
The war is over? I hadn't heard.
Click to expand...
Yeah, The Messiah keeps his promises. The Messiah closed Gitmo in less than a year and ended the wars and repatriated all the troops.

Just name a promise he made and you can be assured he has fulfilled it.

.
 
apdst said:
Obviously, in 2002, when we invaded, there wasn't an American presence in any Afghan city. Duh!!!

And, there isn't an American presence in the Tallie strongholds. So, I say bomb the crap out of them.

Wanna see a quick end to the war? Then fight it and stop *****-footin' around.
Click to expand...

Well it's kinda of hard to fight an enemy that appears and then disappears into a crowd of civilians and as well as uses IEDs and asymmetric warfare to combat the West's conventional military might
 
Mr. Invisible said:
Well it's kinda of hard to fight an enemy that appears and then disappears into a crowd of civilians and as well as uses IEDs and asymmetric warfare to combat the West's conventional military might
Click to expand...

Yes, it is hard. Therefore, it's going to take more time to defeat that enemy. Duh!!!!

Unless, we have the guts to bombs those civilains, along with the bad guys. But, I know that ain't gonna happen.

One would think that the civilians would stop allowing themselves to used as human shields.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom