OldWorldOrder
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2012
- Messages
- 5,820
- Reaction score
- 1,438
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
And the more vehement the position, the more likely they are to be wrong.
This is a great question. Marxist fundamentals just naturally flow from Obama's nature. Steep, progressive taxes, class warfare, wealth redistribution, dictatorship of the proles (public and private sector unions) just come naturally to the one term Marxist.
You and Ecofarm with your Communist conspiracies! Read Alex Jones much?
9/11 Truther. Someone who believes lies? I understand.Someone who believes that 9/11 was an inside job. Debating such a person about Afghanistan is ludicrous. They don't accept the premise of the war and you want to discuss results?
One can learn lessons from any war. Sometimes nations rightly determine what they intend to accomplish. Sometimes they do not.Die hards defend any war. Some of them are still defending Vietnam. It's the "my country right or wrong" philosophy that prevailed among the war supporters of the Vietnam era, and still does in the Iraq war era.
My country may be right, but its leaders are often wrong.
The terrorists were using the excuse of the U.S. being bent on killing muslims in a "crusade" to get new recruits. Bush's "answer" was to invade a muslim country and kill 100,000 muslims and we are surprised that Al Qaeda got lots more members? The invasion of Iraq helped the terrorists and Iran and did nothing to avenge 911, yet diehards still defend it?
Yeah. That is true in every war. Those killed in battle never come back.I guess the difference is, I'd give back the money to have my fallen comrades back.
Do you believe Al Qaeda's destruction of the Twin Towers, WTC 7 and a portion of the Pentagon is why we insisted on regime change?Saddam was not the guy we should have gone after, after 9/11.
I think that trumps any reason given for attacking Saddam.
Don't be stupid.The right number of troops is zero. Drones will do a better job on terrorists than troops. We need to change tactics. Troops act as targets and recruiting agents for the enemy, they actually make things worse.
I cannot recall ever mentioning democracy. Democracy sucks. It is three wolves and two lambs voting on what is for dinner.And you proposal for Afghanistan is.....?
The most successful COIN operation in history really isn't applicable here. I don't see how we can take the Malayian Pacification and take its lessons and use them in Afghanistan. To some degree you have to change the culture in Afghanistan towards moderate to liberal Islam for this to work. And that's just a starting point.
I don't see how Afghanistan can work as a Democracy. Especially a very poor one.
The terrorists were using the excuse of the U.S. being bent on killing muslims in a "crusade" to get new recruits. Bush's "answer" was to invade a muslim country and kill 100,000 muslims and we are surpised that Alqeada got lots more members? The invasion of Iraq helped the terrorists and Iran and did nothing to avenge 911, yet diehards still defend it?
Because I was there, and it's exceptionally obvious.
Okay.This is the exact patriotic garbage that they tell you so that you continue to beat the war drum. There is nothing we're doing in afghanistan that is making us, in america a single bit safer. All we're doing is shedding american blood in vain. I love my fellow citizens, and I cherish their lives and safeties, not some ideal based solely on pride and not tangible facts.
9/11 Truther. Someone who believes lies? I understand.
More with the BS pride instead of logic and reason. Please, try to quantify to me how us being in afghanistan makes us safer, and please, use citation.
The taliban have never even waged terrorist attacks against us. Their sole goal in life is to get our asses off their soil. They can have that rotten property, the entire country smells of death.
"If we are not prepared to stay there as long as it takes to deny the Taliban and Al qaeda a safe haven then we shall lose and they shall win."
You werent prepared to do that in Iraq, you wont do it in Afghanistan.
By the way the Insurgent killings still go on in that country, you got to a point where you couldnt change the country from what it was and decided to leave rather than waste more blood in the cycle of violence.
The same will happen in Afghanistan. In Iraq this September, The month saw 182 civilians, 88 police and 95 soldiers killed in attacks across Iraq, official figures show.
I don't know that what you believe is true."We should go where are enemy is. We should kill him and break his things until he stops waging war against us. Did you think this was going to be easy?"
Your simply not doing that, Pakistan is the perfect example and to be honest I don't think you could fight on all the different fronts anyway. Not that alot of bother has gone into actually understanding the countries where AQ has managed to set up.
Would you object if I answered in line?On Guerilla war:
The situation was in doubt for nearly the entire war. Would you force me back to books read long ago and long since forgotten? Okay. Let us begin with the indispensable man, George Washington. He had vision, integrity, courage (immense physical courage), and character. Without him it is unlikely that the colonists could have prevailed.How could a bunch of Yankee colonial settlers take on the might of the British Army?
More details please.How could an impoverished people in the Desert take on the British, Russian, and US Army?
What was their goal? Did they achieve it?How could a bunch of impoverished Irish civillians take on the British Army?
How could a guy like Fidel Castro or Che Guevara come to power?
How could Mao Zedong come to power?
It works when one's opponents are not in it to win it. Otherwise it fails. The way to bet is with the professional soldiers backed by their nation's people.This type of warfare has been used effectivley countless times throughout history, and throughout Afghanistans history.
Thank you for your short tutorial. I own, and have read, ten books on insurgency and irregular warfare. Between then I have read a bit less than 4,000 pages of histories of irregular warfare. Irregulars do not always win. When governments select the right goals and objectives, then match the means to the end they seldom win.Guerrilla warfare is a form of irregular warfare in which a small group of combatants including, but not limited to, armed civilians (or "irregulars") use military tactics, such as ambushes, sabotage, raids, petty warfare, the element of surprise, and extraordinary mobility to harass a larger and less-mobile traditional army, or strike a vulnerable target, and withdraw almost immediately.
A better way to think of it is that one side can attack the other in ways that the second is unable or unwilling to counter. The US edge in asymmetric war is our ability to gather intelligence world wide, turn it into actionable information and kill when we choose to.A better term to have been used for this conflict would have been - Asymmetric warfare which is war between belligerents whose relative military power differs significantly, or whose strategy or tactics differ significantly.
Terrain can be used as a force multiplier by the smaller force and as a force inhibitor against the larger force. Such terrain is called difficult terrain.
The people in a region have some advantages. I accept that initially the local people know the terrain better. They have no better ability than we to "take" casualties. Every killing is an enormous burden, just as much to our enemies as it is to us.The locals have the advantage against the foreign military. The other multipliers are population, local knowledge, ability to take casulties, influence on outside media. The hearts and minds of the local population are the key factor in winning such a war.
The problem is with the politics. When we defeat the one term Marxist and have an American President who actually love his country then rules of engagement can be changed to allow our soldiers to fight and to win.The professionals are starting to say openly that our soldiers sent to fight in Afghanistan is one thing...sending them over there to get murdered....shot in the back by supposed Allies is another.
It's a **** hole. The war was lost a long time ago. When you can't even attempt to accomplish your mission (transition to Afghan forces) without getting gunned down by the very soldiers you're training the gig is up.
I believe it has "only come to light" with left-wing wackos. Nearly everybody else understands that all major intelligence agencies believed the same things. I have believed for a very long time that the deception came from the scientists and their overseers who did not want to end up being fed feet first into a wood-chipper, or have warm sulphuric acid dripped onto their bodies.Sure perspective in regards to foreign policy shifted....9/11 compelled American policymakers (and American citizens) to take a more pro-active stance. I'm not arguing against that.
The problem of course is what was a valid reason (to strip Saddam of WMD's and stop him from getting the nuke) was incorrect. Not only incorrect but based on reporting since the decision to invade, it's come to light that intelligence was cherry picked to prove the presence of WMD's. That's kind of a big deal and well beyond a change in stance in regards to foreign policy.
You seem to strip the decision to go to war of basically everything of meaning in order to present Iraq as some natural flow of foreign policy. Some inevitable branch off of the 9/11 attack.
And this is how I know that you were never there prior to 2008. You apparently never saw how much of a failure the war was before Obama even took office.I wrote, "Defeatists will always be defeated. Afghanistan is not so important. If the Taliban and Al qaeda were not there then we would have no reason to be there either. We fight the enemy where he is. You should know that."
First, I do not accept that for anything to be relevant someone else must have written about it. It is sufficient that I write it.
Second, the Taliban had the opportunity to turn over Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda members. They chose not to.
Third, your sense of smell has nothing to do with keeping the US safe.
I understand that you are bitter and angry. Your bitterness and anger should be focused on the one man who made our mission in Afghanistan into one of eventual failure--Barrack Hussein Obama. You deserved a better leader. We all do.
I was addressing OldWorldOrder, who not only loves that we are at war, but wants it to continue forever for his profit.Yeah. That is true in every war. Those killed in battle never come back.
I wish that we would never see a necessity for war. Yet I realize that there are things worth fighting for. There will always be bad/wrong people out there who want to take my stuff or take me. It is men (and sometimes women) weith weapons who stop them.
I believe it has "only come to light" with left-wing wackos. Nearly everybody else understands that all major intelligence agencies believed the same things. I have believed for a very long time that the deception came from the scientists and their overseers who did not want to end up being fed feet first into a wood-chipper, or have warm sulphuric acid dripped onto their bodies.
The problem is with the politics. When we defeat the one term Marxist and have an American President who actually love his country then rules of engagement can be changed to allow our soldiers to fight and to win.
I despise defeatists. I suppose I just cannot understand such pathetic beings.
I agree that all wars are probably stupid but this one is really up there. We went over there with a club the size of Texas to look for an ant hill. We did not know the culture, language or the terrain. the soviets went to and look what happened to them.