America’s Dumbest War, Ever

And the more vehement the position, the more likely they are to be wrong.

Misterveritis said:

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.

Click to expand...

Honest to God. You and Ecofarm with your Communist conspiracies!

Read Alex Jones much?:doh

How do you figure, that an Imperial President, Pentagon yes-man ,and Right Wing warmonger like Obama /Hillary escalating wars and insisting on regime changes around the globe are Leftys ???

How does Hillary Clintons imperialist vision and support of invading Iraq, looting the spoils in Libya, and her pledge of coming war in Syria, "there is no going back" make her any different than Right Winger, Kissinger or Madeline Albright starving Iraqi children?

I mean, Blitzkriegs and Napoleonic wars of conquest are essentially Right Wing, run by dictators, yes?


Grassroots Revolution , definately not.

Wikileaks exposes U.S. role

"An article entitled "U.S. secretly backed Syrian opposition groups" by Craig Whitlock (Washington Post, April 18) described in great detail the information contained in U.S. diplomatic cables that Wikileaks had sent to news agencies around the world and posted on its web site. The article summarizes what these State Department cables reveal about the secret funding of Syrian political opposition groups, including the beaming of anti-government programming into the country via satellite television."

Syria and US Imperialism | Global Research

Kane said:

You and Ecofarm with your Communist conspiracies! Read Alex Jones much?

Click to expand...

Dude, you're a fkg Truther. Next time have the balls to quote me if you're gonna talk sht about me.

ecofarm said:

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?

Click to expand...

9/11 Truther. Someone who believes lies? I understand.

Dittohead not! said:

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.

Click to expand...

One can learn lessons from any war. Sometimes nations rightly determine what they intend to accomplish. Sometimes they do not.

iguanaman said:

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?

Click to expand...

What is the relationship between the murder of nearly 3K Americans with our decision to have a regime change in Iraq? I apologize in advance for changing your quite. Your errors were irritating to me. RELAX, I just fixed your spelling!

RabidAlpaca said:

I guess the difference is, I'd give back the money to have my fallen comrades back.

Click to expand...

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.

zstep18 said:

Saddam was not the guy we should have gone after, after 9/11.

I think that trumps any reason given for attacking Saddam.

Click to expand...

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?

iguanaman said:

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.

Click to expand...

Don't be stupid.

The right number is not zero.

obvious Child said:

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.

Click to expand...

I cannot recall ever mentioning democracy. Democracy sucks. It is three wolves and two lambs voting on what is for dinner.

I think we need to define our goal as preventing the Taliban and Al Qaeda from controlling Afghanistan. For the long term I think developing free market capitalism and representative government are a great idea.

iguanaman said:

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?

Click to expand...

Saddam said American dollars were no longer good enough to buy his oil.

We had to send him and other mideast leaders a message.

I asked, "How do you know that?

Is Afghanistan a safe haven? Is there any price we should pay for safety?"

To which you replied,

RabidAlpaca said:

Because I was there, and it's exceptionally obvious.

Click to expand...

Are you a high ranking officer? I suspect company grade at best. I also suspect enlisted but am willing to believe that there is not much difference between a mid-level NCO and junior officer.

I wrote, "Do you love your country so little that you want her to be safe for only a little while? Why do you put a time limit on the security of the nation?"

To which you replied,

RabidAlpaca said:

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.

Click to expand...

Okay.

You do not believe that denying Afghanistan as a safe haven for terrorists has anything to do with the safety of American citizens and with the security of the United States.

We disagree.

Misterveritis said:

9/11 Truther. Someone who believes lies? I understand.

Click to expand...

Someone who believes that the US attacked itself/supported 9/11 to go to war. And you want to argue progress or results of war? Nonsense.

Is Rabid a Truther?

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."

RabidAlpaca said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Joechilli said:

"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.

Click to expand...

Joe? We are still there. The flake, the one term Marxist, flexible with our enemies, Barrack Hussein Obama, is trying very hard to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Joechilli said:

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.

Click to expand...

Do you believe we need to change Afghanistan in order to deny its use as a terrorist base for planning and executing attacks against US interests and US citizens?

The one term Marxist has already declared victory and fled Iraq. Is it okay for me to hate the one term Marxist for what he has done to us?

Joechilli said:

"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.

Click to expand...

I don't know that what you believe is true.

We are gathering intelligence and striking individuals in Pakistan. We are killing him. And we should break his things in Pakistan.
I do not know but suspect we have special operators in a large number of countries developing target packages for strikes when the right time comes.

Joechilli said:

On Guerilla war:

Click to expand...

Would you object if I answered in line?

How could a bunch of Yankee colonial settlers take on the might of the British Army?

Click to expand...

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.
On the other side of the coin we have the British commanders whose hearts were not all in it.

How could an impoverished people in the Desert take on the British, Russian, and US Army?

Click to expand...

More details please.

How could a bunch of impoverished Irish civillians take on the British Army?

Click to expand...

What was their goal? Did they achieve it?

How could a guy like Fidel Castro or Che Guevara come to power?
How could Mao Zedong come to power?

Click to expand...

Clarify so I can answer you.

Castro was a Marxist. He probably had Soviet backing as a community organizer. He failed many times. I think his success came from his persistence. Guevara? What did he have power over? He was Castro's friend. He was attractive and charismatic. He was a smart guy turned bad. Very, very bad.

This type of warfare has been used effectivley countless times throughout history, and throughout Afghanistans history.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.
"Their" edge is in getting people to strap lethal weapons to their bodies and turn themselves and others into dead meat. Theirs is cheaper and if we are unwilling to stay and counter the homicide bombers by default they win.

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.

Click to expand...

What is this? Is it an out of place bit of Sun Tzu? LOL. Okay.

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.

Click to expand...

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.
I accept that the left wing, anti-American media is a problem. They are a huge gift to our enemies. They are going out of business as people recognize just how against America our media are.

Hearts and minds can be won in many ways. I suggest that key is to stay. When the one term Marxist tells everyone we are leaving what impact do you think that has on those who want to be on our side?

iliveonramen said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

iliveonramen said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Misterveritis said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Misterveritis said:

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.

Click to expand...

I was addressing OldWorldOrder, who not only loves that we are at war, but wants it to continue forever for his profit.

Misterveritis said:

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.

Click to expand...

That's true...most Americans still think Iraq was actually involved in 9/11. I'm guessing you're part of that group.

Misterveritis said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yeah...that must be it...

wolfman24 said:

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.

Click to expand...

We went over there with a club seeking to install a puppet government just as we have in every invasion since Vietnam. Folks you need to stop believing our government's press releases which are dutifully repeated by the press. Our numerous invasions of other nations are aimed at installing puppet governments are aimed at installing puppet governments. Our assassinations in other countries are aimed at installing puppet governments. Our bribery is mostly aimed at buying off other governments. Our instigating revolutions in Libya, Syria and next Lebanon are also aimed at total control of the world (as much as possible). Anyone who thinks otherwise is misinformed. As practiced by our owners the words "humanitarian intervention" are like saying merciful torture.