View Poll Results: Should the U.S. pull it's troops out of Afganistan?

Voters
64. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes. There is no possible victory there for us.

    11 17.19%
  • No. Stay & finish the job

    35 54.69%
  • Yes. Leave a mobil force in the area to fight terrorists/Taliban but leave Afganistan.

    15 23.44%
  • Pull all troops out of the area. It's not our fight.

    10 15.63%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 6 of 15 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 147

Thread: Should We Get Out Of Afganistan?

  1. #51
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: Should We Get Out Of Afganistan?

    Quote Originally Posted by kansaswhig View Post
    Not sure if anyone has read:

    THIS from Will

    or

    THIS from Krulak to Will

    Just some insight from pretty credible sources...
    First off, what is more "credible" about these people that make all others less than credible?

    What is credible about George Will's argument that we should just go back to the failed strategy that led to the disaster of 9-11?

    U.S. forces are being increased by 21,000, to 68,000, bringing the coalition total to 110,000. About 9,000 are from Britain, where support for the war is waning. Counterinsurgency theory concerning the time and the ratio of forces required to protect the population indicates that, nationwide, Afghanistan would need hundreds of thousands of coalition troops, perhaps for a decade or more. That is inconceivable.

    So, instead, forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.


    As for the retired Marine General; the credibility of a doctored "e-mail" and its source aside, he suggests putting "hunter killer teams" along borders and in suspected Al Qeada strongholds. Aside from the OBVIOUS strategic impossiblity of such a strategy, this does not sound like the well thought out logic of a Marine General.

    How would such teams be able to be supported? How would they infiltrate Al Qaeda strongholds? The REALITY is that this is a naive proposal that can only sound logical to the uninitiated and uninformed.

    Sorry, but this is far from a compelling argument but rather more of the same naive logic that got us 9-11 in the first place.

    The REALITY is that the Bush strategy as espoused back in 2001 to promote democratically elected representative governments and promote economic development and education systems is far more viable than the naďve notion that one can fight terrorists from the safety of offshore naval assets and missile firing drones. They ignore the reality of how good intelligence is obtained and the difficulty in infiltrating terrorist networks.

    I am fascinated when people argue for the same failed strategies of the past purely for the reason that too many of our military are dying fighting terrorists and fights should not last beyond two years.

    I guess this same failed strategy is okay if the people who do the dying are the innocent civilians like those who were lost on 9-11 here on our own shores rather than a professional military force trained to kill within the geography where the terrorists are to be found.

    It just doesn’t make much sense to me and many others; but this is the fast food mentality of a nation that has gone soft in the head and has the collective memory of a lemming when it comes to the events leading up to and culminating in 9-11.

  2. #52
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    10-14-11 @ 10:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,164

    Re: Should We Get Out Of Afganistan?

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    First off, what is more "credible" about these people that make all others less than credible?

    What is credible about George Will's argument that we should just go back to the failed strategy that led to the disaster of 9-11?

    U.S. forces are being increased by 21,000, to 68,000, bringing the coalition total to 110,000. About 9,000 are from Britain, where support for the war is waning. Counterinsurgency theory concerning the time and the ratio of forces required to protect the population indicates that, nationwide, Afghanistan would need hundreds of thousands of coalition troops, perhaps for a decade or more. That is inconceivable.

    So, instead, forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.


    As for the retired Marine General; the credibility of a doctored "e-mail" and its source aside, he suggests putting "hunter killer teams" along borders and in suspected Al Qeada strongholds. Aside from the OBVIOUS strategic impossiblity of such a strategy, this does not sound like the well thought out logic of a Marine General.

    How would such teams be able to be supported? How would they infiltrate Al Qaeda strongholds? The REALITY is that this is a naive proposal that can only sound logical to the uninitiated and uninformed.

    Sorry, but this is far from a compelling argument but rather more of the same naive logic that got us 9-11 in the first place.

    The REALITY is that the Bush strategy as espoused back in 2001 to promote democratically elected representative governments and promote economic development and education systems is far more viable than the naďve notion that one can fight terrorists from the safety of offshore naval assets and missile firing drones. They ignore the reality of how good intelligence is obtained and the difficulty in infiltrating terrorist networks.

    I am fascinated when people argue for the same failed strategies of the past purely for the reason that too many of our military are dying fighting terrorists and fights should not last beyond two years.

    I guess this same failed strategy is okay if the people who do the dying are the innocent civilians like those who were lost on 9-11 here on our own shores rather than a professional military force trained to kill within the geography where the terrorists are to be found.

    It just doesn’t make much sense to me and many others; but this is the fast food mentality of a nation that has gone soft in the head and has the collective memory of a lemming when it comes to the events leading up to and culminating in 9-11.
    You lack a fundamental understanding of the mission and history of this conflict and others in Afghanistan.

    You also don't understand what "victory" in Afghanistan is not achievable; not in the terms as defined by "victory" (I wouldn't call it that yet) in Iraq.

    However, as you know, George Will is on your team; and, as it happens, a very credible source regarding National Security. Oh, and GEN Krulak is the former Commandant of the USMC, so, yes, he is rather credible.

    Will's recommendations are hardly what I would call a "pre 9/11 strategy", in fact, it is almost the identical strategy and tactical approach used by the Bush Administration immediately after 9/11. What a really dumb comparison for you to make. It proves you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

    And the email isn't doctored because Krulak published it, genius.

    Do some research, read some books, understand the conflict and then get a hold of me; then we will talk.
    Last edited by kansaswhig; 09-14-09 at 04:05 PM.

  3. #53
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: Should We Get Out Of Afganistan?

    Quote Originally Posted by kansaswhig View Post
    You lack a fundamental understanding of the mission and history of this conflict and others in Afghanistan.
    This is another one of your Liberal “because you say it is so.” I will be happy to put my understanding of the mission and history of this conflict and others in Afghanistan up against yours any day.

    I already have and your response is basically as simplistic, trite and condescending as the above comment.

    Quote Originally Posted by kansaswhig View Post
    You also don't understand what "victory" in Afghanistan is not achievable; not in the terms as defined by "victory" (I wouldn't call it that yet) in Iraq.
    Another Liberal claiming this is because he says so. But yet, we have already achieved victory by removing the Taliban, having Osama living in caves like an animal to avoid detection and implementing Democracy in Afghanistan.

    I am always amused by the desperation of Liberals to redefine what victory means to fit their narrow, misguided and myopic views of the world.

    Quote Originally Posted by kansaswhig View Post
    However, as you know, George Will is on your team; and, as it happens, a very credible source regarding National Security.
    My team? I didn’t know I had a “team” in this debate. I am merely dealing in facts and haven’t made even the remotest attempt to make this a “partisan” issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by kansaswhig View Post
    Oh, and GEN Krulak is the former Commandant of the USMC, so, yes, he is rather credible.
    I never questioned whether Krulak is credible, but rather question your sources and attempts to suggest that Krulak’s OPINIONS should trump a majority of others who happen to disagree with his assessments.

    Quote Originally Posted by kansaswhig View Post
    Will's recommendations are hardly what I would call a "pre 9/11 strategy", in fact, it is almost the identical strategy and tactical approach used by the Bush Administration immediately after 9/11. What a really dumb comparison for you to make. It proves you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
    This is another because you say so, but the strategy being espoused by Will and which you support is identical to the failed strategy of the past and has NOTHING to do with the Bush strategy which is to implement Democratically elected Governments in an attempt to advance prosperity and education.

    Quote Originally Posted by kansaswhig View Post
    And the email isn't doctored because Krulak published it, genius.
    The e-mail had no source, the source of the e-mail was blacked out and you want to pretend that a pasted document lends legitimacy that the OPINIONS of a retired Marine General trump everyone else’s. Sorry, that just doesn’t wash in a debate of the facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by kansaswhig View Post
    Do some research, read some books, understand the conflict and then get a hold of me; then we will talk.
    I would suggest you take some of your own advice as it is patently obvious you haven’t a clue of what you are debating and think that spewing a bunch of opinions that basically constitute “because you say so” is a substitute for facts and substance.

    Carry on.

  4. #54
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,037

    Re: Should We Get Out Of Afganistan?

    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    I find them intelligent
    Maybe that's why I tend to see things more clearly than some. Wisdom and understanding does not confine itself to a political party or a spectrum leaning. It's usually that allegiance to party or lean that leaves people in the dark. In this way, our people tend to mirror the blind and ignorant allegiances of the Middle Eastern tribe member.
    Last edited by MSgt; 09-15-09 at 10:19 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  5. #55
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Masschusetts
    Last Seen
    03-01-14 @ 10:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,512

    Re: Should We Get Out Of Afganistan?

    Quote Originally Posted by GySgt View Post
    Maybe that's why I tend to see things more clearly than some. Wisdom and understanding does not confine itself to a political party or a spectrum leaning. It's usually that allegiance to party or lean that leaves people in the dark. In this way, our people tend to mirror the blind and ignorant allegiances of the Middle Eastern tribe member.
    Don't follow you???
    To what do attribute your ability to "see things more clearly than some "??

  6. #56
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,037

    Re: Should We Get Out Of Afganistan?

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    In the case of Vietnam, we abandoned them....
    Yes, we certainly did.

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    But once that commitment was made and agreements signed, we should have stood by our ally regardless of how corrupt the regime may have been and continually worked to improve their efforts towards Democracy.
    I have more of a problem with the average American who has trouble standing by its military from headline to headline. I don't expect these kind of people to stand behind an ally.


    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    It doesn’t matter how corrupt the current regimes may be or how long it takes us to be there until their fledgling Democracies begin to bloom. These are, after all, nations that never had representative Government in their entire histories and these things take time. I don’t care if we have to be there for 100 years. It is the ONLY viable strategy that will have a chance versus the failed policies of the past decades.
    You are missing a very real truth here. We were never going to be in these countries for a hundred years. But we can "be there" without placing our troops into situations where they are dealing with a confused and fanatical population.

    We can offer assistance. We can even offer opportunity. But we cannot force them to rise above their petty and culturally suicidal tribal allegiances. Afghanistan is not Iraq. Iraq always had a shot at something better because of the population. It may be divided in three, but for the most part they do not wish to slaughter forever and are interested in a measure of civility and good governance. This was always true despite our dimwitted critics who cheered at the possibility of failure and even wished it to validate their own personal immorality about the whole affair. But Afghanistan's population is made up of a perverted disorientating mess of tribal grievances. It is their corrupt culture that forms the corrupt government.

    One of the reasons Afghanistan is a "mess" is because the United States Marines have been focused on locking down Iraq since the end of 2003 when it was asked to go back. There are just over 11,000 Marines in Afghanistan and this is up from the numbers of prior years. The Army has been hammering at the Tali-Ban for years, but even with the Marine Corps shifting east the only result will be far more blood shed (theirs) in a never ending sea of fanaticism. We will end our intimate time in Afghanistan after we've killed enough and accepted that these people deserve what they get.

    Punitive strikes should be our role.

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post

    This statement is incorrect; our mission in Iraq was to enforce the agreements and UN resolutions the despotic regime of Saddam spent a decade ignoring. As part of that strategy, Saddam’s regime was to be replaced with a representative Democracy in an effort to prevent another despot from taking over an oil rich nation and create future problems.
    Well, mission accomplished.


    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    Again, if we have to be there 100 years from now; that should be the goal in order to promote Democracy and peace in the region. Nothing can defeat terrorism more surely than education and prosperity. Those are the long term goals and they can only be achieved through a Democratically elected representative government.
    In which they need to start being held accountabe to do. We provided opportunity and saw them through a few national elections. They have already made mistakes by catering to Al-Sadr in the interest of "peace." This was a direct smack in the face to our military. But this is their journey. Enough Iraqis feel that they can carry the ball on their own. Let them learn if they are up to the task.

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    Again based on my above comments, I vehemently disagree with this notion. We have to be committed to spend the next 100 years supporting Democracy if that is what it takes.
    You can support democracy without placing our military between the tribes. The probable truth is that these tribes need to be allowed to slaughter each other until they are ready to move on. Our involvements are merely placing this "cleansing" on pause. Unfortunatley for us, this pause in tribal violence may see them to nuclear arms before they've had a chance to fullfill their historical destinies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    We spent 60 years in Europe after WWII and it was a stunning success in promoting peace and prosperity. Why should we suddenly believe this issue in the ME should be treated differently?
    Think about it. What major event occurred in Europe prior to 60 years of peace, which is one of Europe's longest streaks? A: Tribal slaughter. This is one of history's ironic ingredients to long lasting peace.

    The question here is what makes people think that the religiously feuled tribal madness of the Middle East is beyond doing exactly what Europe did...twice? The Middle East has merely been prevented from do so. Europe's borders were natural according to tribe after WWII (Yugoslavia being the lone exception and look what eventuallly happened to it.) Thgis being the case, there was no tribal insurgencies or tendencies to exact historical revenge. A German tribe didn't camp out in France. An Italian tribe didn't claim land in Germany. France wasn't carved up with it's people seperated behind different borders where they didn't get along with local tribes.

    The Middle East is totally different. And until our leaders in Washington begin to understand this, they will continue to make bad decisions upon our military, which has to come through on their behalf.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  7. #57
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,037

    Re: Should We Get Out Of Afganistan?

    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    Don't follow you???
    To what do attribute your ability to "see things more clearly than some "??
    Haha. I eats me vegetables.
    Last edited by MSgt; 09-16-09 at 12:31 AM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  8. #58
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    10-14-11 @ 10:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,164

    Re: Should We Get Out Of Afganistan?

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    This is another one of your Liberal “because you say it is so.” I will be happy to put my understanding of the mission and history of this conflict and others in Afghanistan up against yours any day.
    1. I'm not a liberal. In fact, I'm disagreeing with our Liberal President over a second round of troop increases that he's going to implement. I'm sure you are a smart guy; but on this one, I got you beat. I've got enough experience in 21st century wars that I know this nation doesn't possess the resources or political will to "do Afghanistan right". We can't and won't. Why half-ass it? We shouldn't. It's morally wrong to have Soldiers die for political gain, which is what you are advocating. I also like how anyone that disagrees with you is brandished a "liberal". NS/FP are big boy topics, son. Partisanship goes by the wayside when we are talking life and death.


    But yet, we have already achieved victory by removing the Taliban, having Osama living in caves like an animal to avoid detection and implementing Democracy in Afghanistan.
    I think OBL is dead. I'm OK with some kinetics, like I mentioned. Afghanistan will never be a democracy. Get over it.

    I am always amused by the desperation of Liberals to redefine what victory means to fit their narrow, misguided and myopic views of the world.
    Funny, I read something like this above, then this statement below:

    My team? I didn’t know I had a “team” in this debate. I am merely dealing in facts and haven’t made even the remotest attempt to make this a “partisan” issue.
    You are absolutely partisan. You only know what Fox and Talk Radio tells you.


    This is another because you say so, but the strategy being espoused by Will and which you support is identical to the failed strategy of the past and has NOTHING to do with the Bush strategy which is to implement Democratically elected Governments in an attempt to advance prosperity and education.
    Bush strategy circa 01-03 is about right. He only started to "nation-build" in AFG when the Iraq strategy changed...read the 2006 NSS, you'll see the change to all the "happy, help people democracy bull****" that the U.S. military is not supposed to do and really stinks at. Read the 2002 NSS as well to familiarize yourself with the Bush doctrine; and also so you notice the difference in the one published four years later.

    I suscribe to the realist school of national security and Foreign policy; which says that democratically elected government (a fallacy, by the way...since Karzai just "won" an unfair and rigged election) will have no impact in anyway to help A-stan "prosper" or become better educated. The only thing a U.S.-backed government accomplishes is increasing wealth and power of AFG govt. officials.

    I would suggest you take some of your own advice as it is patently obvious you haven’t a clue of what you are debating and think that spewing a bunch of opinions that basically constitute “because you say so” is a substitute for facts and substance.
    God, you are a master of the talking points memo. Listen, son; I understand this war, though I have yet to fight in it. I'm sure I will soon. I doubt I go back to Iraq. When I get there, I'm sure all of my pre-concieved notions and theories I developed through research and education will be confirmed. You'll still be sitting on the couch watching Hannity. You have failed to refute anything in Will's column or any ideas that I've mentioned in either post.

    Read Gunny's aforementioned posts; he basically says the same thing I am.

    These people have problems we cant fix.

  9. #59
    Student LowRevs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Downeast in NC
    Last Seen
    07-12-12 @ 04:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    272

    Re: Should We Get Out Of Afganistan?

    I don't have enough information to judge whether our presence there is or will have a positive effect on the middle east in general to justify the treasure and lives. I also don't know if it is a good place to find and fight al qaeda. I kind of feel it is. If what I hear in the media is true we probably should be there to keep al qaeda penned up in Pakistan. The people in charge have a lot more information then any of us and personally, I will support whatever decisions are made by President Obama and the Pentagon in this regard, just as I did President Bush.

    Now, having the CIA attacked by the administration in the middle of an intelligence war, not smart. Get rid of Holder, Pelosi and Reid and start supporting the military.
    Last edited by LowRevs; 09-19-09 at 06:37 PM. Reason: Remove reference
    I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.--Thomas Jefferson

  10. #60
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Should We Get Out Of Afganistan?

    If we allow the military to do its job we will win, pretty easily. It will just take a while, is all. They can't outlast us militarily; only the politicians and defeatists can lose this war.

Page 6 of 15 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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