• 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!

al-Qa'ida resurging in Afghanistan

Ooh worldwide caliphate. Very very frightening - send a bolt of lightning!
 
joG said:
That is why I am so sad about Obama's performance. He has not driven ahead the internalization of security and responsibility to protect and has lost the momentum, as far as I can tell. So what is one to do. The Germans thought that their free riding strategy would last and stayed aloof of the fray. Then the US decided it would not take responsibility in Syria and Africa and the refugees poured in bringing the war into the country. That is the way security works in a non intervention world without a sheriff. And it will get worse, as regional and great player begin to see they are unopposed. We are in for very much more interesting times into the future and micht want to contemplate pre 1945 history to gain insight.
Click to expand...

That is what the United Nations was supposed to fix. It was supposed to be that world body sherriff that would prevent war. The problem was that they repeated the same mistakes they made in the League of Nations. They give despots and dictators the same prestige that they give the democracies.
 
annata said:
with due respect " refuses to fight /is happy to live under terrrorsit" is a total mischaracterization of the ANSF.
Kabul routinely misses paying them, it's a corrupt gov't -but even though Afghanistan is feudal in nature they do fight for their cause.

The article also mentions the Haqqani network -so it's a good bet Pakistan is allowing them to operate in order to take pressure off
their own internal politics.

The Afghan national police are to be commended, dieing at alarming rates to serve their country.
For that reason alone i'm reluctant to say "leave",but I can't see any real way forward unless it's with "heavy US boots"
Click to expand...

The war in afghanistan is like any other war. You have to be willing to win it to end it. The taliban would wither and die if we simply cut off their escape routes and supply lines. That's how wars are traditionally fought and won. If that means we must cut them off from Pakistan.....so be it.
 
ObamacareFail said:
The war in afghanistan is like any other war. You have to be willing to win it to end it. The taliban would wither and die if we simply cut off their escape routes and supply lines. That's how wars are traditionally fought and won. If that means we must cut them off from Pakistan.....so be it.
Click to expand...

Afghans have been beating foreign armies for centuries. It's what they do. We never stood a chance against them.
 
Our policy of supporting the Mujahadeen in their struggle against Russia is still bearing fruit.
 
Soho gator said:
Afghans have been beating foreign armies for centuries. It's what they do. We never stood a chance against them.
Click to expand...

Afghans, yes...the taliban...no. The taliban is a fringe group of islamic extremist terrorists who formed off elements of the majuhadeen after the Soviets were evicted in the 1980s. We are not at war with rank and file afghans. We are at war with a fringe group that has not been around for centuries.
 
Beaudreaux said:
When you give the enemy an end date for your willingness to fight, all they have to do is keep low until that date, then they're back in business. Publically announcing a hard withdrawal was one of the most irresponsible acts the Obama Administration has made... one of them, being that there are many more.
Click to expand...

Hear is the more realistic side of that 'logic'... if the enemy leaves the invasion forces alone until they leave, the national forces SHOULD have taken advantage of that lull to train, occupy key provinces and establish good relations with the outlying tribes.

Our history is replete with attempts to enforce our will on other nations- with disastrous results and always the same excuse by some- we didn't fight long enough, hard enough, heavy enough. But that is false, unless the national forces and national government is willing to train, push out of the cities and engage in the tribal leaders...

It doesn't matter what we do/don't do... until we get the concept of THEY must step up, THEY must govern responsibly, THEY must offer those who live outside the cities a glimmer of hope...

Well until then we will keep repeating the same mistake thinking THIS time the result will be different... :peace
 
ObamacareFail said:
By sticking around at some level long enough to get an afghan air force up to speed. This is not just about the security of the people of afghanistan. Our national security is at stake as well. The worst terror attack in history on American soil occurred on 9/11/01 in large part because we disengaged completely from afghanistan after helping them expel the Soviets.
Click to expand...

14 years is enough time for the afghans to BUILD it's own aircraft plants and train their pilots to fly 'em...

As far as our national security is concerned- the plotters of the 9/11 are dead, the new breed of terrorists has spread to oil rich SW Asia due to 'our' disruption of the balance of power there.

We seem intent on creating our own demons and blaming others.... :peace
 
ObamacareFail said:
The war in afghanistan is like any other war. You have to be willing to win it to end it. The taliban would wither and die if we simply cut off their escape routes and supply lines. That's how wars are traditionally fought and won. If that means we must cut them off from Pakistan.....so be it.
Click to expand...
the TTP Taliban aren't the same as the Afghani Taliban. This isn't like Vietnam where you go after the Ho Chi Minh trail

Who are the Pakistani Taliban? - CNN.com
 
ObamacareFail said:
That is what the United Nations was supposed to fix. It was supposed to be that world body sherriff that would prevent war. The problem was that they repeated the same mistakes they made in the League of Nations. They give despots and dictators the same prestige that they give the democracies.
Click to expand...

Actually they were not constructed to do the sheriff's job. They lack the robust and general mandate. Without that they have proven the organization incapable of preventing war and crimes against humanity. That is why the UN is irrelevant in so many cases and has no legitimacy. It was to correct this that the 2005 correction of the norms were approved and why it was such a hope lending occurrence.
 
Seriously??? Some of you are truly lacking in honesty.

What country on the Planet Earth has declared war against the USofA since the turn of the century?

You think WW2, Germany, and Japan are valid comparisons to 2015 and terrorism?

The bottom line here is some of you will think the entire middle east (except Israel of course :roll:) should be nuked into glass fields and radioactive dust.

Because it's a bunch of "brown people" in a foreign land who practice a different religion you think genocide is the ONLY worthwhile answer to the problem.

Imagine if the US government decided they were tired of fighting the war on drugs, and in turn napalmed and incinerated everything and everyone in ten of the largest drug infested cities in the US.
Would your reaction be: "Meh, I don't live there, and I hate druggies, so good riddance and you got what you deserved."

But what if your grandparents, or sisters, or children were caught up in the inferno because they just happened to be visiting one of those cities that day?

The war on terror will not be "won" with guns, bombs, and armies.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Afghans, yes...the taliban...no. The taliban is a fringe group of islamic extremist terrorists who formed off elements of the majuhadeen after the Soviets were evicted in the 1980s. We are not at war with rank and file afghans. We are at war with a fringe group that has not been around for centuries.
Click to expand...

Elements of the mujuhadeen which the US government funded to fight the soviets... just an old example of how the US government funds radical jihadists to attack their enemies. Same thing happens today.
 
joG said:
Actually they were not constructed to do the sheriff's job. They lack the robust and general mandate. Without that they have proven the organization incapable of preventing war and crimes against humanity. That is why the UN is irrelevant in so many cases and has no legitimacy. It was to correct this that the 2005 correction of the norms were approved and why it was such a hope lending occurrence.
Click to expand...

I think we basically agree. The UN is a failure. And they lack the mandate because they lack a structure that can have any real success in their charter goal. When you give the bad guys the same seat at the table that you give the good guys, the bad guys have no incentive to play nice. The UN should have limited voting membership to democracies.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Afghans, yes...the taliban...no. The taliban is a fringe group of islamic extremist terrorists who formed off elements of the majuhadeen after the Soviets were evicted in the 1980s. We are not at war with rank and file afghans. We are at war with a fringe group that has not been around for centuries.
Click to expand...

Wrong again, in one way or another they've always been there. Afghans beat the **** out of invading armies then beat the **** out of each other when not smoking dope and buggering little boys. It's what they do.
 
ObamacareFail said:
I think we basically agree. The UN is a failure. And they lack the mandate because they lack a structure that can have any real success in their charter goal. When you give the bad guys the same seat at the table that you give the good guys, the bad guys have no incentive to play nice. The UN should have limited voting membership to democracies.
Click to expand...

That is why the UN can and has sometimes do more damage than good. It is also why it is dangerous to rely on the UN for anything important.
 
joG said:
That is why I am so sad about Obama's performance. He has not driven ahead the internalization of security and responsibility to protect and has lost the momentum, as far as I can tell. So what is one to do. The Germans thought that their free riding strategy would last and stayed aloof of the fray. Then the US decided it would not take responsibility in Syria and Africa and the refugees poured in bringing the war into the country. That is the way security works in a non intervention world without a sheriff. And it will get worse, as regional and great player begin to see they are unopposed. We are in for very much more interesting times into the future and micht want to contemplate pre 1945 history to gain insight.
Click to expand...

Sad huh, that's interesting language. The thing about a sherrif is it's a voted for position. As long as it was handled that way, that may be ok, but the sherrif must be accountable to someone too. ;)
 
joG said:
The Afghans and Iraquis really bungled their liberation, it would appear.
Click to expand...

Lol. Like there really can be universal liberation when you have two nasty warring factions for centuries like Sunni and Shia.
 
Montecresto said:
Sad huh, that's interesting language. The thing about a sherrif is it's a voted for position. As long as it was handled that way, that may be ok, but the sherrif must be accountable to someone too. ;)
Click to expand...

He should be. And paid for.
 
Montecresto said:
Lol. Like there really can be universal liberation when you have two nasty warring factions for centuries like Sunni and Shia.
Click to expand...

Lutherans and catholics? Sure. There are always excuses.
 
Soho gator said:
Wrong again, in one way or another they've always been there. Afghans beat the **** out of invading armies then beat the **** out of each other when not smoking dope and buggering little boys. It's what they do.
Click to expand...

Officially the taliban was founded on October 10, 1994 in the Spin Boldak District of Afghanistan.....however continue making it up as you go along. I'll leave the child molesting aspect to you. I do not follow the perverted sexual habits of islamic extremists.
 
joG said:
That is why the UN can and has sometimes do more damage than good. It is also why it is dangerous to rely on the UN for anything important.
Click to expand...

The lead up to the invasion of Iraq is one example of that. One of the biggest reasons the sanctions against the Iraqi regime did not work is the corruption that went on....for instance with the oil for food program. Even then UN leader Kofi Annan's son was involved.
 
cpwill said:
Hey, but remember, ya'll, GM is alive and Osama is dead.



I predicted when he declared it that the President's strategy of undercutting his own surge by announcing withdrawal dates would cause it to fail.

How's that working out?
Click to expand...

The only way to prevent terrorists from coming into Afganistan/Iraq is permanent military occupation. I'm fine with it but there's nothing in the budget for it.
 
Montecresto said:
We went to A-Stan 14 years ago to deal with the Taliban, AQ. Obviously this is not a problem for the Pentagon.
Click to expand...

Yep. It's time for Republicans to show they believe in personal responsibility and forcing the Afgans to take control of their own country.
 
PakPuk said:
Elements of the mujuhadeen which the US government funded to fight the soviets... just an old example of how the US government funds radical jihadists to attack their enemies. Same thing happens today.
Click to expand...

I do not buy the ole "The CIA created the taliban claim". Most of the mujuhadeen did not go on to become taliban. And we did not train or fund Osama Bin Laden. We did happen to share the same goal at the time......evicting the soviets. And in the aftermath of 9/11/01, we certainly did not fund the taliban. We funded the Northern Alliance to go after the taliban.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom