• 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!

American General Killed in Shooting at Afghan Military Academy

That would be a worthwhile objective, but we're a long way from it now. We've been talking about energy independence since before the OPEC oil crisis of the 1970s.

and talking, and talking......

I've high hopes these days. With Tesla not only having the tech to do it but also Tesla having relinquished their patents so all car companies can use that tech now. The next car they build is projected to be $35,000 so the tech is there and the prices are coming down. When they get their gigawatt battery factory built my hopes will rise even more.
 
I've high hopes these days. With Tesla not only having the tech to do it but also Tesla having relinquished their patents so all car companies can use that tech now. The next car they build is projected to be $35,000 so the tech is there and the prices are coming down. When they get their gigawatt battery factory built my hopes will rise even more.

I love that, and I'll buy one!
 
I've high hopes these days. With Tesla not only having the tech to do it but also Tesla having relinquished their patents so all car companies can use that tech now. The next car they build is projected to be $35,000 so the tech is there and the prices are coming down. When they get their gigawatt battery factory built my hopes will rise even more.

Electric cars may be one way, but we don't want to put all of our eggs into one basket. We can run cars on natural gas or on diesel made from coal. We need to get serious about bio fuel research. We can exploit the oil shale and tar sands in North America. We can attack this problem from several angles at the same time.
 
Homework? lol. I was a Corporal in 2001 sonny
Sonny?

In 1971 I was a Phi Beta Kappa graduate (English Lit and Political Science double major; 3.3gpa) of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. As a 1967 HS senior I earned 4s on both the English and European AP exams.


Where were you?
I was in my 30th year as a working man.


having already deployed once to Montenegro to capture Milosevic. Do you even know who that is?
Yes.


If not, Im sure you'll Wikipedia it and claim you do.
I did not know the details of Milosevic's apprehension so I did go to Wiki to find out. He was arrested and extradited by his own government. No mention of any USMC role in the events.


I knew when I joined I would have to protect the ability of loud mouths like you to say stupid things such as "If I were in charge you'd be over there right now".
The USMC always performs its missions as well as they can be performed. Unfortunately your USMC experience is completely and totally useless as an education in the requirements of national security policy, except maybe for the obvious need to maintain strong, versatile armed forces.


Despite what neo-cons like you believe, our nation wasn't established to spread freedom. It was established to provide it to it's own citizens. What freedoms of yours have I protected by deploying to Afghanistan
This is what I mean about your inadequate education. Even though goddam 9/11 occurred while you were in the service you are oblivious to the fact that the people who planned 9/11 were based in Afghanistan; most of the country was a giant safe house provided by Taliban for Al Qaeda terrorist plotters and terrorist training. Taliban had to be removed by force to eliminate the threat and Taliban MUST BE PREVENTED BY FORCE FROM TAKING OVER AGAIN OR WE WILL BE RIGHT BACK WHERE WE STARTED FROM. It would be as though Milosevic was acquitted on some technicality and lived to return to the Balkans and had enough support remaining to start another round of ethnic cleansing.


and Iraq 5 times?
Here is a thread I started on Iraq:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/international-politics/196378-there-third-gulf-war.html


The 2001 Afghanistan invasion and subsequent operations involving SF and and Marine Expeditionary Unit were well orchestrated.
Yes they were, although overall force strength committed should have been much higher. The Taliban-AQ bastards had been caught in the open and more of them could have been wiped out before they had a chance to head for the hills.


After that people such as yourself put their nose in it and it turned into a farce.
What are you talking about?


You need read a book or two and figure out the difference between defense (WW2 Pacific campaign)
I know so much more about WW2 than you do it's ridiculous. Not that you know enough to take part in an intelligent conversation, especially considering that several of the USMC's greatest victories took place in offensive operations in that theater, multiple 1000s of miles away from US territory.


and offense (Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, etc).
What's your point?
 
Sorry for the sonny reference. I assumed your juvenile tone pointed to someone that is under the age of 25.
In 1971 I was a Phi Beta Kappa graduate (English Lit and Political Science double major; 3.3gpa) of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. As a 1967 HS senior I earned 4s on both the English and European AP exams.
Ahh, so you're one of those guys. You had the opportunity to volunteer and chose college instead. Things are starting to make sense now....Make sure you flex those GPA muscles though. I wouldn't be bragging about a 3.3 in English Lit and Political Science bro. Both of those perennially make the top 10 most worthless majors list.

The USMC always performs its missions as well as they can be performed. Unfortunately your USMC experience is completely and totally useless as an education in the requirements of national security policy, except maybe for the obvious need to maintain strong, versatile armed forces.
Speaking of education. Maybe you should educate yourself on what is required of Marines as far as Professional Military Education when they progress in rank. I'd be willing to wager that I have far more hours and college credits than you in the aforementioned subject as well as other similar subjects. We're not the simple automatons that you assume we are or the one you avoided being back when your went to college instead of joining in the late 60's.

This is what I mean about your inadequate education. Even though goddam 9/11 occurred while you were in the service you are oblivious to the fact that the people who planned 9/11 were based in Afghanistan; most of the country was a giant safe house provided by Taliban for Al Qaeda terrorist plotters and terrorist training. Taliban had to be removed by force to eliminate the threat and Taliban MUST BE PREVENTED BY FORCE FROM TAKING OVER AGAIN OR WE WILL BE RIGHT BACK WHERE WE STARTED FROM. It would be as though Milosevic was acquitted on some technicality and lived to return to the Balkans and had enough support remaining to start another round of ethnic cleansing.
1) I love how you accuse me of inadequate education IRT Afghanistan and 9/11 then address my statement about SF and a MEU in Afghanistan later in the same post. Maybe if YOU knew a little about history you would know that SF, the CIA, and a MEU were the first ones on the ground in Afghanistan back in 2001. Oh wait, I even noted the year 2001 in that statement. Read much? Obviously my reference to them points to the fact that I know exactly what has happened in our world during my time in the Marine Corps. I was guarding an Air Force communications plane that has a higher security clearance than Air Force 1. Where were you? Being the "working man" with your Phi Beta Dodga graduate status? Take a step back and get a hold of yourself. Deal with your inner draft dodging demons and move on.
2) Most of Afghanistan was not a "giant safe house" for the Taliban. They were mostly concentrated in the southern desert region.
3) Your comparison of Milosevic to the Taliban makes absolutely no sense. Milosevic committed genocide against his people. The Taliban actively sought to commit terrorist acts against us and other countries. Big, big difference in the two.

Good for you. Got better things to do.

Yes they were, although overall force strength committed should have been much higher. The Taliban-AQ bastards had been caught in the open and more of them could have been wiped out before they had a chance to head for the hills.
Nonsense. We were faring much better in Afghanistan until "jointness" reared it's ugly head and every neo-con General was chomping at the bit to "get in the fight". Once the heavy, slow to react Army brigades started showing up, things got messy fast. That is why, typically, Marine units have fared better in a COIN environment. We are lighter and better equipped for the rapidly changing environments involved in COIN as are SF units and CIA Paramilitary.

Tell me, oh great military genius, how could more ground troops have helped during OBL's epic run in Tora Bora? Where would we have based them? We held one airfield at that point. How would we have logistically supported them? Do you know that over 70% of supplies are brought in to Afghanistan via tractor trailer along the southern border? How could we have established that supply line AND chased OBL? You have to do one or the other. Do you even know how taxing it would have been on a regular infantry unit to move through the terrain they would have had to move through to chase him? Of course you don't because you've never done it. You keep talking about that degree though.


What are you talking about?
You, the neo-con.


I know so much more about WW2 than you do it's ridiculous.
Statements such as this are why I assumed you were under the age of 25. You have never met me. Have never even exchanged posts with me. And you make this broad assumption? lol.

Not that you know enough to take part in an intelligent conversation, especially considering that several of the USMC's greatest victories took place in offensive operations in that theater, multiple 1000s of miles away from US territory.
Please keep up. Why, WW2 buff, did we begin the Pacific Campaign during WW2? Because we were attacked first. Thus, our reaction to that was defensive. If Japan hadn't attacked first, we would not have attacked them. Thus, the Pacific Campaign can be classified as National DEFENSE. Also, as with National Security policy, I would wager I have far more hours in military history than you. In fact, I know I do. The only way you would have more is if you majored in it. Watching the History Channel doesn't make you an expert.

What's your point?
My point is that anytime we go on the offensive for stupid political reasons such as the ones you are advocating for, it turns out bad. Korea, Vietnam, etc, etc have all turned out bad for us. The area we left was not any better than when we first arrived. Desert Storm is the lone exception and Pres Bush I demonstrated enormous restraint by not listening to neocons such as yourself and doing exactly what he said he would do and no more. If a people do not WANT freedom we can't MAKE them take it.
 
Electric cars may be one way, but we don't want to put all of our eggs into one basket. We can run cars on natural gas or on diesel made from coal. We need to get serious about bio fuel research. We can exploit the oil shale and tar sands in North America. We can attack this problem from several angles at the same time.

Absolutely. I'm a fan of the algae bio-fuel path I've been keeping abreast with. It repopulates itself fast and constantly.
 
PART ONE OF REPLY

MarineTpartier said:
Sorry for the sonny reference. I assumed your juvenile tone pointed to someone that is under the age of 25.
No need to apologize for the reference, and I won’t apologize for getting in the face of anyone who deserves it.


MarineTpartier said:
Ahh, so you're one of those guys. You had the opportunity to volunteer and chose college instead.
You don’t think the only people allowed to have an opinion of issues of war and peace should be active duty personnel and vets do you? That is not the way Democracy is supposed to work, bro- maybe you ought to take a few political science courses after all.

Furthermore, I had to take my chances in the 1969 Draft lottery, same as everyone.

I had a college deferment 1967-1969, and I agree such deferment is a travesty since it places a life-and-death burden of risk on some but not others.


MarineTpartier said:
Things are starting to make sense now....Make sure you flex those GPA muscles though. I wouldn't be bragging about a 3.3 in English Lit and Political Science bro. Both of those perennially make the top 10 most worthless majors list.
The 1960s job market was the best in history, and it was still cresting when I got out in 1971. Plus with grades like mine finding a job was never a problem. Plus EnglishLit-PolSci would have been fine for Law School. Plus back then grades were a surer sign of critical thinking ability because all tests were essay question: no multiple choice questions, as in not one in four years for me. Ergo I have a few bragging rights to take.


MarineTpartier said:
Speaking of education. Maybe you should educate yourself on what is required of Marines as far as Professional Military Education when they progress in rank. I'd be willing to wager that I have far more hours and college credits than you in the aforementioned subject as well as other similar subjects. We're not the simple automatons that you assume we are or the one you avoided being back when your went to college instead of joining in the late 60's.
I commend your efforts to continue your education. However, either the curriculum or your study habits are deficient because you do not have a clear view of the issues at stake in Afghanistan 2001-present.


MarineTpartier said:
I love how you accuse me of inadequate education IRT Afghanistan and 9/11 then address my statement about SF and a MEU in Afghanistan later in the same post. Maybe if YOU knew a little about history you would know that SF, the CIA, and a MEU were the first ones on the ground in Afghanistan back in 2001. Oh wait, I even noted the year 2001 in that statement. Read much? Obviously my reference to them points to the fact that I know exactly what has happened in our world during my time in the Marine Corps. I was guarding an Air Force communications plane that has a higher security clearance than Air Force 1.
Here is what I said, and you are doing nothing but confirming it in this thread:

"you are oblivious to the fact that the people who planned 9/11 were based in Afghanistan"

And no, knowing what year something happened does not mean you know enough about it otherwise to form a reasonable opinion about anything, and neither does guard duty.


MarineTpartier said:
Where were you? Being the "working man" with your Phi Beta Dodga graduate status? Take a step back and get a hold of yourself. Deal with your inner draft dodging demons and move on.
Previously addressed.


MarineTpartier said:
2) Most of Afghanistan was not a "giant safe house" for the Taliban. They were mostly concentrated in the southern desert region.
Totally incorrect.

Here, according to the US Army, is what Taliban controlled:

Afghanistan 10/01: Strategic Setting

(from link, emphasis added):
Most of the country was under Taliban control by 2001 except for some small areas held by Northern Alliance forces in the Panjshir Valley northeast of Kabul and a few scattered pockets of resistance in the northwest of the country…



MarineTpartier said:
3) Your comparison of Milosevic to the Taliban makes absolutely no sense. Milosevic committed genocide against his people. The Taliban actively sought to commit terrorist acts against us and other countries. Big, big difference in the two.
I’ll say there’s a big difference!- Milosevic was an out-of-the-way local small-fry whereas AQ had been attacking us all over the world for years, and Taliban was in 2001 providing them with what was by far the most secure base they ever had.

Just to clue you in to the point I was making, though: once you have an certified homicidal maniac under control it is usually a good idea to keep him under control, right? Especially if you personally are 100% sure to be at the top of the maniac’s victim list once he gets loose.


MarineTpartier said:
Good for you. Got better things to do.
You mean your attention span can’t take it.
 
PART TWO OF REPLY

MarineTpartier said:
Nonsense. We were faring much better in Afghanistan until "jointness" reared it's ugly head…
Off-topic because what I obviously meant was that more force should have been committed at the start.


MarineTpartier said:
Tell me, oh great military genius, how could more ground troops have helped during OBL's epic run in Tora Bora?
How could more ground troops have helped? Man, that’s a tough one!

I guess I just have to fall back on the premise that more troops are better than less troops for carrying out most missions. I think it is safe to say there is no reason 2001 Afghanistan might be an exception to that premise.

You think less troops would have had a better chance of interdicting OBL on his way to Tora Bora? You think less troops would have had a better chance of nailing him while he was on Tora Bora? You think less troops would have had a better chance of nailing him before he got to Pakistan?


MarineTpartier said:
Where would we have based them? We held one airfield at that point.
How would we have logistically supported them? Do you know that over 70% of supplies are brought in to Afghanistan via tractor trailer along the southern border How could we have established that supply line AND chased OBL? You have to do one or the other.?
I am not talking about supplying two million people for two years like we did during the Berlin Airlift (ever hear about that one, Bro?- tells us about what kind of things we can do with a real can-do attitude like the one you are supposed to have). I am talking about supplying additional ground forces of less than one Division in number for about 2-4 months Oct-Dec 2001.


MarineTpartier said:
Do you even know how taxing it would have been on a regular infantry unit to move through the terrain they would have had to move through to chase him? Of course you don't because you've never done it. You keep talking about that degree though.
I can’t believe I am hearing this “taxing” sh*t from a US Marine. OMG! Mountainous terrain! We’re licked!


MarineTpartier said:
Statements such as this are why I assumed you were under the age of 25. You have never met me. Have never even exchanged posts with me. And you make this broad assumption? lol.
I have been a history buff since grade school (20 years before the cable TV era) and I probably knew more history than you do now before I got to college.


MarineTpartier said:
Please keep up. Why, WW2 buff, did we begin the Pacific Campaign during WW2? Because we were attacked first. Thus, our reaction to that was defensive. If Japan hadn't attacked first, we would not have attacked them. Thus, the Pacific Campaign can be classified as National DEFENSE.
Now you are playing word games and ignoring the fundamental military concepts of strategic offence and strategic defense. If that is the best you can do then you must have received some kind of social promotion to have gotten through those continuing education courses of yours.


MarineTpartier said:
Also, as with National Security policy, I would wager I have far more hours in military history than you. In fact, I know I do. The only way you would have more is if you majored in it. Watching the History Channel doesn't make you an expert.
I don’t think I have ever watched an entire HC program. Probably what you grew up on, though, eh?

Any time you want to compare bibliographies let me know. I can start with Shirer’s Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1245p, read in HS), or, if you prefer something more strictly military, Werth’s Russia at War (1136p).


MarineTpartier said:
My point is that anytime we go on the offensive for stupid political reasons such as the ones you are advocating for, it turns out bad. Korea, Vietnam, etc, etc have all turned out bad for us. The area we left was not any better than when we first arrived. Desert Storm is the lone exception and Pres Bush I demonstrated enormous restraint by not listening to neocons such as yourself and doing exactly what he said he would do and no more. If a people do not WANT freedom we can't MAKE them take it.
Korea was a crystal mystic perfection of a just war against a invasive aggressor. It turned out not merely well but great for the now prospering people of South Korea, who would otherwise be laboring in unimaginable torment under the rule of the loathsome NK Communist party. Korea and Viet Nam both began as strategic defensives.

Somalia was a mistake, but not a neocon mistake (you remember who was POTUS then, don’t you?)

Iraq II was also crystal mystic perfection of a just war, even though there were no WMB, against a man who had started two wars and who was the serial murderer of his own people. The ~65% voter turnout for the 1st ever elections showed that a clear majority of the Iraqi people DID WANT FREEDOM. THEY STILL DO. Unfortunately terrorist-criminal elements of the remaining 35% have been ruthless enough to deny the majority their longed-for peace, so the practical benefits of our just war have gone tragically unrealized.

And I see we keep straying from Afghanistan. I may not have the energy for any more globetrotting, and I may not have any more energy for you unless you come up with something really enticing.
 
A military one? What do you have in mind, we start shooting Afghan soldiers? Unfortunately, the military can not solve all of our problems.... actually, there are very, very few problems that can be solved with the military. In fact, the use of the military probably creates more problems than it solves.... the Afghan occupation, for example.

There is no problem that cannot be cured by the proper application of high explosives.

Of course, since it was a General probably appointed under Obama, the military may actually now be more capable.
 
So? Its true. Peel back the onion and that is all you liberals do. Blame Bush and cry racist. Since 2008 every death in Iraq and Afghanistan is squarely on Obama's shoulders.

nahh... what is true is that you preemptively played a whiny victim card for no reason which is fast becoming a favorite right-wing past time.
 
It is our number export. Just ask anyone in the ME. 20 years ago, ask anyone in South America. We haven't messed with Asia in 70 years...they are probably due.

Wow so you and Obama went to the same school. Maybe you can tell me what the 57 states are?
 
im·pe·ri·al·ism
imˈpi(ə)rēəˌlizəm/
noun
a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force.
"the struggle against imperialism"


EXTENDING POWER AND INFLUENCE THROUGH MILITARY FORCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Ah yes, we certainly have alot of power and influence in foreign countries.... you would think that with us being so imperialistic they would fall over to agree with us.
 
PART ONE OF REPLY


No need to apologize for the reference, and I won’t apologize for getting in the face of anyone who deserves it...........

You mean your attention span can’t take it.

PART TWO OF REPLY


Off-topic because what I obviously meant was that more force should have been committed at the start.
A couple of things so we can wrap up the extracurricular crap you seem to love engaging in and revert back to what this is all supposed to be about. Afghanistan. You know, the country that housed the perpetrators of 9/11. <-I'm going to keep saying that because apparently in your convoluted world of debate my stating that we went there in 2001, my debate of tactics there, and my debate of logistical support there doesn't mean I know why we went there in the first place. Idk how, for the life of me, that line of reasoning makes sense to you but apparently it does so I guess I'll have to repeatedly acknowledge what every person in the US that was over the age of 12 knows: We invaded Afghanistan due to 9/11.

A)This is the internet. Simply saying you have a high GPA, naming battles or engagements that occurred during any war that you are allegedly an expert on, or any other attempt at propping one's self up does a couple of things. One, it makes you look as if you are compensating for something. A person that is confident in their abilities shouldn't feel the need to yell far and wide every little thing they allegedly know or think they know. Two, any decent points you do make are hidden by the fact that you feel the need to not only comment on the topic at hand, but also comment on things that no one really cares about and attempt to insult people who haven't insulted you. Comments such as "Or were you too busy keeping up with your homework to pay attention to the news back then? (Haha- homework? you?)" are unwarranted. Again, this references my belief that you were in fact a teenager or early 20's punk.

B) You can tell yourself whatever you need to in order to feel better about your not serving in Vietnam. I agree that you don't need to have served to be able to have an opinion on wars that our country does or doesn't participate in. What I don't agree with is your willy nilly belief that we should just send troops where ever we want because, whatever, they are supposed to do that. This isn't Star Wars where the "troops" are heartless, emotionless bodies sent forth to fight and die at the will of whomever is in charge of them. Troops are actual people with families who shouldn't be sent forth to every friggin country in this world that thumbs their nose at us. It doesn't strike me as a coincidence that as the numbers of House and Senate members that have served decreases, wars and "conflicts" seem to increase. People such as yourself, who haven't felt the loss of a comrade in combat nor had to notify their wife and kids of their death, shouldn't treat the lives of those people as if they were disposable capital. That's what you act like and you can keep whatever back pedaling comments you may post to yourself. Your previous posts reveal your true nature.

Now, on to Afghanistan. (You know, the country that housed the perpetrators of 9/11.)

More Troops in 2001:
No, more doesn't always mean better. If that were the case, we would have gone in heavy at the beginning like we did in Iraq. As it is, we went in with small groups of elite troops such as ODA's, CIA paramilitary, etc. Their mission was to train the Northern Alliance and lead them in to combat against the Taliban. Note the NORTHERN Alliance ie the North was not a haven for the Taliban like the south was. I never said there wasn't a Taliban presence anywhere else in the country. I simply stated they were concentrated in the south. Again, you jump to a conclusion instead of taking a comment at face value. Small groups like ODA's, which I have worked with extensively in Iraq, do not need nor do they want the burden of conventional units attached to them during the type of mission they were conducting in 2001. Large, conventional units (especially US Army infantry) are typically slow to react, require a large amount of logistical support, and do not have the physical capability of scaling and climbing mountains like the ones seen in Afghanistan. (You know, the country that housed the perpetrators of 9/11.) I will stop here to make a point.

***You MAY have a college degree. You MAY be a guy who studies history. I don't know if any of that is true or not. If it is, you MAY have more knowledge of history than I do. However, one thing I know to be true is that you have NO EXPERIENCE in the type of effort and energy that is required to operate in mountainous terrain such as the terrain that is present in Afghanistan. (You know, the country that housed the perpetrators of 9/11.) Especially up north. Sure, you can come back and say something like "I used to hike the Rockies" or "I completed the Appalachian Trail". Those things are not even in the same ball park as conducting combat operations in a mountainous environment. Those things allow you to pick and chose where you walk. You can take a break when you want. You aren't wearing nearly the amount of gear a soldier/Marine is wearing. You don't have that whole threat of death thing going on either. So to attempt to make it sound like our troops are simply weak because they can't operate in mountainous terrain is, in my opinion, ignorant and disrespectful. Simply pointing to terrain on a map and saying "Go there and complete this mission" is the type of arm chair quarterback crap that gets people killed. I'm sure you, being the alleged history buff, can remember quite a few battles with incompetent leaders doing such things.***

Further, tactics do not win wars. Logistics do. As a "history buff" you should know this. Again, less is more when conducting operations in a country where you have no established way of supplying troops. In the beginnings of the Afghanistan (You know, the country that housed the perpetrators of 9/11.) invasion, the only resupply available to our guys were via air drop or what the SF teams could purchase locally with money they brought in with them. This is not an environment where you can air drop in troops from the 82nd or helo in a battalion of Marines and expect to sustain them. It takes 3 logistics personnel to support every infantry Marine (this includes mechanics to keep air up, landing support, etc, etc) and it takes 4 logistics personnel to support every Army infantryman. You also have to feed, house, etc those 3-4 logistics personnel that are there for every infantryman. SF, on the other hand, only require 2 logistics personnel per man. They also can procure enough supplies for themselves due to their small footprint. I say all that to demonstrate that, despite our not getting OBL in Tora Bora, the way the 2001 Afghanistan invasion was conducted was MASTERFUL compared to way we did it in Iraq. With barely 2% of the troops used in Iraq, we accomplished a full route of the enemy in difficult terrain with no established logistical support network. Remember, COIN wasn't something that any conventional troop even considered as a way of conducting war in 2001. The ONLY people trained in it's ways were SF. The reason Iraq turned out the way it did is because we sent in a blunt object to correct a problem that required a precision instrument. I was there for the invasion of Iraq and it was much bigger debacle that was portrayed on TV.

Finally, I won't argue the points with you about Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, etc. You are obviously convinced that sending troops to every country that doesn't agree with our point of view is the way to force them to freedom. I disagree wholeheartedly.
 
Ah yes, we certainly have alot of power and influence in foreign countries.... you would think that with us being so imperialistic they would fall over to agree with us.

They're falling over.
 
Wow so you and Obama went to the same school. Maybe you can tell me what the 57 states are?

Help me here...how did I Obama go to the same school? I pull for Yale, not Harvard.

With that said, please make a point. I guess it is something against America being imperialists. We send weapons to Syria. We have troops in South Korea, Afghanistan, Germany, Italy and list of other countries. That is the military. Military force. Don't be so blind.

Look around the world. Realize we are the world police and we use our military to do it.
 
It also wasn't technically "enemy action," since these guys are ostensibly friendlies that we were training.
So you already know the assassin was not al qaeda or Taliban? Awesome.

In my opinion this was a military action undertaken to assassinate a general officer and as many of his staff as possible. It worked.
 
MarineTpartier said:
…We invaded Afghanistan due to 9/11.
Not good enough. How long will it take this to sink in:

(From post #149) The short, sweet and simple point to staying in Afghanistan is above all else to avoid giving the place back to the same nightcreatures who had attacked us, and who we removed from power in 2001.

Our nightcreature enemies are on the verge of annulling the results of effort in Iraq because WE LEFT TOO EARLY. Only a real idiot could even think about making the same mistake in Afghanistan.



MarineTpartier said:
A)This is the internet. Simply saying you have a high GPA…
You don’t even remember what you wrote, do you?

Take another look at your post #167 for why I needed to cite my educational credentials.



MarineTpartier said:
Two, any decent points you do make are hidden by the fact that you feel the need to not only comment on the topic at hand, but also comment on things that no one really cares about and attempt to insult people who haven't insulted you.
I only insult people who deserve to be insulted.



MarineTpartier said:
Comments such as "Or were you too busy keeping up with your homework to pay attention to the news back then? (Haha- homework? you?)" are unwarranted. Again, this references my belief that you were in fact a teenager or early 20's punk.


Like a punk yourself.

Take another look your post (#142) that started our conversation. I take it, I dish it out. Your *ss hurts where my foot imprint is? Don’t start something you can’t finish.



MarineTpartier said:
B) You can tell yourself whatever you need to in order to feel better about your not serving in Vietnam.
It would not do any good to lose sleep over it so I never have.



MarineTpartier said:
I agree that you don't need to have served to be able to have an opinion on wars that our country does or doesn't participate in…
Good to have you on board. It would still be a good idea for you to take a few PoliSci courses.



MarineTpartier said:
What I don't agree with is…
Skip the speeches.



MarineTpartier said:
Now, on to Afghanistan…
More Troops in 2001:
No, more doesn't always mean better. If that were the case, we would have gone in heavy at the beginning like we did in Iraq.
Stop right there!

You just got through saying in your last post that there was only one airport available for us in Afghanistan. Now you pull a flipflop because, apparently, one airport was no problemmo after all, as in we could “ have gone in heavy like we did in Iraq.”

Everything that follows is therefore a self-contradiction by you not formally requiring rebuttal from me. Since it is so full of complete nonsense I will nevertheless deal with it.

I will from here on be using the following previously cited link for information which I will designate by underlining rather than go to the trouble of setting off with quotation sections:

The United States Army in Afghanistan Operation ENDURING FREEDOM October 2001-March 2002



MarineTpartier said:
As it is, we went in with small groups of elite troops such as ODA's, CIA paramilitary, etc. Their mission was to train the Northern Alliance and lead them in to combat against the Taliban.
Incorrect.

Their mission was reinforcement on the ground, and directing close air support.

You think Kabul could have been taken (11/14/01) less than four weeks after our first men set foot in the country (10/19) if we had had to wait on training everybody? Most to all of the warriors of the NA had been engaged in mountain warfare for most to all of their lives, many going back to the Soviet era 1979-1988. Once we delivered NA was capable of leading itself all the way to Kabul, and it was their leaders who were in command.



MarineTpartier said:
Note the NORTHERN Alliance ie the North was not a haven for the Taliban like the south was. I never said there wasn't a Taliban presence anywhere else in the country. I simply stated they were concentrated in the south.
You said that Afghanistan was not a giant safe house for Taliban, and that was incorrect. It was in firm control of about 2/3 of the country, and since the entire country is the size of Texas Taliban’s share made for a damn big safe house.



MarineTpartier said:
Small groups like ODA's, which I have worked with extensively in Iraq, do not need nor do they want the burden of conventional units attached to them during the type of mission they were conducting in 2001...
Only a FEW HUNDRED elite US troops were needed to to drive Taliban from power, and we had a lot more than a few hundred available, didn’t we ???

Also, as far as I can determine The it was the US Army which conducted all ground operations in Afghanistan for the first several weeks of the war.

The USMC had set up positions in Pakistan, but did not enter Afghanistan until 11/25, when it committed the 15th MEU. If they had begun to go in to stay during the 101 AB raid in October the city might have fallen weeks earlier, and we might have gotten our hands on the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, who is still at large today.

Also, THERE ARE SIX OTHER USMC MEUs. A half an additional MEU, sent in as soon as Kabul fell and then sent against Tora Bora could have taken OBL and other AQ before they had a chance to rationalize both defenses and escape routes.

The whole problem was that George Bush and Colin Powell were so paranoid about US casualties that they held our elite troops back so as to let the Afghanis spill all the blood if possible, even when, as at Kandahar and Tora Bora, Afghani forces were far below the standard for effectiveness set by NA earlier in the war.



MarineTpartier said:
...Simply pointing to terrain on a map and saying "Go there and complete this mission"
That is exactly what our fighting men and women have been asked to do since 2001, and they delivered every time. Every single time. I guess all that was while you were on guard duty.



MarineTpartier said:
Further, tactics do not win wars. Logistics do…
Oh, but according to you if more had meant better “we would have gone in heavy at the beginning like we did in Iraq.” Therefore, according to you, logistics for a larger operation in Afghanistan would not have been a problem.



MarineTpartier said:
…The reason Iraq turned out the way it did is because we sent in a blunt object to correct a problem that required a precision instrument. I was there for the invasion of Iraq and it was much bigger debacle that was portrayed on TV.
A debacle? The 2003 invasion of Iraq a debacle? A country that size defended by several 100,000 conquered in 41 days a debacle???

It was a textbook operation if there ever was one.

For you to suggest it might have been accomplished by a few 100 specops tells me it is time to end our conversation, because your command of proportion, fact and logic is short of what it takes for you to be a worthwhile opponent.

Good bye.
 
Part I
Not good enough. How long will it take this to sink in........ Afghanistan.
How does that harm us? Iraq wasn't even a center of terrorism then. We actually found people carrying passports in Iraq that had the purpose of their visit from Syria/Saudi/Iran/etc as "jihad". AQ didn't exist in Iraq until we came in. Saddam wouldn't allow it. Sunnis were in power and Shias were oppressed. Sunnis, if you know anything about OIF, were the very people that manned AQI. So by your logic the Sunnis of Sunni friendly Iraq were there to terrorize their own Sunni gov't and then attack other countries as well. Riiiiight. Iraq was a brutally ruled country. However, there are many brutally ruled countries in our world. Are we to invade every one of them to liberate the people there? No.
Afghanistan did house the people responsible for 9/11, sure. We went in, routed them, and then should have left the NA in power to control their own country. We maybe could have left Special Ops guys there and used our air bases in neighboring countries to give them air support. This would have fulfilled the intent of allowing the Afghani's to lead their own revolution and allowed us to keep eyes on the situation. Those guys are training exactly for that type of UW. Afghanistan was going well until people such as yourself started pounding the table to put more and more troops in there. Now, we're in the same spot we were with Iraq. A populace against us, a corrupt puppet gov't, and a terrorist group waiting in the wings for us to leave.
You don’t even remember what you wrote, do you?....Skip the speeches.
I'll treat all of the above as avoidance of debate, which is exactly what you do most of the time. Kind of like your ending to this post with your "Goodbye" that every user on this website attempts to use when they don't really have a point anymore.
You just got through saying...
The mission was to kill or capture OBL correct? You stated so yourself and stated that going in heavy would have given us a better chance to do so. My contention was, in previous posts, that you can't go in heavy and chase him at the same time due to the fact that a heavy footprint requires the unit to establish a supply train. That is something that you can't do while still chasing OBL. Sure, the SF, CIA, etc guys would have been doing that anyway but your contention is that the extra troops you think we should have brought in would have been in on that chase as well. That's not the case. They would have been establishing a way to resupply themselves.
Incorrect.Their mission was reinforcement on the ground, and directing close air support. You think Kabul could have been taken (11/14/01) less than four weeks after our first men set foot in the country (10/19) if we had had to wait on training everybody? Most to all of the warriors of the NA had been engaged in mountain warfare for most to all of their lives, many going back to the Soviet era 1979-1988. Once we delivered NA was capable of leading itself all the way to Kabul, and it was their leaders who were in command.
Ah, you read a brochure and assume you know the whole story. I'm picking up on a continuing theme with you. You think reading a book or report that has been sanitized over and over makes you an expert on what is going on somewhere. Personally, I'd rather know someone who was there and hear from them what was going on. We had CIA operatives on deck in Afghanistan before 9/11 even occurred. What do you think they were doing? Training the NA in the employment of combined arms. You keep reading your brochures though.
You said that Afghanistan was not a giant safe house for Taliban....
Again, know guys who were there and have been there myself. Keep reading your books though. The Taliban CONTROLLED the Helmand Province and had a presence in the rest of the country. There is a huge difference in controlling something and having a presence.
Only a FEW HUNDRED elite US troops were needed.....

That's true. US Army SF, 160 SOAR, etc. As I've said repeatedly. Miss that did you?
The USMC had set up positions in Pakistan,....
Or they would have went in earlier and tipped off OBL and we wouldn't have gotten as close as we did to getting him. Also, just to get it through your thick head, you can't maneuver conventional troops where SF, CIA, etc can go. The units are too big, too unwieldy, and not trained for that purpose. In addition, MEU's are not designed to engage in sustained ground combat. They are designed to deliver one hard punch, hold the ground they gain from that punch, then wait for reinforcement. That and a few other specialized missions that don't apply here.
 
Part 2
Also, THERE ARE SIX OTHER USMC MEUs.....
Lol. Your ignorance reveals itself again. You do know that of the 6 MEU's, two are deployed, two are on a rest cycle, and two are training to deploy correct? I've deployed with one. The 26th. Remember the Milosevic operation I told you about? They can't/don't all deploy at the same time. As a matter of fact, the GCE (know what that is?) doesn't even stay attached to a MEU upon return to CONUS. MEU's are manned with BLT's which are a mix of units from each respective coast that are put together, trained for 6 months, and then deployed. Upon their return, they are disbanded and sent back to their parent regiments. Once that MEU's rotation comes up, a new group of units is assembled, trained, and deployed. They are not some force you can just throw together at the drop of a hat to deploy. The MEU that is deployed is the one that reacts to situations such as this. Read a book bro.
The whole problem was that George Bush.....
The elite troops were the ones deployed!!! It doesn't get any better than SF, CIA Paramilitary, Delta Force, etc. That's who was on the ground man. Don't you get that? Bush and Powell were spot on with their strategy. They did exactly the right thing. We should have left all together or rotated a fresh batch of them in as soon as the NA routed the Taliban and left it at that. As it is, we decided to go heavy as you advocate and it turned the entire populace against us. Maybe if you would have gone to Vietnam instead of pulling a Newt Gingrich you would know how that works.
That is exactly what our fighting men....
Lol. A guy who dodged Vietnam attempts a smarmy joke about service. How asinine is that? Anyway, there are examples of leaders sending troops into untenable terrain and those troops failing because of it. Perfect example that I saw personally. Col Dowdy, the TF Tarawa commander during OIF I in 2003, sent an AMTRAK unit up the right flank of An Nasiriyah even though the maps depicted it as a marsh. In his eyes, despite what his subordinates were telling him, it was open desert. The AMRTRAKs went in, bogged down, and the whole platoon was almost slaughtered because they couldn't move the traks and the infantryman aboard them couldn't slog through the marsh because it was too thick. Turns out not only was it a marsh, but a sewage outlet as well. That is terrain that can't be navigated. We aren't super human. Most of our leaders of cognizant of terrain and take it into consideration when it may dictate the way the mission is conducted ie METT-TSL. If you would have served, you would know what that acronym means. Try looking it up.
A debacle?.....
Textbook right until the time we got to Baghdad. Every day we had to patrol those streets and see the looks on people's face when they realized we were just as powerless as they were. We just looked like we were powerful. OIF I was a debacle my man. Again, you weren't there. I was. I know.
For you to suggest.....
That's exactly what I'm saying but you are attempting to cut and run on this debate because you realize that while you may be knowledgeable of a textbook, conventional war like WWII, you have no idea the complexities of fighting a war in a COIN environment. Ever hear of the Three Block War? Trying reading up on that concept dodger. Maybe if you'd have served in 'Nam, you would know what I speak of. Those guys dealt with similar circumstances.
 
American General Killed in Shooting at Afghan Military Academy - ABC News



Very serious, I hope the response to this from the US is a military one. We can't allow this.



These events never took place.

It is all Right Wing Lies, Propaganda and Deception, and this whole story belongs on the CT forum!

These people were killed by White, Right Wing Terrorists.

Islam, by Definition, is a Religion of Peace and Beauty... or had you momentarily forgotten.

Muslims, by Definition, are victims of Christian Agression... or had you momentarily forgotten.

We have people who can help you remember, should you forget again.

Have a nice day. :)

-
 
Back
Top Bottom