• 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!

Trump to announce new strategy — and probably more troops — for Afghanistan

RabidAlpaca said:
Yes, it's context is that it is a mountainous location in Afghanistan, among many others. Why don't you put your question in context for me?



You're stuck in the position that Taliban = international terrorists, and therefore we should be in Afghanistan killing local Afghans into the end of time. That's not a strategy and it has nothing to do with international terror.
Click to expand...

I thought you'd be a little bit more creative with your reply. Never mind.

Regarding the Taliban as international terrorists, the idea is to kill all of them. The locals know who the Taliban fighters are and who the law abiding citizens are. The best intelligence in the world comes from people who are motivated by a desire to rid their country of terrorism. That's how the CIA knows stuff, right? That's how targets get marked, right? The "kill the Taliban" strategy might not be your strategy, but it is a strategy, and it is the one that will be used.

Of course, I know you are a lot smarter than Gen. Mattis and I know you are much more experienced than the war fighters who will be operational, but, what the heck, let's give them a chance, unless you are pulling for the other side. Then, it is your responsibility to obstruct and resist. Right?
 
Quazimodo said:
I thought you'd be a little bit more creative with your reply. Never mind.

Regarding the Taliban as international terrorists, the idea is to kill all of them. The locals know who the Taliban fighters are and who the law abiding citizens are. The best intelligence in the world comes from people who are motivated by a desire to rid their country of terrorism. That's how the CIA knows stuff, right? That's how targets get marked, right? The "kill the Taliban" strategy might not be your strategy, but it is a strategy, and it is the one that will be used.

Of course, I know you are a lot smarter than Gen. Mattis and I know you are much more experienced than the war fighters who will be operational, but, what the heck, let's give them a chance, unless you are pulling for the other side. Then, it is your responsibility to obstruct and resist. Right?
Click to expand...

Oh? Was I supposed to write you a detailed and well thought out essay in response to your lazy and vague on liner?

The Taliban are not international terrorists, and in most cases who is and isn't Taliban is not at all clear. They are not all in the mountains in caves plotting attacks, they're in every village as elders, fathers, sons, and brothers. The sole purpose of the Taliban in Afghanistan is to remove infidels from their land. We went to Afghanistan on fallacious conditions that had nothing to do with 9/11, and the Afghans are doing what Afghans do best, resisting. As long as American soldiers are there, they will be attacked. This is the way it's worked for thousands of years and it will not change.

Mattis is just the next leader in a long string of failed leaders over the past 16 years and he seems intent on recycling the same old failed strategies. We are no closer to winning the war than we were in 2002. Yes, my experience living among the Afghans and going to weekly meetings with the elders of various villages does give me a bit of inside knowledge as to what it is local Afghans want and how hard it is to actually identify who the Taliban are. We do not have a strategy to win Afghanistan.

If we were actually interested in fighting global terror we would've invaded Saudi Arabia on September 12th, 2001, as all of the hijackers were Saudis and they are the #1 exporter of radical jihadist terrorism. Let's not compare local mountain hillbillies with international terror groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda.
 
Helix said:
Pakistan is regional. a western superpower is not.
Click to expand...

Russia is regional along with any forces in Ukraine - the US superpower is not.

we should also note that some extremist groups have roots in a time when the Soviet Union was engaged in its own Afghanistan campaign.
Click to expand...

And these extremist groups are now a threat to International Security and safety.

we're all much more likely to be killed in an automobile accident or by almost anything other than a transplanted terrorist. there is also an argument that a multi-decade presence in the region makes the US a much more appealing target.
Click to expand...

More people are killed by islamist terrorism than are killed by neo-nazis or white supremacists.
 
Evilroddy said:
Braindrain:

They do, in effect, when the Commander-in-Chief of the US military abrogates his command responsibilities and delegates comprehensive decision-making power to the military Joint Chiefs of Staff. Trump laid Afghanistan in their laps and they (Mattis, McMaster et al.) chose to advise their unwilling Commander-in-Chief to continue the folly of war rather than end it. Pictures of Afghans in better, secular times swayed Trump but those days are gone, thanks to Soviet militarism and US support for fundamentalism and jihad. It is time to end the forlorn hope that victory in Afghanistan is attainable and act accordingly.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

First, Congress abrogated its responsibility to declare war, or not declare war, by passing the war powers act and thus passing the responsibility on to the executive branch. The new executive branch has no idea what to do, and so is now passing the responsibility of carrying out a war to the generals.

Sounds to me like we've ended civilian control of the military.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Yes, it's context is that it is a mountainous location in Afghanistan, among many others. Why don't you put your question in context for me?



You're stuck in the position that Taliban = international terrorists, and therefore we should be in Afghanistan killing local Afghans into the end of time. That's not a strategy and it has nothing to do with international terror.
Click to expand...

If they hang with terrorists I guess we have no choice. Sorry. And killing terrorists will have no effect on terror how?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Oh? Was I supposed to write you a detailed and well thought out essay in response to your lazy and vague on liner?

The Taliban are not international terrorists, and in most cases who is and isn't Taliban is not at all clear. They are not all in the mountains in caves plotting attacks, they're in every village as elders, fathers, sons, and brothers. The sole purpose of the Taliban in Afghanistan is to remove infidels from their land. We went to Afghanistan on fallacious conditions that had nothing to do with 9/11, and the Afghans are doing what Afghans do best, resisting. As long as American soldiers are there, they will be attacked. This is the way it's worked for thousands of years and it will not change.

Mattis is just the next leader in a long string of failed leaders over the past 16 years and he seems intent on recycling the same old failed strategies. We are no closer to winning the war than we were in 2002. Yes, my experience living among the Afghans and going to weekly meetings with the elders of various villages does give me a bit of inside knowledge as to what it is local Afghans want and how hard it is to actually identify who the Taliban are. We do not have a strategy to win Afghanistan.

If we were actually interested in fighting global terror we would've invaded Saudi Arabia on September 12th, 2001, as all of the hijackers were Saudis and they are the #1 exporter of radical jihadist terrorism. Let's not compare local mountain hillbillies with international terror groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda.
Click to expand...

Is ISIS at Tora Bora?
 
sanman said:
Please tell me which specific point you are taking issue with
Click to expand...

this:
sanman said:
The Taliban are a Pakistan-sponsored militia movement created by Pakistan's military/ISI.
Click to expand...

So ultimately the Taliban are foreign to Afghanistan, and Pakistan is itself behaving like an occupying power in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

Afghanistan's Northern Alliance was composed of non-Pashtuns who fought ferociously against the Pakistan-Taliban invasion of Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

Pakistan and Taliban were unable to defeat them on the battlefield to seize full control over the country.
Click to expand...

This is where Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda came in. Their terrorist fighters often served as elite special forces to help Taliban win battles.
Click to expand...

Using their international global terrorist network (ie. Foreign Empire) AlQaeda brought over 2 young Algerian Islamist fundamentalist students who posed as journalists seeking to interview the Northern Alliance leader. During the interview they detonated explosives in a suicide attack which killed the Northern Alliance leadership, as a decapitation strike. In return for this, the Taliban gave the green light to Osama Bin Laden to carry out the 9/11 attacks.
As a foreign empire, the Islamists have chalked up a lot of victories around the world - just as communists have in the past. Look at all the foreigners fighting in Syria. Foreign Islamists don't go home - instead they settle and colonize - even in the USA/Europe.
Click to expand...
 
coldjoint said:
If they hang with terrorists I guess we have no choice. Sorry. And killing terrorists will have no effect on terror how?
Click to expand...

Wow, amazing plan, coldjoint! In 16 years and numerous generals, nobody has ever thought to just kill the terrorists! It's so simple! Good thing the Russians never tried that when they were there otherwise they would've won!

You're obviously someone who has no idea what an insurgency is and seem to think they're all wearing terrorist uniforms so we can identify them. Simplistic non-solutions to extremely complex problems.


Quazimodo said:
Is ISIS at Tora Bora?
Click to expand...


No.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Wow, amazing plan, coldjoint! In 16 years and numerous generals, nobody has ever thought to just kill the terrorists! It's so simple! Good thing the Russians never tried that when they were there otherwise they would've won!

You're obviously someone who has no idea what an insurgency is and seem to think they're all wearing terrorist uniforms so we can identify them. Simplistic non-solutions to extremely complex problems.





No.
Click to expand...

Do you remember Obama had our troops not firing unless fired upon? Obama tied the hands of soldiers sent there to do just that(kill terrorists). Not anymore.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Wow, amazing plan, coldjoint! In 16 years and numerous generals, nobody has ever thought to just kill the terrorists! It's so simple! Good thing the Russians never tried that when they were there otherwise they would've won!

You're obviously someone who has no idea what an insurgency is and seem to think they're all wearing terrorist uniforms so we can identify them. Simplistic non-solutions to extremely complex problems.





No.
Click to expand...

When did they leave?
 
justabubba said:
this:
Click to expand...

I first need to know, in your own words, why you find what I've said inaccurate/unbelievable - please tell me your version, so that I know.
 
sanman said:
I first need to know, in your own words, why you find what I've said inaccurate/unbelievable - please tell me your version, so that I know.
Click to expand...

appears you are unable to substantiate your multiple assertions

wanted to smoke that out so that i now know those were opinions rather than facts
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Wow, amazing plan, coldjoint! In 16 years and numerous generals, nobody has ever thought to just kill the terrorists! It's so simple! Good thing the Russians never tried that when they were there otherwise they would've won!

You're obviously someone who has no idea what an insurgency is and seem to think they're all wearing terrorist uniforms so we can identify them. Simplistic non-solutions to extremely complex problems.





No.
Click to expand...



As an aside, do you know who invented that style of warfare?

American revolutionaries bent on winning freedom from a power ten or twenty times their might.


Irony
 
justabubba said:
appears you are unable to substantiate your multiple assertions

wanted to smoke that out so that i now know those were opinions rather than facts
Click to expand...

I'm confident that my "assertions" are accurate. What makes you challenge them? If you have contrary beliefs, please state them.

If you're just picking at what I say without having any contrasting version of your own that you believe in, then you're just trolling.

I don't jump through hoops for people on demand - I'm quite confident that my version is accurate and credible, but you're very free to disagree.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Trump to announce new strategy — and probably more troops — for Afghanistan



It will be interesting to hear Trumps "new military strategy" for Afghanistan. Adding more troops in and of itself is not a "new strategy". Also bothersome [to me] is any increased US dependence on the government of Pakistan. Islamabad is only too happy to accept billions in American funding while its S-Wing of the ISI security service arms and assists the Taliban and other radical Islamist groups in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Kashmir.
Click to expand...



As an exercise I went back and scanned a majority of all the posts, both from before the "announcement" and while the general thread has degenerated into the usual arguing, it strikes me that everyone missed the fact Trump said squat about Afghanistan, announced no "new" policy but used the free network time to try to lose the mud from Charlottesville
 
sanman said:
I'm confident that my "assertions" are accurate. What makes you challenge them? If you have contrary beliefs, please state them.

If you're just picking at what I say without having any contrasting version of your own that you believe in, then you're just trolling.

I don't jump through hoops for people on demand - I'm quite confident that my version is accurate and credible, but you're very free to disagree.
Click to expand...

glad to see the acknowledgement that you are unable to source your opinions. you have now shared with me what i need to know as i read your unsourced posts
 
Augmenting my post #252 with this...(ignore all the Trump bashing and just go to the 6:10 point of the video and watch the Trump/Obama comparisons):



Like I said...Obama-lite.
 
sanman said:
Russia is regional along with any forces in Ukraine - the US superpower is not.
Click to expand...

exactly. the US shouldn't take military action there.

sanman said:
And these extremist groups are now a threat to International Security and safety.
Click to expand...

and the next extremist groups will be, too, as well as the extremist groups after that, and the extremist groups after that. the US could remain in Afghanistan forever, and new extremist groups would still continue to form.

sanman said:
More people are killed by islamist terrorism than are killed by neo-nazis or white supremacists.
Click to expand...

i don't support a US military intervention there, either, though the US military in this hypothetical scenario would qualify as national / regional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom