• 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!

Obama: 'Victory' Not Necessarily Goal in Afghanistan

Hello?

The goal in Iraq was always precisely stated: The replacement of a socialist totatitarian regime with a constitutional representative democratic republic. That's been done. Because of damn fools like the Messiah and the tards that voted for him, they're going to rush the necessary period of occupation and risk losing the victory earned in a lame attempt to "bring the troops home" before the assurances that to goal is firmly in hand are established.

Well this is blatantly dishonest, or just downright ignorant on your part. I am sorry but have you ever bothered to educate yourself outside of direct talking points from Richard Pearle? The level of dishonesty in this one statement is astounding, does it not bother you at all to be so shameless? Where to begin? Rush the period of occupation...the SOF agreement was written and signed under President Bush. The goal in Iraq was NEVER, I repeat NEVER about replacement of a socialist totalitarian regime. Do you honestly believe this? It would take any normal human about 2 minutes of research to see just how patently flawed this argument is. What does this say about your whole argument when you need to lie so shamelessly?

Wouldn't know about that. I'm just a patriot, not a Republican.

You wouldn't know about either, either.
See above. When it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and repeats long since discredit Republican talking points, what do you expect? You lose serious credibility when attempting to label yourself as "Independent" when you repeatedly show no independence what so ever. What I think is it is a shameless attempt at gaining credibility.

No.

Afghanistan started a war with the United States on September 11, 2001.

You've chosen to forget.

I never will.

Apparently you have either forgoten, or once again just hopelessly clueless to events that have transpired. You really should have read any number of excellent reports, articles, books, PBS documentaries, etc.. that would have shown just how pathetically wrong you are. There is no amount of spin you can make on this one. The facts are clear; the Bush administration pulled the very Special Forces assets needed out of Afghanistan at the time they were most needed for Iraq. For 6 years they allowed Afghanistan to linger with no clear strategy other than to just be there. The offensive being taken right now in the south is the first attempt since 2001 to actually form a strategy. What an amazing concept it is, this idea of actually holding territory and not giving it back to the Taliban. You see when you send 150,000 troops to an optional war, it limits the amount you have for the first one. But I guess you can ignore that can't you.

The war in Iraq was won.

Remember the "mission accomplished" show on the carrier deck? That was the end of the war in Iraq.

The occupation has been won also, unless the Messiah throws it away, which he's perfectly capable of, being the ignorant buffoon that he is.

Yes, and we in the the last throes of the insurgency when? The military accomplished IT'S mission in the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the administration failed for not have ANY post war strategy or planning. They failed in their accounting of an insurgency, and they failed to acknowledge this well past when every person in the world know it. The only ignorant buffoon was that of the previous administration and the morons who blindly followed them into believing their lies. I suppose you are one who still thinks there are WMDs to be found, along with that ever so compelling link to terrorists?

Maybe you should consider investing more time into learning what actually transpired this past decade?
 
Where to begin? Rush the period of occupation...the SOF agreement was written and signed under President Bush. The goal in Iraq was NEVER, I repeat NEVER about replacement of a socialist totalitarian regime.
Regime Change in Iraq became official US policy in 1998.
GWB first used the term in Septermber of 2002.

Do you honestly believe this? It would take any normal human about 2 minutes of research to see just how patently flawed this argument is.
It took me far less than that to illustrate your error here.
What does that say about your whole argument when you need to lie so shamelessly?
 
Regime Change in Iraq became official US policy in 1998.
GWB first used the term in Septermber of 2002.


It took me far less than that to illustrate your error here.
What does that say about your whole argument when you need to lie so shamelessly?

Ok, don't bother to add what was sold to the citizens, just ignore the multitude of press briefings, talk show appearances, UN speeches, leaks to the press of fabricated evidence, shall I go on? You seem to essentially want to wipe out a couple of years of history. Well good for you, the rest of us will remember the yellowcake, Oddball, the aluminum tubes, the supposed meeting in Prague, the mobile biological labs, the Boeing jet used for "terrorist" training, the UAVs capable of spreading biological mayhem, the mushroom clouds, shall I go on?
 
Ok, don't bother to add what was sold to the citizens...
There were several things "sold" to the citizens.
Ousting Saddam and his government was clearly among then.

just ignore the multitude of press briefings, talk show appearances, UN speeches, leaks to the press of fabricated evidence, shall I go on?
You can, but nothing you say will change the soundness of what I said - that Regime Change has been part of US policy since 1998 and that GWB stated it as a goal of any potential war in Iraq.

You seem to essentially want to wipe out a couple of years of history.
No, I am in full command of the history.
YOU, on the other hand, want to ignore the history that does not allow you to attack GWB.
Shall I go on?
 
Sorry, I just don't have time to compile a Regional Assessment of the Middle East for you....
... or the capability.
But, your running away from the issue is noted.
 
... or the capability.
But, your running away from the issue is noted.

You acknowledged yourself in saying that Obama said as a goal for victory "When we are sure they can't attack the United States."

So if Al-Q steps it up a notch and attacks us with a group from say....Africa. Does that mean Afghanistan was a Victory? Does it mean it was a defeat?

Obama is absolutely right in saying that victory in Afghanistan is not necessarily a goal, victory should be when Al-Q can't attack us from anywhere. The goal is to defeat Al-Q, not just defeat them in Afghanistan or Iraq, but everywhere.

If Al-Q moves the majority to Africa and attacks us from there, we should go seek them there.
 
You acknowledged yourself in saying that Obama said as a goal for victory "When we are sure they can't attack the United States."
That's how The Obama defined our wartime goal. One must assume that of the goal is achieved, then so too has "victory".

So if Al-Q steps it up a notch and attacks us with a group from say....Africa. Does that mean Afghanistan was a Victory? Does it mean it was a defeat?
That depends - can they attack us from Afghanistan?
What they can do from elsewhere doesn't really have bearing on Afghanistan, does it?

Obama is absolutely right in saying that victory in Afghanistan is not necessarily a goal...
It is -THE- goal, in Afghanistan.
It is -A- goal in the broader war against terrorist groups.
Different things.
 
The Obama defined this as when we are "sure they can't attack the United States."

If that's what he meant by victory I sure as hell hope we don't stay in Afghanistan until this is true. They can attack us as long as they have access to a couple of sticks of dynamite.
 
That's how The Obama defined our wartime goal. One must assume that of the goal is achieved, then so too has "victory".

No, because that goal may NEVER be achieved, therefore never a victory. That is why calling it the "War on terror" is such a dumb phrase.

It is -THE- goal, in Afghanistan.
It is -A- goal in the broader war against terrorist groups.
Different things.

Obama is not wanting this to be the be all end all on the battle against terror. Causing Al-Q to dig deeper in Afghanistan while moving the majority to Africa let's say does mean that America has a victory in Afghanistan nor a defeat. Yet we may withdrawal the majority of forces from Afghanistan to fight them elsewhere.

There may NEVER be a complete victory in Afghanistan.
 
No, because that goal may NEVER be achieved, therefore never a victory.
That's always a possiblity, regardless of who you're fighting or where.
But, I'm not sure how you can argue that defining your goal as X and then achieving X is not 'victory', so long as your goal us sound.

Obama is not wanting this to be the be all end all on the battle against terror.
The Obama DID, however, place considerable importance on Afghanistan during and since the campaign. I'll look for quotes to that effect...

Causing Al-Q to dig deeper in Afghanistan while moving the majority to Africa let's say does mean that America has a victory in Afghanistan nor a defeat.
I know. That was my point.
 
Houston, we have problem,Did you have suicide pills,Our mission was a failure but I like to think it was a successful Our mission was a failure i think.

A get tae ****,thro the taliban in the dustbin where they belong for ever.

how to do it is this,just give them money,like this $100000000000000,just buy them out.They will be happy as larry,plus the dope,what more can they ask for.

****ing Maggots as they are,or if they are willing to still play,

Hiroshima all over again.

God bless America
 
So can you please tell us, what "non-victory" is and what it entails? :doh

This is the question you've been repeating over and over. If it made any sense I might try to answer it. As it is, there is clearly no Right Answer.
 
I read the article, you're partisan lefty blinders keep you from seeing anything but leg tingling excrement dripping from the article.

Blah blah blah...it's your insane hyper partisan epilepsy that causes you to read an article like that and reach the conclusions you do. You are that desperate to find fault that you actually fool your own brain and pull stunts like this.

There is plenty to criticize Obama over that is legitimate. Why some of you choose this weak ass route I'll never understand.
 
Sure you are.

I remember the celebrations you people had commemorating the 3000th dead soldier in Iraq, and then the 4000th.

But I bet you don't say a ****in' word about the soldiers "Don't Want No Victory" Obama gets killed.

You have lost your mother ****ing mind.

Seriously.
 
I don’t get it. If our objective is to kill OBL and AQ, then what are we doing trying to win the hearts and minds of Muslims in Afghanistan when Muslim are obligated to hate us per their holy text no matter what we do?

I mean why did we jump into the middle of a civil war between the Northern Alliance and the Taliban in 2001 to begin with instead of targeting and obliterating only OBL and AQ, then going home?

Indeed, it was common knowledge back then that Mullah Omar didn’t know about 9/11 beforehand and that OBL had even lied to his face about 9/11 after the fact. So why did we intentionally and needlessly pick a fight with the Taliban and ignorantly jump into the middle of a civil war?

Hell, why did we duplicate the Soviet Union’s strategic blunder by stupidly occupying a backwards Muslim country in order to pursue a senseless fantasy based nation-building mission that had no chance in hell of ever being successful?

I suggest that if we want retribution for 9/11 that we go after OBL and AQ in Pakistan and stop pursuing silly fantasy based nation-building missions to win the hearts and minds of Muslims since that is entirely impossible. Not to mention that the Pakistanis like all other Islamic countries have been playing a double game with us since the very beginning.

Thus, why is Afghanistan a terrorist haven but Pakistan is not? Indeed, why is Saudi Arabia, which provided in excess of 40 percent of the suicide/homicide bombers that flocked to Iraq through Syria during the height of the Iraqi insurgency not also a terrorist haven but Afghanistan is? As a matter of fact, the reality is every damn Islamic country in the world is a terrorist haven since Jihad is a religious obligation and holy duty.

If we want to stop future mega Islamic terrorist attacks inside America, then lets not double the size of the federal government like Bush did or needlessly pursue endless fantasy based nation building missions preordained to fail because our current leaders are too incompetent to study the texts, tenants, and history of Islam.

Let’s instead seal off our borders and ban and reverse Muslim immigration since Islam is completely incompatible with pluralistic and non-Islamic societies anyway. I mean isn’t it common sense, no Muslims equals no possibility of Islamic terrorist attacks? Not to mention a hell of a lot cheaper as well!

Indeed, can anyone point to any country anywhere in the world where Muslims have migrated to that have not inevitably become the victim of Islamic terrorist attacks? Where the budget for homeland security has not necessarily doubled, tripled, or quadrupled? By the same token, can anyone point to any country anywhere in the world where Muslim migration has not yet occurred that has also been the victim of an Islamic terrorist attack? Thus, the West should seek to disengage from the Islamic world as much as possible.

We should not seek to win the hearts and minds of Muslims, because winning their hearts and minds is absolutely impossible because they are obligated per their holy text to hate non-Muslim no matter what we do. Instead, we should target and obliterate the most immediate threats when they arise, then after the mission is complete, leave as soon as possible letting our actions speak for itself and serve as deterrence.

The last thing we should ever do is get caught up in endless fantasy based nation-building missions or Islamic insurgencies like Afghanistan and Iraq and let them dictate the battlefield and pursue asymmetric warfare against us.
 
Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
Sure you are.

I remember the celebrations you people had commemorating the 3000th dead soldier in Iraq, and then the 4000th.

But I bet you don't say a ****in' word about the soldiers "Don't Want No Victory" Obama gets killed.

American combat casualties no longer have any political worth.
 
I don’t get it. If our objective is to kill OBL and AQ, then what are we doing trying to win the hearts and minds of Muslims in Afghanistan when Muslim are obligated to hate us per their holy text no matter what we do?

I mean why did we jump into the middle of a civil war between the Northern Alliance and the Taliban in 2001 to begin with instead of targeting and obliterating only OBL and AQ, then going home?


Because we ****ed up the end game the last time we got involved in Afghanistan. It's the reason we are where we are. We're trying not to repeat the same mistake.
 
Because we ****ed up the end game the last time we got involved in Afghanistan. It's the reason we are where we are. We're trying not to repeat the same mistake.

Exactly how did we screw up the end game?
 
Exactly how did we screw up the end game?
We supported the mujihadeen in the 1980s order to defeat the Soviet Union.(We actually screwed up the game generally since we funneled funds through the ISI, who used the oppurtunity to support rebels that they favored... usually militant Islamists.). Afterwards, we forgot about Afghanistan all together and allowed the cards to fall where they may in the country.

Btw, no where in Islam texts does it say anything about killing Americans. That is a radical interpretation of Islam... This was never and will never be a war against Islam. The people we have put in power, Karzai and the new Afghan government, are muslims.
 
I don’t get it. If our objective is to kill OBL and AQ, then what are we doing trying to win the hearts and minds of Muslims in Afghanistan when Muslim are obligated to hate us per their holy text no matter what we do?
they are not, only the fringe Muslims
I mean why did we jump into the middle of a civil war between the Northern Alliance and the Taliban in 2001 to begin with instead of targeting and obliterating only OBL and AQ, then going home?
Because the plan to get OBL was a Clinton plan
Indeed, it was common knowledge back then that Mullah Omar didn’t know about 9/11 beforehand and that OBL had even lied to his face about 9/11 after the fact. So why did we intentionally and needlessly pick a fight with the Taliban and ignorantly jump into the middle of a civil war?

Hell, why did we duplicate the Soviet Union’s strategic blunder by stupidly occupying a backwards Muslim country in order to pursue a senseless fantasy based nation-building mission that had no chance in hell of ever being successful?
Ask Bush and Cheney
I suggest that if we want retribution for 9/11 that we go after OBL and AQ in Pakistan and stop pursuing silly fantasy based nation-building missions to win the hearts and minds of Muslims since that is entirely impossible. Not to mention that the Pakistanis like all other Islamic countries have been playing a double game with us since the very beginning.

Thus, why is Afghanistan a terrorist haven but Pakistan is not?
it is, we just don't admit it
Indeed, why is Saudi Arabia, which provided in excess of 40 percent of the suicide/homicide bombers that flocked to Iraq through Syria during the height of the Iraqi insurgency not also a terrorist haven but Afghanistan is?
not to mention almost all of the 9/11 hijackers
As a matter of fact, the reality is every damn Islamic country in the world is a terrorist haven since Jihad is a religious obligation and holy duty.
not for most of the billion Muslims, only for the fringe. Just like America has a fringe of nut cases (we call them Republicans), Muslims also have a rightwing fringe
If we want to stop future mega Islamic terrorist attacks inside America, then lets not double the size of the federal government like Bush did or needlessly pursue endless fantasy based nation building missions preordained to fail because our current leaders are too incompetent to study the texts, tenants, and history of Islam.

Let’s instead seal off our borders and ban and reverse Muslim immigration since Islam is completely incompatible with pluralistic and non-Islamic societies anyway. I mean isn’t it common sense, no Muslims equals no possibility of Islamic terrorist attacks? Not to mention a hell of a lot cheaper as well!
"sealing the borders" is not only not cheap, it is impossible
Indeed, can anyone point to any country anywhere in the world where Muslims have migrated to that have not inevitably become the victim of Islamic terrorist attacks?
Sweden? Ireland? Argentina?
Where the budget for homeland security has not necessarily doubled, tripled, or quadrupled? By the same token, can anyone point to any country anywhere in the world where Muslim migration has not yet occurred that has also been the victim of an Islamic terrorist attack? Thus, the West should seek to disengage from the Islamic world as much as possible.

We should not seek to win the hearts and minds of Muslims, because winning their hearts and minds is absolutely impossible because they are obligated per their holy text to hate non-Muslim no matter what we do.
you are just wrong about this, read a little about Islam
Instead, we should target and obliterate the most immediate threats when they arise, then after the mission is complete, leave as soon as possible letting our actions speak for itself and serve as deterrence.

The last thing we should ever do is get caught up in endless fantasy based nation-building missions or Islamic insurgencies like Afghanistan and Iraq and let them dictate the battlefield and pursue asymmetric warfare against us.
 
Because we ****ed up the end game the last time we got involved in Afghanistan. It's the reason we are where we are. We're trying not to repeat the same mistake.

And it was a Republican administration that ****ed up the end game, so cut the new guy a little slack while he tries to sort out the mess.
 
We supported the mujihadeen in the 1980s order to defeat the Soviet Union.(We actually screwed up the game generally since we funneled funds through the ISI, who used the oppurtunity to support rebels that they favored... usually militant Islamists.). Afterwords, we forgot about Afghanistan all together and allowed the cards to fall where they may in the country.

Btw, no where in Islam texts does it say anything about killing Americans. That is a radical interpretation of Islam... This was never and will never be a war against Islam. The people we have put in power, Karzai and the new Afghan government, are muslims.

Let us not forget that there ARE literally tens of millions of Muslims who do NOT hate America. I just watched a series hosted on Al Jazeera called Islam in America that was very enlightening to show how Muslims have thrived in the U.S., and are in fact very patriotic. We have nations from Morocco to Turkey to Indonesia that hosts populations that are far more interested in being close to the U.S. than burning flags.

I will say if anyone can get a chance to see Skyone's Ross Kemp series called "Ross Kemp on Gangs" you see a parallel that existed the same with the old Marxist movements of the 1960s. Whether it is criminal gangs, Marxist insurgents, or Islamic insurgents, the same thread goes through each of these societies, that being object and utter poverty. Islamic radicalism is nothing new in the sense that people have simply replaced the old Marxist ideas with religion. It should be noted that Ayatollah Khomeini conspired with the Communists and other Marxist radicals in Paris. The old guard of Palestinian terrorist groups were almost all Marxist, or Marxist/Leninist influenced. The problem has always remained the same, disaffection, poverty, lack of opportunities, etc..People just selectively chose the enemy over the years and the tool to attack it. I saw this phenomena when I lived in France. Members of the Communist Party who previously saw the "Capitalist" as the enemy, easily and transparently were able to switch to Jean-Marie Le Pen's rightist anti-immigrant party...for the enemy was now the immigrant.
 
Back
Top Bottom