Obama: 'Victory' Not Necessarily Goal in Afghanistan

Turbeaux said:

Why was the country being in shambles our fault? It was the Soviets that invaded Afghanistan and not the USA. If anything it is them who owe us a debt of gratitude for aiding, supporting, abetting, and helping them to oust the Soviets.

Click to expand...

It wasn't our fault, but at the same time it needed to be cleaned up and there sure as hell wasn't anyone else gonna do it.

Truth Detector said:

"WE" did nothing of what you claim. Yes we may have assisted the Taliban in their efforts to remove the shackles of Soviet Empire building by sending arms, money and intelligence perhaps, but the notion that we left anything is slightly bizarre.

We didn't "leave" anything as "WE" were never "there."

Click to expand...

WE did leave the country a mess. Did we make the mess? Of course not. Should we, for own best interest helped clean it up? You betcha.

BTW, we didn't help the Tallies do crap. American funding was directed to Ahmad Shah Massoud's forces.

The only money the US ever gave the Tallies was when Clinton paid them several million bucks to stop growing poppies. I think, in hindsight, that that was a bad move.

apdst said:

WE did leave the country a mess. Did we make the mess? Of course not. Should we, for own best interest helped clean it up? You betcha.

BTW, we didn't help the Tallies do crap. American funding was directed to Ahmad Shah Massoud's forces.

The only money the US ever gave the Tallies was when Clinton paid them several million bucks to stop growing poppies. I think, in hindsight, that that was a bad move.

Click to expand...

Keep in mind we funded the general mujihadeen through the early years of the war, not discerning one rebel leader over another until later... We used Pakistani Intelligence Services to funnel our funds through and that was a mistake in itself since they sent the funds to their cronies like Hekmatyr, and Massoud received nothing or very little from them.

As for the Taliban, the organization wasn't even created until a few years after the Communist puppet regime fell in 1992... And since we couldn't have given less of a **** at that point, we never supported the Taliban. We didn't come back to Afghanistan until 1996, with the creation of the Bin Laden Unit. At that point, the Taliban were already the de facto rulers of Afghanistan.

Anyway, I usually disagree with you but you are right on the point in this discussion.

Tubub said:

Keep in mind we funded the general mujihadeen through the early years of the war, not discerning one rebel leader over another until later... We used Pakistani Intelligence Services to funnel our funds through and that was a mistake in itself.

As for the Taliban, the organization wasn't even created until a few years after the Communist puppet regime fell in 1992... We never supported the Taliban... :rofl :spin:

Anyway, I usually disagree with you but you are right on in this discussion.

Click to expand...

No, we didn't. Mahssoud's forces were picked as the elite of all the mujas fighting in Afghanistan. They numbered about 130,000 strong. The money was directed to those fighters, however, because the money didn't pass directly from our hands to Mahssoud's hands, some of the money and weapons were side tracked to the dudes that later made up the ranks of the Taliban. So, yes, using the Pak intel services was a mistake, but we had to have Pakistan's help to smuggle the weapons into Afghanistan, so we had to play a little ball with them.

There was no general fund for all the mujas to dip into like a grab bag. That myth has been proported for way too long. Being historically minded as you are, you should read "Charlie Wilson's War". Tons of specific first hand info about how it all went down.

Turbeaux said:

I couldn't agree with you more, but unfortunately I don't see anyone today that at least in public demonstrates that he or she has the first clue.



Could you please elaborate more on why you don’t think “my plan” wouldn’t have work?

Click to expand...

Too complicated and runs too much against the mainstream of the dominant surrender monkey political ideology embraced by both major parties.

Personally, I'm all for telling nations that harbor terrorists that it's going to snow cobalt-60 and strontium-90 at sundown. But it's not politically viable no matter how morally correct.

Turbeaux said:

Now before you do, let me elaborate on my plan a little bit more for you. If I had been in charge instead of Bush, besides the aforementioned, I would have teamed up with our loyal ally Israel and at the same time we were taking care of business in Iran via air power and Special Forces alone, Israel would have also been very busy eradicating Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad, the Hezbos, etc. and Iran’s poodle Syria. Of course, we would have also militarily and logistically supported Israel in this endeavor as well.

Then subsequent to the elimination of the aforementioned threats, we would have teamed up to eliminate the House of Saud, which is the lynch pin of the global jihad today. We would have also given a very stern warning to the Gulf States emirates to cease and desist their support for the global jihad unless they want to face the same exact fate as the Saudis.

Finally, we would have concluded our actions with the confiscation and subsequent disposal of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons arsenal and also the destruction of their nuclear program.

Therefore, with no more OPEC oil money funding the global jihad anymore, the Dar al Islam would have had no choice other than to suspend their perpetual jihad.

With respect to who would have gained control of the countries in which the terrorist regimes were ousted, I could care less and neither is that any of our business. I highly doubt though that whoever subsequently rose to power would want to face the same exact fate as their predecessors.

With respect to inevitable sectarian jihads between Sunni and Shi’a and any other cracks and fissures within the Dar al Islam, that would be a good thing for the Dar al Harb and a bad thing for the Dar al Islam since it would serve to weaken the camp of Islam. If anything else, I would look for more cracks and fissures inside the Dar al Islam to exploit and keep stoking the ones already stoked.

Regarding possible oil disruptions, I highly doubt they would ever occur since oil is the lifeline of the region and only source of revenue, since other than bloodshed and lots and lots of misery, Muslims are totally incapable of producing anything on their own without the aid and assistance of kafirs, and thus they would be forced to keep the spigots wide open to rebuild the destruction we left behind as deterrence.

Therefore, because the spigots would be wide open, the obvious price manipulation of oil that we faced during last year’s elections to intentionally influence our election in favor of Obama and the Dhimmicrats and to also weaken our economy via stealth economic jihad would not be able to occur anymore and thus we would all also enjoy much lower oil prices as a result with resulting stronger economic growth.

However, the last thing I would have done would have been to foolishly occupy a Muslim country to pursue a silly fantasy based nation-building mission like Bush did in both Iraq and Afghanistan since that is a fool’s errand predestined to fail since it is premised on a myth.

Finally, in addition to the aforementioned, I would have also advocated a complete disengagement of the West from Islam, because Islam has a universal mission to make the world sovereign for Allah and is therefore completely incompatible with the West.

Click to expand...

One word against your proposal:

Manpower.

And lack thereoff.

apdst said:

No, we didn't. Mahssoud's forces were picked as the elite of all the mujas fighting in Afghanistan. They numbered about 130,000 strong. The money was directed to those fighters, however, because the money didn't pass directly from our hands to Mahssoud's hands, some of the money and weapons were side tracked to the dudes that later made up the ranks of the Taliban. So, yes, using the Pak intel services was a mistake, but we had to have Pakistan's help to smuggle the weapons into Afghanistan, so we had to play a little ball with them.
There was no general fund for all the mujas to dip into like a grab bag. That myth has been proported for way too long. Being historically minded as you are, you should read "Charlie Wilson's War". Tons of specific first hand info about how it all went down.

Click to expand...

You should read Steve Coll's book Ghost Wars. I've seen the book on shelves, and have thought about checking it out... Does it really go into detail about the operation or is there a lot of bs about him as a person?

I never said anything about a "grab bag", I just stated the facts. Washington didn't even know who Massoud was until later on... I mean, the CIA operation had existed since 1979 and the Congress didn't get seriously involved until much later, something like 1984. By that time, I believe we had singled out Massoud as the most effective freedom fighter... Elite? I don't think I would call it that.

Well, they didn't know. Using the ISI at the time seemed like a small price to pay to deliver a defeat to the Soviet Union... the endgame is really what we ****ed up.

No.

WE did OUR part just fine.

The Afghanis...THEY ****ed up.

Damn I wish you people would stop blaming the United States for every hangnail in the world.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Too complicated and runs too much against the mainstream of the dominant surrender monkey political ideology embraced by both major parties.

Personally, I'm all for telling nations that harbor terrorists that it's going to snow cobalt-60 and strontium-90 at sundown. But it's not politically viable no matter how morally correct.



One word against your proposal:

Manpower.

And lack thereoff.

Click to expand...

My plan actually required very little manpower since as I mentioned I’m totally against occupying Muslim countries period and would have let airpower and Special Operations do the heavy lifting. Indeed, my plan would have taken far less manpower that we dedicated to the needless occupation of Iraq.

I mean these Islamic states are for the most part weak basket cases. Not to mention that my plan, had it been implemented would have concluded by the end of 2004 if not sooner, we never would have needlessly squandered away over $1 trillion dollars, and nearly as many American lives.

Anyway, it’s too late now.

Turbeaux said:

My plan actually required very little manpower since as I mentioned I’m totally against occupying Muslim countries period and would have let airpower and Special Operations do the heavy lifting. Indeed, my plan would have taken far less manpower that we dedicated to the needless occupation of Iraq.

I mean these Islamic states are for the most part weak basket cases. Not to mention that my plan, had it been implemented would have concluded by the end of 2004 if not sooner, we never would have needlessly squandered away over $1 trillion dollars, and nearly as many American lives.

Anyway, it’s too late now.

Click to expand...

Yet your arrogant and ruthless policies would've lead to more anti-americanism. Your amoral views of civilian lives would've only promoted our enemies and encouraged fence-sitters and potential allies to turn to the other side. You don't just **** up somebody's **** and expect them not to care. You'll be creating more enemies than your defeating and costing the Free World the upper hand. Moral superiority is one of our greatest advantages, losing that in Iraq in 2004 was one of our greatest defeats and you seem to be taking that overly-agressive outlook 10 steps further.

And as for Scarecrow, generalizing Afghanis is not something anyone should do... There are many that would've been against a theocratic government in their country. Now, I am not blaming the US for what the Taliban did, all I am saying is that we should've done better in the endgame of the Civil War during the early 90s in order to promote a better Afghanistan that could've prevented its use as a terrorist safe haven(ie the madrassas were an Afghanis only form of education, radicalizing much of the populace.)

I can relate your view to libertarian ones because they fail to see the big picture. Sure... kill Osama Bin Laden and other key leaders and damage their organizations. That will win us the day...this day anyway. But what about tomorrow? What about the day after that? This is a global world. Anybody that tries to sit in their little bubbles and give themselves an illusion of security is asking for one thing, and that is a larger war in the near future. One where we very may well be approached by more powerful and potent forces. What happens on the other side of the world matters here... actually, it is that side of the world that matters most because it is so unrestive and prime for Islamist forces that can foster and prepare attacks on us. It is not just amoral to standby or leave prematurely, it is an unwise long-term foreign policy.

How do we defeat Islamist forces? Do we just stoop in and kill a few then leave? I mean, nobody is arguing against killing OBL and defeating Al Qaida... but obviously it has not been that simple. So the plan your proposing is similar to what I've heard before: Blow a bunch of crap up and kill a bunch of people then get the hell out... Then we will surely fit the definition of "The Great Satan".

It is not just amoral to standby or leave prematurely, it is an unwise long-term foreign policy.

Truth Detector said:

"WE" did nothing of what you claim. Yes we may have assisted the Taliban in their efforts to remove the shackles of Soviet Empire building by sending arms, money and intelligence perhaps, but the notion that we left anything is slightly bizarre.

Click to expand...

The Taliban did not fight the Soviets. They did not exist until 1992 or so.

Obamamama is more appropriatley suited to be president of the country he was born in, not the United States of America.

Goobieman said:

The Taliban did not fight the Soviets. They did not exist until 1992 or so.

Click to expand...

I stand corrected on the term "Taliban", but not on the analogy. I should have typed Mujahideen I guess. :2wave:

Tubub said:

Yet your arrogant and ruthless policies would've lead to more anti-americanism. Your amoral views of civilian lives would've only promoted our enemies and encouraged fence-sitters and potential allies to turn to the other side. You don't just **** up somebody's **** and expect them not to care. You'll be creating more enemies than your defeating and costing the Free World the upper hand. Moral superiority is one of our greatest advantages, losing that in Iraq in 2004 was one of our greatest defeats and you seem to be taking that overly-agressive outlook 10 steps further.

Click to expand...

I am assuming you are claiming we lost the moral plane here; so this begs the question, what did we do to lose that? (I am equally unsure which tactic you agree with either)

Truth Detector said:

I am assuming you are claiming we lost the moral plane here; so this begs the question, what did we do to lose that? (I am equally unsure which tactic you agree with either)

Click to expand...

Abu Ghraib

Damge to US image worldwide

"The reputation of the United States of America has been affected by the war in Iraq, [and especially] because of Abu Ghraib [prison abuses]," Kaba said.

Click to expand...

An excerpt from the book No True Glory: A Frontline Account of the Battle of Fallujah by Bing West

Bing West said:

Fallujah became the rallying point for anti-Coalition anger. Among Iraqis, vehement shouts of support for besieged Fallujah released simmering resentments about power outages, day-long lines for propane and gasoline, drive-by shootings, and random, dreaded suicided car bombings. Pent-up anger burst forth about foreign occupiers who shot at cars at vehicle checkpoints, rammed their armored vehicles through thick traffic, and ransacked homes at three in the morning. Iraqi men from all walks of life--students, laborers, doctors, policemen, shop owners--flocked to the mosques to exchange passionate denunciations of the infidel occupiers

Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya were unrelenting in broadcasting the plight of the civilians in Fallujah, while the Internet amplified the message of Marine callousness and sped protests around the world on a minute-by-minute basis. On the Google search engine, during the month of April, the word Fallujah leaped from 700 to 175,000 stories, many highly critical of the Marines. Quantity had a spurious quality of its own, resulting in an erroneous certitude based on the sheer volume of repetition.

The reports filed by Western journalists embedded with the Marines did not support the allegations of widespread, indiscriminate carnage. Senior U.S. government officials, though, didn't have time to peruse tactical reporting. Instead, in their offices they turned on cable news, where video clips from Fallujah were shown over and over again. The images, obtained from a pool that included the Jazeera cameraman inside the city, affected viewers in Iraq, in Washington, and in Crawford, Texas....

...Similarily[To the Tet Offensive in Vietnam and the biased reporting by American journalists on the event], the initial impression, created by Al Jazeera, of massive civilian casualities became the accepted storyline about Fallujah. Because entering the city meant capture and beheading, the Western TV networks pooled video shot in Fallujah by Arab cameramen who were approved for entry by the insurgents. Predictably, the pictures stressed destruction and death, although the Western networks could not corroborate the scale of the damage. Lacking any other sources, most major U.S. newspaper and television outlets worldwide repeated the estimates cited in the Arab press based on the allegations of Iraq and Jordanian doctors in Fallujah, arriving at an unsubstantiated consensus figure of more than six hundred dead and a thousand wounded.

"Al Jazeera is lying," said Brigadier General John Kelly, the assistant division commander.(No True Glory 92-93)

Click to expand...

Tubub said:

Abu Ghraib

Damge to US image worldwide


An excerpt from the book No True Glory: A Frontline Account of the Battle of Fallujah by Bing West

Click to expand...

Both of these events were excuses made by terrorist zealots to foment purposeless violence and fanned by flame of Global Liberal media frenzies.

The sad part is how Liberals and Democrats used this for political gain which merely empowered the enemy and encouraged them to continue murdering innocents; this is of course my opinion grounded in common sense and reality.

:2wave:

Tubub said:

Yet your arrogant and ruthless policies would've lead to more anti-americanism.

Click to expand...

Uhm…when it comes to what is best for America, I could give a damn about anti-Americanism. Nevertheless, the notion that you can win the hearts and minds of Muslims is not only exceedingly ignorant but it is also extremely ludicrous as well, since Muslims are under strict obligation per the holy text of Islam to hate our guts no matter what we do since we are kafirs (non-Muslims). This also means that both nation-building missions in Iraq and Afghanistan were exceedingly fantasy based and predestined to fail because they were premised on a ludicrous myth.

Indeed, the entire idea of nation building period is very absurd not to mention extremely immoral since it needlessly puts the lives of our military people at risk, not for the protection of the American people and the defense of the country, but for the good of others instead and that is altruism. Altruism should always remain outside the realm of government. If private people and organizations want to perform altruistic missions that’s fine, but keep altruism outside the purview of government.

We need to get back to the real purpose and intention of warfare, which is to obliterate threats and then go home as soon as those threats have been eliminated. The death, destruction, pain, and sufferning we leave behind should remain to fester as a reminder to all and to serve as deterrence. Counterproductive nation building missions run exactly counter to this purpose and inevitably lead to more and greater warfare.

Think about it…if we quickly and overwhelmingly always obliterate our enemies without exception, there inevitably will be far less wars in the future, because no one would dare face our inevitable wrath, which is their imminent death and destruction. Since no one would want to get on our wrong side because of what would be their inevitable fate, they would thus find ways to become our friends and loyal allies.

Your amoral views of civilian lives would've only promoted our enemies and encouraged fence-sitters and potential allies to turn to the other side.

Click to expand...

Oh my gosh can you please link to where I advocated targeting and killing civilians please, like the Muslims primarily always do? Not to mention if anyone is immoral, it’s obviously you since you fully support altruistic nation building missions that needlessly put at risk the lives of our military people for the good of others, and in this case for the good of others that are mandated to hate our guts no matter what we do.

You'll be creating more enemies than your defeating and costing the Free World the upper hand.

Click to expand...

That’s about as silly as it gets. The purpose of war is to obliterate your enemy before they obliterate you, and once they are eliminated to leave behind the death, destruction, suffering, and pain to serve as deterrence and a constant reminder to them lest they want it to happen again.

Winning wars should never be about winning the hearts and minds of your enemy, that’s absolutely ludicrous, not to mention exceedingly counterproductive. It should only be about killing them before they kill you and deterring them and others from ever making that stupid mistake again.

Moral superiority is one of our greatest advantages, losing that in Iraq in 2004 was one of our greatest defeats and you seem to be taking that overly-agressive outlook 10 steps further.

Click to expand...

Don’t give me that insane crap! The only morality in warfare should be to kill your enemy before they kill you and to create deterrence. As for as the silly fantasy based nation building missions to attempt to win the hearts and minds of Muslim no less in Iraq and Afghanistan goes, they were both about as mentally incompetent as it gets. Not to mention that Muslims will always hate our guts no matter what we do in any event! Thus, both missions were perdestined to fail even before they were implemented.

How do we defeat Islamist forces? Do we just stoop in and kill a few then leave?

Click to expand...

Yes! Exactly! We obliterate and exterminate them with overwhelming brute force as fast as possible and then leave to create deterrence and let the pain, suffering, death, and destruction left behind to fester and send a very clear and very loud message to the Dar al Islam to either suspend their religious mandate to subjugate the world or face more death and destruction. It prevents wars! While, on the other hand, counterproductive attempts to win hearts and minds do just the opposite, emboldens the Dar al Islam and generates more wars.

In the case of our present war, OBL and AQ should be obliterated of course to send the world a very loud and very clear message that the USA will not tolerate attacks on our homeland.

Additionally, instead of trying to pursue silly counterproductive fantasy-based nation building missions that are premised on myths and predestined to fail, and also letting our enemies dictate the battlefield by stupidly fighting hydra-headed jihadis and engaging them in their preferred asymmetric warfare tactics which make a mockery of the Geneva Conventions, we should be targeting and eliminating the leaders and heads of the global jihad with overwhelming brute force. Primarily the House of Saud, the ruling Mullahs of Iran, and the Syrian regime should all be eliminated in order to send a very loud and very clear message to the remainder of the Dar al Islam, that the USA and the West will not tolerate in the slightest the continued pursuit of the global jihad. To do otherwise, will only mean more and greater war.

Tubub said:

Yet your arrogant and ruthless policies would've lead to more anti-americanism.

Click to expand...

Yes -- dont make mad the people that hate us, as they might hate us more!

Your amoral views of civilian lives would've only promoted our enemies and encouraged fence-sitters and potential allies to turn to the other side.

Click to expand...

Presuming, of course, that they do not share thesame amoral views.
Can you provide an example of one of these fence sitters or potential allies that do not?

You don't just **** up somebody's **** and expect them not to care. You'll be creating more enemies than your defeating and costing the Free World the upper hand.

Click to expand...

Seems to me we ****** up Germany and Japan's ****.
What do they think of us?

Moral superiority is one of our greatest advantages, losing that in Iraq in 2004...

Click to expand...

You say that as if the instances you cite are systemic and a result of a wholesale acceptance of that behavior.
Anyone believe that to be the case isnt paying attention

Truth Detector said:

Both of these events were excuses made by terrorist zealots to foment purposeless violence and fanned by flame of Global Liberal media frenzies.

The sad part is how Liberals and Democrats used this for political gain which merely empowered the enemy and encouraged them to continue murdering innocents; this is of course my opinion grounded in common sense and reality.

:2wave:

Click to expand...

Yeah... whatever. Regardless of what you just said, it tarnished our reputation everywhere and lost us the moral upper hand.

Turbeaux said:

Uhm…when it comes to what is best for America, I could give a damn about anti-Americanism. Nevertheless, the notion that you can win the hearts and minds of Muslims is not only exceedingly ignorant but it is also extremely ludicrous as well, since Muslims are under strict obligation per the holy text of Islam to hate our guts no matter what we do since we are kafirs (non-Muslims). This also means that both nation-building missions in Iraq and Afghanistan were exceedingly fantasy based and predestined to fail because they were premised on a ludicrous myth.

Indeed, the entire idea of nation building period is very absurd not to mention extremely immoral since it needlessly puts the lives of our military people at risk, not for the protection of the American people and the defense of the country, but for the good of others instead and that is altruism. Altruism should always remain outside the realm of government. If private people and organizations want to perform altruistic missions that’s fine, but keep altruism outside the purview of government.

We need to get back to the real purpose and intention of warfare, which is to obliterate threats and then go home as soon as those threats have been eliminated. The death, destruction, pain, and sufferning we leave behind should remain to fester as a reminder to all and to serve as deterrence. Counterproductive nation building missions run exactly counter to this purpose and inevitably lead to more and greater warfare.

Think about it…if we quickly and overwhelmingly always obliterate our enemies without exception, there inevitably will be far less wars in the future, because no one would dare face our inevitable wrath, which is their imminent death and destruction. Since no one would want to get on our wrong side because of what would be their inevitable fate, they would thus find ways to become our friends and loyal allies.



Oh my gosh can you please link to where I advocated targeting and killing civilians please, like the Muslims primarily always do? Not to mention if anyone is immoral, it’s obviously you since you fully support altruistic nation building missions that needlessly put at risk the lives of our military people for the good of others, and in this case for the good of others that are mandated to hate our guts no matter what we do.



That’s about as silly as it gets. The purpose of war is to obliterate your enemy before they obliterate you, and once they are eliminated to leave behind the death, destruction, suffering, and pain to serve as deterrence and a constant reminder to them lest they want it to happen again.

Winning wars should never be about winning the hearts and minds of your enemy, that’s absolutely ludicrous, not to mention exceedingly counterproductive. It should only be about killing them before they kill you and deterring them and others from ever making that stupid mistake again.



Don’t give me that insane crap! The only morality in warfare should be to kill your enemy before they kill you and to create deterrence. As for as the silly fantasy based nation building missions to attempt to win the hearts and minds of Muslim no less in Iraq and Afghanistan goes, they were both about as mentally incompetent as it gets. Not to mention that Muslims will always hate our guts no matter what we do in any event! Thus, both missions were perdestined to fail even before they were implemented.



Yes! Exactly! We obliterate and exterminate them with overwhelming brute force as fast as possible and then leave to create deterrence and let the pain, suffering, death, and destruction left behind to fester and send a very clear and very loud message to the Dar al Islam to either suspend their religious mandate to subjugate the world or face more death and destruction. It prevents wars! While, on the other hand, counterproductive attempts to win hearts and minds do just the opposite, emboldens the Dar al Islam and generates more wars.

In the case of our present war, OBL and AQ should be obliterated of course to send the world a very loud and very clear message that the USA will not tolerate attacks on our homeland.

Additionally, instead of trying to pursue silly counterproductive fantasy-based nation building missions that are premised on myths and predestined to fail, and also letting our enemies dictate the battlefield by stupidly fighting hydra-headed jihadis and engaging them in their preferred asymmetric warfare tactics which make a mockery of the Geneva Conventions, we should be targeting and eliminating the leaders and heads of the global jihad with overwhelming brute force. Primarily the House of Saud, the ruling Mullahs of Iran, and the Syrian regime should all be eliminated in order to send a very loud and very clear message to the remainder of the Dar al Islam, that the USA and the West will not tolerate in the slightest the continued pursuit of the global jihad. To do otherwise, will only mean more and greater war.

Click to expand...

Your comment is way too long to bother with. I'ts always the same stuff, and it never has substantial evidence complimenting it... It's just you ranting. It's a waste of time, so just cut down all the ad homm and rhetoric and in its place add some real-world evidence including citations and quotes and then I'll respond.

Tubub said:

Abu Ghraib

Damge to US image worldwide


An excerpt from the book No True Glory: A Frontline Account of the Battle of Fallujah by Bing West

Click to expand...

The main thing about Abu Ghraib is that it makes America look weak in the eyes of the Islamic world, since if the shoe were on the other foot and it was American prisoners involved instead, the torture inflicted would have been far more horrendous and the victims would have all been summarily beheaded.

Nevertheless, America doesn’t sanction what happened in Abu Ghraib. Indeed, that was totally against the military code of justice and everything America stands for, yet you are crucifying America and an entire nation for the crimes of a few misguided individuals acting in contravention to American policy. Not only that but those involved were quickly brought to justice as soon as their crimes were discovered. How could you be so morally confused? It boggles the mind!

It appears you are completely mentally obsessed with America’s image abroad. Do you live your private life that way as well? I mean are you so obsessed about what people think of you on a personal level that you become paralyzed with fear and can’t live your life normally? You must be!

Personally, I could give a crap what people think of America because I’m fully secure in the knowledge that America by far is not only the best country in the world, but also that it has done far more good in the world than all the other countries combined.

Tubub said:

Your comment is way too long to bother with. I'ts always the same stuff, and it never has substantial evidence complimenting it... It's just you ranting. It's a waste of time, so just cut down all the ad homm and rhetoric and in its place add some real-world evidence including citations and quotes and then I'll respond.

Click to expand...

Give me a break, I could care less if you respond or not because I know I'm right and you are wrong and also because you are lost and morally confused as could be.

The truth is you can't respond!

Goobieman said:

Yes -- dont make mad the people that hate us, as they might hate us more!

Click to expand...

Elaborate. You think all of Iraq and Afghanistan hate us? So what are you proposing? Genocide?

Presuming, of course, that they do not share thesame amoral views.
Can you provide an example of one of these fence sitters or potential allies that do not?

Click to expand...

Do you know what a fence-sitter is? What do you think a person's response is if you act negligently, arrogant, and overly-aggressive in their country? Your rationale seems to sound like they will feel so tickled by freedom they won't care about anything else. You sound like Paul Bremer. The hell that kind of thinking did us.

Winning the peace

During the coordinated insurgent uprising in April 2004, Muqtada Al Sadr, as one of his first acts, gained control of the electrical substations in Sadr City. By providing uninterrupted power, something not seen since the fall of Saddam Hussein, he was able to sway support. A shadow government able to provide services, with governance by religious decree and enforcement by Sharia courts, Muqtada Al Sadr was able to provide a viable, attractive alternative to the coalition. Together, the Iraqi Government and the coalition must send clear signals of their own, directly targeting those waiting for direction through a full-spectrum campaign that mitigates the insurgent base with visible and tangible signs of progress within a legitimate context.

Click to expand...

The insurgency and its growth in 2004 and 2005 is my evidence that fence sitters do not share your amoral views of how they should be treated.

Seems to me we ****** up Germany and Japan's ****.
What do they think of us?

Click to expand...

We invaded Iraq on a false pretext that the Ba'athist Regime had WMD's and ties to Al Qaida. After that, we failed to provide average Iraqis their everyday needs, alienated the Sunni population, and befit the definition of an Imperial occupier. What actions in the occupation of Germany and Japan equate to those in Iraq? Did we have a legitimate rationale to attack Germany and Japan? Did we act negligently and agressively in the occupation of their country?

Again, you think like a typical neo-con. You fail to see that unlike Germany, Iraq has 2 very different ethnic groups with a history of fighting and two very different religious sects. Iraq isn't ****ing Germany or Japan.

You say that as if the instances you cite are systemic and a result of a wholesale acceptance of that behavior.
Anyone believe that to be the case isnt paying attention

Click to expand...

Substantive. Really...

Turbeaux said:

Give me a break, I could care less if you respond or not because I know I'm right and you are wrong and also because you are lost and morally confused as could be.

The truth is you can't respond!

Click to expand...

Thanks for proving my point. Your an arrogant dumbass not worth anyone's time.

:2wave:

Tubub said:

Thanks for proving my point. Your an arrogant dumbass not worth anyone's time.

:2wave:

Click to expand...

Wow...you can call someone a dumbass on this forum and get away with it. Oh boy...am I going to have a great time over here then!:mrgreen:

Turbeaux said:

Wow...you can call someone a dumbass on this forum and get away with it. Oh boy...am I going to have a great time over here then!:mrgreen:

Click to expand...

No, you only get away with it until a mod gets wind of it.