• 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!

Paratrooper's Mom Begs Obama: 'End It'

apdst said:
You already know that it's all America's fault, anyway.
Click to expand...

Everything is the fault of the ol' Evil Empire, my man. Don't you listen to all the cool music the socialist kids are listening too? With their Che shirts and angry music, fightin' the man!!!

Man. That reminds me, I read Guerrilla Warfare and got myself a Che shirt in 9th grade...then I caught all this **** for it from my teachers until I explained why I wore the shirt...then they told me why the shirts were even made and it amazed me that people would idolize him just because he was "socialist" (he was Marxist) and they thought it was sticking it to the man when they wore it. :lol: Some kids...


:lol:
 
Catawba said:
Trying to get people to see the difference between local rebels against our occupation and terrorists. A very important distinction.

When I say bad guys I am speaking in moral terms.
Click to expand...

I think you can defend yourself so don't be afraid of me. I'm no one of consequence.

Having said that I have two questions. First, are you an American citizen? Second, if withdrawal isn't chosen by Obama, would you like to see American forces defeated or victorious?

I'll understand if you choose not to respond. Thanks.
 
GySgt said:
Uniforms no longer decide who gets killed anymore. Collaberation, involvement, and assistance does. You may see a dead civilian on TV. The troop on the ground or higher intel may not.
Click to expand...

Which means, under the Geneva Conventions, we can treat them exactly as they treat us, or worse. No laws of War when it's not conventional warfare.
 
GySgt said:
The vast majority of everybody killed by American hands has been the enemy.

The enemy being defined as anyone that fought against our occupation of countries that never attacked us.


But the real magic of the Middle East is how a civilian and a militant look exactly the same. Uniforms no longer decide who gets killed anymore.
Click to expand...

"And your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore!" ~ John Prine
 
GySgt said:
Well, by all means...the 9/11 terrorists were just misunderstood and merely freedom fighters themselves. Those Tali-Ban supporters? Merely minding their own business. The unlimited supply of religious fanatics that have joined the fight (on their territory; not ours)? Merely misguided and in need of a good hug.

How dare we ever have an enemy. I love how people attempt to philosophize the problem away.
Click to expand...

What a ridiculous, over the top flat out lie. How about actually arguing what people are saying, instead of building straw men to get outraged about.
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
I think you can defend yourself so don't be afraid of me. I'm no one of consequence.

Having said that I have two questions. First, are you an American citizen? Second, if withdrawal isn't chosen by Obama, would you like to see American forces defeated or victorious?

I'll understand if you choose not to respond. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am an American, are you?

I would like to see a new strategy as recommended in the Rand Report to the Pentagon. It seems very stupid to continue a war that is counter-productive.
 
Redress said:
What a ridiculous, over the top flat out lie. How about actually arguing what people are saying, instead of building straw men to get outraged about.
Click to expand...

I thought it was sarcasm. ?
 
Catawba said:
Yes, I am an American, are you?

I would like to see a new strategy as recommended in the Rand Report to the Pentagon. It seems very stupid to continue a war that is counter-productive.
Click to expand...

Am I an American? Which America? There are so many.

I support a complete and immediate withdrawal, but for very different reasons than you. But, I didn't ask you about a new strategy. I specifically asked about whether you would like to see American troops defeated or victorious if Obama refused to withdraw them.

The reason I asked the second question is because I'm curious about whether we are citizens of the same America.
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
Am I an American? Which America? There are so many.

I support a complete and immediate withdrawal, but for very different reasons than you. But, I didn't ask you about a new strategy. I specifically asked about whether you would like to see American troops defeated or victorious if Obama refused to withdraw them.

The reason I asked the second question is because I'm curious about whether we are citizens of the same America.
Click to expand...

I am a citizen of the America that has Middle East wars instead of a domestic energy program. Which America are you with?

You cannot determine success or defeat without the correct strategy. Have you read the report to the Pentagon by the Rand Corp?
 
Catawba said:
I am a citizen of the America that has Middle East wars instead of a domestic energy program. Which America are you with?

You cannot determine success or defeat without the correct strategy. Have you read the report to the Pentagon by the Rand Corp?
Click to expand...

Which one?
The Rand Corporation is always releasing reports on something ... Pick your poison, which one are you referring to specificly
RAND | Reports & Bookstore | Browse by Category
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
The one I referenced a few pages back in this thread. The one where they concluded the "war on terror" was a failure.
Click to expand...

Thank you - I didn't see it.

Ok - I read it, it's short and simple. . . but there are a few issues.

[Terrorist cells that ended or were splintered] They were penetrated and eliminated by local police and intelligence agencies (40 percent) [as opposed to the use of military force], or they reached a peaceful political accommodation with their government (43 percent).

In 10 percent of cases, terrorist groups ended because they achieved victory. Military force led to the end of terrorist groups in 7 percent of cases. The authors found that militaries tended to be most effective when used against terrorist groups engaged in insurgencies in which the groups were large, well armed, and well organized. But against most terrorist groups, military force was usually too blunt an instrument.

The analysis also found that

Religiously motivated terrorist groups took longer to eliminate than other groups but rarely achieved their objectives; no religiously motivated group achieved victory during the period studied [1968 - 2006].

Size significantly determined a group's fate. Groups exceeding 10,000 members were victorious more than 25 percent of the time, while victory was rare for groups below 1,000 members.

terrorist groups from upper-income countries are much more likely to be left-wing or nationalist and much less likely to be motivated by religion.

But military force has not undermined al Qa'ida. As of 2008, al Qa'ida has remained a strong and competent organization. Its goal is intact: to establish a pan-Islamic caliphate in the Middle East by uniting Muslims to fight infidels and overthrow West-friendly regimes. It continues to employ terrorism and has been involved in more terrorist attacks around the world in the years since September 11, 2001, than in prior years, though engaging in no successful attacks of a comparable magnitude to the attacks on New York and Washington.

Key to this strategy is replacing the war-on-terrorism orientation with the kind of counterterrorism approach that is employed by most governments facing significant terrorist threats today. Calling the efforts a war on terrorism raises public expectations — both in the United States and elsewhere — that there is a battlefield solution. It also tends to legitimize the terrorists' view that they are conducting a jihad (holy war) against the United States and elevates them to the status of holy warriors. Terrorists should be perceived as criminals, not holy warriors.
Click to expand...

So, here they're saying that for the really big groups - military force is advisable. But since military force hasn't worked with A-Q then we should approach them as we would smaller groups (police and government venues).

And therein lies our problem and goal - to assist, support and rebuild their governments so that can be done. . .That's what we did in Iraq and that's what we should do in Afghanistan, if that's to be our continued focus.
However, how can one rebuild and support a government when the government and police force is, also, infiltrated by the group (one or many) that we're trying to weed out? Or, if not, then they're so set in their ways they're not open to change and certain levels of help (as it was with Iraq).

I agree, partially...

However (the last part) I don't agree with - the "common criminal" VS "terrorist" treatment doesn't fly with me yet.
*if* our military was *not* involved then perhaps. But so long as they're acting against our soldiers they are soldiers from the opposing force and not just common criminals. (my opinion, anyway). However, I'm aware that it might be a psychological-issue. They are fighting a holy-war and so if they think they're fighting it and they think that we believe it's their holy war, then that miht enourage them and bring them together.

So, aside that, they can only be combatants or criminals if we remove our military force completely and assist in reforming their countries in other ways.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
No problem, you are welcome.:)
Click to expand...

If we can't even weed gang-activity and crimes of that nature (which we were waging a heaven war against up until our focus shifted) out of our own country I don't see how we're suppose to help the world weed it out of their own corners. The whole focus is very lopsided and has lost it's way - long ago. . . and is just a drain, now.

I'm sure Obama will bring everyone home and refocus our goals - but he's just taking so long to do it. For some reason he just can't say "ok, enough" ... ??
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Thank you - I didn't see it.

Ok - I read it, it's short and simple. . . but there are a few issues.



So, here they're saying that for the really big groups - military force is advisable.

It is estimated there are less than 100 al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

But since military force hasn't worked with A-Q then we should approach them as we would smaller groups (police and government venues).

And therein lies our problem and goal - to assist, support and rebuild their governments so that can be done. . .

Not the role of combat troops that the report highlighted was counter productive.

That's what we did in Iraq and that's what we should do in Afghanistan, if that's to be our continued focus.

No we helped set up puppet governments in Iraq and Afghanistan.

However, how can one rebuild and support a government when the government and police force is, also, infiltrated by the group (one or many) that we're trying to weed out?

If we take away their ability to recruit new members than they will just fade away as a real threat. Our war on terror with our killing of thousands of innocent civilians has accomplished just the opposite, which is why the Rand Corp. determined it to be counter productive.


Or, if not, then they're so set in their ways they're not open to change and certain levels of help (as it was with Iraq).

Afghanistan has always been governed in a tribal fashion. Our western notion of a centralized president ruling the country is not realistic.

I agree, partially...

However (the last part) I don't agree with - the "common criminal" VS "terrorist" treatment doesn't fly with me yet.
*if* our military was *not* involved then perhaps. But so long as they're acting against our soldiers they are soldiers from the opposing force and not just common criminals. (my opinion, anyway). However, I'm aware that it might be a psychological-issue. They are fighting a holy-war and so if they think they're fighting it and they think that we believe it's their holy war, then that miht enourage them and bring them together.

The killing of innocent civilians has always galvanized opposition to the occupation. The Rand Report drew similar conclusions in their research of terrorists.

So, aside that, they can only be combatants or criminals if we remove our military force completely and assist in reforming their countries in other ways.
Click to expand...

If you are saying we can accomplish more through humanitarian assistance than through military OPS, then I agree.
 
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
If we can't even weed gang-activity and crimes of that nature (which we were waging a heaven war against up until our focus shifted) out of our own country I don't see how we're suppose to help the world weed it out of their own corners. The whole focus is very lopsided and has lost it's way - long ago. . . and is just a drain, now.

I'm sure Obama will bring everyone home and refocus our goals - but he's just taking so long to do it. For some reason he just can't say "ok, enough" ... ??
Click to expand...

I've always thought Obama was too much of a moderate when it comes to foreign policy, but with the growing public opposition to our war in Afghanistan, and our growing national debt already totaling 3 trillion for our "war on terror", and the report from the Rand Corp. that we have been counter-productive in our war efforts, I am sure it is just a matter of time before he sees the wisdom of bringing our combat troops home.
 
Catawba said:
I am a citizen of the America that has Middle East wars instead of a domestic energy program. Which America are you with?

You cannot determine success or defeat without the correct strategy. Have you read the report to the Pentagon by the Rand Corp?
Click to expand...


I am a citizen of the America that doesn't engage in sophistry.

You haven't answered my question. Instead, you've responded to a question that I didn't ask.

I'll try again. All other things being equal, as a general matter of morality, if your president refuses to withdraw American forces from Afghanistan, do you wish to see the soldiers of your country return victorious or in defeat?

If you are not willing to answer the question I've asked, on the terms that I've defined, then don't respond. I'm not asking you to debate. I'm just asking a question.

Subsequent to my posing the question to you, you ask me if I've read the Rand Report. In polite society you don't get to ask me a question until you've answered my prior question posed to you.
 
Catawba said:
I've always thought Obama was too much of a moderate when it comes to foreign policy, but with the growing public opposition to our war in Afghanistan, and our growing national debt already totaling 3 trillion for our "war on terror", and the report from the Rand Corp. that we have been counter-productive in our war efforts, I am sure it is just a matter of time before he sees the wisdom of bringing our combat troops home.
Click to expand...

When he does, though - it won't be for those reason.

He seems the least bit concerned with what people think of him - obviously. And by far even less concerned with reports and advice from those who know what they're talking about (case nd point - the Rand report).
 
Catawba said:
I've always thought Obama was too much of a moderate when it comes to foreign policy, but with the growing public opposition to our war in Afghanistan, and our growing national debt already totaling 3 trillion for our "war on terror", and the report from the Rand Corp. that we have been counter-productive in our war efforts, I am sure it is just a matter of time before he sees the wisdom of bringing our combat troops home.
Click to expand...

And it will insure that he is a one term president.

He'll be known as the only president in history that retreated in the face of the enemy.
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
I am a citizen of the America that doesn't engage in sophistry.

You haven't answered my question. Instead, you've responded to a question that I didn't ask.

I'll try again. All other things being equal, as a general matter of morality, if your president refuses to withdraw American forces from Afghanistan, do you wish to see the soldiers of your country return victorious or in defeat?

If you are not willing to answer the question I've asked, on the terms that I've defined, then don't respond. I'm not asking you to debate. I'm just asking a question.

Subsequent to my posing the question to you, you ask me if I've read the Rand Report. In polite society you don't get to ask me a question until you've answered my prior question posed to you.
Click to expand...

Altering your approach to a larger situation isn't necessarily victory or defeat.

Why are you looking at it so black and white - the reason why this is so complicated is because it is not black and white.

Why do you consider taking an alternative approach (non military) to be 'defeat?'
 
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
Altering your approach to a larger situation isn't necessarily victory or defeat.

Why are you looking at it so black and white - the reason why this is so complicated is because it is not black and white.

Why do you consider taking an alternative approach (non military) to be 'defeat?'
Click to expand...

The reason it's so complicated, is because people are making it complicated. It's really not that hard.

You kill the enemy and destroy his will/ability to wage war.

By doing so, you give the government the security and confidence it needs to evolve into a stable entity.

It ain't rocket science.
 
apdst said:
The reason it's so complicated, is because people are making it complicated. It's really not that hard.

You kill the enemy and destroy his will/ability to wage war.

By doing so, you give the government the security and confidence it needs to evolve into a stable entity.

It ain't rocket science.
Click to expand...

If it was not hard, we would have won already. The truth is, this is hard. We don't know all the enemy, we cannot easily identify them, and mistakes on our part breed more of the enemy.
 
apdst said:
The reason it's so complicated, is because people are making it complicated. It's really not that hard.

You kill the enemy and destroy his will/ability to wage war.

By doing so, you give the government the security and confidence it needs to evolve into a stable entity.

It ain't rocket science.
Click to expand...

:rofl

In fact, it does involve rocket science and it is far more complicated than any of our wars we've fought in the past - why do you think otherwise?
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Altering your approach to a larger situation isn't necessarily victory or defeat.

Why are you looking at it so black and white - the reason why this is so complicated is because it is not black and white.

Why do you consider taking an alternative approach (non military) to be 'defeat?'
Click to expand...

I am not debating the subject of this thread. Rather, I'm trying to understand where Cat is coming from because he said something that interested me. Cat has emphasized the importance of morality in the conduct of American foreign policy. So I've posed a question to him to get some insight into the parameters of his morality.

If Cat answers my question I may gain some insight and learn something. Or I may be amused.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom