• 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!

34,000 troops will be sent to Afghanistan

dirtpoorchris said:
If we get attacked by an army while we send more to war then we should hold TPTB for treason. How much war is too much? Is there ever a time when we will decide that distributing death in this fashion is just too wrong? We have already found out that overwhelming majority of fighters against us are territory battlers. Not psycho jihadists.
Click to expand...

Same old cut and run be a coward show the terrorist how weak you are plan.
 
Ethereal said:
It's too late for second guessing his decision. He's made a decision to send more troops. You would do well to support him and the troops.
Click to expand...

To bad it takes him 4 months to make a decision.
 
ptif219 said:
To bad it takes him 4 months to make a decision.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was too bad. I gave him hell for it. Now, it's time to support him and the troops.
 
Zyphlin said:
From my understanding however, and I may be wrong here, there were a few key differences.

One, while many of the people may’ve been Saudi citizens or born Saudi, their current area of occupation was elsewhere

Two, the Saudi government post 9/11 was willing to assist and aid in attempting to stop terrorists and the funding of them. On the contrary the Taliban was directly funding and supporting Al-Qaeda and Saddam was directly supporting and funding other terrorists, with both groups refusing to work with America to deal with the issue.

Now, I still think Iraq at that point was the wrong move in the long run. But I definitely don’t think Saudi Arabia would’ve been the correct choice. How you can care more about where someone is born than whether or not a government is actually sponsoring/protecting and funding them as justification of which place is more important to deal with is a mystery to me.
Click to expand...

Saudi Arabia burdens the Western world and the Islamic world, but there's rightly no order to attack.

We should have hopped into Pakistan after Afghanistan. We are losing soldiers because the Pakistani government still cooperates with elements of the Taliban.

it would appear that the Pakistan Government is just as dangerous as A.Q. There's reasons to believe that the madrassas that currently litter Peshawar and Islamabad were because of the pro-jamaat-i-islami elements in the Mushy regime (Gen. Musharaff).
There's reason to believe that Benazir Bhutto assassins had "help" (whether it be just looking the other way) from the Mushy regime.

There's reason to believe that the A.Q. terrorist attacks in Mumbai had affiliates within the ISI (Pakistan's Intelligence).

Sure, there is a new suit in Pakistan's leadership, however he is just as corrupt and, even worse, he's weak. You better believe the fragments from the military-regime are still the power behind much of the state.

Zyphlin said:
I still think we'd be doing better in Afghanistan if we got a better handle on the poppy fields on the north side. They are well protected by bunkers and it's easy to get airdrops there with relative protection. There are only three entry points to defend and there are two bunkers which give you a good view of the area around the downed plane. Sure, the high ledge near the gas tanks might be a good spot, but it's too open to be a viable long-term solution, and as we know, airdrops are crucial to winning this.

The cavern is always going to be a source of fighting. Going in there is suicide, even with a stun grenade and/or flashbangs.
Click to expand...

Lets just note that most of the Poppy production is on Afghanistan's south-west side; on it's borders with Iran.
Afghan_Opium_Production_2005_2007.JPG


On the North Side you will find more cottage industries like handwoven Persian Rugs, and legitimate husbandry and agriculture (cereal and wheat).
 
Ethereal said:
Yes, it was too bad. I gave him hell for it. Now, it's time to support him and the troops.
Click to expand...

I will reserve judgement to see if his speech is about winning or if it is about withdrawal and blame Bush.
 
ptif219 said:
Same old cut and run be a coward show the terrorist how weak you are plan.
Click to expand...

You mean show the people battling for territories how I'm plan.. Terrorists would be glad that our troops are there.
 
Zyphlin said:
From my understanding however, and I may be wrong here, there were a few key differences.

One, while many of the people may’ve been Saudi citizens or born Saudi, their current area of occupation was elsewhere

Two, the Saudi government post 9/11 was willing to assist and aid in attempting to stop terrorists and the funding of them. On the contrary the Taliban was directly funding and supporting Al-Qaeda and Saddam was directly supporting and funding other terrorists, with both groups refusing to work with America to deal with the issue.

Now, I still think Iraq at that point was the wrong move in the long run. But I definitely don’t think Saudi Arabia would’ve been the correct choice. How you can care more about where someone is born than whether or not a government is actually sponsoring/protecting and funding them as justification of which place is more important to deal with is a mystery to me.
Click to expand...

Stop the money and the madness will follow.

Saudi-financed Wahabism is almost solely responsible for the creation of militant Islamic fundamentalists in Afg and Pak, thanks to Saudi funding and support.

PBS - frontline: saudi time bomb?: analyses: madrassas

Saudi Arabia was the source of most of al-Qaida and Taliban funding.

Saudi royals funded 9/11: Lawyers
 
What mission????????????????????????/
 
Joe1991 said:
Stop the money and the madness will follow.

Saudi-financed Wahabism is almost solely responsible for the creation of militant Islamic fundamentalists in Afg and Pak, thanks to Saudi funding and support.

PBS - frontline: saudi time bomb?: analyses: madrassas

Saudi Arabia was the source of most of al-Qaida and Taliban funding.

Saudi royals funded 9/11: Lawyers
Click to expand...

Joe, you are making the same mistake that Bush made when it came to Iraq.
There were elements of the Saudi royalty that financed the N.G.O currently known as Al Qaida, but this was at the time when the United States partnered with Saudi Arabia, and Pakistani ISI in order to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

Saudi royalty now has a very serious problem with Bin Laden (don't forget that Bin Laden's biggest disappointment and what ultimately led to him turning against his home was that Saudi Arabia didn't trust Bin Laden).
A.Q. detests the Saudi crown. They see them (as they see most of the Middle-East) as "not Islamic enough".

These funds that are reaching Bin Laden, and the 9/11 Hijackers are from private accounts-- Saudi citizens are more wealthy than many other citizens in the Middle-East.

There's friction between the Kingdom and Wahabism (I have personal experience with Saudi diplomats rejecting the term altogether).

etc. etc.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
You mean show the people battling for territories how I'm plan.. Terrorists would be glad that our troops are there.
Click to expand...

No terrorist would be glad that you show how we weak we are and leave so they can once again take over Afghanistan.
 
Ethereal said:
It's too late for second guessing his decision. He's made a decision to send more troops. You would do well to support him and the troops.
Click to expand...

There are many different versions and visions of America. The American peoples are deeply divided over many issues, e.g., whether there is such a thing as terrorism as opposed to criminality. They are also deeply divided over who the real enemy is. Some say the enemy is bin Laden. Others say the real enemy is Obama, and that the real war is at home (speaking figuratively).

Your call to arms would have resonated with Americans when they were still a single people. But that was then, this is now.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
We had no business saving Kuwait.
Click to expand...

The U.S.-led Persian Gulf War was not solely about liberating Kuwait. It was about protecting vital U.S. interests.

FWIW, National Security Directive 45 (August 20, 1990) concisely articulates the basis of the U.S. decision:

U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf are vital to the national security. These interests include access to oil and the security and stability of key friendly states in the region. The United States will defend its vital interests in the area, through the use of U.S. military force if necessary and appropriate, against any power with interests inimical to our own. The United States also will support the individual and collective self-defense of friendly countries in the area to enable them to play a more active role in their own defense. The United States will encourage the effective expressions of support and the particpation of our allies and other friendly states to promote our mutual interests in the Persian Gulf region.

Nations protect their critical interests. They don't abandon their allies. They promote cooperation in areas of mutual interest.

Doing nothing would have left Saddam Hussein in a position to dominate the Persian Gulf's oil shipping lanes and to put a chokehold on world oil supplies to further his interests and ambitions. That would have left the U.S., among many other states, dependent strictly on Saddam Hussein's good will for an important part of their energy supplies. No responsible foreign policy could allow for such a situation, because the intent of states and leaders is not always benign.
 
Dayton3 said:
I"m curious as to just how was the U.S. "distracted by Iraq"?

Were all the thousands of soldiers we had in Afghanistan told to sit on their asses and watch the spectacle in Iraq or something?

Did the number of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan fall because of the conflict in Iraq?
Click to expand...

Mostly because the emphasis shifted to thinking and planning for Iraq - a totally different environment than Afghanistan. The troops needed to finish off Afghanistan properly were not that many but the real thing came down to bucks. All of the bucks went to the larger project in Iraq rather than Afghanistan.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
Non-interventionism + free trade + cultural exchanges + full diplomatic relations = peace.
Click to expand...

Such a proposition rests on the assumptions that:

1. Every leader and nation desires peace.
2. Every leader and nation embraces self-restraint and self-limitation.
3. States' interests never conflict to the extent that they are willing to resort to force.
4. Ideology is a non-factor in international relations
5. Power is irrelevant.

Such a world has never existed. The above formula would do nothing to deter the likes of a Napoleon or Hitler or Stalin. Indeed, they would thrive on such an approach by gobbling up the hapless and naive victim whose good intentions and good will would prove worthless when it comes to providing for their security.
 
I will make this one observation though, a country full of heroin, and not one story of soldiers strung out on this drug, after eight years, I just had to make that observation.
 
Lets just note that most of the Poppy production is on Afghanistan's south-west side; on it's borders with Iran.
Afghan_Opium_Production_2005_2007.JPG


On the North Side you will find more cottage industries like handwoven Persian Rugs, and legitimate husbandry and agriculture (cereal and wheat
Click to expand...


I knew someone was going to bite. He was referring to a map in the new Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 named: Afghanistan
 
Polynikes said:
I knew someone was going to bite. He was referring to a map in the new Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 named: Afghanistan
Click to expand...

Oh ****.

I just scanned that paragraph. I need to play that game!
 
Maybe Obama can negotiate since he has done so well at that with Iran,
laugh1.gif
 
I knew someone was going to bite. He was referring to a map in the new Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 named: Afghanistan
Click to expand...

Does anyone have Obama's gamertag?

:mrgreen:
 
Joe1991 said:
Not that invading and taking over whole countries was ever the right answer, but Afghanistan and Iraq wouldn't have been my first choice:

-Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, trained and financing by yet another Saudi native – Osama bin Laden.

-The Saudi National Guard bombing in November 1995, which killed five Americans. All four of the men convicted and executed for the bombing were Saudis.

-The Khobar Towers bombing in June 1996, which killed 19 Americans. Of the 14 men indicted by the U.S. Department of Justice for that bombing, 13 were Saudi Arabian, including all five of the men who drove and detonated the truck bomb on the day of the attack.

-The Nairobi embassy bombing in August 1998, which killed 12 Americans. Both of the men who drove and detonated the truck bomb were Saudis.

-The USS Cole bombing in October 2000, which killed 17 Americans. Both of the men who drove and detonated the explosives-laden boat used in that attack were Saudis.

-The Riyadh residential compound bombings in May 2003, which killed nine Americans. All nine of the suicide bombers killed in the attacks were Saudis.

-The Mosul mess tent bombing in December 2004, which killed 18 Americans. The lone suicide bomber responsible was identified in numerous press reports as a foreign insurgent from Saudi Arabia.
Click to expand...

Hey Joe, I see a pattern ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom