• 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

obvious Child said:
Still pretending that military alone will solve the problem eh?

[And I see you constantly run away from historical examples showing where pure military failed.
Click to expand...


Let's see'em, sport.
 
general mccrystal says we need to reach out to the muslims. i agree.
 
donsutherland1 said:
The U.S.-led Persian Gulf War was not solely about liberating Kuwait. It was about protecting vital U.S. interests.
Click to expand...

ie ..oil ..not reason enough to go to war. If oil is that important, why don't we have an alternative already. Didn't the oil crisis of the 70's teach us a lesson?

I guarantee the day the last drop of oil is sucked out of the ground will be the day the oil companies miraculously find an alternative ready to hit the market.
 
bush sr. was smart not to go all the way to baghdad.
 
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...

:roll: Saudi Arabia is at war with AQ, the Taliban were co-conspirators in the 9-11 attacks.
 
Agent Ferris said:
And leave the Taliban the co-conspirators in the murder of 3,000 U.S. civilians on 9-11 to go scott free? Nice.
Click to expand...

I think to call them co-conspirators is a bit too far. The Taliban really wanted nothing to do with anything outside of Afghanistan-Pakistan. I've read over their "foreign policy" and, I'm telling ya, a 5th grader could do a better job.

The ISI may not be the purest organization on the planet, but they sure as hell would have tweaked their prize-fighters against any sort of planning.

But the Taliban is guilty of providing refuge for the A.Q. that part is undeniable, but we must discern between conspiracy and negligence.
 
Arch Enemy said:
I think to call them co-conspirators is a bit too far. The Taliban really wanted nothing to do with anything outside of Afghanistan-Pakistan. I've read over their "foreign policy" and, I'm telling ya, a 5th grader could do a better job.

The ISI may not be the purest organization on the planet, but they sure as hell would have tweaked their prize-fighters against any sort of planning.

But the Taliban is guilty of providing refuge for the A.Q. that part is undeniable, but we must discern between conspiracy and negligence.
Click to expand...

AQ was part and parcel to the Taliban government led by Mullah Omar, they had a seat on the Taliban's ministry of defense, there was a special detachment of the Taliban military known as the 055 brigade which was made up exclusively of AQ fighters, AQ even eliminated the leader of the Taliban's principle adversary, the Northern Alliance, one Ahmad Shah Massood AKA the Lion of Panjshirs, Bin Ladens son is married to Mullah Omars daughter and the Taliban granted AQ a safe haven in which to train and from which to launch attacks.

When people claim that the Taliban didn't attack us it's like saying that if the CIA decided to bomb a building in; say, Saudi Arabia, that it wasn't the U.S. government attacking them.
 
Agent Ferris said:
And leave the Taliban the co-conspirators in the murder of 3,000 U.S. civilians on 9-11 to go scott free? Nice.
Click to expand...

And our current 9-year plan is such a success, right? ;)
 
Last edited:
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
And our current 7-year plan is such a success, right? ;)
Click to expand...

Yes we overthrew the Taliban regime thus negating AQ of their safe haven there, we have seriously weakened AQ, the only problem is that we are not striking deeper into Pakistan and assassinating high ranking members of the ISI who are aiding the Taliban and AQ. Our plan isn't the problem, the problem is with Pakistan.
 
Last edited:
Agent Ferris said:
Yes we overthrew the Taliban regime thus negating AQ of their safe haven there, we have seriously weakened AQ, the only problem is that we are not striking deeper into Pakistan and assassinating high ranking members of the ISI who are aiding the Taliban and AQ.
Click to expand...

Then why do we need 30,000 more troops?
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
Then why do we need 30,000 more troops?
Click to expand...

You're ****ing right we do. We should have attacked Pakistan at the same time as Afghanistan, but unfortunately they have nukes. I'm thinking U.S. sponsored coup de'ta with a U.S. puppet dictator put in place with the current Pakistani government which has actively murdered U.S. citizens. In fact the ISI funded 9-11.
 
Last edited:
Agent Ferris said:
We should have attacked Pakistan at the same time as Afghanistan, but unfortunately they have nukes.
Click to expand...

Are you gonna let a few nukes stand in the way of world domination?

This is exactly why Iran wants nukes. It'll prevent a US invasion.
 
general mccrystal says we should reach out to muslims. i agree with that.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
Are you gonna let a few nukes stand in the way of world domination?
Click to expand...

World domination? No I'm thinking more along the lines of taking out the government that funded 9-11 IE Pakistan and putting in its place a U.S. puppet government that will actually go after the Taliban and AQ in the borderlands.
 
Agent Ferris said:
AQ was part and parcel to the Taliban government led by Mullah Omar, they had a seat on the Taliban's ministry of defense, there was a special detachment of the Taliban military known as the 055 brigade which was made up exclusively of AQ fighters, AQ even eliminated the leader of the Taliban's principle adversary, the Northern Alliance, one Ahmad Shah Massood AKA the Lion of Panjshirs, Bin Ladens son is married to Mullah Omars daughter and the Taliban granted AQ a safe haven in which to train and from which to launch attacks.

When people claim that the Taliban didn't attack us it's like saying that if the CIA decided to bomb a building in; say, Saudi Arabia, that it wasn't the U.S. government attacking them.
Click to expand...

I think you and I view the Taliban regime that invaded Afghanistan mid-90's relationship with A.Q. differently.

The CIA belongs to the United States; it has to answer to the United States.

A.Q. does not belong to the Taliban; A.Q. is exponentially more powerful, more organized, and more like (this term we throw around now-a-days) terrorist.

I am, still, not convinced that Mullah Umar/Omar is real. I am having doubts about the shadowy clerical/tribunal that the Taliban forces, supposedly, report to. The Taliban that invaded Afghanistan seems more like a group of individuals possessed by al Qaeda, and funded by the Pakistani ISI.
 
Agent Ferris said:
World domination? No I'm thinking more along the lines of taking out the government that funded 9-11 IE Pakistan and putting in its place a U.S. puppet government that will actually go after the Taliban and AQ in the borderlands.
Click to expand...

Her name was Benazir Bhutto, and we didn't do **** while Mushy, the ISI, and A.Q. elements blew her to smithereens.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
Then why do we need 30,000 more troops?
Click to expand...

Because we need to lockdown the border to allow for the security necessary to allow the Afghanis to lockdown their own borders. This should be coupled with an increasing aerial bombardment of the borderlands within Pakistani territory and I'm not entirely opposed to overthrowing the Pakistani government itself considering that they are actively aiding the Taliban and AQ, and aided in the funding of 9-11.
 
Arch Enemy said:
I think you and I view the Taliban regime that invaded Afghanistan mid-90's relationship with A.Q. differently.

The CIA belongs to the United States; it has to answer to the United States.
Click to expand...

AQ was a member of the Taliban government.

A.Q. does not belong to the Taliban; A.Q. is exponentially more powerful, more organized, and more like (this term we throw around now-a-days) terrorist.
Click to expand...

AQ was a member of the Taliban military.

I am, still, not convinced that Mullah Umar/Omar is real. I am having doubts about the shadowy clerical/tribunal that the Taliban forces, supposedly, report to. The Taliban that invaded Afghanistan seems more like a group of individuals possessed by al Qaeda, and funded by the Pakistani ISI.
Click to expand...

If Mullah Omar isn't real then who is Bin Ladens son married to? :roll:
 
Agent Ferris said:
Because we need to lockdown the border to allow for the security necessary to allow the Afghanis to lockdown their own borders. This should be coupled with an increasing aerial bombardment of the borderlands within Pakistani territory and I'm not entirely opposed to overthrowing the Pakistani government itself considering that they are actively aiding the Taliban and AQ, and aided in the funding of 9-11.
Click to expand...

I think you're a bit late :)

We will bomb you to stone age, US had warned Pa
The secret is finally out. What made Pakistan, one of the staunchest supporters of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, turn its back on them and fall in line with the United States of America in the War on Terror after 9/11?
It was a stiff threat from the then US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage to "bomb Pakistan to the Stone Age" if it did not.
Click to expand...
 
According to his speech, Obama is escalating while retreating, adding more troops while also setting a date for their departure. Obama said he was putting pressure on the Afghan government, but he didn't suggest how. Some of the blurring was by design. He smudged the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, explaining that while he was sending troops to Afghanistan, the struggle was now more regional than it was when the war started eight years ago.
Click to expand...
Newsweek

Obama's Afghanistan speech was confusing.
 
Last edited:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom