• 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!

Hillary Clinton fears al-Qaeda is obtaining nuclear weapons material

PonyBoy said:
This is the war game we're playing right now, and it appears it wont be changing until reelection time.

We are going to sacrifice at least another 2,000 troops for the sake of "winning hearts and minds" in Afghanistan. Why are we fighting this war half halfheartedly when Obama and the Pentagon both knows this strategy will never work? We're sacrificing soldiers for hearts and minds and a reelection in 2012. This is disturbingly obvious. You're a smart woman, and i know you can see this as well.
Click to expand...

We are not fighting halfheartedly. We are fighting to win. To win, we need to goodwill of the Afghanistan people. Your fixation on the election is just silly. The connection exists nowhere but in your mind.
 
Redress said:
We are not fighting halfheartedly. We are fighting to win. To win, we need to goodwill of the Afghanistan people. Your fixation on the election is just silly. The connection exists nowhere but in your mind.
Click to expand...

Umm...No it exists in quite a few Washington minds. The "goodwill" of Afghanistan people. Uh huh, These are the same conniving Afghan people who deceive, lie, and con their own. The Afghan fighters literally jump from side to side depending on which side has the momentum. These people are comical. It's even an inside running joke amongst the Afghan people as to how disloyal they are to one another.

And these are the people we're sacrificing our soldiers for....Dear God.
 
PonyBoy said:
Umm...No it exists in quite a few Washington minds. The "goodwill" of Afghanistan people. Uh huh, These are the same conniving Afghan people who deceive, lie, and con their own. The Afghan fighters literally jump from side to side depending on which side has the momentum. These people are comical. It's even an inside running joke amongst the Afghan people as to how disloyal they are to one another.

And these are the people we're sacrificing our soldiers for....Dear God.
Click to expand...

No, the belief is we are sacrificing out soldiers for our security.
 
The goal is to deny a safe haven to enemies of the United States and/or prevent the Afghan government from becoming violently anti-American. Its to deny a group like AQ to plan another 9/11.

But what is your alternative strategy, and without the stereotypes and generalizations.
 
Wiseone said:
Not to be cynical but it is a troop's job to place his life on the line for the mission and operate with the constraints of that mission. If winning hearts and minds is what it takes to win the war, then its a step along the way and worthy of troop's lives.

Also again we aren't fighting this war halfheartedly, 2009 and 2010 have seen the largest amounts of troops since 2001 and the most offensive operations since the fall of the Taliban. Regardless of whether you agree with the strategy we are fighting this war harder than ever. And regardless of whether you think its for "other reasons" we are fighting this war harder than ever.

What is your alternative strategy?
Click to expand...

Scale back on 90% of the troops, and then deploy special ops and contractors for intel purposes and start relying on our drones. The average boot has no business in those mountains fighting this enemy. These Afghan/Taliban fighters are no joke. Some of those fighters up in those mountains fought in the Afghan/Soviet war.

Clear out most of our troops ans just start dialing in the coordinates on enemy holdouts. It might take longer but it would save troops.
 
Wiseone said:
The goal is to deny a safe haven to enemies of the United States and/or prevent the Afghan government from becoming violently anti-American. Its to deny a group like AQ to plan another 9/11.

But what is your alternative strategy, and without the stereotypes and generalizations.
Click to expand...

Al-Qaeda?! Wth....Theres no such thing as AL-Qaeda, Wiseone. AQ was a made up name and coined by our government. Osama never had a group by the name of "Al-Qaeda".
 
PonyBoy said:
Al-Qaeda?! Wth....Theres no such thing as AL-Qaeda, Wiseone. AQ was a made up name and coined by our government. Osama never had a group by the name of "Al-Qaeda".
Click to expand...

Ok fine to prevent whomever they are called or others like them, from attacking us again like on 9/11.

Now what is your alternative strategy to the current one.
 
Wiseone said:
Ok fine to prevent whomever they are called or others like them, from attacking us again like on 9/11.

Now what is your alternative strategy to the current one.
Click to expand...

It's right here....I already posted it.

Scale back on 90% of the troops, and then deploy special ops and contractors for intel purposes and start relying on our drones. The average boot has no business in those mountains fighting this enemy. These Afghan/Taliban fighters are no joke. Some of those fighters up in those mountains fought in the Afghan/Soviet war.

Clear out most of our troops ans just start dialing in the coordinates on enemy holdouts. It might take longer but it would save troops.
 
PonyBoy said:
It's right here....I already posted it.

Scale back on 90% of the troops, and then deploy special ops and contractors for intel purposes and start relying on our drones. The average boot has no business in those mountains fighting this enemy. These Afghan/Taliban fighters are no joke. Some of those fighters up in those mountains fought in the Afghan/Soviet war.

Clear out most of our troops ans just start dialing in the coordinates on enemy holdouts. It might take longer but it would save troops.
Click to expand...

So whos going to protect the people, or are we just going to kill Taliban? I mean the whole reason we got into this mess was because the Taliban seized control of Afghanistan, you're basically suggesting we hand the country back to them.

You CANNOT occupy territory through air power.
 
PonyBoy said:
Disposable heroes.
Click to expand...

Wow...no.

Your strategy fails on multiple levels. It does not stabilize Afghanistan nor train the Afghan military, both necessary to make a prolonged difference there. It does not stop the Taliban, which can simply stay out of sight now since it won't need to combat a military presence. Drones are no good if the enemy is out of sight. Going that route, you might as well just pull out of Afghanistan altogether.
 
Wiseone said:
So whos going to protect the people, or are we just going to kill Taliban? I mean the whole reason we got into this mess was because the Taliban seized control of Afghanistan, you're basically suggesting we hand the country back to them.

You CANNOT occupy territory through air power.
Click to expand...

You can't even effectively kill the Taliban. They would have no reason to gather in force, making targets of themselves. They would break up into small bands and strong arm the local governments.
 
Wiseone said:
So whos going to protect the people, or are we just going to kill Taliban? I mean the whole reason we got into this mess was because the Taliban seized control of Afghanistan, you're basically suggesting we hand the country back to them.

You CANNOT occupy territory through air power.
Click to expand...

We need to stop OCCUPYING territory.

@ Redress- Combating an enemy from the ground floor uphill to an enemy that's been dug in since the beginning of time is historical suicide in the theater of war. 10 US platoons fighting uphill from the ground floor is no match for 20 Taliban fighters atop the Afghan mountains. It's blatantly ridiculous and everyone knows it. But Obama needs that reelection that he ain't gettin anyways...
 
PonyBoy said:
We need to stop OCCUPYING territory.

@ Redress- Combating an enemy from the ground floor uphill to an enemy that's been dug in since the beginning of time is historical suicide in the theater of war. 10 US platoons fighting uphill from the ground floor is no match for 20 Taliban fighters atop the Afghan mountains. It's blatantly ridiculous and everyone knows it. But Obama needs that reelection that he ain't gettin anyways...
Click to expand...

The current strategy is to ignore the high mountains and go after the cities, which are on valley floors and in lower level areas, thats been stated already.

Also I'm wondering how this plan is going to win him a re-election, how does putting 30,000 extra troops in for 18 months, then withdrawing all troops before the election going to make him win? I know you don't think it will but how do you suppose he thinks it will?
 
Last edited:
Wiseone said:
The current strategy is to ignore the high mountains and go after the cities, which are on valley floors and in lower level areas, thats been stated already.

Also I'm wondering how this plan is going to win him a re-election, how does putting 30,000 extra troops in for 18 months, then withdrawing all troops before the election going to make him win? I know you don't think it will but how do you suppose he thinks it will?
Click to expand...

AS I understand it, the withdrawal date is far from firm. Not sure on that, but that is how I remember it.
 
Redress said:
AS I understand it, the withdrawal date is far from firm. Not sure on that, but that is how I remember it.
Click to expand...

Of course it is, the Afghan surge hasn't even been fully realized right, if we stuck to that date they'd be arriving and literally getting right back on the plane.
 
clinton is correct

pakistan is the problem

pakistan is nuked

al qaeda is in pakistan, NOT afghanistan

that is, the enemy he seeks is not even part of OBAMA'S WAR

this is why the president has been conducting what the london times calls his "secret war in pakistan"

School bombing exposes Obama’s secret war inside Pakistan - Times Online

cambodia, anyone?

obama ESCALATED afghanistan even tho his own centcom says the enemy is next door

FOXNews.com - Petraeus: Al Qaeda No Longer Operating in Afghanistan

the ultimate success of our strategy over there, therefore, is more dependent on corrupt and incompetent zardari than it is on the heroic efforts of our own troops

joe biden, long time chair of foreign relations, has always passed himself off as particular pakistan expert, he's been warning for decades

pakistan is UNSTABLE, pakistan is NUKED, pakistan is HOME of aq

biden took obama to task in the primaries over the then-candidate's "naive" approach towards pakistan

Biden also calls Obama 'Naive' - First Read - msnbc.com

our soldiers are dying over there in record numbers for a cause that's all confused and unclear

escalation, lies, secret wars, the wrong enemy---worst of nixon and bush
 
Last edited:
Wiseone said:
Sorry for totally taking this topic off topic, but you actually can carry a dangerous amount of nuclear material in a very small container. And many states, such as Russia, do not have total accountability for their nuclear weapons. It is theoretically possible that one of these missing devices could end up in the hands of a terrorist, which is why Obama has been so keen on nuclear weapons. We need to get an accurate and 100% count of these weapons, which is impossible but should be goal and to do that we need to work with their owns, ie the Russians.
Click to expand...

What I mean by nuclear material is not just the HEU or HEP, but the explosive capacity to get HEU or HEP to reach critical mass. If by some highly unrealistic chance that al-Qa'ida got it's hands on nuclear material, and sufficient explosives, then the threat would not be like dumping small pox onto a crowded subway, but more like we could not live in a certain area because of contamination.

al-Qa'ida aims to strike symbolic blows against the West, and any civilian deaths are just a bonus. We are more likely to see a historical European city to be attacked with a dirty-bomb than the United States; could you imagine what it would be like if 30% of Paris was uninhabitable.

Although, I think we need to spend resources else where. al-Qa'ida is not going to happen upon loose nuclear material any time soon. Hell stable countries with more connections and way more money than al-Qa'ida still are nuke-less.
 
Wiseone said:
The current strategy is to ignore the high mountains and go after the cities, which are on valley floors and in lower level areas, thats been stated already.

Also I'm wondering how this plan is going to win him a re-election, how does putting 30,000 extra troops in for 18 months, then withdrawing all troops before the election going to make him win? I know you don't think it will but how do you suppose he thinks it will?
Click to expand...

America is tired of war and he will not win a reelection with boots on the ground in Afghanistan. Not a chance in hell and Obama knows it. Basically he's "fighting the good fight" and he'll be declaring an Afghan "victory" as soon as he pulls them out. Guaranteed!;)
 
See, in Coucilman's simplistic fox news view of the world all you need is a little radioactive material to make an atomic bomb.

Thanks for another non-story hyper-spin fear fest Coucilman.
 
Arch Enemy said:
It is highly unlikely that al-Qa'ida will be able to obtain nuclear materials. You just can't carry it in your pocket. Not to mention that al-Qa'ida has no friends in any state that has access to nuclear materials.
Click to expand...

Ah, to the contrary, given the lack of security in many FSU states, it is only a matter of time, if it has not happened already. Remember, all you really need is about 40 lbs of Uranium to make a crude gun type. So breaking in to a non-guarded facility and dropping the material into a lead container is pretty much all you need to do.

I really wouldn't worry too much about plutonium. Terrorists don't have the capacity to build implosion types. That type of weapon is generally beyond even small state's abilities. But US engineers have shown that it is possible to build a gun type from parts bought at a local radio shack.
 
PonyBoy said:
Scale back on 90% of the troops, and then deploy special ops and contractors for intel purposes and start relying on our drones. The average boot has no business in those mountains fighting this enemy. These Afghan/Taliban fighters are no joke. Some of those fighters up in those mountains fought in the Afghan/Soviet war.

Clear out most of our troops ans just start dialing in the coordinates on enemy holdouts. It might take longer but it would save troops.
Click to expand...

Okay....how does this secure territory to ensure that the Taliban doesn't retake towns?

I've never heard of any successful COIN operation that won by not denying terrorists support from the local people short of killing everyone.
 
hazlnut said:
See, in Coucilman's simplistic fox news view of the world all you need is a little radioactive material to make an atomic bomb.

Thanks for another non-story hyper-spin fear fest Coucilman.
Click to expand...

To a degree this is true. Gun types are really not that hard to build. South Africa had something like a dozen without anyone knowing about it. I suspect Israel started off with gun types. Simple and reliable. Uranium based bombs are much easier to build them plutonium which is somewhat of a credit to the North Koreans who managed to build implosion based devices.

What is amusing is that Clinton is saying the same stuff Bush was back in 2001. How short some peoples' memories are.
 
Welcome to 1992.
 
Fiddytree said:
Welcome to 1992.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Except we actually might do something about it this time around. Clinton was almost as much epic fail as Bush was on proliferation.

And it was well documented that Al Qaeda operatives were seeking to buy material. AQ Khan met with some of them. Bush Jr was a complete failure in preventing access to nuclear material by terrorists. God exists purely because we have not gotten nuked yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom