• 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!

America’s Dumbest War, Ever

ecofarm said:
The War on Drugs is the dumbest war, by far.
Click to expand...

We can make a nice list of dumb wars:

Iraq (all-time dumb), Vietnam, Spanish-American, Mexican-American, Grenada, war on drugs.... all of which could be topped by the dumbest of all wars: Iran.

Afghanistan was a just war; the occupation/nation building part was the dumb idea
 
upsideguy said:
We can make a nice list of dumb wars:

Iraq (all-time dumb), Vietnam, Spanish-American, Mexican-American, Grenada, war on drugs.... all of which could be topped by the dumbest of all wars: Iran.

Afghanistan was a just war; the occupation/nation building part was the dumb idea
Click to expand...


I disagree with you on all of those. My pick stands above because even we can agree. Nonetheless, you should get rightsideup.
 
jet57 said:
The two have zero in common. We should have razed Afghanistan to the ground the first time. Obama is now doiing the right thing by making hits on the bosses: it's the most effective way to go.
Click to expand...

How do you raze one of the most barren, impoverished, least developed countries on earth, to the ground?
 
jonny5 said:
Letter, from a soldier to his father, as published at America...
Click to expand...

Glad to see he has been at least somewhat awakened. Though his claim that he cares not whether they stay or leave is a bit disturbing. The entire Middle Eastern campaign has been been a disaster and a disgrace since WWII.

ecofarm said:
The War on Drugs is the dumbest war, by far.
Click to expand...

I see the wars on drugs, poverty, education, and the like as visible arms of an undeclared War on Freedom. Every one of these so-called wars is nothing more than a battle against allowing people to do as they damn well please.

sawyerloggingon said:
Was WW2 dumb?
Click to expand...

Yes. (Though "dumb" isn't that great of an adjective for war.)
 
TNAR said:
Glad to see he has been at least somewhat awakened. Though his claim that he cares not whether they stay or leave is a bit disturbing. The entire Middle Eastern campaign has been been a disaster and a disgrace since WWII.



I see the wars on drugs, poverty, education, and the like as visible arms of an undeclared War on Freedom. Every one of these so-called wars is nothing more than a battle against allowing people to do as they damn well please.



Yes. (Though "dumb" isn't that great of an adjective for war.)
Click to expand...

WW2 was necessary on our part, evil on Germany and Japan's part. If you think all wars can be avoided you are dumb.
 
TNAR said:
I see the wars on drugs, poverty, education, and the like as visible arms of an undeclared War on Freedom. Every one of these so-called wars is nothing more than a battle against allowing people to do as they damn well please.
Click to expand...

The war on education?
 
I have a very different view than most of you. The initial incursion and subsequent operation in Afghanistan involving SF, Delta, and CIA paramilitary was a master stroke. President Bush did something that, IMO, no President outside of JFK would do. He allowed our uncoventional forces to actually control an Area of Operations and execute missions at their whim inside of it. The result was the total routing of the Taliban with fewer than 800 ground troops and minimal air support. This resulted in the forming of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. After that, the mistakes began, albeit not on a large scale. President Bush committed conventional troops into an area that didn't need them. Special Ops troops are trained to be sensitive to other cultures, speak their language, and compromise the speed at which they can operate in order to "involve" the local troops. Conventional troops are not. They are trained to accomplish a mission and move aside anything that holds them back from that. Involving conventional troops was the mistake. However, unlike President Obama, I believe President Bush understood that. We forget that there was a 2 year period between the invasion of Afghan to the invasion of Iraq. I believe President Bush understood the black hole that Afghanistan could become and didn't want to committ a massive amount of troops to it. President Obama does not know this. He wanted his "own" war. He thought, as is typical of him, that he knew better. That he could do what NO country has ever done. Control Afghanistan. Well, he's wrong. Afghanistan did not begin as "America's Dumbest War, Ever". It could have been one of the greatest. It could have been a perfect example of modern warfare and the execution of it. What it turned in to is a huge mine is bigger than yours/we want to leave on our terms/lets wait until the election is over/we don't want to leave with egg on our face war. To be clear, President Bush did increase troop levels there to 20,000 by the end of his presidency. However, President Obama upped it to the 60-70K range. A huge commitment. IMO, President Bush should have pulled our troops as soon as the Northern Alliance established itself. Leaving some special ops troops on the ground to advise them. And that's it.
 
I see the SF/CIA/Millions in bribery money/precision munitions/B52 carpet bombing raids as the only quick strike the US was capable of and BushII was not a patient man.

The problem with the plan is so much hinged on bribed warlords staying bribed and in a land more noted for double crosses than loyalty to outsiders the real prizes in the secret squirrel operation just walked out the side door, right past the bribed warlords.

Staying but at such low troop levels while the bulk of deployable combat forces were bombarded with candies and flowers in Iraq was a fatal flaw in the Afghanistan Operations set a cancer loose as we tried our hand once more at-

Nation Building
Democracy Building
Equal Rights for Women
those tasks grew out of a sense of frustration because the leaders of al-Queera and the taliwhackers slipped away.

We shouldn't have tried to change Afghanistan.

Now a thought on the OP- highly suspect website with no substantiation, more rant/whine about the ROE, smeared with a good dose of lamestream media refusal to tell the truth... even Fox I guess....

Doesn't pass the smell test, will agree with one thing, we never were going to fix Afghanistan, we have over stayed-

But Afghanistan is to President Obama as Vietnam was to President Nixon

Vietnam was to President Johnson as Afghanistan is to President BushII.

People will remember who got us into the mess and who got us out... not much past that.
 
wolfman24 said:
I agree that all wars are probably stupid but this one is really up there. We went over there with a club the size of Texas to look for an ant hill. We did not know the culture, language or the terrain. the soviets went to and look what happened to them.
Click to expand...
Agreed! We could have gone over with a little can of RAID instead of a Bulldozer. See what happens when you silence your critics!
 
Serious Question: What year to do you believe there will be no more wars? 3012, 4012, 10,012? Will the human race eventually cease making weapons? Will we ever, ever trust all other countries or will history continue to read of wars?
 
The US has never fought a morally, legally or ethically just war since WW2 ended.

In fact the US has attacked 37 nations since WW2 that has resulted in approximately 23 million civilian death.

Dumb isn't the word for these war crimes and corporately fascist atrocities
 
rhinefire said:
Serious Question: What year to do you believe there will be no more wars? 3012, 4012, 10,012? Will the human race eventually cease making weapons? Will we ever, ever trust all other countries or will history continue to read of wars?
Click to expand...

NEVER Man is an animal and has yet to learn how to control his basic instincts and emotions. Case in point - Why do we give a **** about countries? because we are territorial we live in social groups and are most comfortable there. We defend that territory and any percieved Home Range that goes along with it. If we were able to put these type emotions and instincts aside (which we cannot) our intellect would tell us that we get more done and are more productive as a single group rather than an assortment of warring factions.


The two most basic emotions in man are love and hate. We haven't quite gotten love down yet but we have sure as hell aced the hate part.
 
DaveFagan said:
For me, the war in Afghanistan never made any sense after OBL was bagged. No Nation has ever defeated Afghanistan and I don't think we will. I think the best way we can help the poor citizens of Afghanistan is to get out. Drop some rice and beans on them instead of bombs and actually investigate where the opium goes. Do the words oxycontin and hydocodone strike any responsive chords?
Click to expand...

You didnt answer any of the questions. Other than the obvious, why arent liberals protesting the war?
 
notquiteright said:
I see the SF/CIA/Millions in bribery money/precision munitions/B52 carpet bombing raids as the only quick strike the US was capable of and BushII was not a patient man.

The problem with the plan is so much hinged on bribed warlords staying bribed and in a land more noted for double crosses than loyalty to outsiders the real prizes in the secret squirrel operation just walked out the side door, right past the bribed warlords.

Staying but at such low troop levels while the bulk of deployable combat forces were bombarded with candies and flowers in Iraq was a fatal flaw in the Afghanistan Operations set a cancer loose as we tried our hand once more at-

Nation Building
Democracy Building
Equal Rights for Women
those tasks grew out of a sense of frustration because the leaders of al-Queera and the taliwhackers slipped away.

We shouldn't have tried to change Afghanistan.

Now a thought on the OP- highly suspect website with no substantiation, more rant/whine about the ROE, smeared with a good dose of lamestream media refusal to tell the truth... even Fox I guess....

Doesn't pass the smell test, will agree with one thing, we never were going to fix Afghanistan, we have over stayed-

But Afghanistan is to President Obama as Vietnam was to President Nixon

Vietnam was to President Johnson as Afghanistan is to President BushII.

People will remember who got us into the mess and who got us out... not much past that.
Click to expand...

Regading the OP, I only linked it as the source of the letter. Theres no reason to doubt its authenticity. Michael Yon has been embeding in and out of Iraq and Afghanistan for the last decade. He is a well known and respected military blogger.
 
notquiteright said:
I see the SF/CIA/Millions in bribery money/precision munitions/B52 carpet bombing raids as the only quick strike the US was capable of and BushII was not a patient man.
Click to expand...
He couldn't be patient. Al Qaeda needed to know that we could strike back hard and fast. There were no B52 carpet bombings either. Carpet bombing implies that they simply flattened massive areas, which wasn't the case. The B52's were mainly used to hit mountain passes that Al Qaeda was using for exfil routes. I still contend that President Bush's reaction was the best choice he could make, not the only one he could make. He could have pulled a Clinton and Tomahawk missiled them to death. That would have been the safest route to go both politically and for service members. He could have just bombed them. Which wouldn't have been as safe but would've been a little stronger reaction. He could have sent massive amounts of troops in. Which would have been the strongest reaction but the most dangerous. He could have done nothing. Which was a losing strategy all around. Instead, he went the unconventional route. It was bold and original. It had never been done before on that scale. And it worked beautifully.
notquiteright said:
The problem with the plan is so much hinged on bribed warlords staying bribed and in a land more noted for double crosses than loyalty to outsiders the real prizes in the secret squirrel operation just walked out the side door, right past the bribed warlords.
Click to expand...
Bribed warlords are cheaper than brigade upon brigade of conventional forces, you get more bang for your buck, who cares if bribed warlords and their "troops" die, and those citizens of Afghanistan in the Northern Allianace had to deal with the repercussions of their actions instead of just blame the inevitable insurgency on the white devil's aka Americans. That's the beauty of it. We go in, we stir up trouble in Al Qaeda's back yard, turn the people against them, then ride off in the sunset. At least, that's what initially happened. In addition, losing OBL wasn't the worst thing that could happen. We disturbed the ant hill. We took away their sanctuary and turned citizens against them. That was the whole point. OBL was a figurehead at that point.
notquiteright said:
Staying but at such low troop levels while the bulk of deployable combat forces were bombarded with candies and flowers in Iraq was a fatal flaw in the Afghanistan Operations set a cancer loose as we tried our hand once more at-

Nation Building
Democracy Building
Equal Rights for Women
those tasks grew out of a sense of frustration because the leaders of al-Queera and the taliwhackers slipped away.

We shouldn't have tried to change Afghanistan.
Click to expand...
All of this, minus the last sentence (which I agree with btw), are incomprehensible. Please make your point in a clearer manner.
 
rhinefire said:
Serious Question: What year to do you believe there will be no more wars? 3012, 4012, 10,012? Will the human race eventually cease making weapons? Will we ever, ever trust all other countries or will history continue to read of wars?
Click to expand...

no
ten characters
 
jonny5 said:
You didnt answer any of the questions. Other than the obvious, why arent liberals protesting the war?
Click to expand...

I live rural and there is little, if any, protest activity in this area. Protest will show up at the ballot box in the form of Green Party votes. That is about the only option that I know of. The Occupy protests can be construed to be a protest against the largest warmongers because they are also the largest profiteers from ongoing military actions. Occupy is protest against the status quo of current events, inclucing wars. Just my opinion.
 
Michael Yon should have given the 'author' of the letter a little backround... a bn unit designation at the very least...

he claims he authenticated the letter but given his personal bias toward 'the brass' and political leaders I would want more than his say-so.

Too much like the World Nutt Dully.

the B52s carpet bombed the Massif positions, not just passes but an entire ridge line- very impressive BTW. Classic shock and awe, classic example of showing your 'allies' you mean bidnizz.

The 'success' is subjective. The Taliban still run the country, just not from Kabul. The puppet government doesn't control much outside of Kabul. al-Queera wasn't crushed by chasing them into Pakistan, it was crushed by ending the free flow of money around the world and ferreting out the real operatives OUTSIDE of Afghanistan. Using the tribal regions of Pakistan to train terrorists and insurgent fighters differs little from the mountain areas of Tora Bora.

The 'success' of a bribe and bomb campaign lasts only as long as the bribes continue. Allowing Osama to walk out of Tora Bora was an abject failure, you can't dress that pig up and expect it to dance.

President BushII shifting so much of our assets to focus on Iraq, from troops to intel agents robbed us of a good chance to ferret Osama out right after the 'invasion'.

The candies and flowers refers to the way the neocons insisted our troops would be greeted in Iraq... we both know that was a lie.

President BushII was left with an empty victory... after all his daid or alife drawling he doesn't tack Osama's head to the barn door. So he turned to another 'goal'-

modernize Afghanistan so it would never harbor religious extremists again... he missed the history lesson where a very secular Shah of Iran attempted that and the backlash was the current religious extremists we all love to hate.

There is a big difference between doing something fast and doing something right. Don't confuse your enemy going to ground as them giving up- they just simply know time, terrain and temperament are on their side.
 
DaveFagan said:
I live rural and there is little, if any, protest activity in this area. Protest will show up at the ballot box in the form of Green Party votes. That is about the only option that I know of. The Occupy protests can be construed to be a protest against the largest warmongers because they are also the largest profiteers from ongoing military actions. Occupy is protest against the status quo of current events, inclucing wars. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

No, theyre specifically against wall street. Wheres code pink?
 
There was no reason ever to try to nation-build there. It was silly to try, motivated by populism (the root of most dumbass decisions), and has just snowballed. Leave Americans in Bagram and use JSOC and UAVs to kill people as necessary when they get uppity.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
WW2 was necessary on our part, evil on Germany and Japan's part. If you think all wars can be avoided you are dumb.
Click to expand...

If you think war solves anything, you are dumb.

ecofarm said:
The war on education?
Click to expand...

The conglomeration of mini-wars on such things as illiteracy and such.
 
TNAR said:
If you think war solves anything, you are dumb.
Click to expand...

In Iraq, it solved genocide, 17 UN violations, sanctions, dictatorship and such. At least, thus far. Look what happened to Japan after they got bombed free. And Germany...

All we are saaaying, is give war a chance.


The conglomeration of mini-wars on such things as illiteracy and such.
Click to expand...

Illiteracy (and unspecified stuff) is the war on education? Who is promoting illiteracy?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Yes thats what "Obama wants" :doh (Hackery at its best here)


But no this war was dumb a very long time ago. The last war that we got involved in that "wasnt dumb" would have to be WW2.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it made way more sense to let things get blown so far out of control that we fought a world war, lost 400,000 Americans lives and nearly banktrupted the country.
 
There is little difference from either party when it comes to invading sovereign nations ... their rhetoric falls on deaf ears when Americans know for a fact these political parties are only serving the interests of multinationals Exxon, Haliburton, etc., corporations that owe allegiance to no country whatsoever.

The American news media censor the untold human death toll and suffering of injured, except perhaps as a footnote years down the road, or as a purely acedemic excercise used to justify future conflicts. Look at how media outlets lie endlessly saying Bush killed 40,000 civillians in Iraq so as to paint the war a success.

"Like former President George W. Bush, Mr. Obama said it could be in the interests of the United States to exercise the military power that it alone possesses in the advancement of freedom. But far more than Mr. Bush, Mr. Obama stressed the need to use that power in the context of multilateralism and cooperation."

BUSH: “Our country has accepted obligations that are difficult to fulfill, and would be dishonorable to abandon. Yet because we have acted in the great liberating tradition of this nation, tens of millions have achieved their freedom. And as hope kindles hope, millions more will find it.”

OBAMA: “For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and as an advocate for human freedom. Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world’s many challenges. But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act.”




Echoes of Bush in Obama’s Libya Speech

Echoes of Bush in Obama's Libya Speech - NYTimes.com

Obama Marks End of U.S. Combat Mission in Iraq, Salutes Bush

Obama Marks End of U.S. Combat Mission in Iraq, Salutes Bush | Fox News
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom