• 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

Vietnam is a trading partner with the U.S. and there are 2 non-stop flights a day to Hanoi from L.A. I'de say they have become a model country compared to Iraq.
The shiite Govt. has closer ties with Tehran than Washington which is not surprising since most of them are Iraqi exiles who grew up in Iran. They don't have Alqeada because they left when our troops did. No more targets. I irony of the Iraqi blunder is not that it was a hopeless quagmire (like Vietnam) but we were actually helping our only REAL enemy in the region, by defeating Iran's mortal enemy. It was like poking a stick into the hornets nest...and then hanging around while the swarm stings you silly.

Honestly, this is some of the worst analysis I've ever read.
 
One must match the goals to our needs. Our goal should be to deny safe haven to terrorists. I do not know the right troop levels to accomplish that. But the professionals do.

The right number of troops is zero. Drones will do a better job on terrorists than troops. We need to change tactics. Troops act as targets and recruiting agents for the enemy, they actually make things worse.
 
One must match the goals to our needs. Our goal should be to deny safe haven to terrorists. I do not know the right troop levels to accomplish that. But the professionals do.

And you proposal for Afghanistan is.....?

The most successful COIN operation in history really isn't applicable here. I don't see how we can take the Malayian Pacification and take its lessons and use them in Afghanistan. To some degree you have to change the culture in Afghanistan towards moderate to liberal Islam for this to work. And that's just a starting point.

I don't see how Afghanistan can work as a Democracy. Especially a very poor one.
 
How do you know that?

Is Afghanistan a safe haven? Is there any price we should pay for safety?

Because I was there, and it's exceptionally obvious.


Do you love your country so little that you want her to be safe for only a little while? Why do you put a time limit on the security of the nation?

This is the exact patriotic garbage that they tell you so that you continue to beat the war drum. There is nothing we're doing in afghanistan that is making us, in america a single bit safer. All we're doing is shedding american blood in vain. I love my fellow citizens, and I cherish their lives and safeties, not some ideal based solely on pride and not tangible facts.

Defeatists will always be defeated. Afghanistan is not so important. If the Taliban and Al qaeda were not there then we would have no reason to be there either. We fight the enemy where he is. You should know that.

More with the BS pride instead of logic and reason. Please, try to quantify to me how us being in afghanistan makes us safer, and please, use citation.

The taliban have never even waged terrorist attacks against us. Their sole goal in life is to get our asses off their soil. They can have that rotten property, the entire country smells of death.
 
Last edited:
If we are not prepared to stay there as long as it takes to deny the Taliban and Al qaeda a safe haven then we shall lose and they shall win.


Enlighten me please.


We should go where are enemy is. We should kill him and break his things until he stops waging war against us. Did you think this was going to be easy?



It seems you know as little about business as you do about war.



One has to wonder where all the defeatists come from. Is your life so dear that you would purchase it with Sharia chains?

"If we are not prepared to stay there as long as it takes to deny the Taliban and Al qaeda a safe haven then we shall lose and they shall win."

You werent prepared to do that in Iraq, you wont do it in Afghanistan.

By the way the Insurgent killings still go on in that country, you got to a point where you couldnt change the country from what it was and decided to leave rather than waste more blood in the cycle of violence.

The same will happen in Afghanistan. In Iraq this September, The month saw 182 civilians, 88 police and 95 soldiers killed in attacks across Iraq, official figures show.

BBC News - Iraq attacks: September 'deadliest month for two years'

"We should go where are enemy is. We should kill him and break his things until he stops waging war against us. Did you think this was going to be easy?"

Your simply not doing that, Pakistan is the perfect example and to be honest I don't think you could fight on all the different fronts anyway. Not that alot of bother has gone into actually understanding the countries where AQ has managed to set up.



On Guerilla war:
How could a bunch of Yankee colonial settlers take on the might of the British Army?
How could an impoverished people in the Desert take on the British, Russian, and US Army?
How could a bunch of impoverished Irish civillians take on the British Army?
How could a guy like Fidel Castro or Che Guevara come to power?
How could Mao Zedong come to power?

This type of warfare has been used effectivley countless times throughout history, and throughout Afghanistans history.


Guerrilla warfare is a form of irregular warfare in which a small group of combatants including, but not limited to, armed civilians (or "irregulars") use military tactics, such as ambushes, sabotage, raids, petty warfare, the element of surprise, and extraordinary mobility to harass a larger and less-mobile traditional army, or strike a vulnerable target, and withdraw almost immediately.



A better term to have been used for this conflict would have been - Asymmetric warfare which is war between belligerents whose relative military power differs significantly, or whose strategy or tactics differ significantly.

Terrain can be used as a force multiplier by the smaller force and as a force inhibitor against the larger force. Such terrain is called difficult terrain.
The locals have the advantage against the foreign military. The other multipliers are population, local knowledge, ability to take casulties, influence on outside media. The hearts and minds of the local population are the key factor in winning such a war.

Look at the populations reaction to AQ in Benghazi after the killing of the US Ambassador:
BBC News - Libya: Islamist militia bases stormed in Benghazi

This is also a new type of enemy which requires a flexible approach:

"Unless transnational violent Islamism is first nationalized and then
transformed in both ideological and organizational terms through its
co-optation into the mainstream political process, it is highly unlikely
to become amenable to persuasion. It is, indeed, unlikely to be susceptible
to any external influence. It is even less likely to be crushed by
repression, which it actually thrives on. In this sense, the most radical
and the most perilous supranational al-Qaeda-inspired breed of violent
Islamism...its converts do not defend a territory,
nation or state. They fight for an all-embracing mode of existence,
a way of life, a holistic and global system through the establishment
of the ‘direct rule of God on earth’ as they genuinely
believe."

E Stepanova:

http://books.sipri.org/files/RR/SIPRIRR23.pdf

"It seems you know as little about business as you do about war."

Yeah thanks Mistervertis Hawk, and what do you know?

"One has to wonder where all the defeatists come from. Is your life so dear that you would purchase it with Sharia chains?"

This isnt WW2 so quit the melodrama
 
Yeah...you are right. It's better to make bad decisions...stick with them even though everyone knows they are bad...until you have no choice but to make a new decision and try to, somehow, spin the bad one to be...if not good, then not so bad. That's the liberal way. A prime example is the recent events in Libya.

You mean like invading Iraq over WMD's and then changing the reason for the invasion after finding no WMD's?

People don't buy the idea that Republicans are experts in foreign policy. You can thank Bush and his team for blowing that perception away.
 
One must match the goals to our needs. Our goal should be to deny safe haven to terrorists. I do not know the right troop levels to accomplish that. But the professionals do.

The professionals are starting to say openly that our soldiers sent to fight in Afghanistan is one thing...sending them over there to get murdered....shot in the back by supposed Allies is another.

It's a **** hole. The war was lost a long time ago. When you can't even attempt to accomplish your mission (transition to Afghan forces) without getting gunned down by the very soldiers you're training the gig is up.
 
Let's see. The USA is not an imperialistic Nation, but we have military bases in about 140 Countries. Why not 141?

Sure it's imperialistic. Why not?

It's sad, but understandable that you hold this view, because your job as a contractor benefits directly from this situation. For the rest of us who can view the situation objectively, it's madness.

It's people like you that are the reason we're in this situation in the first place. War is a business, and business is goooood.

Sure it is. You've benefitted handsomely, too. Enjoy!
 
You mean like invading Iraq over WMD's and then changing the reason for the invasion after finding no WMD's?

People don't buy the idea that Republicans are experts in foreign policy. You can thank Bush and his team for blowing that perception away.

Like most liberals, you've seized on one issue as the reason for attacking Saddam and ignore the rest. If I remember correctly, there were some 25 or so reasons given by Bush BEFORE the invasion. WMD's was just one of them.
 
Like most liberals, you've seized on one issue as the reason for attacking Saddam and ignore the rest. If I remember correctly, there were some 25 or so reasons given by Bush BEFORE the invasion. WMD's was just one of them.

Saddam was not the guy we should have gone after, after 9/11.

I think that trumps any reason given for attacking Saddam.
 
Saddam was not the guy we should have gone after, after 9/11.

I think that trumps any reason given for attacking Saddam.

Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

Sorry, dude...I just took away your trump.
 
Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

Sorry, dude...I just took away your trump.

I'm confused. The fact that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 is the biggest reason why we should not have invaded Iraq.
 
Like most liberals, you've seized on one issue as the reason for attacking Saddam and ignore the rest. If I remember correctly, there were some 25 or so reasons given by Bush BEFORE the invasion. WMD's was just one of them.

The rest have always been issues. It's only by using post-9/11 fear and "mushroom clouds" over American cities that Bush convinced us to go to war to track down those WMD's.
 
Then you must be saying, "War is good business," let's have more of it, because it makes jobs for people. You are supporting the wars. OK, but don't try to make it sound innocent. It is ugly, evil policy. Just say, let's gin up some more chaos, mayhem, destruction and death. Don't be shy.

I just saw this. Who was being shy?
 
The rest have always been issues. It's only by using post-9/11 fear and "mushroom clouds" over American cities that Bush convinced us to go to war to track down those WMD's.

The real connection is that 9/11 compelled American polcymakers to take a more proactive stance with regards to the Middle East. No longer was it deemed to be prudent to be passive regarding the prerevolutionary atmosphere of the region that promotes extremist iedologies.

That's your real answer. Leftists don't like it because it justifies the concept of the invasion. Rightists don't like it because it ignores the moral/tribal aspect of America being "good".

It's just simple pragmatic thinking.
 
I'm confused. The fact that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 is the biggest reason why we should not have invaded Iraq.

That's not true. Bush had numerous reasons to invade Iraq that had nothing to do with 9/11...and Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, agreed with him.
 
The real connection is that 9/11 compelled American polcymakers to take a more proactive stance with regards to the Middle East. No longer was it deemed to be prudent to be passive regarding the prerevolutionary atmosphere of the region that promotes extremist iedologies.

That's your real answer. Leftists don't like it because it justifies the concept of the invasion. Rightists don't like it because it ignores the moral/tribal aspect of America being "good".

It's just simple pragmatic thinking.

Sure perspective in regards to foreign policy shifted....9/11 compelled American policymakers (and American citizens) to take a more pro-active stance. I'm not arguing against that.

The problem of course is what was a valid reason (to strip Saddam of WMD's and stop him from getting the nuke) was incorrect. Not only incorrect but based on reporting since the decision to invade, it's come to light that intelligence was cherry picked to prove the presence of WMD's. That's kind of a big deal and well beyond a change in stance in regards to foreign policy.

You seem to strip the decision to go to war of basically everything of meaning in order to present Iraq as some natural flow of foreign policy. Some inevitable branch off of the 9/11 attack.
 
The real connection is that 9/11 compelled American polcymakers to take a more proactive stance with regards to the Middle East. No longer was it deemed to be prudent to be passive regarding the prerevolutionary atmosphere of the region that promotes extremist iedologies.

That's your real answer. Leftists don't like it because it justifies the concept of the invasion. Rightists don't like it because it ignores the moral/tribal aspect of America being "good".

It's just simple pragmatic thinking.

The terrorists were using the excuse of the U.S. being bent on killing muslims in a "crusade" to get new recruits. Bush's "answer" was to invade a muslim country and kill 100,000 muslims and we are surpised that Alqeada got lots more members? The invasion of Iraq helped the terrorists and Iran and did nothing to avenge 911, yet diehards still defend it?
 
The terrorists were using the excuse of the U.S. being bent on killing muslims in a "crusade" to get new recruits. Bush's "answer" was to invade a muslim country and kill 100,000 muslims and we are surpised that Alqeada got lots more members? The invasion of Iraq helped the terrorists and Iran and did nothing to avenge 911, yet diehards still defend it?

Die hards defend any war. Some of them are still defending Vietnam. It's the "my country right or wrong" philosophy that prevailed among the war supporters of the Vietnam era, and still does in the Iraq war era.

My country may be right, but its leaders are often wrong.
 
...what? In what world is someone okay with war the 'diehard'? You'd think the people vehemently against them would be more likely to be called such.
 
...what? In what world is someone okay with war the 'diehard'? You'd think the people vehemently against them would be more likely to be called such.

A diehard is someone who refuses to give up no matter how wrong they are.
 
Back
Top Bottom