• 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!

Should We Get Out Of Afganistan?

Should the U.S. pull it's troops out of Afganistan?


  • Total voters
    48
After almost 9 years & a worsening situation in that god-forsaken country, is it time to declare victory & leave?

If you want Obama have one more statement to add to his continually growing list of lies, this would be the correct plan of action.

I think we need to evaluate how well the war in Afghanistan is really benefitting the war on terror and our country. Really it should be the UN that puts forth effort to stabilize dangerous countries like Afghanistan, too bad the UN NEVER brings anything substantial to the table...
 
Should We Get Out Of Afganistan,no wipe that garbish out and take over their
land for ever and keep it,send a million troups in and lets them know who is the boss,

America.

thats the way to do it.

If the Paki or Afganis dont like it f-ck them,treat them as slaves,as what they
did to us will never be forgoten.So if game they want to play they will loose,
and put in the sewers where there home is.

oh yes.

mikeey.
 
After almost 9 years & a worsening situation in that god-forsaken country, is it time to declare victory & leave?

I am always amused when Liberals think that one can just declare a victory then run away from an unfinished job. It's kind of like signing a treaty with the North Vietnamese and South Vietnamese with the promise to our ally that if the North violates the treaty we will come to their aid; then abandon them when the treaty is violated less than a year later.

What is more fascinating is that we are now seeing editorials in the liberal media that are now making the same arguments for abandoning Afghanistan as they made for abandoning Iraq. I thought the Libruls believed that Afghanistan was the “good” war?

I guess this is their way of saying the Obama Administration is inept in fighting this war and that he cannot win it.
:doh
 
The difference between Afghanistan and Iraq is that Afghanistan was legitimate target after 9/11. We should have never left there and gone off to fight some retard war in Iraq.

This again is false; we never "left" Afghanistan, it was turned over to the NATO by the UN to manage.

I'm not so willing to say Afghanistan wasn't our war, but we screwed the pooch hard on this one.

Gee, sounds like the UN can't seem to do anything right eh?

I am always amused when people think that wars can be fought without mistakes, without cost, without sacrifice and in the time it takes to order a burger at Burger King. :doh
 
Good God no! The only reason Afghanistan began to go poorly in the first place was the lack of focus given to it by the military in favor of Iraq. Despite what you say, Devil, this is a war US and international forces are capable of fighting. If it weren't for the Bush administration's focus on Iraq I would have bet dollars to donuts that Afghanistan would be a fairly stable region (by middle eastern standards) by now.

Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the issues confronting the UN/NATO led forces in Afghanistan; but of course many here like to pretend it is to support their absurd ideas about our military, its capabilities and how wars are fought and won.

Many of these same individuals tend to think that wars can be fought without mistakes, without cost, without sacrifice and in the time it takes to order a burger at Burger King.
 
I am always amused when Liberals think that one can just declare a victory then run away from an unfinished job.


Yeah...Don't you just hate it when liberals do that!
 

Attachments

  • Mission-accomplished.jpg
    Mission-accomplished.jpg
    43.9 KB · Views: 116
This is quite simple actually. The problem is that people have no idea how to define "victory" in today's wars. We are already victorious. Staying and finishing the job implies that there is still work for us to do on the ground, but when the host government is as corrupt as what Vietnam's was in 1971, there is no job left to finish. Leaving a mobile force in the area will only leave them stranded without proper support as the host government continues to remain dependant on American muscle. And only part of this is and always was our fight.

Our mission in Iraq was to destroy the dictator and offer Iraq an opportunity at democracy. We accomplished our mission and it is up to Iraqis to follow through on their end for the rest. It will be their success or failure.

The same is true for Afghanistan. The Tali-Ban was removed from power and Al-Queda's base shattered in quick fashion and Osama Bin Laden is no longer a physical player. But the vast corruption in the Afghani government has not allowed the Afghanis to step up. Afghanis have failed. We have not. It is time to stop fooling ourselves into thinking that we have to "fix what we break," especially considering that this region was already broke.

When it comes to this Afghani/Pakistani region, our roles need to be relegated to punishment. We should pull our troops out and strike as needed via UAVs, missiles, and special forces launched from sea bases.

Our role as a "nation builder" must be defined into more practical terms. We have to understand that no matter what we do, we can and always do come home. The failed will always be these people who can't fathom a world beyond tribal allegiance, religious extremism, and corruption and oppression.
 
Last edited:
This is quite simple actually. The problem is that people have no idea how to define "victory" in today's wars. We are already victorious. Staying and finishing the job implies that there is still work for us to do on the ground, but when the host government is as corrupt as what Vietnam's was in 1971, there is no job left to finish. Leaving a mobile force in the area will only leave them stranded without proper support as the host government continues to remain dependant on American muscle. And only part of this is and always was our fight.

Our mission in Iraq was to destroy the dictator and offer Iraq an opportunity at democracy. We accomplished our mission and it is up to Iraqis to follow through on their end for the rest. It will be their success or failure.

The same is true for Afghanistan. The Tali-Ban was removed from power and Al-Queda's base shattered in quick fashion and Osama Bin Laden is no longer a physical player. But the vast corruption in the Afghani government has not allowed the Afghanis to step up. Afghanis have failed. We have not. It is time to stop fooling ourselves into thinking that we have to "fix what we break," especially considering that this region was already broke.

When it comes to this Afghani/Pakistani region, our roles need to be relegated to punishment. We should pull our troops out and strike as needed via UAVs, missiles, and special forces launched from sea bases.

Our role as a "nation builder" must be defined into more practical terms. We have to understand that no matter what we do, we can and always do come home. The failed will always be these people who can't fathom a world beyond tribal allegiance, religious extremism, and corruption and oppression.

Great post but way to deep & thoughtful for the simple minded far-right-wingers! (Their attention span only allows for simple one line talking points & jingoistic slogans.
What you say requires thought, which is simply beyond their capability!
 
Yes, with one exception. As George Wills aptly points out:

Afghanistan's $23 billion gross domestic product is the size of Boise's. Counterinsurgency doctrine teaches, not very helpfully, that development depends on security, and that security depends on development. Three-quarters of Afghanistan's poppy production for opium comes from Helmand. In what should be called Operation Sisyphus, U.S. officials are urging farmers to grow other crops. Endive, perhaps?

washingtonpost.com

If Afghanistan can find something it does comparatively well and with high enough value to absorb the shipping costs, then we should stay. Without development, we'll be fighting the same war for decades.
 
Great post but way to deep & thoughtful for the simple minded far-right-wingers! (Their attention span only allows for simple one line talking points & jingoistic slogans.
What you say requires thought, which is simply beyond their capability!

I find the left even more confused.
 
The difference between Afghanistan and Iraq is that Afghanistan was legitimate target after 9/11. We should have never left there and gone off to fight some retard war in Iraq. What should we do now? Well now it's hard to say. Can we make a difference? Maybe. Can we clear up the mess which led to the freedom the Taliban enjoyed in the country? Maybe not so much any more. It will be tough, I don't know how it would be done, and who knows we may get side tracked into a different war while doing it.

I'm not so willing to say Afghanistan wasn't our war, but we screwed the pooch hard on this one.

Unfortunately, as you said, we handled it so piss-poorly that I don't know if there's any hope in actually accomplishing anything. We're sure not going to wipe out Al-Quaeda and to be honest, the only reason Bush went after the Taliban is they were an embarrassment to us. We have a long history of stabbing people we used to support in the back.

Unless they can offer some reason to think they can actually find bin Laden and actually cause serious harm to Al-Quaeda by remaining there, we ought to pull out and be honest in our failure.
 
This again is false; we never "left" Afghanistan, it was turned over to the NATO by the UN to manage.

Well....****ed that one up then didn't we? Point still stands.

Gee, sounds like the UN can't seem to do anything right eh?

I am always amused when people think that wars can be fought without mistakes, without cost, without sacrifice and in the time it takes to order a burger at Burger King. :doh

I am always amused when people think that strict adherence to failing policies will actually lead to a solution.

Also if I was waiting at a Burger King for close to 8 years...I'd be a little pissed off and I don't think that would be unwarranted.
 
Last edited:
I am always amused when people think that strict adherence to failing policies will actually lead to a solution.

I am amused that you think people are arguing for strict adherence to failing policies; no, it is actually ironic in that all your arguments suggest an adherence to the failed policy of never finishing anything we start and abandoning our allies while falling for terrorist propaganda.

Bin Laden had it right; I was hoping that 9-11 would prove him wrong; I guess I had too much faith in the American people's ability to remember anything past the last episode of Survivor.

Also if I was waiting at a Burger King for close to 8 years...I'd be a little pissed off and I don't think that would be unwarranted.

Well obviously you think wars can be fought without mistakes, without cost, without sacrifice and in the time it takes to order a burger at Burger King.

Do me a favor, when you find one historic example of a war being fought without mistakes, without cost and without sacrifice in less than a year, get back to me okay?
 
Well obviously you think wars can be fought without mistakes,

I don't think ANYONE believes that to be true of the Bush Administration.

(but quite possible for the neocons to fight wars with nothing but mistakes however!);)
 
This is quite simple actually. The problem is that people have no idea how to define "victory" in today's wars. We are already victorious. Staying and finishing the job implies that there is still work for us to do on the ground, but when the host government is as corrupt as what Vietnam's was in 1971, there is no job left to finish. Leaving a mobile force in the area will only leave them stranded without proper support as the host government continues to remain dependant on American muscle. And only part of this is and always was our fight.

In the case of Vietnam, we abandoned them when the North Vietnamese continued to defy their agreements and eventually re-invaded the country.

While I never agreed with the method in which this war was fought nor the idea that Vietnam had any strategic purpose for us to send half a million troops in the first place. But once that commitment was made and agreements signed, we should have stood by our ally regardless of how corrupt the regime may have been and continually worked to improve their efforts towards Democracy.

The applies even more so to the Middle East as there is a vast strategic interest in supporting allies there and preventing the advancement of terrorist regimes.

It doesn’t matter how corrupt the current regimes may be or how long it takes us to be there until their fledgling Democracies begin to bloom. These are, after all, nations that never had representative Government in their entire histories and these things take time. I don’t care if we have to be there for 100 years. It is the ONLY viable strategy that will have a chance versus the failed policies of the past decades.

Our mission in Iraq was to destroy the dictator and offer Iraq an opportunity at democracy. We accomplished our mission and it is up to Iraqis to follow through on their end for the rest. It will be their success or failure.

This statement is incorrect; our mission in Iraq was to enforce the agreements and UN resolutions the despotic regime of Saddam spent a decade ignoring. As part of that strategy, Saddam’s regime was to be replaced with a representative Democracy in an effort to prevent another despot from taking over an oil rich nation and create future problems.

Again, if we have to be there 100 years from now; that should be the goal in order to promote Democracy and peace in the region. Nothing can defeat terrorism more surely than education and prosperity. Those are the long term goals and they can only be achieved through a Democratically elected representative government.

The same is true for Afghanistan. The Tali-Ban was removed from power and Al-Queda's base shattered in quick fashion and Osama Bin Laden is no longer a physical player. But the vast corruption in the Afghani government has not allowed the Afghanis to step up. Afghanis have failed. We have not. It is time to stop fooling ourselves into thinking that we have to "fix what we break," especially considering that this region was already broke.

Again based on my above comments, I vehemently disagree with this notion. We have to be committed to spend the next 100 years supporting Democracy if that is what it takes.

When it comes to this Afghani/Pakistani region, our roles need to be relegated to punishment. We should pull our troops out and strike as needed via UAVs, missiles, and special forces launched from sea bases.

Here we are in agreement but we also need on the ground intelligence.

Our role as a "nation builder" must be defined into more practical terms. We have to understand that no matter what we do, we can and always do come home. The failed will always be these people who can't fathom a world beyond tribal allegiance, religious extremism, and corruption and oppression.

We spent 60 years in Europe after WWII and it was a stunning success in promoting peace and prosperity. Why should we suddenly believe this issue in the ME should be treated differently?
 
I am amused that you think people are arguing for strict adherence to failing policies; no, it is actually ironic in that all your arguments suggest an adherence to the failed policy of never finishing anything we start and abandoning our allies while falling for terrorist propaganda.

Bin Laden had it right; I was hoping that 9-11 would prove him wrong; I guess I had too much faith in the American people's ability to remember anything past the last episode of Survivor.

Well maybe you and your BFF Obama can text each other back and forth on how stupid America is. I am amused that people argue for forever war thinking somehow to make a situation better through engaging in the actions which made it bad in the first place...horrible intervention. I am amused that people can look at an incompetently run war with no real forethought to victory and shoring up the region and call it "mistakes". I am not amused that some continually call for the deaths of Americans in wars which had little to do with us, or which were terribly run, handled, and planned. But hey, that's just me.

Well obviously you think wars can be fought without mistakes, without cost, without sacrifice and in the time it takes to order a burger at Burger King.

Do me a favor, when you find one historic example of a war being fought without mistakes, without cost and without sacrifice in less than a year, get back to me okay?

Well obviously thinking isn't your strong suit. Because instead of idiotic knee jerk reactions like "obviously blah blah blah", you could have thought of other conditions. But I guess it's like blood from a stone that one. I don't think things can be fought without mistake. But things can be fought overall in an intelligent manner with forethought and proper use of the military. Maybe not everything in other wars went according to plan, but there were plans and some had reasonable conditions.

But your sentences are nothing more than deflect jargon full of mind rotting tripe and propaganda best left ignored.
 
I don't think ANYONE believes that to be true of the Bush Administration.

(but quite possible for the neocons to fight wars with nothing but mistakes however!);)

Your trite simplistic hyper partisan remarks are hardly anything to take seriously.

Carry on; you continue making yourself completely irrelevant on this forum. :roll:
 
Well maybe you and your BFF Obama can text each other back and forth on how stupid America is. I am amused that people argue for forever war thinking somehow to make a situation better through engaging in the actions which made it bad in the first place...horrible intervention. I am amused that people can look at an incompetently run war with no real forethought to victory and shoring up the region and call it "mistakes". I am not amused that some continually call for the deaths of Americans in wars which had little to do with us, or which were terribly run, handled, and planned. But hey, that's just me.

I will take your empty hyperbolic blather as a concession and admission that you cannot counter my arguments with anything substantive or that can be supported by the facts and historic record.


Well obviously thinking isn't your strong suit. Because instead of idiotic knee jerk reactions like "obviously blah blah blah", you could have thought of other conditions. But I guess it's like blood from a stone that one. I don't think things can be fought without mistake. But things can be fought overall in an intelligent manner with forethought and proper use of the military. Maybe not everything in other wars went according to plan, but there were plans and some had reasonable conditions.

I will take your empty hyperbolic blather as a concession and admission that you cannot counter my arguments with anything substantive or that can be supported by the facts and historic record.

As stated earlier, when you can provide me ONE instance of a war that was fought without mistakes, without sacrifice and without great cost get back to me and perhaps we can have an intelligent debate.

But your sentences are nothing more than deflect jargon full of mind rotting tripe and propaganda best left ignored.

How ironic based on the mindless hyperbolic nonsense contained in your comments above to suggest that I am the one who is engaging in mind rotting tripe and propaganda best left ignored.

By all means, carry on; substantive and informed debate is apparently not your forte’.
 
I will take your empty hyperbolic blather as a concession and admission that you cannot counter my arguments with anything substantive or that can be supported by the facts and historic record. .

You have an argument?
 
Your trite simplistic hyper partisan remarks are hardly anything to take seriously.

Carry on; you continue making yourself completely irrelevant on this forum. :roll:

Oh come on TD.......Give us a hug!:2grouphug
 
I will take your empty hyperbolic blather as a concession and admission that you cannot counter my arguments with anything substantive or that can be supported by the facts and historic record.

It's the same BS we've heard and that has been dismissed long ago. Blah blah blah, terrorists, blah blah blah, they're out to get you, blah blah blah 9/11. The fact is we've been at war for nearly 8 years, it's unacceptable. We're the United States of America, it shouldn't take us 8 years to fight some back water country. It's all the occupation and imperialism which is drawing this crap out. And the whole needing another terrorist attack to remind us...sick. Even insinuating it is sick. Iraq wasn't about terrorism, Afghanistan was related to it; but we ****ed it up. Too bad, too sad. Guess we should have had someone with more than 3 functioning brain cells on that one. Now it's just fallen into horrible quagmire and is still being run ineffectively. If it's withdraw or ineffective war, I say withdraw.

I will take your empty hyperbolic blather as a concession and admission that you cannot counter my arguments with anything substantive or that can be supported by the facts and historic record.

As stated earlier, when you can provide me ONE instance of a war that was fought without mistakes, without sacrifice and without great cost get back to me and perhaps we can have an intelligent debate.

This is still mindless blather and pointless deflect. I already said, it's not about making a mistake it's the overall picture. Wars are dynamic entities and you have to go with that. But overall, there can be intelligent ways by which to fight war and drive to solution. That hasn't been the case in either Iraq or Afghanistan. They were not run intelligently. It's not to say there is never sacrafice or mistakes, but rather that there is an overall to how it's going to be run. What are the goals, how can you get there, what do we do when we get there, how fast can we get there, etc. Questions which need to be asked and answered when entering into a war. If you just run in haphazardly without sufficient plan of end game, you get what we currently have. An overall ridiculously poor run war which costs nothing but tons of money and American lives. But if you're the big government, big deficit, big spending, big war type; you'd probably just make excuses for the war.

How ironic based on the mindless hyperbolic nonsense contained in your comments above to suggest that I am the one who is engaging in mind rotting tripe and propaganda best left ignored.

By all means, carry on; substantive and informed debate is apparently not your forte’.

There's no irony, it's just that a spade is a spade. Sorry if calling your posts what they really are offends you. It's not that substantive and informed debate is not my forte. It's just that it has been my experience on this site that with your posts, substantive and informed debate is impossible as I have rarely seen you argue anything along those lines.
 
Back
Top Bottom