The Taliban

[Guest090920]

Originally Posted by Longermonger

Are you saying that Bush was mislead by Colin Powell? Wasn't Colin Powell mislead by Tenet (CIA)? And Bush would have been mislead by Cheney and other Neocons more than by Tenet or anyone else. I just don't buy that the White House was full of passive victims that were mislead. After all, the President is by definition a leader (if not mis-leader). The Downing Street memo shows how Bush was "leading".

"There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Bush wanted regime change and merely used the threat of WMDs and terrorism as tools.

You're doing it again, LM, so please do share your opinion with us and answer your own questions, please....I'm interested in not only your answers, but also your logic. Thanks.

[Guest090920]

Originally Posted by dirty dog

Well it depends on how you look at it, is it worth it, if it stopped attacks from occuring on American soil it was, if it sent the message that if you attack us we will respond it was, what if we had done nothing, do you think Al Qeda would have been encouraged or discouraged. If you base it soley on whether or not we captured Bin Bin, then no it wasn't. Would it have been worth it has we fought the war the right way, yeah it would have been. Bush didnt and neither has Obama, so like I have said before, if were not going to fight to win, then pull out and let them kill each other.

Since I asked for more clarification from others, I owe you my opinion as well. I agree with DD in that my biggest frustration with our "war efforts" haven't been focused on what I call winning. Both Wellendowed and LM have made some good points and I agree with the basis of their arguements, but I also agree with DD.

Maybe we should have spent the money on deporting terrorists, certain religious groups and foreign nationalists instead of fighting "wars". The groups, if you will, that we are fighting will never give up until they are all dead, having sacrificed themselves for allah. I wish Mr. Obama would give them their death wish!

[lacrew_2000]

I think many of the Taliban are proxies for the Iranian government....same as 'Al Quaeda in Iraq'. And of course, Iran supports Hamas.

It is all tied together, and certainly not as simple as a traditional war. We put our head in the sand for decades, pretending terrorism was a small nuisance...and then we got a wake up call. When Bush first sent troops to Afghanistan, two months after Sep 11, all I heard from both sides of the aisle was, 'what took you so long?'. It was a very popular move then, and looked upon as necessary.

Has it helped prevent more terrorist attacks? I dunno.

Is it still considered necessary? I dunno, but pulling out now would show weakness (and probably result in a mass slaughter). So it looks like we're in for the long term, reguardless of what the president said last year at West Point. The question is, if we are there, how do we 'win'. I believe it is by demonstrating we have more strength than the Taliban. Whereever the Taliban is discovered, they should be attacked immediately, with great force. This of course would require even more troops and equipment, which is risky. The limited access we have to that country all but ensures that every bit of hardware we send over there will not ever come back.

BTW, I have to correct a statement from a previous post in this thread. There has been some discussion of 'neocons' on another thread. In the purest definition of a Neocon, Dick Cheney is not one. I forget who the quote is attributable to, but is goes "A neocon is a liberal mugged by reality'. Simply, the term Neocon means 'new conservative', or a democrat who eventually becomes a republican, primarily because of national security concerns. If Joe Lieberman were to defect to the republican party, as he almost did before McCain picked Palin, he would be a bona fide neocon.

Because neocons defect to the republican party for national security reasons, they do have a tendency to have very clear and unified views on foreign policy, which are coincident with Cheney's philosophy...so many people have started to use the term as a description of foreign policy philosophy...and quite often in a pejorative sense.

Now, many Neocons are like Lieberman...jewish. American jews are primarily democrats, but occasionally high profile jews will defect to the republicans, and become noecons (worried about the survival of Israel). For this reason, many have associated the pejorative use of 'neocon' to be code for 'jews'.

Anyway, I see it constantly, but I had to mention it...when I see Cheny, Rice, Rumsfeld called neocons, I usually quit reading, because 90% of those who use the term are unclear over its meaning or origin.

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by scorpio31

Please provide us with your answers to your questions. I'm interested in what you think.

Well honestly I been confused- during our initial invasion we were able to overthrow the Taliban in a week and that was doing it alone without NATO and now it seems like the Taliban is stronger than ever. i am baffled because compared the stregth of the U.S military, NATO and the Afghan Govt to the Taliban would be like comparing a PitBull to a Poddle- one would think that the Taliban would have been crushed by the massive U.S & nATO forces. I hope this is not a political war that will be drawn out for years to come. So my true feeling is how in the hell are the Taliban still not defeated and crushed?

[Cheaper2buyit]

I did't read most of what people said but this is the taliban are like gangs or like rough parts of kc they don't get paid to fight they fight to get paid. Sorry our troups don't have they hart to beat them. you can only beat them if you nuke the whole country. you have never seen a war won agasint a non state enamay. who will declare that we won or say they lost

[N2SEX46]

As a retired military officer, I offer the following: Saddam used his tough talk and rhetoric against his hated enemy, Iran NOT the United States. Saddam was brutal but he wasn't stupid. He knew he could never whip the USA/NATO. If he ever did think so, it was before the shellacking his Republican Guard Army took in Operation Desert Storm. After that, he knew the USA and NATO were in essence gross overkill. He had no WMD; Bush knew it, so did Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice and everyone else in D.C. Yes, even General Powell knew it, but he sold the need for war to the UN and the American people. He also threw away any chance he may have had to run for a higher office. I don't believe he wanted to be president, anyway or he could have run and would have been a popular choice, possibly a winner, but we'll never know. Perhaps he had some skeletons in his closet or that he didn't want to subject his family to the scrutiny and muckraking of our journalist. He saw first hand the likes of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove and their dirty works. Again, the threat for WMD was aimed at Iran, not the United States. Our politicians, intelligence agencies and leader all knew it. Remember GW making reference to Saddam regarding the attempt on his Daddy, which Clinton retaliated in kind.

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Well honestly I been confused- during our initial invasion we were able to overthrow the Taliban in a week and that was doing it alone without NATO and now it seems like the Taliban is stronger than ever. i am baffled because compared the stregth of the U.S military, NATO and the Afghan Govt to the Taliban would be like comparing a PitBull to a Poddle- one would think that the Taliban would have been crushed by the massive U.S & nATO forces. I hope this is not a political war that will be drawn out for years to come. So my true feeling is how in the hell are the Taliban still not defeated and crushed?

Well I am not sure that your seeing the strength of the American military, according to a quick internet check troop strengh in Afghanistan even after the increase by Obama is only 50900, using the old formula of two troops in support for every fighting man that leaves only 16900 fighting men on the ground. The physical make up of the landscape deminishes the capability of our air power. For years we fough a holding pattern here waiting for the Afghan security forces to develope, to this day they still haven't and I am not sure when they ever will be.

Cheaper I have to disagree with you, its not a lack of heart, hell I have never met a marine that did not want to fight all the time. The true difference and the true object of frustration is that the Taliban have no rules to play with. If they kill civillans they dont care, if they blow up their own homes, they dont care. The American and nato forces fight with one hand tied behind their back. If they come under attack by a force hiding in a mosque for example, they cannot return fire, until they get permission from the Afghan government. Then they have to wait for Afghan troops to enter the facility as American forces are not allowed. We cannot fire on civillians, so if a pocket of Taliban hide themselves amongst a civillian population we are unablel to retaliate until the civillians are gone. These rules hinder US forces not the taliban who are well aware of them because of defectors or plants in the Afghan security forces. SO cheaper I am not sure I would call it a lack of heart.

[N2SEX46]

It isn't for lack of heart. Even in Vietnam, where I served there two tours (although I wasn't a combat warrior or even any great shakes), I have to say our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines hated having a hand tied behind our backs. It was very frustrating. Johnson and McNamara made rules for us (they were rules of what we could not do) but forgot to hold the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong to them. They were afraid of hitting Russian and Chinese advisors at the missile launchers. The Russians were off limits. However, it was all right if our advisors were killed by the enemy. If the Russians were there, they should not have been, therefore, they were fair game. More than a few pilots were shot down because their (LBJ & McNmara) decisions to leave the missile launchers alone was strictly enforced. One pilot returning from a mission saw that his buddies would have to go through a barrage of SAM-2's waiting, so he circled and took both of them out. Instead of giving him an Air Medal and possibly the DFC, the pilot was recalled to the States and his career ended.
We servicemen in Vietnam would have enjoyed fighting our war the way the Colliation were allowed during the 100 hours of the great route. Our forces today are better trained, equipped and supported than we were during Vietnam. They are dedicated warriors, wanting to fight this war to a successful conclusion and go home to their families. These Middle East countries have never known democracy as we know it. I hope I am wrong, but I think Mr. Bush' noble plan for establishing a democratic government is an effort in futility. Look at the election fraud in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan. Like DD said, they don't care if they kill civilians, et. al., they don't hold the high regard to life like we do. We fight to live and make the world a better place, they fight to die, believing 72 virgins are waiting for them in the next world.

[john_galt]

We had no choice but to attack Afghanistan as that is where the attack on the World Trade Center came from. Maybe we should have gone after Saudi Arabia but as far as we know the government was not involved unlike the Taliban. Many have compared Iraq to Vietnam incorrectly but that comparison can be made to Afghanistan. We have an enemy (Iran) that is using a make believe line to hide behind while they ship weapons and supplies to our enemies. It would be in our best interests to catch some Iranians in the act and take them out with very extreme prejudice.

Bin Laden has become a symbol of victory of Islam over the US. Muslims strongly believe in symbols. Our proof of his capture or death would be a strong symbol that Islam is not all powerful.

[BiggestBest]

This discovery will change the face of Afghanistan, the War, and the region:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/wo...4minerals.html

From the article:

"The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials."

[dirty dog]

Wanna bet that now we will see a whole bunch of anti war business folks deciding that our presence in Afghanistan is of the unmost necessity LOL. I love this country LOL.........

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by dirty dog

Well I am not sure that your seeing the strength of the American military, according to a quick internet check troop strengh in Afghanistan even after the increase by Obama is only 50900, using the old formula of two troops in support for every fighting man that leaves only 16900 fighting men on the ground. The physical make up of the landscape deminishes the capability of our air power. For years we fough a holding pattern here waiting for the Afghan security forces to develope, to this day they still haven't and I am not sure when they ever will be.

Cheaper I have to disagree with you, its not a lack of heart, hell I have never met a marine that did not want to fight all the time. The true difference and the true object of frustration is that the Taliban have no rules to play with. If they kill civillans they dont care, if they blow up their own homes, they dont care. The American and nato forces fight with one hand tied behind their back. If they come under attack by a force hiding in a mosque for example, they cannot return fire, until they get permission from the Afghan government. Then they have to wait for Afghan troops to enter the facility as American forces are not allowed. We cannot fire on civillians, so if a pocket of Taliban hide themselves amongst a civillian population we are unablel to retaliate until the civillians are gone. These rules hinder US forces not the taliban who are well aware of them because of defectors or plants in the Afghan security forces. SO cheaper I am not sure I would call it a lack of heart.

You make some very good points as well as others on here, but here's a question I have for you: You stated that the Taliban has no rules to play by so it makes certain operations difficult, but couldn't one say the same thing about Al-Queada and Iraq? I mean Al-Queada was blowing up everything In Iraq and they killd far more innocent civilians than they did Americans but we managed to achieve "victory" to a certain degree in Iraq so why is the Taliban any different. I also think Al-Queada and the insurgents were better armed than the Taliban and has access to much better resources than do the Taliban but we were able to crush the Insurgents and nearly run Al-queada out of Iraq.

[dirty dog]

Well Iraq is a more advance society than Afghanistan, so their security force or army is a lot farther along, we also had 150 thousand boots on the ground, 150000 American soldiers makes considerably more of an impact than 50900 that we saw at the height of the Afghan war. However let me say that you speak as if the Taliban is kicking our ass and that is not the case, they were nearly wiped out but were allowed to rebuild because we were trying to transfer this responsibility to the Afghan security force. You also have the issue of landscape, the landscape of Afghanistan makes it considerably more dificult to find and kill the enemy, Iraq is a little more wide open and accessible. We also need to lose the idea that the Taliban is not Al-queda, what we currently call the Taliban is comprised of Iranian Insurgents, Al-Queda and former Taliban soldiers, you may also have to include pakistani insurgents into the mix to, the current Taliban have access to all the modern equipment and are as well armed as those in Iraq. The question that also must be addressed is have we achieved victory in any way in Iraq, is the relative peace we are seeing now, simply the insurgents waiting us out. We have announced we are leaving, what since would it make to ramp up the violence and maybe force us to stay, I think for the most part they are laying low waiting for the day we announced were leaving. I suspect that once we have left, it wont be long before the current government is overthrown and taken over by a government put in place by the insurgents.

[Cheaper2buyit]

dd you are right our boys & girls over there & every where have love for the usa but they are never going to win not unless we do a full pledge bomb war I mean bomb every thing that moves you have to scare them to the point where its not worth it. take out the ground troups and leave black ops & spotters & bomb baby bomb.as long as they can kill one of ours they don't care if it takes for 45 of theirs to die to do it is a win in their mind. they take a win one day at a time one body at a time. & hell they don't have anything else to do( they don't have strip clubs you know)

[catnipdipper]

I don't think that the Taliban, nor Al Quaida is afraid of us and that is the problem.

Now I watch a show called "lockdown" I think it is on Nat Geo from time to time. I also watch Gangland and History Channel.

Why not empty Death Row, Hard Core Lifers and Gang Members, Crips,Bloods, La Eme, Arayan Nation and drop them into Afghanistan by parachute and given a weapon. Ammo is dropped later with some food and water. Maybe Biker gangs too and drop the cycles in later.

The savings would be enormous, we would be safer, and as I know I hope these dudes never ever get out I think the Taliban might become convinced of the same thing. I doubt those that we drop would ever convert and I doubt the entities would ever seek peace with one another.

Just a suggestion.