Afghan massacre

[WTF]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I guess I shouldn't be disappointed that WTF is still trying to pick a fight even when we all agree in principal.

.

All I asked was what you thought about withdrawal. Were you one of the people that cried "Cut and Run'' in 2004? Another simple question.

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

It is past time to leave Afghanistan but I think (you asked) that the US has to make a real good faith effort to either protect or take with us any Afghans who put their lives (and this includes their families in this tribal society) on the line to help us.

.

We gave them a commitment. The question now becomes, "Should we Cut and Run?" as we sure as hell can not take them all with us.

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Do I blame this current administration? Is this the administration that said that Afghanistan was the good war?
Yes it was. Pure idiotic rhetoric on Obama's part IMHO. There is no such a thing as a 'good war'.
Is this the administration that decided that the war was not going to be or could not be won? No both Bush and now Obama have decided that. Ever hear of this quote from a famous democrat, "The Buck Stops Here"?

Yea. So what. Bush took us there and kept us there for 7 years, Obama has done no better IMHO. The buck stops at the feet of the voters. We all have pie on our face. If you want a fight so bad WTF why don't you go and take your own tour of Afghanistan otherwise go piss up a rope.

I never said I wanted to fight that war but we are there and I do not think it is as simple a solution as we are making it. I would like to hear from IB because he has actual experience there. I would like to know its strategic importance: Click onto the links and learn something.



http://cinemarasik.com/2009/10/10/af...o-america.aspx

http://www.stratfordbeaconherald.com...6&archive=true

There is much more to the story than meets the eye.

[DEPmic05]

The truth is that if we wanted to make a permanent change in Afghanistan, we would be committed for at least 20-30 years. The problem is that the current generation in Afghanistan is set in their ways and they have no intention changing the way they do things. We would have to focus on the children growing up and the ones to be born, getting them to see how we do things...one thing that is consistent is that those that work with us tend to want what we have. Given a few decades and the children growing up will be wanting to be more like us. Not a 100% turn around, but our influence will be felt more the longer we are there.

Bad part...expensive. I hate seeing us pour money into others while we face a deficit over $1 trillion and a debt over $15 trillion. It's insane. Last I heard, the natural resources of Afghanistan (rare metals, etc) is valued at over $1 trillion. Possibly up to $3 trillion. If we're going to stay there and do nation building, let's force the Afghans to foot the bill. If the world claims we are exploiting their natural resources...f*#k 'em! No one has ever complained when we give money out to others, and the Afghans haven't complained about taking our money. So they got no reason to complain if we manage their resources until they can take over.

Even though most people think Afghanistan has no importance on the world stage, it actually does. It sits right in the middle of Asia (well figuratively) with the old Soviet Republics and Russia to the north, China to the east, the Arab world to the west, India and Pakistan to the south. It's the location for the old Silk Road which connected east to west. Now, the big highway they built in Afghanistan (with our money) is being used to connect these countries together again. Also, most of the world's opium is grown there, making it attractive to drug dealers and other assorted scum willing to profit off the drug trade. We can ignore that country for a time, but eventually we'll have to deal with them again.

If the decision is made to pull out, then lets do it. We take everything that is ours, stomp the Taliban continuously till we leave (more than likely, the insurgents will step up their attacks on us when we're pulling out. Makes it look like they kicked our asses out of their country if their shooting at us as we leave), take those that worked with and helped us, and keep our heads held high for trying to make things better for others. If we decide to stay, then let's be smart about it and brutally honest about what it will take. Make sure we don't expend more than we should, make the Afghans pay the bill and if others don't like it...then they can step up and contribute $$, material and personnel.

[Laz]

I can't agree more that these countries we are helping should be using their resources to foot the bill. Our fear of looking bad is nuts. The fact that China is getting access to those resources after the cost we have paid is offensive.

Iraq is sitting on trillions of dollars worth of oil. Why we used our money to rebuild parts of their country is incomprehensible. I know the libs would have kept up the going to war over oil crap but who cares.

[CuteOldGuy]

The voters aren't to blame. One of Obama's major campaign promises was to get us out of these wars. That is what we expected him to do. He lied.

[JD Barleycorn]

Lets keep this real simple for WTF and company; in 2004 we were talking about Iraq and not Afghanistan. Afghanistan had been forgotten by everyone except the people who were there or their families. Did I say "cut and run" in 2004. You phrasing is weird but I was for staying the course in Iraq because it did have a working government before which means it could have a working government again. I was right by the way and you were probably wrong.
Today, we are talking about Afghanistan and not Iraq. Afghanistan has not had a reall working government in a long time depending on what you want to call a government. At present it appears hopeless but there is a strategy. We basically have to train a whole new generation of Afghans and that will take 20-30 years. So that is your question; are we willing to the hard thing or do we just leave now? I know WTF, he just wants to argue but here is a little history. In World War II the US state department decided that Germany was going to need a whole new generation of people who could run Germany, people who were not Nazis. In Kansas they set up a program to de-Nazify the thousands of soldier being held as POWs. They were taught about US history and the US Constitution. They discussed our government and elections. We could do the same thing in Afghanistan but we would have to IMPOSE our will on them. So again, do we do what is necessary or do we give it up and go?

[CJ7]

we should have never even considered Iraq, and been out of Afghanistan 6 months after we got there. Take either, if they're not wiling to fight for their own democracy why should we ? What happened to the republican mantra "strongest shall survive bullshit"

selective strongest? or does that rant only apply to Americans?

Give up and go home my Texas ass. AT what price do we draw the line and cut our losses JLSD? If youre not concerned about our fragile economy and want to stay in the mid east and spend a few billion taxpayer dollars a month, then you should never say another word about this economy, or mention the debt EVER again.

[WTF]

Let's keep it really simple for JD. I would have never had us in Iraq so there would have been no cut and run question. We would have ben in and out of the shithole we are in now but their is no denying the importance of that piece of what appears on first glan.ce , shitty real estate.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by DEPmic05

Saw too many combat stress cases when I was over there. Also know Service Members that have returned with noticeable changes in their personality. Nightmares, irritability, frustration, anger are all common for anyone that suffered a head injury. And every Service Member ever caught in an IED blast suffered head injuries. Some even got hit numerous times by IED blasts over their tour(s).

The Afghans...they don't expect us to stay. They never expect anyone to stay. Any new army that comes into their country, the afghans try to suck as much as they can out of them until they leave. That was the attitude you saw over there.

Stimulating the local economy by hiring locals to do work on bases? All that happens when you do that is that some Afghan businessman based in Kabul is awarded the contract, then sub-contracts down to other Afghans, paying them next to nothing to do the work. Meanwhile, the Afghan contractor keeps all the money he can and invests it into a home in Turkey, India, Saudi Arabia, even Europe. They get their families set up and when the US finally pulls out, they take off with all the money (the money that was intended to go into the local economy) and leave Afghanistan behind. I hated dealing with those contractors (you could identify them easily...pure white man-jammies, red dyed beard, very big mid-sections from good living).

There are some Afghans genuinely interested in changing things. They'll be killed when we leave. If their not quick enough to flee the country themselves when we get ready to pull out.

I wonder if we'll be taking in Afghan refugees similar to what happened with Vietnam. You do have to feel sorry for the Afghans that are allied with the US. The Taliban will probably torture them to death.

I read the other day that the one good thing the Taliban did was to crack down on the warlords taking young boys a sex slaves. Apparently that has been a common practice for a long time.
Islamic culture is a witches brew of evil.

In fourteen hundred years, there has never been a single successful Islamic democracy. We are waisting our blood and treasure trying to bring freedom to people that don't want to be free. Islam teaches that you are supposed to submit to the authority of Sharia law; your personal freedom is not important. Islam literally means submission.

[JD Barleycorn]

What's the matter WTF, drinking again? You admit that you were doing a bait and switch...how refreshing but shit hole is two words and I think you mispelled glance. I notice that you don't challenge what I said, smart lad.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

What's the matter WTF, drinking again? You admit that you were doing a bait and switch...how refreshing but shit hole is two words and I think you mispelled glance. I notice that you don't challenge what I said, smart lad.

I was posting from my phone dickhead. Is Dickhead one word or two?

Speaking of two. I noticed you never addressed you BS misinterpretation of my usage of that word.

I don't back away from shit.

Flat out ask me WTF ever you want. I'll not dodge it. Unless of course you start dodging any questions I have for you. That just turns into a shit talking contest and you do not stand a chance in one of those. You have shown very little knowledge in Healthcare Cost, I doubt that your Foreign Policy take is up to snuff but then again neither is mine.

It does sound like you were for the invasion of Iraq and I know I damn sure wasn't. That right there starts you off with two strikes. Two, you do understand that two as in 2?

So in the immortals words of our greatest President to ever come from the great state of Texas, "Bring it On!"

[Jackie S]

JD, here is the fatal flaw in your argument.

Islam.

[JD Barleycorn]

Islam is the reason that it would take generation to make a change and, unfortuneately there is still no guarantee.
As for WTF, how does supporting the war against the treaty breaker Hussein give me any strikes. You want us to assume that you are right which we both know that you're not. Iraq was justified, legal, and necessary. How the aftermath was handled is up for debate but don't play the stupid "the war was not legal" game. We all know whats up so don't take us for fools.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Islam is the reason that it would take generation to make a change and, unfortuneately there is still no guarantee.
.

What are most of the people of Iraq, if not Muslims?

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

As for WTF, how does supporting the war against the treaty breaker Hussein give me any strikes. .

Because it was a stupid fatal flaw in nation building.

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

. You want us to assume that you are right which we both know that you're not. Iraq was justified, legal, and necessary. How the aftermath was handled is up for debate but don't play the stupid "the war was not legal" game. .

I could care less if it was legal or not. It was stupid. As a Conservative you should be well aware of the cost vs the benifits. We are so far behind in having that war pay for itself. We rebuild Japan and Germany and now you liberals (yes nation building is a very liberal thought process) want to rebuild evey fuckung nation in the world.

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

. We all know whats up so don't take us for fools.

What is this us shit? You are the one I think a fool.

[Juan Pablo de Marco]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

We are waisting [sic] our blood and treasure trying to bring freedom to people that don't want to be free.

how many people are so fucking stupid to believe the US, or any other western country, is trying to bring democracy to anybody? give me a fucking break. it's all about the oil stupid. same reason the USSR invaded and occupied the country in the 80's. same reason the US funneled billions of dollars to bin Laden in a proxy war to drive out the USSR (Russia for those of you that don't know). same reason we invaded Iraq. plans to divide up the oil resources were in the planning stages way before we invaded. and Saddam Hussein was killed for one simple reason...he started to trade the Iraq's oil in Euros instead of US dollars. and we allowed the Suharto regime of Indonesia to slaughter thousands in East Timor to control the oil and natural gas riches of the East Timor Strait...and on and on and on.

the CIA has been behind so many assasinations of democratically elected leaders it's almost sad. Salvador Allende for instance. That led to the rise of Augusto Pinoche. And the US is responsible for ousting the monarchy of the island of Hawaii too...at the behest of US corporations. the CIA has been trying to get rid of Hugo Chavez for years now. maybe it's just a coincidence that Venezuela has the 4th largtest known oil reserves in the world...and the US gets more oil from there than any other country. and the oil companies don't like Chavez because he wants to tax them and distribute the wealth to the country.

the US has never met a dictator we didn't like as long as they controlled a country that has lots of oil or some other valuable resources.

The list of horrible things our govt has done in our good name is long and sad.

[CuteOldGuy]

+1 And add Qadafi to that list, as well. He wanted to trade oil in gold, rather than dollars. All of a sudden, the Libyans wanted "freedom."