For those ranting about Afghanistan, a simple question...

[regnaD kciN]

If we walk away, how do we prevent the situation there from returning to the status quo of 2000 -- with a Taliban dictatorship inviting al-Qaeda back to a safe haven for conducting further operations?

Don't give me speeches about "just like Iraq," "Obama's Vietnam," "graveyard of empires," or other rhetoric designed to avoid the issue. What's important is the answer to that question, nothing more. If you don't want American forces in Iraq, how do you prevent a return to Taliban and al-Qaeda dominance?

I'm not sure what I think about the proposed escalation there. If we could find, instead, a peaceful means of preventing an al-Qaeda/Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, I'm all ears. But I agree that the U.S. should not be willing to accept a just-before-9/11 situation from developing there again, and, if the only way to try to prevent that is an increased troop buildup, I'll take that chance over the alternative.

And, no, it has nothing to do with Vietnam, Iraq, or other unnecessary wars. Because, this time, there's not only a potential threat, one which might only exist in our own minds, this time. This time, there's an actual threat, one that has borne fruit in the past.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

1. your arrogance is incredible

Simply the fact that you believe we can change Afghanistan through military action and occupation, despite the lessons of history, is astonishing to me.

[regnaD kciN]

Asking a question is arrogant?

I'd say refusing to answer a question, and instead insulting the asker, is the height of arrogance.

So, according to you, we should just sit back and enjoy it as the Taliban impose another Islamic dictatorship, and invite Osama and his forces back in?

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

19. again, your ignorance and arrogance are incredible

I have news for you: the ONLY thing we will do in Afghanistan is blow a lot of money and lose a whole hell of a lot of American soldiers. Karzai is a heroin-funded thug and even with him in charge the Taliban control the country.

The great thing is that we will get to see exactly how well this brilliant idea of yours turns out. I'm pretty secure in my bet.

[regnaD kciN]

26. Again, YOU AREN'T ANSWERING THE QUESTION...

Tell my how you prevent al-Qaeda and the Taliban from taking over again, and causing further threats to us.

I'm waiting.

[Zavulon]

93. I'll answer it.

The only way to make that happen is to flatten everything in sight - not worrying about how many civilians die or how many mosques are destroyed. The Taliban and al-Qaeda hide out in mosques, hospitals and so on. You've got to destroy every building they might be in, and if civilian children die during the attacks, so be it.

If we're not willing to do that - and we shouldn't be - we should just pull out now. Sending an additional 30,000 troops instead of the 60,000 asked for is a lame attempt to pacify the other side, and we all know it won't work. Announcing a timetable in Iraq wasn't very bright, either. It's harder to see how a worse decision could have been made - compromise for the sake of compromise is rarely a good thing.

[niceypoo]

28. The OP offered no, "Bright idea" he asked a question

Now put down the bong and answer the question..

[niceypoo]

20. He is too stoned to understand it...

...he just reacted to the caption

[Javaman]

110. I guess you missed his dead on answer. nt

[The Straight Story]

2. We do this:

Make it known that if terror supporters get back in power, we will come back and beat them again.

We took out their leaders and their army already, we can do so easily again.

Winning a war, the definition of doing so anyway, seems to have changed since WW2.

We saw a threat, removed the leaders who posed a threat, we leave and go back if it crops up again.

[regnaD kciN]

16. It's a possible approach...

...but won't it be a lot harder to start all over again from an entrenched ruling opposition than stabilizing the situation as it is? And wouldn't the firepower to do so inevitably create a lot more noncombatant casualties than a surge now?

Once again, I don't know the answer, but the question is worth asking.

[The Straight Story]

25. Well, my take on it

We suppose, perhaps, that the next group in will want to the same thing as the last group in power.

Pull out, wait and see, and if they do - then it will be cheaper to go back and bomb them then to stay there day in and out.

I think maybe they will have gotten the message that they cannot win. If they don't, then the new heads of states will soon find themselves staring down cruise missiles.

[regnaD kciN]

40. Once again, possible, but...

I think maybe they will have gotten the message that they cannot win.

...I suspect they will have gotten the exact opposite message: "We beat the Russians, and now we beat the Americans. Let them invade again -- all we have to do is lay low for a few years until they get tired of being here, then we can walk right back into power."

[waiting]

3. True.

There actually is a threat and plots going on against us right now. We walked away from Afghanistan once, and it led directly to 9/11.

[LakeSamish706]

6. I call BS on walking away from Afghanistan having caused 9/11....

How do you deduce this?

[waiting]

18. Our walking away after Russia withdrew

left that country in a civil war, and open to the very forces that trained there and plotted the attacks on us. It isn't BS it is historical fact.

[LakeSamish706]

27. First off I for one don't believe that 9/11 was even carried out by the

"SAUDI's" as is stated in the official story and secondly I don't believe that Osama Bin Laden had anything to do with it either.

[ixion]

8. paranoid much?

Land of the free and the brave, remember? Don't be afraid of shadows on the wall.

[SammyWinstonJack]

31. Best. Response. Ever.

:thumbsup:

[ixion]

35. thanks!

:hi:

[Neecy]

4. I see the night shift has clocked in

[NYC_SKP]

13. Some are freelancers... n/t

[Neecy]

14. lol...you must have checked your clipboard

[Shell Beau]

60. Instead of being sarcastic, how about answering a question that was asked.

That is what kills me about some posters in GD, so quick to be an ass. The question may be stupid or not, but it is a question that many people probably are asking. So, why don't you give an answer instead of some asshole comment. And I don't mean this comment just to you. Many people always have to be funny and answer in such an asshole tone. I just don't get it. But then again, I tend not to be an ass.

[knixphan]

75. seconded.

[Zomby Woof]

104. Yeah well...

We all know you just post in here to give LDK more attention. :P :evilgrin:












:hide: :loveya:

[ixion]

5. so instead you support a puppet dictatorship backed by US force

I fail to see how that is any better. In fact, it's worse because we're paying for it, hence we own it.

If you think there is going to be a stable western-style democracy in Afghanistan, you're sorely off the mark, in my opinion.

[waiting]

12. I don't think that anyone expects a western democracy there.

But we cannot allow the extremists to get to nukes. Pakistan has got a lot of extremists in their army and their government, just wiating for the right time to take over. This isn't a balck and white, right or wrong situation. I am pretty sure that Obama is not nation building and not supporting the Karzai government. But he cannot just pull out the troops and walk away.

[ixion]

34. Not supporting the Karzai government? Uh, we installed that government

that entirely corrupt, entirely hollow government, and the only reason Karzai is still there is because of the US military presence. Period. Absence the US military, he would most certainly not be president.

And three more years of occupation will simply not change this. As difficult as that may be to accept, it is the most probable outcome.

[regnaD kciN]

23. I suggest you go back and look at Afghanistan under Taliban rule...

If you would seriously say that there was no difference in people's lives between then and now, I would suggest you're dreaming.

[ixion]

39. LOL

outside Kabul -- outside the very small portion under US military control (which I'm sure is no picnic) -- it's the same as it ever was.

I don't understand why it would be better to be killed and/or tortured by the US military as opposed to the Taliban.

[regnaD kciN]

46. I'd say it would be better to LIVE under U.S military control than under the Taliban...

Or do you like the idea of killing young girls who dared to get an education, or "Societies for the Elimination of Vice and Pursuit of Virtue" beating men whose beards weren't long enough, or banning music, or...

I seriously doubt that life under the Karzai government can even compare.

And, if your contention is that the Taliban has reasserted their theocracy everywhere but Kabul, isn't that (ironically) a convincing reason why we need to take the fight to them?

[ixion]

47. it would be the same...

only the excuses are different. They tyranny, the cruelty, the death and destruction is identical. Rhetoric is the only difference.

[regnaD kciN]

54. Well, if you think that...

...I suggest you move to a Taliban-controlled area of Afghanistan, and see how you enjoy it.

[ixion]

55. we'll have a police state soon enough

but I wouldn't be around very long to live in it. ;)

[Javaman]

111. LOL that is the same type of argument the right wing uses. LOL

"if you don't like america, move!!"

To paraphrase: So if you don't like how we are running things in afghanistan, move and live with the taliban! LOL

Very weak. very very weak.

[bring_em_home_bush]

51. And the Taliban, once declared "eviscerated", is now winning again

Taliban Now Winning
AUGUST 10, 2009


The Taliban have gained the upper hand in Afghanistan, the top American commander there said, forcing the U.S. to change its strategy in the eight-year-old conflict by increasing the number of troops in heavily populated areas like the volatile southern city of Kandahar, the insurgency's spiritual home.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal warned that means U.S. casualties, already running at record levels, will remain high for months to come."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124986154654218153.html


So I guess we're just gonna have to eviscerate those bastards all over again! I'm sure it will work this time!

[Javaman]

112. Our brilliant minds in the pentagon are hard at work on the Taliban's super secret

anti-evisceration machine!!

:rofl:

[paulk]

7. "ranting" ?

A lot of people have legitimate concerns about the expansion of US forces there, and denigrating those concerns by portraying them as ranting is really not the way to start a debate on the subject.

[NightWatcher]

9. 9/11, 9/11, 9/11. My problem is that there is no "winning" to be done

Sometimes you cant just win, it's way more complicated than that. We are talking about areas of the world that have been involved in deep tribal shit since we were a gleam in Chris Columbus' eye.

Why is it also that all of these dangerous areas of the world that can possibly do us harm just happen to be in the middle of OIL COUNTRY?

[branders seine]

10. nuke it from space. it's the only way to be sure.

an actual terrorist (there may still be a few) could plot and plan ANYWHERE ON EARTH.

Do you suppose instituting a military authoritarian state everywhere on earth?








(If you did, it would be moronic.)

[TK421]

59. Great quote from a great movie!

Hudson: "Hey Vasquez...have you ever been mistaken for a man"?

Vasquez: "No...have you"?

[branders seine]

62. LOL

[lib2DaBone]

11. There is no way to justify more war in Afghan....

It matters not (outside of oil) what happens in Afghanistan. We have everything to lose and nothing to gain.

MSNBC said today that the war will cost $8 Billion a month. We desperately need $8 billion a month invested in the United States for roads, schools, electric plants and JOBS.

This war will bankrupt what's left an already broke America.

[SammyWinstonJack]

45. Seems some care not that this 'war' will bankrupt us. Sad isn't it?

One would think, if nothing else mattered save for blind support of Obama, that at least, would. :shrug:

[Javaman]

113. Afghanistan: the bankrupter of nations. nt

[bring_em_home_bush]

15. Where did most of the 9/11 terrorists come from?

Who provided the real "safe havens" and money for them? Not the Taliban. And certainly not the Afghan people. How do we prevent Al-Qaeda (all 200 or 300 of them that may be in Afghanistan and Pakistan) from recruiting more Saudis and Kuwaitis and other assorted terrorists from these "allies" by killing people in Afghanistan? Because that's what it comes down to -- Bush's argument that we are killing them there to prevent them from killing us here.

[regnaD kciN]

32. Al-Qaeda was based in Afghanistan...

...had training camps in Afghanistan, and coordinated the 9/11 attacks from Afghanistan.

I seriously doubt they could have carried out anything on the scope of those attacks, or their previous ones against U.S. interests in the Middle East and Africa, without the security of a government-protected safe haven in Afghanistan.

[bring_em_home_bush]

64. They had much more than training camps in Afghanistan

They had money, lots of it, and it did not come from the Taliban, and without that money, and other powerful sources of support from other players, they could not have carried out their plans, no matter where they were hatched.

In addition,things have changed:

U.S.: Pro-War Officials Play Up Taliban-al Qaeda Ties
Analysis by Gareth Porter*

WASHINGTON, Oct 13 (IPS) - U.S. national security officials, concerned that President Barack Obama might be abandoning the strategy of full-fledged counterinsurgency war in Afghanistan, are claiming new intelligence assessments suggesting that al Qaeda would be allowed to return to Afghanistan in the event of a Taliban victory.

But two former senior intelligence analysts who have long followed the issue of al Qaeda's involvement in Afghanistan question the alleged new intelligence assessments. They say that the Taliban leadership still blames Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda for their loss of power after 9/11 and that the Taliban-al Qaeda cooperation is much narrower today than it was during the period of Taliban rule.


http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48843

When AQ finds another desperately poor, isolated "safe haven" (and it, or others like it, will), will we have to invade and kill their civilians, too?

There will never be a conventional military solution for this type of criminal enterprise.

[EFerrari]

17. The actual threat you refer to, to the extent that it exists, is in PAKISTAN

not in Afghanistan.

[waiting]

22. We aren't going to invade Pakistan

but being right next door is the best way to work with the Pakistanis and ensure the nukes are safe. Not to mention that the leaders of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are actually in pakistan.

[EFerrari]

33. First, people have to stop talking about the Taliban and AQ as if they are

the same or related entities. They're not. The Taliban in Afghanistan isn't the same group as the Taliban in Pakistan, either.

And those nukes have been safe all this time. If anything, an American military presence destabilizes the balance the Pakistanis have managed to achieve.

[regnaD kciN]

37. Maybe, but the "Taliban in Afghanistan"...

...is the group that welcomed ObL and al-Qaeda with open arms in the 1990s, and we all know the result of that.

[EFerrari]

68. Did they? Or did they allow them there at the request of the ISI?

The thing is, the Taliban in Afghanistan, just like all the other crime syndicates there, want power and control in Afghanistan. They don't care very much about global political issues.

[bring_em_home_bush]

41. "Ensure the nukes are safe"

Jesus what a pipe dream.

[anarch]

103. ironic even using the word "safe"

to describe things that are designed to kill hundreds of thousands of people at once.

[PM Martin]

101. Correct!

[G_j]

21. unrec for the word ranting

stopped reading there

[dana_b]

24. build schools, hospitals, build infrastructure,

teachers, police, support women. We could spend less $$ on those things than the havoc we are creating now. The Taliban would lose the PR fight and eventually the people of Afghanistan may prevail.

[regnaD kciN]

29. Great idea!

But how do we do that if we walk away?

[dana_b]

42. Let the companies and workers

in Afghanistan use the money to build, teach, etc. Would we need to be there for security? I don't know, probably so (no friggin' Blackwater!!). However don't use the $$ for military force.

[regnaD kciN]

52. Granted, but, given the situation...

...the difference between "security" and "military force" is probably pretty slim.

I mean, several years ago, I was hearing reports from international observers there that people weren't willing to build schools, hospitals, etc., even when we were offering them the money to do so, because accepting such a "western" development in your community was the surest way to get yourself assassinated by the Taliban as a "collaborator." If "security" would require, essentially, protecting the entire area where such projects were being conducted, including protecting the lives of the civilian population, how is that different from "military force?"

[dana_b]

66. we're on the attack now

I hear what you are saying and agree that it is a fine line. Defense v.s. force or I guess attack would be a better word. Protect the growth, infrastructure building, employees, etc. but don't go out looking for people to attack. Does that make sense?? I don't know - I'm getting tired and my thoughts are running together. lol

[tnlefty]

44. I disagree with the support woman part...I'm fully on board

with Jim Ward's idea of airlifting EVERYTHING with a vagina out of there, I'll add the orphans that I keep reading about who are starving and/or freezing to death that Karzai and the 'govt.' doesn't seem to give a damn about, and then let the crazies fight it out.

The women would be safe, along with the orphans, they would be cared for and educated, and when the dust settles they could decide if they want to return. Cheaper and safer in the long run.}(

[dflprincess]

106. The Minneapolis police department is looking at $8 million in cuts.

Hennepin County Medical Center which serves the poorest of the poor and has been the hospital uninsured Minnesotans from all over the state could go to is having to make drastic cuts in programs and will no longer see people from outside Hennepin County except for emergency cases. A couple years ago, we had a bridge fall down.

We need the money here. Before we nation build in Afghanistan and use the money to bribe Taliban members and warlords, let's rebuild the U.S.

[optimator]

30. there is no threat

not even a potential one.

[regnaD kciN]

36. Why?

Do you think that, if we withdraw, the Taliban is going to consent to a constitutional democracy? Do you think they'll tell al-Qaeda to stay away?

Look, this is one time where the track-record guarantees that there is not only a potential, but an actual threat.

Once all the Germans were warlike and mean,
But that couldn't happen again,
We taught them a lesson in nineteen-eighteen,
And they've hardly bothered us since then!

-- Tom Lehrer, "The MLF Lullaby"

[StarfarerBill]

38. I have to ask: what if the surge fails?

What if the Taliban, the remnants of al-Qaeda, and the other insurgent groups simply go into neighboring countries, as they're wont to do? And the governments of those countries are unable or unwilling to pursue those groups? Do we widen the war to those countries? And what if our ramped-up military operations actually increase support for the insurgents, as again often happens in insurgencies? What if we cannot eradicate or disarm these groups? Do we stay in Afghanistan indefinitely? Install yet another corrupt regime in Kabul? And the losses of which you speak rather lightly; is it our right to kill large numbers of Afghan civilians for our hoped-for safety?

In other threads about this surge, I've said that this is a civil war in which we have no place; it's also an insurgency, which are rarely stopped with armed force. I think that we're compounding a mistake made eight years ago, one which will haunt us in its continuance and even after we finally leave. The War on Terror is a failure; the best we can hope for is that cooler heads will prevail and we can indeed try other, peaceful means to stem religious extremism.

[LooseWilly]

76. I would add: Obama himself mentioned the US picking up someone "sent" from the border region...

... which might suggest to some that we should have a "surge", but to me it suggests that "someones" don't require bases in Afghanistan in order to be trained, planned, and "sent"... which makes the whole fight for Afghanistani real estate seem like a rather expensive distraction.

[noamnety]

43. Wrong threat identified.

Your terrorists already have the best offense against the US and you are supporting it. Their best weapon right now is bankrupting us.

If you are more worried about a terrorist attack than funding for schools or funding for (real) health care reform, or funding for welfare or social security, you are like those people that are more phobic about dying from a shark attack than dying from heart disease or cancer.

[ShamelessHussy]

48. easy, targeted strikes, when the opportunity arrises

much much cheaper, and less disrupting of ordinary afghan lives.

and remember the taliban were interested in discussing turning over al-Qaeda's leader, but they wanted to see the evidence, but we no longer require no stink'n evidence.

this is all about oil. everything else is kabuki theater.

[LooseWilly]

78. I'm not the only one that remembers them asking to see the evidence before turning over bin Laden??

I was beginning to think I was going crazy... thanks...

(Sharing our evidence might compromise some key sources of intelligence... so you're just going to have to extradite the man who helped you fight the Soviets for a decade on my personal say-so... What do you mean no??...)

[EFerrari]

85. Bush didn't give them enough time to think anything through.

And, btw, during the war against the Soviets, the Afghan commanders more than once asked the Americans to please pull bin Laden because he was a terrible commander and an impediment. lol

[gleaner]

49. First of all ....

I want to clarify that disagreement does not constitute "ranting." This is the dictionary definition for the word rant: rant (rnt)
v. rant·ed, rant·ing, rants
v.intr.
To speak or write in an angry or violent manner; rave.
v.tr.
To utter or express with violence or extravagance: a dictator who ranted his vitriol onto a captive audience.
n.
1. Violent or extravagant speech or writing.
2. A speech or piece of writing that incites anger or violence: "The vast majority did not encounter recipes for pipe bombs or deranged rants about white supremacy" (Daniel Okrent).
3. Chiefly British Wild or uproarious merriment.

I think we can ignore the British definition here, because I, for one, am not experiencing uproarious merriment and I don't think many others are either.

There have been angry posts, but I think applying this definition to them is hyperbole. Most of the disagreements have been expressed in a thoughtful and civilized manner. In answer to your request for an explanation, all I can say it that Bush manipulated the situation which began with 9/11 in a most calculated and cruel manner. As if there were not enough grief and pain he added a pervasive fear and created a boogey man that he could hurl at the population every time he wanted to cover up some impropriety his administration was guilty of. al=Quaeda was that boogey man. If there had been going to be a massive and concerted terrorist attack against this country the wars would not have stopped it. al-Quaeda, from its own how to book posted on the internet, espoused small cells with as few individuals having knowledge of who commanded them as possible. They never operated as an army. They were guerrillas and very loosely structured. There has not been another attack on US soil. There have been no credible threats. Why should they start again now?

They are well ensconced in Pakistan where they feel safe and that government is protecting them. Do you think it would help to go to war with Pakistan which has nuclear weapons? I don't. I think it is time to come home now before the hatred toward our military and our government increases to the point where Pakistan does use nukes on them.

Also, even though you don't want to hear comparisons to Viet Nam, you can't escape them. The situation is rife with them and that is not going to change.

[Stinky The Clown]

50. Blow it out yer shortz ......

[harkadog]

53. al-Queda has a number of countries where it can go.

Somalia and Pakistan to name just two. Should we invade them also? Almost every Islamic country is a dictatorship. Should we invade those also?

[Telly Savalas]

56. Did you mean to say Afghanistan in your second paragraph?

As in "If you don't want American forces in Afghanistan..."

Not tryin' to obliquely pick a fight here -- I just want to make sure I'm reading you right.

[Loge23]

57. There's no guarantee either way

There are already 25,000+ estimated Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, with many more ready to join.
What do we need to do to win? Commit genocide?
Nothing we do will guarantee anything other than a robust US taxpayer-funded reconstruction after we blow everything up.
This after we've already wasted $950 billion blowing things up in Iraq and Afghanistan since 9-11.

How do we prevent the Taliban from returning? We don't. We can't.
No amount of military actions will change this simple, tragic fact. In fact, it will more probably incite even more Taliban supporters.

The very best we can hope for is a US-backed puppet government that functions long enough for us to get the hell out. Yea! USA!

I sympathize with Taliban opponents and victims. But we can't help them anymore than we can help ourselves at this point of our history.
...and I doubt that such altruistic goals are behind this mess to begin with. But Good Luck with this - we'll all need it.

[doc03]

58. You really don't expect DUers to deal with logic

do you? If Bin Laden would claim responsibility for nuking NYC and say here I am come and get me they would offer him Chicago if he would stop.

[EFerrari]

71. The logic you're supporting is to go after bin Laden in the wrong country.

lol

[cherokeeprogressive]

61. If we wait until Two Thousand Thirty Fucking Five to walk away, the Taliban will come out

from wherever they're hiding, and be no less a threat than they are today.

[Shell Beau]

63. I agree. We, as Americans, can do nothing to stop it.

Their own people have to stop it. Us being over there just continues to piss them off and recruit more, while we have people dying left and right, along with innocent people dying.

[EFerrari]

72. That's right. And the threat they pose is to their own people, not to us.

[cbdo2007]

65. Common sense isn't working around here today my friend, sorry.

Try selling "rational explanation" somewhere else. Too many Walmart employees here today who think they know more than the President.

[bring_em_home_bush]

67. I have a PhD in history

and piss on your WalMart employee condescension.

[Loge23]

69. MBA here - no sale

What the F#$! is "rational" about spending $950 billion since 9/11 - that we don't have??
What a condescending little prick.

[EFerrari]

70. Wow. How many ways is that offensive. You should get something for that.

[scarletwoman]

90. I'll "wow!" along with you. I've always been a very non-violent person, but if this guy ever

showed up talking like that in person, I'm pretty sure I'd spit in his face.

Un-fucking-believable!

sw

[ipaint]

74. Walmart employees???

That's an insult? You could take every low wage earner in the country and their collective assumed ignorance couldn't touch the amount of asshole in your statement.

[cbdo2007]

96. What makes you think the "walmart employee's" comment was an insult??

I don't think it is. Just saying that Obama probably doesn't know how best to do your job, so it's funny here all the people who most probably aren't war strategists thinking they know better how to end a war than th President and his war strategists. I was simply using the "walmart employee" reference as an example of an "everyperson".

[ipaint]

102. The "common sense isn't working here" maybe?

Spin it any way you wish to. My comment stands.

[cbdo2007]

77. See what I mean? The crazy super far left is out in full force today.

Even though anyone else would have done exactly the same thing in Obama's shoes. Even any of the people here who think they would have done it differently.

[bring_em_home_bush]

79. Yes, that's right, because we're damned if we have education, and damned if we're just wage slaves

And in fact, I never agreed that invading Afghanistan was the proper response to the 9/11 terror attacks, and said so at the time, so no, I always would have done it differently. So, once again you fail, and in what appears to be a spectacularly ugly fashion, as well.

[cbdo2007]

86. Right....I see you're taking the easy way out.

Of course, none of us on DU would have gone into Afghanistan after 9/11 and I'm sure Obama wishes he didn't have to deal with this...

But since we don't have a time machine and we had an idiot start the war in Afghanistan....if you were President you would do the exact same thing obama is doing now.

[bring_em_home_bush]

94. Send more troops? No, I wouldn't do that if I was President

why do you insist that we all would do the same thing? There are always other options.

[cbdo2007]

95. Yes you would. You think Obama is truly evil and WANTS this war??!?!?!

He didn't choose this war, he has choosen to put up with everyone's bullshit, even his own supposed supporters bullshit, to get us through this horrible mess that Bush/Cheney got us into.

He's met with the best/smartest strategists in the country, the exact same ones who would be advising you if you were sitting in his chair, and they all came to the conclusion that this was the best option. Full, immediate troop pullout wasn't even on the table because when you actually sit down and go through the details of the war and the situation in Afghanistan, it just isn't a realistic option. That's why no one in his same position would do it, not even you. You would be quickly embarrassed in front of the meeting while they try to explain basic International Relations 101 to you.

I know you THINK you would do something different...but you wouldn't. There were two options. We tried one of them under the last idiot, which was to just put enough troops in there without a plan to mess things up. The other option is to clean this up quickly and efficiently so that we can get the hell out of there ASAP.

[bring_em_home_bush]

97. Again, stop with the condescencion

International Relations 101, indeed. Really kinda funny, considering my major fields of study. And quit putting words in my mouth -- I said nothing about a full immediate troop withdrawal. But it gave you a nice little strawman to knock down so you could lecture me about the best/smartest strategists in the country knowing so much more about the real world than silly little me.

Again, there are always multiple options, and sending 30,000 more troops did not necessarily have to be one of them. For all you know, some of those best/smartest strategists even told him that.

[cbdo2007]

98. I agree there are probably other options....I'm just asking everyone

here to have some faith in Obama rather than just knock him down. I truly believe Obama is a good person who wants to end the wars as quickly as is realistically possible...just like you or I. If him and his strategists have come to the conclusion that 30,000 more troops is necessary to do so, I have to believe...and hope...that I haven't been misreading Obama this whole time and that he really is a good person and the best person for the job, and that this is going to work.

One thing we are agreeing on is that we want both of these wars ended, and that they never should have been started. Unfortunately from the President's chair things are never as easy as just, end the wars now. There are hundreds and maybe thousands of other factors...literally MAJOR factors, that most of us will never know let alone understand, that turn even the smallest decision into landing on the moon (metaphor).

That's why, from my chair here, rather than keyboard quarterback this I've just got to trust that Obama wants to do the right thing and is trying to do the right thing here.

Sorry to be so condescending before, I was just getting caught up in the argument :)

[EFerrari]

82. There is no "crazy super far left" in this country. There are people to the left of Nixon

and then there are the crude and rude members of the 101st Keyboard who confuse disagreement with craziness.

[grahamhgreen]

84. Check the polls - we are the majority!

[dana_b]

87. I thought we were all WalMart employees

I didn't know that so many left leaning people worked for Sam.

[QC]

89. Ph.D. here, and a good retail worker contributes far more to the world

than all the snide little Chairborne Rangers and cheerleaders on this site.

[cbdo2007]

92. It's ok if you don't agree. I'm even nice enough that I won't expect

an apology when this whole surge thing actually works.

[Kitsune]

73. Do you really think that it won't return to status quo 2000, whether we leave in 3 years or 30?

It's not a winnable war. There is no actual task to do there. The only way to win a conflict like this is either to kill everyone there OR not allow anyone in the country to raise their own children for a few generations.

[Odin2005]

80. K&R

[grahamhgreen]

81. Easy. The real solution is to build an economy, not blow up and kill people, duh.!

If we just GAVE the money to the people they'd love us forever.

[grahamhgreen]

83. A marine Sgt stationed there told me this:

"Those people have been fighting each other for 500 years since before we got there, and they'll be doing it another 500 when we leave."

[XemaSab]

88. Word

n/t

[subsuelo]

91. quick couple thoughts

1) What "just-before-9-11 situation" are you talking about?

2) Pretending like our being there has anything to do with anything other than securing the natural resources of the region for western corporate interests is delusional.

3) We never had *any* right to be in Afghanistan in the first place.

[anonymous171]

99. Al-qaeda =/= Taliban. nt

[PM Martin]

100. The threat remains in Pakistan.

Since they are isolated in Pakistan, there has to be a way to contain them and get someone within the country to take the Taliban and company on.

[unkachuck]

105. simple....

....SERIOUSLY protect our borders and leave Afghanistan to the Afghans....

....a nation that can put people on the moon, simultaneously record all the conversations on the planet, do all kinds of fancy shit with military weaponry and can probably tell you how many hairs you have on your ass should be able to produce a system to keep WMD and lunatics out....

....I'm more afraid of being shot by my right-wing neighbor than dying from WMD....

[Lydia Leftcoast]

107. We can't prevent the Taliban from taking over--that's a fact

especially since the CIA picked them out of all the mujahedin factions to take charge in Afghanistan after the Soviets left.

Frankly, we have to learn that we CAN'T control the world.

Our bombings have probably given the Taliban MORE credibility than they had before.

[TexasObserver]

108. FAIL. Unrecommended.

[jgraz]

109. Here y'go

http://www.army.com/enlist

[TK421]

115. I just read all that...is it really like apartment living?

I mean...I LIVE in an apartment ( with three other roommates ) but these people make it seem like you are just at home relaxing until something comes up...I smell a rat! It CAN'T be that comfy like they describe it! It CAN'T be!!!

not that I'm considering it, mind you....I'm against this bullshit decision

[kenny blankenship]

114. So your answer is to stay there forever

Smart.