A question for continuing the war supporters; what is the objective of adding

[mmonk]

30k and the end game and how does that get us there? Instead of repeating the plan as an answer, what are we winning exactly? What is your take of why this is so vital? Can it really hold without improved, popular, and coherent institutions in Afghanistan?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bigtree]

5. now, now

. . . you did your share of ridiculing folks in your 'I'm glad DUers aren't president' thread.

[dionysus]

2. there are no "war fans", don't be a clown.

[MNDemNY]

3. How about "war boosters"??

[Taverner]

4. What do you call the DU'ers who are applauding the 30K troop increase?

War Groupies?

War Aficionados?

[joecool65]

6. How about pragmatists?

What do you call people who oppose all type of military interventions no matter the situation?

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eqfan592]

18. Of course the taliban poses no threat.

After all, they only directly aided the organization that initiated a devastating terrorist attack on our soil, and would certainly do so again if allowed to re-emerge as the top-dog in Afghanistan. Nope, no threat at all!

"Warpig?" Give me a break. Childish bullshit like that hurts your cause more than you'll ever know. There are some sick bastards out there who enjoy the idea of war and are always in support of it. There are others who support it at times because they DO feel it is pragmatic, and the act of simply saying "No it's not and your a stupid head!" does not actually do anything to change their mind, nor does saying such a thing actually make it true.

[BeFree]

10. Good question

Hard to pigeon-hole such people.

How about:
Peace lovers?
Peace-keepers
Non-violent people
non-military people
True Christians?

Any of those strike your fancy, joecool?

[eqfan592]

16. Zealots? That's another good word...

...for people incapable of rational thought when it comes to specific issues, such as many so called "peace lovers."

[BeFree]

19. Hah

Now peace lovers are zealots?

Getting called 'bad' names by those who support war as an answer is to be expected.

[eqfan592]

22. Ahhh, mr. strawman again

Firstly, I did not call "all" peace lovers zealots. Honestly, only a really sick bastard doesn't love peace. There are some, however, that wish to have peace, no matter the cost. Such people are seemingly willing to offer anything up as a sacrifice on the alter of peace, including their own personal liberties. They are totally incapable of rational thought on the issue of war, and view anybody that ever supported any war ever as a "warmonger," no matter what. These are the people I view as "zealots." We seem to have a fair number of these people here in the DU.

And you also say I "support war." This is, in fact, not true. I support this particular conflict, yes, because I do believe we have a chance to build a more peaceful and stable future because of it. But I don't support war just for the sake of war, as you imply. It's just not that simple. Trying to make it seem that simple is an indicator of an irrational person, or at the very least a shallowness of thought.

These are deep and complex issues, and too often people in the peace movement try to boil these deep and complex issues down into bumper sticker slogans. After a while, the slogans lose what little depth they did have in the minds of the people who repeat them over and over, as if it were some religious mantra. This is when a person starts to cross the line to becoming a "zealot."

[PVnRT]

25. What "personal liberties" do we lose by pulling out of Afghanistan?

"We seem to have a fair number of these people here in the DU. "

We have a comparatively small amount on DU, and at least a few of those have said what they mean by that position. However, this idea that they want to "give up personal liberties" to have peace makes no sense at all.

[eqfan592]

26. *sigh*

I was describing a mind set, as in the extent of willingness to sacrifice anything in the name of "peace." I was not speaking in regards to a specific situation or set of circumstances as you imply.

And I agree that the idea of giving up personal liberties for peace doesn't make a lot of sense, yet that is the extent some people seem willing to take it. It's not too dissimilar from people who were willing to sacrifice personal privacy for "security" (and a sense of "security" and "peace" aren't all that far from each other, and privacy is obviously a personal liberty).

You may be correct in that I did exaggerate the prominence of such people at the DU, but at the very least there does some to be a prominence of shallow thinking here when it comes to this issue, which is born out by the use of terms like "warmonger" or "warpig." Assuming that because a person doesn't agree with you on if a war is just must be a blood thirsty animal is a demonstration of shallow thinking in my personal opinion.

[BeFree]

29. Hah

Yep. You say:
"There are some, however, that wish to have peace, no matter the cost. Such people are seemingly willing to offer anything up as a sacrifice on the alter of peace, including their own personal liberties."

That's pretty much what motivates a lot of soldiers. They sacrifice their personal liberties so that there may be peace.

Then you say:
"They are totally incapable of rational thought on the issue of war, and view anybody that ever supported any war ever as a "warmonger,"

Yeah, those that sent those soldiers there to war, are called warmongers.

See, if it were up to me, we wouldn't be fighting this 'war'. We'd be talking peace instead of war. Call me a zealot. A zealot for peace. Better, in my book, than a zealot for war. Which, in my book, you are.

[dionysus]

14. i only saw one guy who actually said he wanted it, perhaps there are a few more.

i personally think it's too late to do anything there, but there a lot of dems like my dad, who are far from "warmongers". they see these reasons to stay there;

1)bush messed it up real bad and we have a responsibility to them to leave them with a stable infrastructure and no threat from the taliban or al-quaeda who

2)could somehow get pakistan's nukes.

i can see how somehow could hold these positions without being a cheerleader for death, and it think it's quite insulting to call people like that warmongers or to wave virtual enlistment papers in their face. that's all

[MNDemNY]

21. I know. I know!! Starts with a "T" and rhymes with ghoul!

[mmonk]

7. Clown has changed the OP wording.

[dionysus]

9. ok, now it's not clownish

:evilgrin:

[mmonk]

11. Thanks

;-) Now I can take my makeup off.

[dionysus]

13. *squirts water flower*

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

12. Let's see here...

The end game seems obvious, creating a stable enough Afghanistan, one that can provide for the basic needs of its people as well as one that denies groups like al-Qaeda room to operate openly.

What we're winning? If successful, we're dealing a serious blow to Islamic terrorism.

Why is it vital? Because, at this point, throwing our hands up in the air and declaring defeat would give al-Qaeda the biggest PR boost any radical Islamic group has received since the Soviet withdrawal and would undoubtedly make the world a more dangerous place (just as the Soviet withdrawal did before it).

Can it hhold without improved, popular, and coherent institutions? No.

[mmonk]

15. The US thought initially the Taliban was bringing that.

So did Pakistan. Also, Pakistan saw the Taliban government as a buffer state for its own interests. The problem as I see it is to get concensus with the tribal leaders. I don't think that is being achieved through the Karzai government though it makes the pipeline safe and less expensive. Accomodation is needed concerning the opium trade most likely whether it be buying it to stockpile it or providing a substitute.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

17. Agreed

The Karzai government has not done a good job thus far in bringing elements of the Taliban into the fold. Frankly, this appears to be something the U.S. is going to have to take the lead on, at least for now.

The question of the opium trade is crucial though I don't think we're any closer to a solution to that now than we were five years ago. It's going to have to be addressed if we're going to set the stage of a stable Afghanistan though.

[eqfan592]

20. You guys both make some valid points.

And I agree with what you are saying about the Karzai government. From the Presidents speech last night, though, I get the feeling that pressure will be placed on the Karzai government to improve on this. I've heard from several different places of elements of the Taliban that would be happy to take a non-violent "out" of the conflict in order to have a seat at the table, so to speak.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

23. I tend to think you're right

In at least one case, a major Taliban figure has defected to the side of the Karzai government (Mullah Abdul Salaam) and its reasonable to expect that others would do the same given the right incentive. I will say though that it's tough to do this when many are betting on the U.S. losing the war. We'll probably have to gain the upper momentum through other means before this can really take root.

[eqfan592]

27. This is very true.

And I think this is where the extra 30k troops come into play. This may allow us to win a few decisive victories, which will encourage those in the Taliban who do not wish to continue the fighting to throw down their arms in exchange for a seat at the table. It will also be important to train up the Afghan security forces to the point where they can take over operations at the end of the 18 month period and still be somewhat effective. Otherwise, some in the Taliban will simply do their best to remain in hiding and keep their forces intact until the end of the 18 month period.

It will NOT be an easy task in the least.

[mmonk]

24. I'm for no longer escalating it, but redeploying positionally

and putting direct efforts in tribal reconciliation now. The current status quo not explained in any sense to the people of Afghanistan will look like a backing up of a corrupt election with deadly force.

[eqfan592]

28. That is another large piece of the problem....

...is the rampant corruption within the current government there. At least the President made mention of this in his speech. This will continue to work against our and the Afghan people's better interests until it gets resolved.