AP: U.N. May Have to Abandon Afghan Effort

[DealMonkey]

I love these comments by the BAAs around here - HUZZAH! GTF outta the way! We're all action, blah, blah, blah! The U.N. is a buncha pussys! It's all the U.N.'s fault. WTF?

The U.S. has total control over Afghanistan and Iraq as well -- nobody is in "our way." That's got to be the most asinine sentiment I've heard yet.

Bottom line: We can control both countries AND provide adequate security for UN humanitarian missions (as well as our own troops), but ONLY if we have enough troops on the ground to do so. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say we have too many troops in either country - it's almost a unanimous voice for MORE troops.

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I love these comments by the BAAs around here - HUZZAH! GTF outta the way! We're all action, blah, blah, blah! The U.N. is a buncha pussys! It's all the U.N.'s fault. WTF?

The U.S. has total control over Afghanistan and Iraq as well -- nobody is in "our way." That's got to be the most asinine sentiment I've heard yet.

Bottom line: We can control both countries AND provide adequate security for UN humanitarian missions (as well as our own troops), but ONLY if we have enough troops on the ground to do so. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say we have too many troops in either country - it's almost a unanimous voice for MORE troops.

Unanimous? By whom? Until I hear a military commander ask for more troops, I think armchair generals should just keep their strategies to themselves...

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: miguel
Unanimous? By whom? Until I hear a military commander ask for more troops, I think armchair generals should just keep their strategies to themselves...

By those critical of the WoT and the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan. You can call everyone names if you want, I don't really care, but the overall situation in both countries is as plain as day to everyone who cares to pay attention. You don't have to be a four-star general to see what's going on in those areas, and it doesn't take a genius to understand why.

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: miguel
Unanimous? By whom? Until I hear a military commander ask for more troops, I think armchair generals should just keep their strategies to themselves...

By those critical of the WoT and the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan. You can call everyone names if you want, I don't really care, but the overall situation in both countries is as plain as day to everyone who cares to pay attention. You don't have to be a four-star general to see what's going on in those areas, and it doesn't take a genius to understand why.

But surely you must understand that while you and others might say "we need more troops in this area" a general on the ground may disagree with you right? Also, "armchair general" was/is not meant to be namecalling. I used it as a descriptive title to describe someone who is not in the military or on the ground at a particular situation saying what should and should not be done in said situation.

 

[Gaard]

Cad, what you are saying sounds a lot like "Either you are with us or against us."

You didn't happen to catch Coulter on one of the morning news channels did you? Oh right...you don't have cable. (Get out of the stone age man!) Anyways, she said that, out of all the D's running for president, only Lieberman was patriotic. Something about the rest of them criticising the war/reconstruction. Neither Wolf nor the D they had on to counter Coulter could believe she said it (Miller was his name I think). They repeatedly asked her if she meant what she said and she repeatedly said that she did. Now, the reason I relate this little story is because of this...
<<People really need to examine how they view America - IMO, the ones who are saying we are the problem are the ones we are fighting...do you want to be part of the group(s) we are fighting? Al Qaeda thinks we are the problem, Saddamists think we are the problem....who else thinks we are the problem? Hmmm.... I wonder...>>

Can you see why I bring up what Coulter said after seeing what you said?

Oh, and the 'deserve' and 'earned the right' are from other threads/posters.

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Cad, what you are saying sounds a lot like "Either you are with us or against us."

You didn't happen to catch Coulter on one of the morning news channels did you? Oh right...you don't have cable. (Get out of the stone age man!) Anyways, she said that, out of all the D's running for president, only Lieberman was patriotic. Something about the rest of them criticising the war/reconstruction. Neither Wolf nor the D they had on to counter Coulter could believe she said it (Miller was his name I think). They repeatedly asked her if she meant what she said and she repeatedly said that she did. Now, the reason I relate this little story is because of this...
<<People really need to examine how they view America - IMO, the ones who are saying we are the problem are the ones we are fighting...do you want to be part of the group(s) we are fighting? Al Qaeda thinks we are the problem, Saddamists think we are the problem....who else thinks we are the problem? Hmmm.... I wonder...>>

Can you see why I bring up what Coulter said after seeing what you said?

Oh, and the 'deserve' and 'earned the right' are from other threads/posters.

Gaard, I think you already know that Coulter is bomb thrower. She is a blight to the republicans as moore and that comedian-turned-politics guy is to democrats.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: Gaard
Cad, what you are saying sounds a lot like "Either you are with us or against us."

You didn't happen to catch Coulter on one of the morning news channels did you? Oh right...you don't have cable. (Get out of the stone age man!) Anyways, she said that, out of all the D's running for president, only Lieberman was patriotic. Something about the rest of them criticising the war/reconstruction. Neither Wolf nor the D they had on to counter Coulter could believe she said it (Miller was his name I think). They repeatedly asked her if she meant what she said and she repeatedly said that she did. Now, the reason I relate this little story is because of this...
<<People really need to examine how they view America - IMO, the ones who are saying we are the problem are the ones we are fighting...do you want to be part of the group(s) we are fighting? Al Qaeda thinks we are the problem, Saddamists think we are the problem....who else thinks we are the problem? Hmmm.... I wonder...>>

Can you see why I bring up what Coulter said after seeing what you said?

Oh, and the 'deserve' and 'earned the right' are from other threads/posters.

Gaard, I think you already know that Coulter is bomb thrower. She is a blight to the republicans as moore and that comedian-turned-politics guy is to democrats.

Yeah, I know. It was an assinine thing to say. But the point I was trying to make was that I was reminded of it by what CAD said.


Edit: Disagreements will always be a part of politics. That's a given. But it's not cool to start putting those who you disagree with in the same bed as SH and OBL.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Cad, what you are saying sounds a lot like "Either you are with us or against us."

You didn't happen to catch Coulter on one of the morning news channels did you? Oh right...you don't have cable. (Get out of the stone age man!) Anyways, she said that, out of all the D's running for president, only Lieberman was patriotic. Something about the rest of them criticising the war/reconstruction. Neither Wolf nor the D they had on to counter Coulter could believe she said it (Miller was his name I think). They repeatedly asked her if she meant what she said and she repeatedly said that she did. Now, the reason I relate this little story is because of this...
<<People really need to examine how they view America - IMO, the ones who are saying we are the problem are the ones we are fighting...do you want to be part of the group(s) we are fighting? Al Qaeda thinks we are the problem, Saddamists think we are the problem....who else thinks we are the problem? Hmmm.... I wonder...>>

Can you see why I bring up what Coulter said after seeing what you said?

Oh, and the 'deserve' and 'earned the right' are from other threads/posters.

No - I'm saying there are 3 options instead of just 2. Either help, get out of the way and STFU, or be part of the problem. Seems to me that some people are choosing to position themselves pretty close to the latter instead of choosing either of the first two. But then those that seem to be choosing close to the latter sit here and whine about some self-percieved label of being "unpatriotic". Coulter is a different beast - she's a bit blunt and over the top.
My comments were about choices - if people choose to position themselves as a problem - it's their choice. Criticism is fine but when you start saying that the US is "the problem" ... well you are making a choice. Some people IMO(and others) are dancing on that line so they don't have anyone but themselves to blame once they cross it.

BTW - "help" includes constructive criticism However - saying we are the problem isn't constructive - it is destructive and puts you in a dangerous position.

So like I said - either help or SD&STFU - but don't become part of what we are fighting.

CkG

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
What's best for Iraq? What's best for Afghanistan? If we (USA) can do the 'spite' thing without it affecting what's best for those we are 'liberating' than more power to us. If our spiteful actions and our bully attitude get in the way of doing what's best for them, then we should all watch what we say about others putting their interests before those we are helping and take a step back to think about why we are there in the first place. Words like deserve, earned the right, etc, don't belong in this issue. IMO.

I guess that's just a difference in perspective. IMO -we are not the bully. We tried to do it the so-called "right way"- they opposed their own words. Notice I didn't say "deserve" or "earned the right" -those are your words. This issue is about choices - Either you choose to help or you sit down and shut your yapper. Everyone has a choice - how they decide is not up to me or you - it is up to them. If they really want to "help" then I/we gladly welcome their support but we do NOT have to kiss anyones ass just to get them to help. IMO if they really wanted to help then they'd be willing to show some support - not just turn tail and run at the first hint of danger or expect or whine about it along the way.

People really need to examine how they view America - IMO, the ones who are saying we are the problem are the ones we are fighting...do you want to be part of the group(s) we are fighting? Al Qaeda thinks we are the problem, Saddamists think we are the problem....who else thinks we are the problem? Hmmm.... I wonder...

sandorski - It's get out of the way and STFU If you don't want to be part of the solution -then don't become a problem or distraction. Meaning don't hinder those that are actually doing something about the problem. If you want to help - fine - offer to help.

CkG

?? Who is in the way?

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: miguel
Um, sure DM. The US Military is just not trying, are they?

Trying's not good enough. If we're going to invade a country and occupy it, the least we can do is provide enough troops to ensure adequate security. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

True. But if the US Military just wanted to secure the country, they could, but Human Rights and AI would go nutz. It's a delicate balance. The US Military is not best suited for police type protection. They are a seek and destroy tool.

Shouldn't they have finished ONE job before they began another one? I mean there are American soldiers dying everyday in each country being brouhgt home in "transfer tubes" Bush Admin told the press they were not allowed to videotape the return of the dead american soldiers and that they cannot call the caskets caskets.. they are to be called "transfer tubes"

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: miguel
Um, sure DM. The US Military is just not trying, are they?

Trying's not good enough. If we're going to invade a country and occupy it, the least we can do is provide enough troops to ensure adequate security. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

True. But if the US Military just wanted to secure the country, they could, but Human Rights and AI would go nutz. It's a delicate balance. The US Military is not best suited for police type protection. They are a seek and destroy tool.

Shouldn't they have finished ONE job before they began another one? I mean there are American soldiers dying everyday in each country being brouhgt home in "transfer tubes" Bush Admin told the press they were not allowed to videotape the return of the dead american soldiers and that they cannot call the caskets caskets.. they are to be called "transfer tubes"

I don't know about the "transfer tubes" thing, but your comment about finishing one job before beginning another is typical of an armchair general. I didn't realize the military lets civilians plan their military strategies...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sandorski

?? Who is in the way?

/me looks at thread title and reads link in OP.

Hmm...could it be the UN? Could it be the pussyfooters? If the UN doesn't want to be there then get out - don't try to play games about..."well, we might have to..." Either stay or leave - just decide so we can do what we need to do. If you need more protection -say so. Don't say you might leave - because you may just get a boot to the ass.

In the case of Iraq - it's the same thing with the UN(or was). Plus there is the whole reconstruction issue. If you want to help - help. If you want to sit on the sidelines - do it. Those who wish to join us can join us, but don't expect to be able to just swoop in without helping.

CkG

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: miguel
Um, sure DM. The US Military is just not trying, are they?

Trying's not good enough. If we're going to invade a country and occupy it, the least we can do is provide enough troops to ensure adequate security. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

True. But if the US Military just wanted to secure the country, they could, but Human Rights and AI would go nutz. It's a delicate balance. The US Military is not best suited for police type protection. They are a seek and destroy tool.

Shouldn't they have finished ONE job before they began another one? I mean there are American soldiers dying everyday in each country being brouhgt home in "transfer tubes" Bush Admin told the press they were not allowed to videotape the return of the dead american soldiers and that they cannot call the caskets caskets.. they are to be called "transfer tubes"

I don't know about the "transfer tubes" thing, but your comment about finishing one job before beginning another is typical of an armchair general. I didn't realize the military lets civilians plan their military strategies...

Well, maybe they need to be investigated to see if they are doing their jobs correctly or if Dubya is forcing them to do more than they are capable of doing effectively??? I have heard many say they are overextended already... If I was an enemy of America I would be planning big right about now...

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski

?? Who is in the way?

/me looks at thread title and reads link in OP.

Hmm...could it be the UN? Could it be the pussyfooters? If the UN doesn't want to be there then get out - don't try to play games about..."well, we might have to..." Either stay or leave - just decide so we can do what we need to do. If you need more protection -say so. Don't say you might leave - because you may just get a boot to the ass.

In the case of Iraq - it's the same thing with the UN(or was). Plus there is the whole reconstruction issue. If you want to help - help. If you want to sit on the sidelines - do it. Those who wish to join us can join us, but don't expect to be able to just swoop in without helping.

CkG

That's just stupid. It has already been pointed out that the UN involvement is purely Humanitarian and other non-military aid(organization), so are they to just take it because those responsible for Peace and Order are doing a half assed job?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski

?? Who is in the way?

/me looks at thread title and reads link in OP.

Hmm...could it be the UN? Could it be the pussyfooters? If the UN doesn't want to be there then get out - don't try to play games about..."well, we might have to..." Either stay or leave - just decide so we can do what we need to do. If you need more protection -say so. Don't say you might leave - because you may just get a boot to the ass.

In the case of Iraq - it's the same thing with the UN(or was). Plus there is the whole reconstruction issue. If you want to help - help. If you want to sit on the sidelines - do it. Those who wish to join us can join us, but don't expect to be able to just swoop in without helping.

CkG

That's just stupid. It has already been pointed out that the UN involvement is purely Humanitarian and other non-military aid(organization), so are they to just take it because those responsible for Peace and Order are doing a half assed job?

No- what's stupid is playing games like - "we might have to ...blah blah blah" Out with it already. If you need more security - then ask for it - don't play these political games via the press. Like I said - if you play games you might just find a boot in your ass.
I still can't believe people want us to turn things over to such a spineless entity. Tuck tail and run...yeah - that'll teach em

CkG

 

[Gaard]

I hope you feel better tomorrow CAD. You seem to be rather hostile today.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard
I hope you feel better tomorrow CAD. You seem to be rather hostile today.

Yup - fighting the flu and the other pains in the neck

CkG

 

[Gravity]

Another example of how freakin incompetent the UN is. What a kangaroo outfit. They talk a good game but when it comes to actually getting a job done they leave a trail of mass graves behind.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski

?? Who is in the way?

/me looks at thread title and reads link in OP.

Hmm...could it be the UN? Could it be the pussyfooters? If the UN doesn't want to be there then get out - don't try to play games about..."well, we might have to..." Either stay or leave - just decide so we can do what we need to do. If you need more protection -say so. Don't say you might leave - because you may just get a boot to the ass.

In the case of Iraq - it's the same thing with the UN(or was). Plus there is the whole reconstruction issue. If you want to help - help. If you want to sit on the sidelines - do it. Those who wish to join us can join us, but don't expect to be able to just swoop in without helping.

CkG

That's just stupid. It has already been pointed out that the UN involvement is purely Humanitarian and other non-military aid(organization), so are they to just take it because those responsible for Peace and Order are doing a half assed job?

No- what's stupid is playing games like - "we might have to ...blah blah blah" Out with it already. If you need more security - then ask for it - don't play these political games via the press. Like I said - if you play games you might just find a boot in your ass.
I still can't believe people want us to turn things over to such a spineless entity. Tuck tail and run...yeah - that'll teach em

CkG

They have asked for it.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Gravity
Another example of how freakin incompetent the UN is. What a kangaroo outfit. They talk a good game but when it comes to actually getting a job done they leave a trail of mass graves behind.

Isn't U[N] misspelled?

 

[magomago]

you mean Operation Iraqi Liberation?

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: magomago
you mean Operation Iraqi Liberation?

That too, but I was thinking of: "Another example of how freakin incompetent the UN (US) is. What a kangaroo outfit (complete with Kangaroo Courts in Guantanamo). They talk a good game but when it comes to actually getting a job done they leave a trail of mass graves behind."

 

[CWRMadcat]

Originally posted by: miguel
What a surprise. The UN would pull out of east LA if they deployed themselves there.

Funny you should mention this. We ourselves pulled out of East LA too. Anyone remember the 1992 LA Riots? Who exactly came in to protect the citizens that lived in that area?

Doesn't have too much to do with the specific topic of the UN, but I just thought I'd mention that using the LA riots to poke fun at the UN's lack of resolve doesn't make us look any better