When Obama flees Afghanistan in 2011, what will we have gained?

[blackangst1]

This summary is all that needs to be said. Bush screwed us royally in Afghanistan. He had Al Qaeda's leadership cornered and could have wrapped this war up years ago but instead, chose to invade Iraq.

So we will have failed because Bush invaded the wrong country?

lol

 

[blackangst1]

Total BS. You haven't come close to showing your hyperbolic attack.

Let's hear you explain a no vote to this if you are a Democratic Senator:

The President of the United States says that Saddam Hussein has WMD programs that pose a very dangerous risk to the United States - including a nuclear program. If you don't get inspectors back into Iraq, the first indication might be a mushroom cloud of an Iraqi nuclear weapon being exploded in the US - they're easy to smuggle in. There are plenty of scenarios for chemical or bioloigcal agents killing many Americans as well, far more than the 3,000 killed one year ago in 9/11. Saddam is drfying the UN resolutions and refusing to let the inspectors in.

The only way to get the inspectors in is for Bush to be able to threaten Saddam. Without the resolution, he has no authority to threaten Saddam, and Saddam can laugh at his efforts to pressure him.

He promises you publically and pirvately that he does not want war - he is committed to a peaceful resolution. He only needs the leverage to get the inspectors in to peacefully deal with this.

If the inspectors get in, no war. War would only be a last resort if Saddam refuses to let the inspectors back in and his WMD are threatening to kill many Americans.

Your 'no' vote on the resolution is a vote for the US to leave Saddam in power, without any inspectors, continuing his ruthless regime in perpetuity - his son's groomed to follow him in dcades to come - and for yuou to let another 9/11, but far worse, happen simply because you would not stand up to insist on WMD inspectors removing the threat. As far as your constituents, they stronglyh want you to vote yes - and are likely to vote you out if you vote no.

You can't say you are voting no because it's a vote for war - the President just said the opposite, that it's not a vote for war. He says (IIRC) he will ask for further approval from Congress before war.

You have no basis to say there are no WMD, that the insspectors aren't needed - you can try but you have no basis for it, and there's all kinds of evidence being claimed there are that your constituents believe.

So, let's hear the explanation you give for a 'no' vote, Senator. Election in two weeks, you are ready to stand on 'principle' and lose the election to a pro-war Republican. Give your explanation.

How do you explain the Democrats (and Republicans) want for intervention prior to Bush getting into office? Did Bush convince them all while he was still governer of Texas?

 

[Craig234]

How do you explain the Democrats (and Republicans) want for intervention prior to Bush getting into office? Did Bush convince them all while he was still governer of Texas?

The Democrats' majority was against invading Iraq under Clinton and Bush. Supporting 'regime change' was far different that supporting invasion. I'm not familiar with Republicans' view under Clinton. The PNAN crowd was all for an aggressuve policy; they sent Cliton a signed letter pushing him to do more, but I don't know how representative they were of Republicans before Bush got/stole the office. For what it's worth at the time I said the Democrats had vulerability to criticism that they had no plan for dealing with Saddam effectively. Saddam reamining in power in perpituity wasn't great either.

Od course it was previousw Republican admins wo had closened the US to Saddam - for example anexecutive order from the first Bush said the national party was to get the US closer to Saddam.

 

[blackangst1]

The Democrats' majority was against invading Iraq under Clinton and Bush. Supporting 'regime change' was far different that supporting invasion. I'm not familiar with Republicans' view under Clinton. The PNAN crowd was all for an aggressuve policy; they sent Cliton a signed letter pushing him to do more, but I don't know how representative they were of Republicans before Bush got/stole the office. For what it's worth at the time I said the Democrats had vulerability to criticism that they had no plan for dealing with Saddam effectively. Saddam reamining in power in perpituity wasn't great either.

Od course it was previousw Republican admins wo had closened the US to Saddam - for example anexecutive order from the first Bush said the national party was to get the US closer to Saddam.

So, pre-Bush when the Democrats talked about regime change, you dont think they included boots on the ground? Really? How will it have been done exactly?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

So we will have failed because Bush invaded the wrong country?

lol

Seriously, is this a difficult concept to understand? I am not sure why I need to clarify such an obvious discussion point, but here it goes. We will have failed because Bush, rather than finishing off Afghanistan, decided to divert important resources to a completely unnecessary war -- Iraq. He had ample opportunity to finish off Al Qaeda's leadership even before he invaded Iraq; however, since he never resourced the Afghanistan war properly, any hope of that happening was shot. Iraq became Bush's focus in 2002 and as a result, Afghanistan took a back seat to Iraq for several years and in the interim, the Taliban regained strength and territory.

 

[Craig234]

So, pre-Bush when the Democrats talked about regime change, you dont think they included boots on the ground? Really? How will it have been done exactly?

Should I explain US foreign policy and the term regime change to you? Or should I just ask you to notice that the Presodemt whose policy was regime chage in Iraq did not any invasion whatsoever in 8 years?

I'm so happy that you have decided that you understand the term perfectly based on nothing, and that we're both just ignorant of the massive Clinton Iraq invasion and why it didn't work.

Or perhaps you could look at the history I've described that Democrats voting yes for the Bush resolution were told b the President that it was NOT a vote for war and why they wanted that commitment.

 

[blackangst1]

Seriously, is this a difficult concept to understand? I am not sure why I need to clarify such an obvious discussion point, but here it goes. We will have failed because Bush, rather than finishing off Afghanistan, decided to divert important resources to a completely unnecessary war -- Iraq. He had ample opportunity to finish off Al Qaeda's leadership even before he invaded Iraq; however, since he never resourced the Afghanistan war properly, any hope of that happening was shot. Iraq became Bush's focus in 2002 and as a result, Afghanistan took a back seat to Iraq for several years and in the interim, the Taliban regained strength and territory.

Are you contending AQ is stronger now than 2001? And that we had one chance to cripple them, and now its gone? Really?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Are you contending AQ is stronger now than 2001? And that we had one chance to cripple them, and now its gone? Really?

What I am contending is that Bush had Osama and company cornered and had ample opportunity to destroy him in 2001 at Tora Bora. Where is bin Laden now? You can't destroy what you can't find. Read a little about Tora Bora and what stopped us from getting bin Laden.

And look at how the Taliban has rebounded -- why do you suppose that happened? Do you think they would have successfully rebounded had we had 200,000 troops on the ground in Afghanistan rather than Iraq? Of course not.

I am generally a conservative, but Bush screwed the pooch and bungled the Afghanistan War. You can try to play games with semantics or try to push the blame on Obama for not crippling them now, but Bush was the one that had the best opportunity and lost it.

 

[Patranus]

The U.S. does not plan to open a new front in Yemen in the global fight against terrorism despite closing its embassy there in the face of Al Qaeda threats, President Obama's top counterterrorism adviser said Sunday.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...da-threat-planning-extend-terror-fight-yemen/

It doesn't matter, the administration has given up on fighting terrorism right now.

 

[yllus]

Remember how the American public reacted towards the French when they didn't support the Iraq war? The fallout from that could well have destroyed the Democratic party for many years. After all,
if you aren't for us you are against us was the motto at the time.

Well gee, I suppose they had no choice but to vote along with the opposition then. Going against the motto of the day would have been so inconvenient.

 

[Patranus]

It amazes me the level of apathy this generation has towards security and the willingness to win.

Talk to anyone who was alive during WWII and they will talk about how after pearl harbor everyone had to buck up and win the war.

No wonder they call that generation the greatest generation.

 

[blackangst1]

What I am contending is that Bush had Osama and company cornered and had ample opportunity to destroy him in 2001 at Tora Bora. Where is bin Laden now? You can't destroy what you can't find. Read a little about Tora Bora and what stopped us from getting bin Laden.

And look at how the Taliban has rebounded -- why do you suppose that happened? Do you think they would have successfully rebounded had we had 200,000 troops on the ground in Afghanistan rather than Iraq? Of course not.

I am generally a conservative, but Bush screwed the pooch and bungled the Afghanistan War. You can try to play games with semantics or try to push the blame on Obama for not crippling them now, but Bush was the one that had the best opportunity and lost it.

Well, that is certainly a piece of the pie. But to directly blame Bush without including Clinton, and very soon Obama, is disingenuous at best. In case you've forgotten, 9/11 wasnt our first go around with him. Have you forgotten the video the CIA took of Bin Laden at Tarnak Farm during the Clinton administration that was looked into by the 9/11 commision? Apparently you have.

Im not playing games at all. Im pointing out yours and others stupidity in the matter.

 

[Craig234]

It amazes me the level of apathy this generation has towards security and the willingness to win.

Talk to anyone who was alive during WWII and they will talk about how after pearl harbor everyone had to buck up and win the war.

No wonder they call that generation the greatest generation.

Typical nonsense from patranus, whth his buying in to the marketing to sell WWII memerobilia.

First, it was a very different situation the US faced then and now. He doesn't understand that. He has the childish 'ohmigosh the western world is doomed we have toi unte and defeat evil' view.

Second, the facts don't get in hs way that WWII started in the 30's. and FDR won relection in 1940 by ropomising to stay out of the war, which polls showed Americans favored, only finally entering the war just before 1942 when the Japanese directly attacked the US, and even then FDR was highly criticized for fighting Hitler and not Japan.

The greatest generation was pretty great on its treatment of Japanese and blacks, too.

Some people romaticize war. Violence fades away as glory is celebrated.

Patranus neeeds to read "War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning'. But I've never seen him read a bool mentioned in a post yet.

 

[boomerang]

It amazes me the level of apathy this generation has towards security and the willingness to win.

Talk to anyone who was alive during WWII and they will talk about how after pearl harbor everyone had to buck up and win the war.

No wonder they call that generation the greatest generation.

It's the way they were raised. In many respects, they can't be blamed. They were taught in school that Americans are the aggressors. Not that we were liberators. The history books have been rewritten to reflect these views. It's what they were taught. They know no different. Take the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. They know of it, but what was stressed the most in their schooling was the internment of those of Japanese ancestry. We are bad. That's the message.

They also were taught the importance of concepts such as equality and fairness. Of the importance of accepting people for what they are. They were taught that all the people's of the world can learn to get along. Good things to learn - without a doubt. The problem is that there was no balance taught. This generation does not believe that there is evil in the world. They were not taught that there are nations and people whose beliefs and values are so different from ours that there is no way to reconcile them. They don't believe that people would want us dead and that their extreme views have lead them to extreme measures. This despite decades of evidence.

They have never been taught that good does not always triumph over evil, because the concept of good and evil is too foreign for them to comprehend. Now, we have a legion of those believers in Washington. They believe to such a great degree that we can all get along that apology tours were held. Those in Washington have had to come up with euphemisms for terms that were commonly used. There is no terrorism, only man made disasters. It takes weeks to begrudgingly acknowledge that an attempt to blow up a plane about to land on our soil was not the work of an independent assailant, it may have been the work of some organization called Al Qaeda. A gunman that yelled Allahu Akbar at Fort Hood is not a terrorist despite overwhelming evidence that says otherwise.

Somewhere along the line in what is arguably the ultimate paradox, they have also been taught that those that disagree with them are not to be tolerated. That they must be minimized, compartmentalized and ultimately silenced. There can be no dissension for their views and ideals are righteous. Those that do not share their views are to be dealt with swiftly and totally.

We've all seen the character in the movies that believes that the aggressors are really just misunderstood. The one that holds out to the very end with hope in his heart that he can convince the bad guys that we can all just get along. We shake our heads in disbelief as this character attempts to convince those that cannot be convinced. We know what's going to happen. He's killed. But right until the bitter end he's convinced it's still possible to make them believe. That hole in his forehead says otherwise.

We've got an entire generation of these people now and they're running the country.

Will this movie have a different outcome?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Well, that is certainly a piece of the pie. But to directly blame Bush without including Clinton, and very soon Obama, is disingenuous at best. In case you've forgotten, 9/11 wasnt our first go around with him. Have you forgotten the video the CIA took of Bin Laden at Tarnak Farm during the Clinton administration that was looked into by the 9/11 commision? Apparently you have.

Im not playing games at all. Im pointing out yours and others stupidity in the matter.

There is no stupidity here and least of all, no partisan blinders which you seem to be wearing. I don't absolve Clinton of any responsibility pertaining to OBL. He certainly had his opportunities as well but that is a separate thread. In case you have forgotten, the thread is about the war in Afghanistan and specifically, what will have been achieved (or not) by the time Obama leaves.

My problem with Bush was that he was the one who went to war with Afghanistan (this was the right decision, I might add) and then proceeded to fritter away our chances of getting OBL, along with alienating the rest of the world in the process by going to war in Iraq. That is the problem I have. I don't recall Clinton invading/carpet bombing/etc an entire country with the intent of destroying the Taliban and Al Qaeda and specifically, their leadership. Bush on several occasions stated that one of his goals was to capture or kill OBL.

 

[Patranus]

Second, the facts don't get in hs way that WWII started in the 30's. and FDR won relection in 1940 by ropomising to stay out of the war, which polls showed Americans favored, only finally entering the war just before 1942 when the Japanese directly attacked the US, and even then FDR was highly criticized for fighting Hitler and not Japan.

The terrorists directly attacked American on 9/11 and killed more people than the attack on Pearl Harbor.

 

[blackangst1]

There is no stupidity here and least of all, no partisan blinders which you seem to be wearing. I don't absolve Clinton of any responsibility pertaining to OBL. He certainly had his opportunities as well but that is a separate thread. In case you have forgotten, the thread is about the war in Afghanistan and specifically, what will have been achieved (or not) by the time Obama leaves.

My problem with Bush was that he was the one who went to war with Afghanistan (this was the right decision, I might add) and then proceeded to fritter away our chances of getting OBL, along with alienating the rest of the world in the process by going to war in Iraq. That is the problem I have. I don't recall Clinton invading/carpet bombing/etc an entire country with the intent of destroying the Taliban and Al Qaeda and specifically, their leadership. Bush on several occasions stated that one of his goals was to capture or kill OBL.

Well then we are in agreement on the issue. Certainly not the way you portrayed it, but nice revision. Or clarification I guess. But he certainly wasnt the only one to fritter away that opportunity. The 9/11 report specifically states Clinton had a wasted opportunity. So theres plenty of blame. And the way things are going in Afghan. now, Obama isnt gonna get him either.

Carpet bombing? lol mmkay.

 

[Skitzer]

A man who knew http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZmPS0XmeBw

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Well then we are in agreement on the issue. Certainly not the way you portrayed it, but nice revision. Or clarification I guess. But he certainly wasnt the only one to fritter away that opportunity. The 9/11 report specifically states Clinton had a wasted opportunity. So theres plenty of blame. And the way things are going in Afghan. now, Obama isnt gonna get him either.

Carpet bombing? lol mmkay.

Well as I mentioned, the thread is specifically about the war in Afghanistan. Clinton had no direct part in that war, so his previous mistakes with regard to OBL (which were plentiful) are for another thread.

Obama will not get OBL at this point either, I agree with you. I've always supported the war in Afghanistan because I think it was the right thing to do. I just don't think it was handled properly. I think Bush (or more specifically, Rumsfeld, who advised Bush) greatly underestimated the effort required to grind the Taliban and AQ into oblivion. At this point, Karzai and his government can't be trusted to do anything, so why do we bother?

Tora Bora was heavily bombed (my reference to "carpet bombing.") The issue was that we relied too much on Afghan ground forces to close in and capture OBL and his cronies after the bombing had subsided, and there is evidence that some of those troops were sympathetic to OBL and aided his escape.

I am conservative by nature (and btw, I enjoy many of your posts and agree with quite a bit of what you say). I look at the situation and think to myself "How would Reagan have handled Afghanistan?" Whatever your opinion of Reagan, good or bad, you have to admit that had this occurred on his watch, he would have remedied the situation quickly.

 

[Elias824]

The point is that obama in theory should End the war by then, not just set some arbitrary date because he can. His next election is hedged on the outcome of his new afghan policy. Everyone said the war in Iraq was a complete loss, but things there are going much better. Perhaps we shouldn't try to lose this war before we end it.

 

[jonks]

Originally Posted by Patranus
It amazes me the level of apathy this generation has towards security and the willingness to win.

Talk to anyone who was alive during WWII and they will talk about how after pearl harbor everyone had to buck up and win the war.

No wonder they call that generation the greatest generation.

It was called that because of the sacrifice ALL americans made, not just the soldiers. The top tax bracket was also 85%, not 34% like it is now, and when american civilians were asked to sacrifice they went without meat and other luxury goods. Today, if you want to pay for a "just and necessary war" but seek to raise the top tax bracket 2% you're called a communist socialist fascist who wants to destroy america.

 

[blackangst1]

Well as I mentioned, the thread is specifically about the war in Afghanistan. Clinton had no direct part in that war, so his previous mistakes with regard to OBL (which were plentiful) are for another thread.

Obama will not get OBL at this point either, I agree with you. I've always supported the war in Afghanistan because I think it was the right thing to do. I just don't think it was handled properly. I think Bush (or more specifically, Rumsfeld, who advised Bush) greatly underestimated the effort required to grind the Taliban and AQ into oblivion. At this point, Karzai and his government can't be trusted to do anything, so why do we bother?

Tora Bora was heavily bombed (my reference to "carpet bombing.") The issue was that we relied too much on Afghan ground forces to close in and capture OBL and his cronies after the bombing had subsided, and there is evidence that some of those troops were sympathetic to OBL and aided his escape.

I am conservative by nature (and btw, I enjoy many of your posts and agree with quite a bit of what you say). I look at the situation and think to myself "How would Reagan have handled Afghanistan?" Whatever your opinion of Reagan, good or bad, you have to admit that had this occurred on his watch, he would have remedied the situation quickly.

In that respect, I agree. Yes, its about Afghanastan, but ultimately its about OBL. Although they have become seperate issues at this point.

 

[Red Dawn]

I look at the situation and think to myself "How would Reagan have handled Afghanistan?" Whatever your opinion of Reagan, good or bad, you have to admit that had this occurred on his watch, he would have remedied the situation quickly.

By getting unarmed Marines blown up like he did in Beirut and then attacking an Island Nation like Greneda?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

By getting unarmed Marines blown up like he did in Beirut and then attacking an Island Nation like Greneda?

You're right. Maybe he should have adopted the Carter tactic of hand wringing, teeth gnashing, and then finally, launching doomed helicopter "rescue" missions in the middle of sandstorms instead.

 

[Red Dawn]

You're right. Maybe he should have adopted the Carter tactic of hand wringing, teeth gnashing, and then finally, launching doomed helicopter "rescue" missions in the middle of sandstorms instead.

So neither of them were worth a shit when it came armed conflicts. Reagan did have Ollie North though