Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Mindless Debate Over U.S. Troops In Afghanistan

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
    The US was in no danger of losing the war even without the nukes. The Japanese defeat was certain. The nukes only shortened the time it would have taken to finish it. It traded thousands of military casualties (in a US attack on the Japanese mainland) for thousands of civilian casualties.
    I think you're being generous, even. There would have been thousands of civilian casualties either way, no doubt.


    Really? People here are talking of nuking Mecca, while your country is allied with the country in which it is located and the country from where they are likely to get their nukes from. You are selling (or gifting) weapons to both of them. Very unusual war this.
    Logic will not help you here. :)

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by DPrime View Post
      Logic will not help you here. :)
      Logic also does not help me in wondering why everybody is so concerned over Islamists taking over Mali. After all, the people you supported in Egypt and Libya all seem to be more Islamist than the regimes they deposed. The rebels you are supporting in Syria seem to have links to AQ and other Islamist organizations.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
        Logic also does not help me in wondering why everybody is so concerned over Islamists taking over Mali. After all, the people you supported in Egypt and Libya all seem to be more Islamist than the regimes they deposed. The rebels you are supporting in Syria seem to have links to AQ and other Islamist organizations.
        Syria's a hodge-podge of different rebel factions. There seem to be extremist elements within their ranks (and it should be emphasized that Islamism does not necessarily equate AQ-type extremism), but what can you do? We have a common enemy.

        From my understanding, Mali's a different beast altogether... more of an AQIM-led group, not just a resistence with some unfavourable elements... I have to admit, I don't quite understand the strategic importance of the country, other than trying to ensure it doesn't become a Taliban-style refuge for terrorists, and I'm not paying as much attention to the situation there as I probably should... maybe someone better informed than I can explain? Any French members here?

        As far as Egypt and Libya go, it's definitely something we should keep an eye on... but as long as they're functioning democracies, it'd still be an improvement over what we had.

        Possibly not in Egypt's case, I suppose (Mubarak was an ally), but certainly in Libya... relations couldn't get much worse than they had been under Ghaddhafi, unless Libya ends up becoming a failed state, like post-Soviet Afghanistan or Somalia. I don't expect that to happen to either Libya or Egypt, though.
        Last edited by DPrime; 23 Jan 13,, 20:55.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by DPrime View Post
          Nope. Both countries have wide-ranging strategic interests in Muslim countries (just look at Syria for one example). Not to mention strategic interests in countering US hegemony. No way they'd let the US unilaterally nuke Muslim cities go unchecked. Posturing my a$$, we'd likely be looking at WWIII.
          Yeah, and they'd still have those wide ranging interests if those countries weren't Muslim. In fact, they'd be even more wide ranging. And who said anything about nukes?
          The more I think about it, ol' Billy was right.
          Let's kill all the lawyers, kill 'em tonight.
          - The Eagles

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by dalem View Post
            Like us "neocons", whatever that is, tried to tell people who were wanting emphasis shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan, A-gan is a pesthole that never rewards direct action. Iraq, at least, is a country.

            But I'm sure it's all Bush's fault somehow.

            -dale
            actually it was his responsibilty to put Afganistan on a road to succuss before invading Iraq. He ddnt. We went in dd wehat we had to for the most part wth a few gaffes like not enough ground presence too prevent the exodus of our real enemies from Torah Borah. We coudnt hold the hole country wth the force we kept in place. Afganistan did have a chance for a better outcome. The taliban had retreated into the the Pakstan tribal areas but We under resourced that theater and allowed it to fester and allowed the taliban to regroup and retake control of large swaths of the country. In the end it still might of been a doomed misson but the under resourcung frm 2002 to 2007 guarenteed it would be a failure. We had our boot on the tailbans neck and removed it by choice
            Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.
            ~Ronald Reagan

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
              Have people forgotten that we had to go into Afghanistan? While I can accept people may think otherwise about Iraq, THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT WE HAD TO GO INTO AFGHANISTAN! Maybe we should have left sooner or done things different but we went in there to kill Al Qaeda and we did.

              Frankly, we should have nuked Tora Bora.
              or at least had the ground forces n place to prevent escape at tora bora. I didnt thnk it was a get ut soner issue thnk it was a get 3/4 the way out and let the taliban retake the country
              Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.
              ~Ronald Reagan

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by dalem View Post
                I wanted to drop a small nuke in Afghanistan but everyone said it was over the top.

                -dale
                for what purpose? How many allies wud we of lost? What kind of recruitng boom worldwde and here would t of creatyed? Do yu think it mght of resuted n some new radicalzed domestc groups bent on attackng us for a crme against humanity? Do youthnk there would of been the potential for a nn aly to prvde aq wth materals for a chemical, bogcal or nuclear dirty bomb wmd? Do you think brutal retaliaton mostly against dirt farmers who werentradicazed mght of led t the creation f a genration fpeple seekng revenge? Yu dnt thnk we wud of had natns slapping trade sanctions on us the most powerful rogue natin in the world after that act? What abut the loss of controll over our own economy and all the advantages we have because the world operates on the dollar standard going away when it went on the at the time strong euro and the huge increases n debt the interest rate hikes would of led to? Of course there wuld be the listing of our eaders charged war criminals, maybe genocide if we killed enough subsistance farmers.. It would of made invading Iraq look brillant and ushered iun the era of America
                Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.
                ~Ronald Reagan

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Roosveltrepub View Post
                  actually it was his responsibilty to put Afganistan on a road to succuss before invading Iraq. He ddnt. We went in dd wehat we had to for the most part wth a few gaffes like not enough ground presence too prevent the exodus of our real enemies from Torah Borah. We coudnt hold the hole country wth the force we kept in place. Afganistan did have a chance for a better outcome. The taliban had retreated into the the Pakstan tribal areas but We under resourced that theater and allowed it to fester and allowed the taliban to regroup and retake control of large swaths of the country. In the end it still might of been a doomed misson but the under resourcung frm 2002 to 2007 guarenteed it would be a failure. We had our boot on the tailbans neck and removed it by choice
                  There is no "road to success" for Afghanistan. That's kind of the point.

                  The best you can hope for is seasonal gopher hunting, and NO ONE is going to begrudge us that.

                  -dale

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Mihais View Post
                    This one actually is.Obama is worse,however.He took a faulty strategy and ran with it.
                    What was the faulty strategy he ran with?
                    Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.
                    ~Ronald Reagan

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Roosveltrepub View Post
                      for what purpose? How many allies wud we of lost? What kind of recruitng boom worldwde and here would t of creatyed? Do yu think it mght of resuted n some new radicalzed domestc groups bent on attackng us for a crme against humanity? Do youthnk there would of been the potential for a nn aly to prvde aq wth materals for a chemical, bogcal or nuclear dirty bomb wmd? Do you think brutal retaliaton mostly against dirt farmers who werentradicazed mght of led t the creation f a genration fpeple seekng revenge? Yu dnt thnk we wud of had natns slapping trade sanctions on us the most powerful rogue natin in the world after that act? What abut the loss of controll over our own economy and all the advantages we have because the world operates on the dollar standard going away when it went on the at the time strong euro and the huge increases n debt the interest rate hikes would of led to? Of course there wuld be the listing of our eaders charged war criminals, maybe genocide if we killed enough subsistance farmers.. It would of made invading Iraq look brillant and ushered iun the era of America
                      What purpose? To indicate how serious we were.

                      Allies lost? Compared to the number of allies we lost trying to do Iraq? Please. Once the call was made, there was no one who politically supported the Iraq effort more than me, but it became clear over time that our allies except for our UK/Can/Aussie cousins had no stomach for or interest in making it work, and we didn't seem to have the skill to convince them otherwise. And it wasn't something that we could do alone.

                      One little nuke in Nowheresville, Afghanistan wouldn't have done any worse.

                      -dale

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by dalem View Post
                        There is no "road to success" for Afghanistan. That's kind of the point.

                        The best you can hope for is seasonal gopher hunting, and NO ONE is going to begrudge us that.

                        -dale
                        basicaly agree the chances of succuss even if the theater had been fuly resurced was slm but under resurced t became zero. Even if it returns to full talban control knwng there are consequences for exporting terror mght prevent the return of the practice. I am glad to see the articles on moving up the exit all we do is bleed blood and treasure fr a crrupt govverment that wil dry up and blow away the second we leave Hopefuy wewont frget that freedom and democracy are insiide jobs not an export product we can set up
                        Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.
                        ~Ronald Reagan

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by dalem View Post
                          What purpose? To indicate how serious we were.

                          Allies lost? Compared to the number of allies we lost trying to do Iraq? Please. Once the call was made, there was no one who politically supported the Iraq effort more than me, but it became clear over time that our allies except for our UK/Can/Aussie cousins had no stomach for or interest in making it work, and we didn't seem to have the skill to convince them otherwise. And it wasn't something that we could do alone.

                          One little nuke in Nowheresville, Afghanistan wouldn't have done any worse.

                          -dale
                          i think we faced apathy from our alles n Iraq nt a severe shuffling of relatinshps I dundersatand wanting to send astrng message but kiling a few hundred thousand ilterate poppy farmers to get a few thousand AQ had to many downsides. Also how much easier for a nuclear power to use a nuke on a non nuke power going forward. I share the sentiment and morally would of been ok wth it gven the support those dirt farmers gave their goverment I just dont think the costs would of justified thefeeling of retribution
                          Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.
                          ~Ronald Reagan

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Major Dad View Post
                            Yeah, and they'd still have those wide ranging interests if those countries weren't Muslim. In fact, they'd be even more wide ranging.
                            So?

                            And who said anything about nukes?
                            Uh, everyone else since page three.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X