10 years in Afghanistan.....can we admit this war is lost and a failure now? *Poll*
Options
Comments
-
kingblaze84 wrote: »If it was up to me, all politicians that advocate the mass slaughter of civilians (which would be 95% of of American ones) would fight the wars themselves with their children, no matter how young.
Once they see their 5 year olds burned with white phosphorus the way kids all over Iraq and Afghanistan an are being burned with white phosphorus, I'm sure they wouldn't be in such a rush to go to war.
Of course though, you also gotta understand American politicians are part of clubs that have ceremonies that think child sacrifice is a funny thing (Skull and Bones, with the Bush crime family being its most famous members, along with John Kerry, Reagan, and Nixon).
What would you do to tyrants who rule other countries that slaughter massive amounts of civilians and perform tests on them unwillingly? -
ThaChozenWun wrote: »What would you do to tyrants who rule other countries that slaughter massive amounts of civilians and perform tests on them unwillingly?
I would consider several things before choosing to play world's policeman.........
We got 13 trillion dollars in debt......
A healthcare plan that is gonna cost TONS of money in the long run........
Social Security and Medicaid is gonna cost a fortune as well........
Last but not least, Americans are ALREADY in two wars overseas, not including the private wars going on in Yemen and Pakistan........
My conclusion? I would my mind my own ? ? BUSINESS.
Besides, Bush wasn't a tyrant, but he definitely helped slaughter massive amounts of civilians too.....and yep, his soldiers performed tons of tests on prisoners in Abu Gharib and Guantanomo Bay. Wouldv'e been cool for a foreign country to bomb Bush and bomb tons of our civilians. Cool huh? -
Conflict210 wrote: »we ain choose dis war
"If I had to narrow it down to one person ... I think my prime suspect [in the 9/11 attacks] would be Diick Cheney." --Dr. Robert Bowman, Ph.D. in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering from Caltech, former U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel, and former Director of Advanced Space Programs Development for the U.S. Air Force in the Ford and Carter administrations
"Amazing, incredible, pick your word. For the third time today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down." --CBS News anchor Dan Rather, commenting on the collapse of Building 7 - September 11, 2001 at approximately 5:30pm EST
--I'm not saying Bush masterminded 9/11, but it was definitely an inside job.
How did Building 7 fall down again? No planes hit it.
How did Condileeza Rice know Sept 11th was gonna go down? The bucktoothed ? called ? Brown a week before 9/11 and told him not to fly to NY on Sept 11th......
Things that make you go HMMMMMMMMMMMMM -
The options chooses suck by the way
-
kingblaze84 wrote: »I would consider several things before choosing to play world's policeman.........
We got 13 trillion dollars in debt......
A healthcare plan that is gonna cost TONS of money in the long run........
Social Security and Medicaid is gonna cost a fortune as well........
Last but not least, Americans are ALREADY in two wars overseas, not including the private wars going on in Yemen and Pakistan........
My conclusion? I would my mind my own ? ? BUSINESS.
Besides, Bush wasn't a tyrant, but he definitely helped slaughter massive amounts of civilians too.....and yep, his soldiers performed tons of tests on prisoners in Abu Gharib and Guantanomo Bay. Wouldv'e been cool for a foreign country to bomb Bush and bomb tons of our civilians. Cool huh?
Well I mean that's a problem then.
If in America you would worry about the government gassing and killing a lot of people why would your views change when it's someone else? Wrong is wrong. If you're going to be against something I'd rather see you be against it 100%, not well its bad for so and so but if its them ? it let it happen.
If you are so anti killing civilians in other countries then you should be equally as anti if not more against leaders killing their own in those countries. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »How did Building 7 fall down again? No planes hit it.
How did Condileeza Rice know Sept 11th was gonna go down? The bucktoothed ? called ? Brown a week before 9/11 and told him not to fly to NY on Sept 11th......
Things that make you go HMMMMMMMMMMMMM
In Vibe's 9/11 conspiracy thread we showed how and why 7 fell.
And it's known that the US knew about the attacks prior. They didn't take them serious though, Rice knew someone personally on the planes so she called him just in case. -
shake your head at the fact that you can't debate a topic, but can only call names instead.kingblaze84 wrote: »SMH at Janklow doing the military industrial complex's bidding. You do realize Americans are not winning the war on terror right now right?
it's easy to talk this ? CORPORATIONS noise, but what i'd actually like to see you do is address what i actually said. you say 9/11 wasn't planned in Germany, but in the face of statements to the contrary... you talk about me doing someone's bidding. everything else is apparently you being mad about me disagreeing with you (oh ? , not that) and the fact that i mentioned it hasn't been 10 years. so what gives? i can't dispute that 10 years is an arbitrary guideline?kingblaze84 wrote: »LMAO.....damn you fell for the corporations (who want the Middle East's minerals and oil reserves) and special interests' (the governments of the world who want in on the business' plans) propaganda HARD.
see, i should remember that you don't actually want to debate anything like an adultkingblaze84 wrote: »I salute your loyalty to world wide criminal syndicates who happen to own most of the world's money (most of it stolen in some way), but I will come back hear with some evidence of what I'm talking about. I'm gonna play some Fallout: New Vegas now.....I'll be back
if you saying it's like Vietnam, be prepared to defend the comparison. i'll repeat myself: Vietnam involved fighting a large-scale war against a conventional military that had sanctuaries to operate from and superpower backing. so tell me how Afghanistan is like that or expect snide remarks.My reference to 'VN without the 10's of thousands' of dead soldiers had nothing whatsoever to do with your analysis,let alone that snide little closing remark of yours. Btw I've told you on several occasions our military CANNOT defeat this kind of enemy e.g.,insurgents, psychological warfare type tactics.....NO brute fire power can defeat that tactic without major unintended consequences. (civilian casualties)
whether or not our military can "defeat this kind of enemy" isn't the same thing as saying "this is like Vietnam"
NO NO NOThe Jackal wrote: »Its less of a war and more of a skirmish or military conflict. Like Vietnam
wait, so after all that talk about coming back with more evidence, all you did was come back in order to talk more ? and not really add anything to your argument? that's awesome. but honestly, this has happened before: i try to seriously discuss the topic, and because you don't agree with me, you get mad. calm down or find something else to do beside post on an internet forum, man.kingblaze84 wrote: »There are only 50 to 100 Al-Qaeda members in Afghanistan.....so we should continue to waste billions to trillions of dollars to fight Al-Qaeda, while we got more than 10 thousand MS-13 gang bangers in the USA alone? America loses more people to gang violence every year than we do to terrorism. You scare very easily I see. Your priorities are all ? up.
on topic: telling me how many al-Qaeda members are in Afghanistan now doesn't address the situation in 2001. so are we discussing then or now? -
Why do you say no?
-
The Jackal wrote: »Why do you say no?
read the comment above your quote -
I'm not saying afghan is like Vietnam but making a comparison on what a war and military conflict is by using Vietnam.
-
Pakistan and Iran do not support the insurgency in Afghanistan in the way that the Soviet Union and China supported the NATION of North Vietnam. again, the Vietnam War involved the nation of North Vietnam and their conventional military, a situation that is not paralleled in Afghanistan. this is not about debate the difficulty of the war or if anyone else beyond Afghans is involved; this is about comparing it to Vietnam.So Pakistan/Iran & other freedom fighters aren't superpowers does that negate there involvement....you mess with the hornets nest YOU can expect to get stung big time.
you're still either missing or intentionally overlooking the fact that i am not debating the resolution of the conflict, especially since Afghanistan remains, shall we say, "unresolved"IMO you and me share different perspectives on the end results....defeat is defeat.Whether you lose by one run or two runs....you were still defeated. -
Pakistan and Iran do not support the insurgency in Afghanistan in the way that the Soviet Union and China supported the NATION of North Vietnam. again, the Vietnam War involved the nation of North Vietnam and their conventional military, a situation that is not paralleled in Afghanistan. this is not about debate the difficulty of the war or if anyone else beyond Afghans is involved; this is about comparing it to Vietnam.
you're still either missing or intentionally overlooking the fact that i am not debating the resolution of the conflict, especially since Afghanistan remains, shall we say, "unresolved"
Are you serious with this post?????????
Iran and Pakistan according to American documents and intelligence have plenty of agents working with the Taliban and other insurgent groups ALL OVER Afghanistan.
Don't make me bring up proof. Come on man, you gotta make better posts than that. You can't be serious with this nonsense you just said. -
Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
The United States has formally declared war against foreign nations 5 times. The only country against which the United States has declared war more than once is Germany, against which the United States has declared war twice (though a case could be made for Hungary as a successor state to Austria-Hungary). Each time the declaration was requested by the President either in writing or in person before a joint session of Congress.
In World War II, the Japanese had attacked Pearl Harbor on the previous day, December 7, 1941. On December 11, ? and Mussolini declared war on America and the U.S. Congress responded in kind.
War of 1812
Mexican-American War
Spanish-American War
World War I
World War II
On at least 125 occasions, the President has acted without prior express military authorization from Congress. These include instances in which the United States fought in Korea in 1950, the Philippine-American War from 1898-1903, and in Nicaragua in 1927.
The United States' longest war was fought between approximately 1840 and 1886 against the Apache Nation. During that entire 46-year period, there were never more than 90 days of "peace."
At least 28 conflicts and campaigns comprise the Indian Wars. These conflicts began with Europeans immigrating to North America long before the establishment of the United States of America. For the purpose of this discussion, the Indian Wars are defined as conflicts with the United States of America. They begin as one front in the American Revolutionary War in 1775 and are generally agreed upon as concluding with the surrender of the Apache chief Geronimo in 1886.
The American Civil War was not a true war in the sense that the Union Government held the position that secession from the Union was illegal and military force was used to restore the union by defeating in battle the military forces of the illegally rebelling states. No Southern ambassador or diplomat was accorded any status by the Union so an armistice or peace treaty was never an option because that would legitimize the Confederacy as an actual Nation. The legal right for armed force lay with the Constitution of the United States, which the Union interpreted as unbreakable. The actions of the Southern states were therefore illegal (according to the Union) because they were attempting to drop the Union as their form of Government, which is considered rebellion or insurrection.
Source(s):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration…
Interesting........ -
The people that were beaten and broken into submission of accepting their historic open enemy.
And hate themselves in return -
let me bold the relevant portion of my post, because i think you're overlooking my point to go on about this: "Pakistan and Iran do not support the insurgency in Afghanistan in the way that the Soviet Union and China supported the NATION of North Vietnam."kingblaze84 wrote: »Are you serious with this post????????? Iran and Pakistan according to American documents and intelligence have plenty of agents working with the Taliban and other insurgent groups ALL OVER Afghanistan.
so did you misread the post or are you intentionally ignoring the argument?
actually, you already said you would: "but I will come back hear with some evidence of what I'm talking about." instead i get another threat of proof and then a little trash talk in its place? same old, same old...kingblaze84 wrote: »Don't make me bring up proof. Come on man, you gotta make better posts than that. You can't be serious with this nonsense you just said. -
The people that were beaten and broken into submission of accepting their historic open enemy.
And hate themselves in return
What in the hell are you talking about?! -
I know this is going to bring a lot of hate, but I believe there isn't a war our military couldn't win and there isn't a war our politicians couldn't lose.
-
let me bold the relevant portion of my post, because i think you're overlooking my point to go on about this: "Pakistan and Iran do not support the insurgency in Afghanistan in the way that the Soviet Union and China supported the NATION of North Vietnam."
so did you misread the post or are you intentionally ignoring the argument?
actually, you already said you would: "but I will come back hear with some evidence of what I'm talking about." instead i get another threat of proof and then a little trash talk in its place? same old, same old...
Sorry, Fallout New Vegas is taking over my life. But here's the proof you wanted to see.........
http://news.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/world/04-pakistan-iran-aiding-afghan-taliban-us-qs-06
Pakistan, Iran aiding Afghan Taliban: US
WASHINGTON: The US military commander in Afghanistan Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal says he has evidence that factions of Pakistani and Iranian spy services are supporting insurgent groups that carry out attacks on coalition troops, the Los Angeles Times said in a report.
Taliban fighters in Afghanistan have assistance from ‘elements of some intelligence agencies,’ McChrystal wrote in an analysis of the military situation presented to the White House earlier this month.
The analysis said Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence as well as the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard are among the external forces trying to undermine US interests in Afghanistan.
A declassified version of McChrystal’s assessment was published Sunday on the Washington Post website, LA Times said.
Pakistan’s criticism is a delicate issue due to the US’s close cooperation with Islamabad in pursuing militants and carrying out drone airstrikes in the country’s tribal regions.
‘Afghanistan's insurgency is clearly supported from Pakistan,’ McChrystal wrote, adding that senior leaders of important Taliban groups are ‘reportedly aided by some elements of Pakistan's ISI.’
McChrystal's assessment is the first public indication in months that the United States still sees signs of ISI support for the Taliban. Experts said elements of the ISI maintain those ties to hedge against a US withdrawal from the region and rising Indian influence in Afghanistan.
‘There is a mixture of motives and concerns within the ISI that have accounted for the dalliances that have gone on for years’ with insurgent groups, said Paul Pillar, a former senior CIA counter-terrorism official.
McChrystal's report said Tehran has played ‘an ambiguous role in Afghanistan,’ providing developmental assistance to the government even as it assists insurgent groups that target US troops.
‘The Iranian Quds Force is reportedly training fighters for certain Taliban groups and providing other forms of military assistance to insurgents,’ McChrystal said in the report.
He did not elaborate on the nature of the assistance, but Iran has been a transit point for foreign fighters entering Pakistan. Experts also cited evidence that Iran has provided training and technology in the use of roadside bombs.
US intelligence officials said Iran appears to regulate its involvement to tie down US and coalition troops without provoking direct retaliation.
Iran's aim ‘is to make sure the US is tied down and preoccupied in yet another theatre,’ said Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University. ‘From Iran's point of view, it's an historical area of interest and too good an opportunity to pass up.’
----So yeah, um.......what the ? were you saying again? -
Here is more proof that the Taliban and Pakistan are best buddies......maybe not BEST buddies, but useful buddies to each other......this war is a disaster of epic proportions, and is hurting Obama in every way imaginable, end this ? war now.....
http://teabreak.pk/despite-u-s-aid-pledge-pakistan-plans-no-new-offensives-87/43244/
Despite U.S. aid pledge, Pakistan plans no new offensives
October 30th, 2010
LAHORE, Pakistan — Despite the Obama administration’s pleas last week at a top-level “strategic dialogue” and a new $2 billion U.S. military aid pledge, Pakistan has no near-term plans to launch new offensives in its tribal area to help the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan, officials and analysts said Friday.
The focus of U.S. demands is North Waziristan, on the Afghan border, where Pakistan has provided sanctuary to the Haqqani network since the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The Haqqani network is allied with the Afghan Taliban, which seeks the overthrow of the U.S.-backed government of President Hamid Karzai in Kabul. The U.S. government views Haqqani as dangerously close to al-Qaida, whereas Islamabad apparently considers Haqqani a reliable ally that must be part of a political outcome in Afghanistan.
“The U.S. is pursuing a policy of isolating Haqqani,” said Simbal Khan, an analyst at the Institute of Strategic Studies, a government-financed research center in Islamabad. “Pakistan wants to include all the border (insurgent) groups.”
Pakistan sees Haqqani as a component of any final political deal, and due its share of power in any future government, but Washington thinks that the group is among the “irreconcilables,” analysts said. Pakistan had backed the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, which ruled much of the country from the mid-1990s to 2001, and its relationship with Haqqani goes back to the 1970s.
A meeting of top U.S. and Pakistani civilian and military officials in Washington last week culminated in the pledge of $2 billion in military equipment, to be used for counterterrorism operations. The additional aid is subject to congressional approval.
U.S. analysts in Washington said the Pakistan military couldn’t launch a new offensive in the tribal areas in the foreseeable future even if it intended to, because its transport aircraft and helicopters are committed to flood-relief operations.
Pakistan has launched military offensives in all six other parts of the tribal area, and operations are still under way in Bajaur, Mohmand and South Waziristan. Action in North Waziristan isn’t on the current agenda, Pakistani officials said, and even if an operation started there, it’s expected that it would be much more limited than the “steamroller” offensive seen in South Waziristan a year ago, so Haqqani could be left untouched.
“Our preference is to consolidate our gains elsewhere in the tribal area,” said Abdul Basit, the spokesman for Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. “The time and scope of any operation (in North Waziristan) will be determined by Pakistan alone.”
Basit said that if the Afghan government reached out to all the insurgent groups, including Haqqani, “Pakistan would support that.”
Earlier this week, the Pakistani military commander for the northwest of the country, Lt. Gen. Asif Yasin Malik, said that it would take at least six months to clear militants from Bajaur and Mohmand.
“It’s a question of timing,” Malik said. “Everywhere there are reasons to go in, and there are reasons not to go in.”
Pakistan not only hosts the Afghan Taliban leadership - the so-called Quetta Shura - and the Haqqani network of veteran jihadist Jalaluddin Haqqani, but also the third big Afghan insurgent force, led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, another longtime Islamist warlord. That gives Islamabad huge leverage over any negotiated settlement. While Washington equates Haqqani with al-Qaida, for Pakistanis it’s clear that Haqqani hasn’t joined the al-Qaida agenda of war against Pakistan.
The Haqqani network, now run by the aged Jalaluddin’s son, Sirajuddin, is careful not to be involved in the campaign of violence run by Pakistani jihadist groups, in particular the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan, or the Taliban Movement of Pakistan. Another North Waziristan-based jihadist group, led by Gul Bahadur, also focuses exclusively on the fight in Afghanistan.
“Islamabad feels it would be suicidal to act against Bahadur and Haqqani, especially when the Pakistanis are struggling to combat renegade Taliban forces elsewhere,” Stratfor, a U.S.-based geopolitical consultancy, says in a report this week. “It is unclear that the United States and Pakistan can come to terms on which Taliban can be negotiated with. Until that happens, North Waziristan will remain a major source of tension between the two sides.”
The Haqqani network relies entirely on Pakistan for a haven, as it has no permanent territory in Afghanistan, unlike the Taliban, who hold sway over large chunks of land.
Haqqani is credited with a series of attacks on the interests of Pakistan’s archenemy, India, in Afghanistan, including assaults on the Indian Embassy, a hostel where Indians stay in Kabul and Indian contractors working in Afghanistan. That has proved Haqqani’s loyalty and worth to the Pakistani establishment, analysts said.
Earlier this year, the Pakistani military reportedly arranged a meeting between representatives of Haqqani and Afghan officials in Kabul. -
let me bold the relevant portion of my post, because i think you're overlooking my point to go on about this: "Pakistan and Iran do not support the insurgency in Afghanistan in the way that the Soviet Union and China supported the NATION of North Vietnam."
so did you misread the post or are you intentionally ignoring the argument?
actually, you already said you would: "but I will come back hear with some evidence of what I'm talking about." instead i get another threat of proof and then a little trash talk in its place? same old, same old...
It doesn't ? matter how Iran and Pakistan are supporting the Taliban........the bottom line is that they ARE.
PERIOD. Oh, and the people of Pakistan view America as their number one enemy. See how good the war on terror is going? -
actually, this seems to have nothing to do with the post where you claimed you were going to come back with proof, because your rant at me was something about "loyalty to world wide criminal syndicates who happen to own most of the world's money (most of it stolen in some way)."kingblaze84 wrote: »But here's the proof you wanted to see.........
actually, it DOES matter how they're supporting the Taliban, because that was the topic of the debate that you responded to. a brief recap:kingblaze84 wrote: »It doesn't ? matter how Iran and Pakistan are supporting the Taliban........the bottom line is that they ARE.
heyslick: Afghanistan is like Vietnam
janklow: no, it's not, for these reasons
let me post this again: "Pakistan and Iran do not support the insurgency in Afghanistan in the way that the Soviet Union and China supported the NATION of North Vietnam."
i don't know how much more clear about this without being completely condescending. i am not saying Pakistan and/or Iran have never supported insurgents in Afghanistan (although i would point out that Iran and the Taliban don't exactly have a loving relationship based on past history); what i am saying is that there's a clear difference or two between the war in Vietnam and the war in Pakistan. telling me that Pakistanis hate the US and/or assist the Taliban does NOT address that. -
actually, this seems to have nothing to do with the post where you claimed you were going to come back with proof, because your rant at me was something about "loyalty to world wide criminal syndicates who happen to own most of the world's money (most of it stolen in some way)."
actually, it DOES matter how they're supporting the Taliban, because that was the topic of the debate that you responded to. a brief recap:
heyslick: Afghanistan is like Vietnam
janklow: no, it's not, for these reasons
let me post this again: "Pakistan and Iran do not support the insurgency in Afghanistan in the way that the Soviet Union and China supported the NATION of North Vietnam."
i don't know how much more clear about this without being completely condescending. i am not saying Pakistan and/or Iran have never supported insurgents in Afghanistan (although i would point out that Iran and the Taliban don't exactly have a loving relationship based on past history); what i am saying is that there's a clear difference or two between the war in Vietnam and the war in Pakistan. telling me that Pakistanis hate the US and/or assist the Taliban does NOT address that.
Whatever you say.
As long as you agree that Pakistan and Iran ARE supporting the Taliban and other insurgent groups all throughout Afghanistan. This is an undeniable fact.
If Republicans have their way, we'll be fighting against the entire Middle East in 2 years. What a shame Obama doesn't realize he's half way there already.
And to the people who said I am whining......smh at ya'll. I guess some of you love 10 year long conflicts that increase our debt and decrease our security in the long run. -
http://www.huffingtofnpost.com/2010/10/23/iran-afghanistan-corruption-cash_n_772877.html
KABUL, Afghanistan -- One evening last August, as President Hamid Karzai wrapped up an official visit to Iran, his personal plane sat on the airport tarmac, waiting for a late-running passenger: Iran's ambassador to Afghanistan.
The ambassador, Feda Hussein Maliki, finally appeared, taking a seat next to Umar Daudzai, Mr. Karzai's chief of staff and his most trusted confidant. According to an Afghan official on the plane, Mr. Maliki handed Mr. Daudzai a large plastic bag bulging with packets of euro bills. A second Afghan official confirmed that Mr. Daudzai carried home a large bag of cash.
----Great, Iran is giving money to the Taliban, insurgent groups, AND Karzai's people. This war is getting more interesting by the day.....I predict we'll be in Afghanistan for another 10 years.
Minimum. -
Conflict210 wrote: »this is a war not a payment plan
It's both........
Taliban gets money from Pakistan and Iran for killing tons of Americanos.......
While Karzai's people get money from America, Iran, and Pakistan.
Any wonder why Karzai doesn't want to attack the Taliban too strongly? His friends in Iran and Pakistan wouldn't like it = ) -
it's also completely aside from the point that i was making. i've never denied it, although i seem to want to take a more nuanced perspective of how Iran relates to the Taliban than you do, since they clearly don't have the best history.kingblaze84 wrote: »As long as you agree that Pakistan and Iran ARE supporting the Taliban and other insurgent groups all throughout Afghanistan. This is an undeniable fact.
that said, while you'd like me to agree to points you make, i'd still like you to answer this question: did you misread the post or were you intentionally ignoring the argument?
