Chicopee John Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 EOM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 EOM Because this isn't front line news anymore. Its all abought Obama these days, shoot Time magazine has his mug on the front cover every 4 weeks. They must really love him. And plus King Obama told everyone that the troops are coming home. only to be replaced with mercenaries. And to employ agencies like this will only cost us more money. What many dont realize, is that we have a contract with the government of Iraq to provide protection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aloysius Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Who is your criticism directed towards? The media? Posters on this board? The ObamaNazis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Who is your criticism directed towards? The media? Posters on this board? The ObamaNazis? Maybe all three? I mean we just got done woth 6 years of Bush is Hitler. Seems like some of the peaceniks would still be a little unhappy about the wars. I guess not. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicopee John Posted August 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Who is your criticism directed towards? The media? Posters on this board? The ObamaNazis? Just a question, Al. Do you have something to add? Perhaps something to help clarify my lack of understanding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrownIndian Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Fair question, 1. cos the situation in the warzone has neither deteriorated or improved dramatically to make it a story. 2. cos back then there was no economic disaster and people wanted news so the war was all there is. Now we have the economy and the healthcare issues going on and it directly affects people, so they are now more keen on themselves than somebody else. And the media dishes out what will get them better TRP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Well, it seems that the "phoney outrage" was all manufactured in nationwide fits of political expediency. The wars, and sadly, the tragic deaths of our soldiers no longer serve as a gleeful barb at Pres Bush anymore. So, the importance has slipped far away for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 I care about the two wars going on. I think the premise on which we're fighting the war in Afghanistan is entirely false and I'd like to hear a better one. Nor do I think we should be adding another 45,000 soldiers to this fight short of a better explanation. I think this is largely a fool's errand. If someone in the administration can make a good case that the threats to Pakistan's government, or our homeland, warrant our continued involvement over there, I'd love to hear it. As of yet, I haven't. But the idea that we're fighting over there so that Al Qaeda can't have a base of operations to plan attacks on America doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and seems instead to be a recipe for never-ending involvement, the goals of which are impossible to realize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicopee John Posted August 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 I care about the two wars going on. I think the premise on which we're fighting the war in Afghanistan is entirely false and I'd like to hear a better one. Nor do I think we should be adding another 45,000 soldiers to this fight short of a better explanation. I think this is largely a fool's errand. If someone in the administration can make a good case that the threats to Pakistan's government, or our homeland, warrant our continued involvement over there, I'd love to hear it. As of yet, I haven't. But the idea that we're fighting over there so that Al Qaeda can't have a base of operations to plan attacks on America doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and seems instead to be a recipe for never-ending involvement, the goals of which are impossible to realize. Thanks, Heck. At the same time, do you believe the 'muting' of dissatisfaction with the wars is due to war fatigue, change of Presidents, issues clutter (TARP, bailouts, health care, etc.)? In your (or anybody else's) opinion is it always a case of "It's the economy, stupid"? To me, the ramped up anger being demonstrated by Town Hall Protesters isn't necessarily due to this single issue. Rather it is the cumulation of sweeping changes to our landscape such as government bailouts, TARP, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 I think it's only out of the headlines temporarily because, as you point out, other issues are trumping it right now. But with the body counts rising in Afghanistan, it won't be out for long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osusev Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 First we are not in ANY WAR ANYWHERE...... The taliban is a religous/political Sunni movement heavily vested with the Pashtuns in Southern and Western Afghanistan and Pakistan. The OCCUPATIONS/rebuilding/stability operations in both countries is ongoing one for Oil stability the Other to help NUCLEAR Pakistan retain control.... We cant "win" a war against a political/religous movement....... Remember the Saudi's and the UAE have recognized the Taliban movement because they are fellow Sunni's. Our Involvement in Afghanistan is more about Nuclear Pakistan than it is about Al queda, my guess is that we are positioning ourselves to negotiate from a position of strenth with the Taliban. I do care about our solidiers over there but in this instance Pakistan IS NUCLEAR and they clearly have a militant area in which they hold very little control over. Pakistan is the key to stability and our ability to remove ourselves out of Afghanistan. T the mercenaries where Bush's stepchildren when he let Bremer and company let Halliburton and company take over in the neocon wet dream of free market enterprise gone wild....... Blackwater,triple canopy,dyncorp etc have been over there and all the private contractors outnumbered our total military for quite a while. Get your facts right. Bush and company broke the area and now we are left with the mess of stabilizing a country that has islamic militant religous ties in a shaky nuclear country. We broke the Sunni Check against the Shia Iranian balance in the richest oil producing region so we are stuck by economy.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 First we are not in ANY WAR ANYWHERE...... The taliban is a religous/political Sunni movement heavily vested with the Pashtuns in Southern and Western Afghanistan and Pakistan. So when the president stated clearly thet he "was fighting two wars" he was, uh...... WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osusev Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 WRONG. Even the almighty Obama (sarcasm) can be wrong. The phrase "war on drugs" is still in use.... that does not mean we are in a military "war" its just a political catch phrase. Like the "war" on terror... Another stupid political catch phrase... We cant win a "war" against an entire people or religous/political movement. That would be like waging a war against republicans in the U.S. Well I suppose we could just Nuke the area..... Come on Steve Sarcasm aside you are smart enough to know why we are stuck in each respective area and that in neither coutnry is there a clear cut organized nation/Army we are fighting. We are fighting for stability and control against Ideologies:religous and political against indegenous tribal factions backed by regional Nations with Oil wealth that share common Religous/political ideology. Thats not a traditional Nation VS Nation organized armies this is and occupation based on Nuclear/oil/economic stability...... without regional help we are screwed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 I think we're fighting two wars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osusev Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 Heck I suppose it comes down to a personal concept of the definition of the terminology "war". These two occupations are not what I see as a "war" but to others it is so it is a matter of personal semantics. You say pOtato I say patato Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osusev Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 Inspecta I dont think it is that simple. One guy initiated the Iraq war and had a Iraq invasion agenda before he was ever elected to office while the other guy wants out.... That is one very important fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 Afghanistan is not going to go well, and those protesters will be back. As for Iraq, I think osusev is right. This was Bush's war. He started it. His administration mismanaged it. Obama was elected in part on a promise to end it responsibly. As long as he keeps his word people won't direct their rage at him. Afghanistan is going to be another story. He put in 25,000 more troops. Now the military is said to want another 45,000, plus a doubling of the civilian force. Today, Gates said there are no plans to send more, but we're going to see how long the American people stand for this. We've been there for almost eight years now, with no exit in sight. And with no real clear goal. My guess is: Americans won't stand for this much longer, especially as the casualties mount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 Hahahaha....well call me a monkey's uncle. Cal and I are in agreement over something. Before Obama was elected every sunday on our way to church we would pass through a very popular intersection of our town and on every corner were anti war protestors yelling and shouting. They never bothered me, but it's funny cause now that Obama is in office we don't see those guys protesting the war anymore. I guess dead soldiers is only a travesty if it's a republican president that's sending them to do it... Yeah Roy Munson hangs out with that crowd at times, but I have never seen or heard of him protesting the war. They are mostly Libertarians Democrats and anti "W" people that show up to protest, I believe since he is at the ripe age and being draftable it puts a little fear of having to fight for life or death to close to home at his age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 Afghanistan is not going to go well, and those protesters will be back. But in smaller numbers and with lighter coverage. IMO. As for Iraq, I think osusev is right. This was Bush's war. He started it. His administration mismanaged it. Obama was elected in part on a promise to end it responsibly. As long as he keeps his word people won't direct their rage at him. I think that's only partially true. The Dems, well some Dems, pledged to de fund the war when they took over the houses. And the slow path home seems the same as the Bush plan. Afghanistan is going to be another story. He put in 25,000 more troops. Now the military is said to want another 45,000, plus a doubling of the civilian force. Today, Gates said there are no plans to send more, but we're going to see how long the American people stand for this. Longer than you will like I'm betting. And he's between a rock and, well you know, since he probably realizes overriding the military can be a mistake. And that other preesidents have been severely castigated for it. We've been there for almost eight years now, with no exit in sight. And with no real clear goal. At one time it was to "get Bin Laden." and stop the regime that hid him. My guess is: Americans won't stand for this much longer, especially as the casualties mount. I agree with the first statement but I'm not as sure of the second. I don't see a Cindy Sheehan getting much traction against the candidate of peace. Americans rarely get up in arms about foreign affairs until most things are calm on the home front. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aloysius Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Feingold asks Obama to announce a timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 We need to get out of both of these backward ass countries. I like the idea of special ops and intelligence wiping out cells as needed to combat terrorist rather than this whole lets spread democracy bullshit along with billions to defense contractors. ************************************************* Yes, we do. Not not to leave those countries an automatic terrorist breeding and training ground all over again. In Afghanistan, that's where 9/11 started. I like your point about spec ops and intelligence, but in the real world, it won't work by itself - terrorists simply play a cat n mouse game where they hit. Spec ops can't be everywhere. Hence, the major military presence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 We need to get out of both of these backward ass countries. I like the idea of special ops and intelligence wiping out cells as needed to combat terrorist rather than this whole lets spread democracy bullshit along with billions to defense contractors. Technip from France is the only other company in the world that can provide the comprehensive & complete services in the oil field industry that Halliburton can. Sure it's slimey that Cheney-tron has stake in the co., but do you want those billions going to France & French employees (eg back to France to support French businesses)? Is it ok that we just allowed a bailout to the banking industry where "billions" went overseas? And now in a quarter's time, these banks are seeing substantial profits (but not because of the bailout, but because of interest rate revenues and fees collected on your credit cards). Not sure about you, but the sand in the Vaseline is starting to chafe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osusev Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 legacy halliburton does not need to provide food/mail/laundry/repair/water etc to our military..... TOO much private outsourcing. Really our military problem is our EMPIRE military operation footprint, we are everywhere with hundreds of bases in tons of countries left over from cold war era strategic positions. We CANT leave Afghanistan because of NUCLEAR shaky Pakistan, we broke Afghanistans operational Taliban government now they are destabilizing Pakistan. This is more about nuclear stability and keeping Pakistan stable because WE destabilized their neighbor. I admit I am guilty of responding to my blood lust instinct after 9-11 but in hindsight we probably could have taken other tactics dealing with the Taliban. I did not think about destabilizing nuclear Pakistan. We are stuck gentlemen whether we like it or not because of nuclear pakistan and whatever happens internally their which also affects nuclear India. I still think we end of negotiating with the Taliban and they end up controlling sections of that country with our blessing which is how we leave. Fighting the regional tribes and a religous/political movement in that mountainous region with a porous uncontrolled border with Pakistan is almost impossible (as the russians found out) IF they are armed (which they are thanks to other local Sunni powers and now Opium based money) This is a situation we have to in conjunction with Pakistan NEGOTIATE and give power back to the Taliban in order to leave. We can still have assasination special ops and unmanned/CIA based teams backed up by military to hit Al Queda. We dont need to occupy that damn country when the people are against us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.