FCS Football | Message Board | News
https://www.championshipsubdivision.com/forums/
https://www.championshipsubdivision.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=23541
AZGrizFan wrote:A very, very good watch. Long, but well worth it.
That being said, it's fairly obvious that:
a) Pakistan (or elements of their military) knew Bin Laden was there and did nothing about it
b) Bin laden's death isn't going to dissuade the vast majority of Taliban or Al Quada to lay down their arms and negotiate (thus my "pie-in-the-sky" comments on your earlier thread)
c) teaching children to fight means we could be there for 100 years (to use McCain's words)
d) Pakistan (or elements within Pakistan) is openly helping the Taliban and Al Quada
e) If we aren't willing to invade Pakistan (which I'm not), we're completely wasting our time/energy/bodies
f) There is no redeeming quality to Afghanistan; tribal rule, martial sharia law, the whole place is pretty much ****.
g) No matter HOW we leave Afghanistan, it'll be compared to Viet Nam....tactical victory over tactical victory, but in the end we leave without any real goal accomplished.
h) We're wasting Americans every day in that shithole. I'd be fine with getting them ALL out and just using drones/tactical nukes to accomplish whatever "objectives" we've got left.
Yesterday.AshevilleApp wrote:AZGrizFan wrote:A very, very good watch. Long, but well worth it.
That being said, it's fairly obvious that:
a) Pakistan (or elements of their military) knew Bin Laden was there and did nothing about it
b) Bin laden's death isn't going to dissuade the vast majority of Taliban or Al Quada to lay down their arms and negotiate (thus my "pie-in-the-sky" comments on your earlier thread)
c) teaching children to fight means we could be there for 100 years (to use McCain's words)
d) Pakistan (or elements within Pakistan) is openly helping the Taliban and Al Quada
e) If we aren't willing to invade Pakistan (which I'm not), we're completely wasting our time/energy/bodies
f) There is no redeeming quality to Afghanistan; tribal rule, martial sharia law, the whole place is pretty much ****.
g) No matter HOW we leave Afghanistan, it'll be compared to Viet Nam....tactical victory over tactical victory, but in the end we leave without any real goal accomplished.
h) We're wasting Americans every day in that shithole. I'd be fine with getting them ALL out and just using drones/tactical nukes to accomplish whatever "objectives" we've got left.
Good post Z. The only real goal that was worthy was accomplished a few days ago. Time to get out.
So you disagree with Obama that we should be in Afghanistan?houndawg wrote:Yesterday.AshevilleApp wrote:Good post Z. The only real goal that was worthy was accomplished a few days ago. Time to get out.
I didn't watch the video yet, but completely agree with this. I posted elsewhere that these tribes have been fighting amongst themselves for hundreds/thousands of years for patches of sand and us handing out lollipops to kids won't gain us any true traction over there. We got what we wanted 10-15 yrs and several thousand American lives too late, so I agree that we punch out - terrorist organizations will reconstitute themselves in some form or fashion no matter how many beatdowns we give them. Disruption is a temporary solution, and erradication is next to impossible - for every life you take, five more enlist to martyr themselves.AZGrizFan wrote:A very, very good watch. Long, but well worth it.
That being said, it's fairly obvious that:
a) Pakistan (or elements of their military) knew Bin Laden was there and did nothing about it
b) Bin laden's death isn't going to dissuade the vast majority of Taliban or Al Quada to lay down their arms and negotiate (thus my "pie-in-the-sky" comments on your earlier thread)
c) teaching children to fight means we could be there for 100 years (to use McCain's words)
d) Pakistan (or elements within Pakistan) is openly helping the Taliban and Al Quada
e) If we aren't willing to invade Pakistan (which I'm not), we're completely wasting our time/energy/bodies
f) There is no redeeming quality to Afghanistan; tribal rule, martial sharia law, the whole place is pretty much fucked.
g) No matter HOW we leave Afghanistan, it'll be compared to Viet Nam....tactical victory over tactical victory, but in the end we leave without any real goal accomplished.
h) We're wasting Americans every day in that shithole. I'd be fine with getting them ALL out and just using drones/tactical nukes to accomplish whatever "objectives" we've got left.
Yes.89Hen wrote:So you disagree with Obama that we should be in Afghanistan?houndawg wrote:
Yesterday.
My thinking all along is that we can't build a nation for them. How many powers have occupied Afghanistan over time and tried to impose their brand of order there? I can think of the British and the Soviets off the top of my head. I'd be surprised if there hasn't been others.bluehenbillk wrote:By not doing anything there in the 1990's didn't that contribute to 9/11 in the first place? Believe me, I'm not thrilled about being there either but do we just pull out & let chaos reign?
We can at least insure that the Afghan government is able to defend itself. That's the goal now. The 2014 goal is when we hope to completely turn over the defense of the country to the Afghan military.AshevilleApp wrote:My thinking all along is that we can't build a nation for them. How many powers have occupied Afghanistan over time and tried to impose their brand of order there? I can think of the British and the Soviets off the top of my head. I'd be surprised if there hasn't been others.bluehenbillk wrote:By not doing anything there in the 1990's didn't that contribute to 9/11 in the first place? Believe me, I'm not thrilled about being there either but do we just pull out & let chaos reign?
If we leave now, chaos may reign. If we leave ten years from now, chaos may reign.
Skjellyfetti wrote:We can at least insure that the Afghan government is able to defend itself. That's the goal now. The 2014 goal is when we hope to completely turn over the defense of the country to the Afghan military.AshevilleApp wrote:
My thinking all along is that we can't build a nation for them. How many powers have occupied Afghanistan over time and tried to impose their brand of order there? I can think of the British and the Soviets off the top of my head. I'd be surprised if there hasn't been others.
If we leave now, chaos may reign. If we leave ten years from now, chaos may reign.
If we leave now... they'll likely be run over by the Taliban... just as they were in the mid-90's... and we'll be right back where we were 10 years ago.
Yea, I'd agree with that. Is 2014 a realistic goal? I really have no idea as to whether Karzai is the right guy & when we do leave it'll just result in a nasty civil war.
Afghanistan may not be a modern state any time soon... but, I think we can't leave until they can stand on their own against the Taliban.
Skjellyfetti wrote:We can at least insure that the Afghan government is able to defend itself. That's the goal now. The 2014 goal is when we hope to completely turn over the defense of the country to the Afghan military.AshevilleApp wrote:
My thinking all along is that we can't build a nation for them. How many powers have occupied Afghanistan over time and tried to impose their brand of order there? I can think of the British and the Soviets off the top of my head. I'd be surprised if there hasn't been others.
If we leave now, chaos may reign. If we leave ten years from now, chaos may reign.
If we leave now... they'll likely be run over by the Taliban... just as they were in the mid-90's... and we'll be right back where we were 10 years ago.
Afghanistan may not be a modern state any time soon... but, I think we can't leave until they can stand on their own against the Taliban.
I think so. Petraeus testified to Congress in March that we are on pace to meet our 2014 goal of transferring over to the Afghan military. We are scheduled to begin withdrawing troops in Julybluehenbillk wrote:Yea, I'd agree with that. Is 2014 a realistic goal? I really have no idea as to whether Karzai is the right guy & when we do leave it'll just result in a nasty civil war.
As a bottom line up front, it is ISAF’s assessment that the momentum achieved by the Taliban in Afghanistan since 2005 has been arrested in much of the country and reversed in a number of important areas. However, while the security progress achieved over the past year is significant, it is also fragile and reversible. Moreover, it is clear that much difficult work lies ahead with our Afghan partners to solidify and expand our gains in the face of the expected Taliban spring offensive. Nonetheless, the hard-fought achievements in 2010 and early 2011 have enabled the Joint Afghan-NATO Transition Board to recommend initiation this spring of transition to Afghan lead in several provinces. The achievements of the past year are also very important as I prepare to provide options and a recommendation to President Obama for commencement of the drawdown of the US surge forces in July. Of note, as well, the progress achieved has put us on the right azimuth to accomplish the objective agreed upon at last November’s Lisbon Summit, that of Afghan forces in the lead throughout the country by the end of 2014.
http://www.uspolicy.be/headline/general ... -committee" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Indeed, more than 87,000 additional ISAF troopers and 1,000 additional civilians have been added to the effort in Afghanistan since the beginning of 2009. And Afghanistan’s Security Forces have grown by over 122,000 in that time, as well.
Not sure what you're saying. That abandoning South Vietnam was the right thing to do... so we should do it to the Afghans (again)? That because we abandoned the South Vietnamese it's ok to do it this time?AshevilleApp wrote: Like we left the South Vietnamese government capable of defending itself? Ultimately that situation was determined by the Vietnamese people. I believe that this situation will be as well.
Did the South Vietnamese government tell us to leave? Because Iraq's gov't did...and Afghanistan's government has told us to leave...Skjellyfetti wrote:Not sure what you're saying. That abandoning South Vietnam was the right thing to do... so we should do it to the Afghans (again)? That because we abandoned the South Vietnamese it's ok to do it this time?AshevilleApp wrote: Like we left the South Vietnamese government capable of defending itself? Ultimately that situation was determined by the Vietnamese people. I believe that this situation will be as well.
The way we exited from Vietnam was one of the biggest failures of the war... it's still a black stain on American foreign policy. I see that as a reason NOT to do the same to the Afghans.
Afghanistan's government hasn't exactly told us to leave. He and the NATO countries agreed on a withdrawal at the Lisbon Summit (that's where the 2014 number comes from). He's in agreement we need to leave and he's in agreement in our timetable for withdrawing. He sure as hell hasn't said we need to leave ASAP. Karzai supports our plan for a phased withdrawal. Seems like yet ANOTHER reason why we shouldn't leave hastily.AZGrizFan wrote: Did the South Vietnamese government tell us to leave? Because Iraq's gov't did...and Afghanistan's government has told us to leave...
KY, answer me two questions, truthfully, without your Obamahat on:Skjellyfetti wrote:Afghanistan's government hasn't exactly told us to leave. He and the NATO countries agreed on a withdrawal at the Lisbon Summit (that's where the 2014 number comes from). He's in agreement we need to leave and he's in agreement in our timetable for withdrawing. He sure as hell hasn't said we need to leave ASAP. Karzai supports our plan for a phased withdrawal. Seems like yet ANOTHER reason why we shouldn't leave hastily.AZGrizFan wrote: Did the South Vietnamese government tell us to leave? Because Iraq's gov't did...and Afghanistan's government has told us to leave...
Lisbon Summit Declaration if you'd care to read:
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/off ... _68828.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Skjellyfetti wrote:Not sure what you're saying. That abandoning South Vietnam was the right thing to do... so we should do it to the Afghans (again)? That because we abandoned the South Vietnamese it's ok to do it this time?AshevilleApp wrote: Like we left the South Vietnamese government capable of defending itself? Ultimately that situation was determined by the Vietnamese people. I believe that this situation will be as well.
The way we exited from Vietnam was one of the biggest failures of the war... it's still a black stain on American foreign policy. I see that as a reason NOT to do the same to the Afghans.
THIS.AshevilleApp wrote:Skjellyfetti wrote:
Not sure what you're saying. That abandoning South Vietnam was the right thing to do... so we should do it to the Afghans (again)? That because we abandoned the South Vietnamese it's ok to do it this time?
The way we exited from Vietnam was one of the biggest failures of the war... it's still a black stain on American foreign policy. I see that as a reason NOT to do the same to the Afghans.
I'm saying that no matter when we leave, the Afghan people will determine their own fate. Now, in 2014, or fifty years from now.
A modicum of control? Sure. They'll never stamp out all corruption or banditry and such. We need to make sure that the Afghanistan government can DEFEND itself primarily... I sure think we can help train and build their military enough to withstand any large scale attempts by the Taliban to reclaim their government.AZGrizFan wrote:1) Do you think there is ANY form of government we could create/train/arm that would enable Karzi to maintain even a modicum of control over the tribal regions of Afghanistan after we leave?
No. But, I also don't think it's part of the mission to satisfy all fighters or resistance movements in Afghanistan. We're not even close to doing that in Iraq. They still have frequent suicide bombers and attacks... but, the Iraqi government is able to DEFEND itself. There's little threat that Moqtada al-Sadr will launch a successful attack on the government and take control of the country... because we trained and built up Iraq's security forces enough to repel any likely takeover (and George W. Bush should be commended for the surge that made that possible).AZGrizFan wrote:2) After watching your own video, do you think there is ANY U.S. action, short of leaving the country completely, that will satisfy the fighters (and those like them) shown in that video?
Nation building shouldn't be one of the primary objectives... and it's not a primary objective of the Lisbon Declaration I posted earlier. Our primary mission should be helping the Afghans be able to defend themselves. There will always be crazy lunatics riding around the backwoods of Afghanistan on dirtbikes wielding AK's. That's fine. I don't really give a shit about that. What I do care is Afghanistan being taken over and controlled by the Taliban or similar groups.AZGrizFan wrote:As GannonFan put it so succinctly on a different thread, we can't engage in nation-building in an area that aspires to have rubble. We WOULD have to fight the perfect war there for 50+ years to eliminate the current cultural mindset that exists in the vast majority of Afghanistan. They're fighters, and they will always fight. They've been being invaded by SOMEONE for their whole lives, their father's lives, their grandfather's lives...it's part of WHO THEY ARE. NOTHING Americans or American soldiers can do will EVER change that mindset.
I disagree. I do not believe there will be 3-5,000 American casualties over the next 3 years. There have only been 1,000 in the past 10. There has been a sharp increase in the last couple... but, that's nowhere close to on pace for 3-5,000 over the next 3 years.AZGrizFan wrote:So, we can go ahead and piss away another 3,000-5,000 American soldiers over the next 3 years building up Karzi's paper army, but in the end unless we're willing to have a constant troop presence in Afghanistan well into your senior years they're just lives, bullets and dollars wasted because as soon as we DO leave they WILL be right back to square one----the sad part is that our government can sell this "nation-building" crap and people buy it.
Where are you getting the 92,000 number?AZGrizFan wrote:It's working in Iraq because we still have 92,000 troops there. And if we left THERE 100%, that gov't wouldn't last 6 months and the whole place would be in a civil war, just like what Afghanistan has been in for about 1,000 years.
http://azstarnet.com/news/world/article ... 4f699.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;There are about 47,000 American troops in Iraq now, down from an October 2007 peak of 166,000.
I agree. Which is why I don't think we should pull out completely right now.AZGrizFan wrote:Karzai won't last 6 months either if we pulled out completely...
You're missing the option that we are currently on... that NATO forces agreed to with Karzai... which is phased withdrawals as each country takes over their own security. Those phased withdrawals are supposed to begin in July.AZGrizFan wrote:Thus, we're left with two choices:
a) pull out completely of Iraq and Afghanistan and let the countries implode
b) Remain in each country indefinitely with a troop presence (much like Korea, although infinitely more unstable)...