Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,385 Year: 3,642/9,624 Month: 513/974 Week: 126/276 Day: 23/31 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Please explain Cut and Run criteria in light of Afghanistan
Tal
Member (Idle past 5697 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 124 of 191 (356567)
10-14-2006 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by RAZD
10-13-2006 10:11 PM


So? The purpose of terrorism is to incapacitate the opponent through fear.
The purpose of terrorism is to turn the United States into an Islamic state, wipe Israel off the map, and to reestablish the Caliphate.
repeat -- in case you missed it -- George W Bush has killed more americans than the terrorist attacks did.
Where is your logic here? If you mean he is responsible for soldiers'/sailors'/airmen/marines' deaths in the GWOT, then I'll say that's innacurate. Bad guys with bad toys caused those deaths.
In the process he has guaranteed another generation of terrorists will be willing to attack american targets.
They've been doing it for 30 years (this time). What makes you think they would just lay down and leave us alone?
And this because he started an invasion into a country that has nothing to do with plane bombs and other "Thats creative..." ways to kill innocents, but has left them free to think of new things between signing up new recruits to carry them out.
If you get your ass kicked in a war by Country A, and sign on the dotted line that you will abide by certain standards if Country A will stop kicking your ass , then you break those standards for 13 years, then Country A reserves the right to kick your ass again at any time.

Next time I am too lazy, next time I am too tired, Next time I don't have enough[/url] time....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by RAZD, posted 10-13-2006 10:11 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by RAZD, posted 10-15-2006 9:40 PM Tal has replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5697 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 128 of 191 (356589)
10-15-2006 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Hyroglyphx
10-15-2006 1:01 AM


Re: No hindsight, no foresight
Don't bring all those quotes from Democrats up. They don't count for some odd reason.
Nah, not so much.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-15-2006 1:01 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-15-2006 1:48 AM Tal has not replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5697 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 160 of 191 (357811)
10-20-2006 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by RAZD
10-15-2006 9:40 PM


Re: There is no "GWOT" (head in the sand)
Then ignoring them will defeat that goal.
You are almost correct here. If the Media ignores them, then terrorists have no way to braodcast their message. The media is their biggest weapon.
They are totally incapable of achieving any kind of dent in the USof(N)A.
I guess I don't have to mention 911. They are very capable hitting us. Take however many attacks you think we've stopped on the US, then multiply that by alot.
I would say that less than 0/1% were not affected.
What is your policy achieving?
How many times has the US been hit since 911?
Right out of the NRA handbook - guns don't kill people. They are bad because they fight back for their country? They are fighting back because the invasion was (1) wrong and (2) stupid and (3) was not what the people of Iraq wanted.
Almost correct here again. The violence going on in Iraq right now is primarily caused by extremist shia and extremist sunni carryout out attacks against each other; instigated by former bathists and foreign fighters to destabalize the government.
But thanks for speaking for the people of Iraq. How many Iraqis have you talked to? I've talked to many. While there are issues, they are most definately glad we are there and Saddam is out of power.
First off the invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with the suppossed war on terror - even Schwubbia has admitted it (then turned around and claimed a link to 9/11 to appease your war fanatics).
I've seen the intellegince. I've been to Salmon Pak.
So yes he is responsible for the number of americans that have died in Iraq as a direct result of his decision to invade. What part of that do you NOT understand?
I understand that I took an oath to defend to the Constitution of the United States and to follow the orders of the Commander in Chief. If you are going to follow this logic, you must also blame every member of Congress, for they authorized the invasion, funded it, and continue to fund it.
He is also responsible for the number of Iraqiis that have died -- the innocent men women and children that number in the hundreds of thousands, many times the numbers that were killed in ALL terrorist attacks in the last 50 years. That, imh(ysa)o makes him a worse threat to world peace than any terrorist activity.
So FDR is responsible for all the US Servicemen and innocent German citizens that were killed in WWII? I guess he was responsible for the 6 millions jews that were tossed into ovens too. I bet he even signed the order.
I don't expect them to lay down Tal, I expect them to get marginalized when you deal with the issues in a rational way that prevents them from making new recruits. If they cannot recruit and their "voice" is increasingly ignored by those who see real progress in respecting human dignity, justice, and equality then they will become irrelevant.
Oh, you want to marginalize them? How exactly? What master plan do you have up your sleeve to cut off their recruiting? Read some history. BTW if you want to marginalize them, cut off media coverage of thier attacks.
You don't need to deal with them, cater to them (such as reacting in terror to them), or negotiate with them -- all you need to do is make sure that the items on their grieviance list become irrelevant.
Items on thier grievance list: Wipe Israel off the map. Turn the US into an Islam State. Return the Caliphate.
These things will never be irrelevant to them.
You have displayed such a lack of understanding about these guys motivations its mind-boggling. Let the soldiers fight the war, you just go shop and Dillards and eat McDonalds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by RAZD, posted 10-15-2006 9:40 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Chiroptera, posted 10-20-2006 5:27 PM Tal has replied
 Message 165 by RAZD, posted 10-20-2006 10:18 PM Tal has replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5697 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 162 of 191 (357861)
10-20-2006 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Chiroptera
10-20-2006 5:27 PM


Re: There is no "GWOT" (head up his....)
RAZD has no say in policy decisions. That's just the way it is. There is information that is not fit for public consumption. If you don't like the way the war is being handled, vote a new President and new Congress into power. You have your chance next month and in 2 years. However, the reality is still that soldiers are at war, and civilians are at the mall.
Once we have a war there is only one thing to do. It must be won. For defeat brings worse things than any that can ever happen in war.
--Ernest Miller Hemmingway--
Edited by Tal, : No reason given.
Edited by Tal, : No reason given.

Hard pressed on my right. My center is yielding. Impossible to maneuver. Situation excellent. I am attacking.
--Ferdinand Foch-- at the Battle of the Marne

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Chiroptera, posted 10-20-2006 5:27 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Chiroptera, posted 10-20-2006 9:51 PM Tal has replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5697 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 164 of 191 (357868)
10-20-2006 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Chiroptera
10-20-2006 9:51 PM


Re: There is no "GWOT" (head up his....)
Thanks for reminding us that whatever it is that you think your fighting for, it's not democracy.
We are a representative republic, not a true democracy. This was specifically set up by the founding fathers.
I understand. Information management is very important in the manipulation of public opinion in a pseudo-democracy.
Information is classified if it has to do with National Security. The american public doesn't need to know if Salaam Al Wanna kill you is planning to blow up 14 targets in America and 5 in Britian a year from now. What would you do with that information? Nothing. Enjoy shopping at Dillards.
Congress has oversight of intelligence, so they see what the President sees. Its called the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) and if I'm not mistaken, the President declassified one of those a couple of weeks ago. That's a pretty big deal. Anywho, Congress has oversight (The Intelligence Oversight Act of 1980). So, again, if you don't like the way things are going, vote someone else into Congress or run yourself.

Hard pressed on my right. My center is yielding. Impossible to maneuver. Situation excellent. I am attacking.
--Ferdinand Foch-- at the Battle of the Marne

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Chiroptera, posted 10-20-2006 9:51 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Silent H, posted 10-21-2006 4:34 AM Tal has not replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5697 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 166 of 191 (357871)
10-20-2006 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by RAZD
10-20-2006 10:18 PM


Re: There is no "GWOT" (head in the sand)
I have nothing to say except you are lost.
Enjoy.

Hard pressed on my right. My center is yielding. Impossible to maneuver. Situation excellent. I am attacking.
--Ferdinand Foch-- at the Battle of the Marne

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by RAZD, posted 10-20-2006 10:18 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by RickJB, posted 10-21-2006 3:57 PM Tal has replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5697 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 172 of 191 (359059)
10-26-2006 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by RickJB
10-21-2006 3:57 PM


Re: There is no "GWOT" (head in the sand)
The main difference is that no amount of information, sourcing, facts, or logical conclusions will matter to someone like RAZD. Saying things like "FDR is responsible for all soldier's deaths is WWII..." isn't worth responding to. It is idiotic. Now take Holmes. Holmes and I disagree on alot of different issues, but if he posts facts, information, sourcing, and makes a logical conclusion, I will read that and say, "Hmmm, yeah that makes sense." And he does the same with me. Therefore, we are at least capable of having a good dialogue about a particular subject.
RAZD isn't just in left field, he's not even playing the same game.
As for the sub-title:
Map of Islamic Terrorist attacks since 911
Short list of Islamic terrorist attacks in the last 4 months.
Edited by Tal, : No reason given.
Edited by Tal, : No reason given.

Hard pressed on my right. My center is yielding. Impossible to maneuver. Situation excellent. I am attacking.
--Ferdinand Foch-- at the Battle of the Marne

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by RickJB, posted 10-21-2006 3:57 PM RickJB has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Silent H, posted 10-26-2006 3:19 PM Tal has not replied
 Message 181 by RAZD, posted 10-27-2006 9:57 PM Tal has replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5697 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 174 of 191 (359178)
10-26-2006 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
10-09-2006 6:38 AM


Reply to OP
A lesson we (should have) learned from Vietnam is that politicians should not run a war. Otherwise we would have 536 different views on how to run a given operation. This is the opposite of the principle of war known as "unity of command." There is 1 man that is Commander in Chief of the armed forces. Congress authorizes and funds the war, but should not have say in how it is run.
Reps have been badgering Dems with the label of "Cut and Run" when they suggest a timetable, or movement on objectives, for US troops to be withdrawn from Iraq.
Which brings me to this point. The plan from MNFI (General Casey, the Commanding General) has been the same since the insurgency started. Timetables and troops have been moved around as needed, but the plan hasn't changed. We are going to lower US troop levels when the CG has met certain objectives. Period. Any congress person that says, "Pull all of our troops out now" is advocating retreat. If they are talking about a phased withdrawl of troops, well that has been the plan all along.
It is based on this agreement that I am stymied to explain what the f*** this administration is doing in Afghanistan. That is the nation from which the strikes on 9/11 were launched. That is the nation where the organization which launched those strikes still exists. That is the nation where the Taliban (the group which protects AQ) not only still exists but is making a come back.
Making a come back is an overstatement. They want to make a come back would be more accurate.
So why is it that the US has just let NATO take over responsibility for Afghanistan? How will that not let the terrorists grow stronger, or at the very least embolden them and give them a chance to grow stronger?
Honestly I just don't get this at all. Why are we pulling ourselves out, as far as governing our military objectives as well as troop strength goes, from the very heart of the war against Islamic terrorism and militancy at a time when it is not only not over but the enemies are actually growing back in power?
I don't know what information you are using to come up with this, but US troop levels are staying at around 20,000. We are not extricating ourselves. We are simply trying to share the burden with our allies, which is what allies generally do.
I think you may have mis-read something somewhere.

Hard pressed on my right. My center is yielding. Impossible to maneuver. Situation excellent. I am attacking.
--Ferdinand Foch-- at the Battle of the Marne

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 10-09-2006 6:38 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Silent H, posted 10-27-2006 6:17 AM Tal has replied
 Message 176 by Chiroptera, posted 10-27-2006 9:37 AM Tal has replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5697 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 177 of 191 (359395)
10-27-2006 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Silent H
10-27-2006 6:17 AM


Re: Reply to OP
The NATO commander now reports to SACEUR (Supreme Allied Commander Europe) who will always be a US 4 star officer (either General or Admiral). That person reports to SECDEF. So instead of reporting to the CENTCOM 4 star, the new CG reports a different 4 star, but its still a US officer. Unity of command is intact.
If the commander thinks they need more troops, I'm sure they'll get more troops. You should doubt journalists though, unless they are covering a press conference.

Hard pressed on my right. My center is yielding. Impossible to maneuver. Situation excellent. I am attacking.
--Ferdinand Foch-- at the Battle of the Marne

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Silent H, posted 10-27-2006 6:17 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Silent H, posted 10-29-2006 5:51 AM Tal has not replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5697 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 178 of 191 (359397)
10-27-2006 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Chiroptera
10-27-2006 9:37 AM


Re: Reply to OP
A rather hopelessly idealistic position.
No, it is what is happening right now in the GWOT. The Commander-in-Chief asks what his generals need, and they get it. He sets the policy, but he lets the generals do their thing and he lets the soldiers fight the war. Senator Kerry or Senator Santorum (sp?) have no say, although they would like to.
What we should have learned from Vietnam, and every other war, is that wars are fought to achieve political objectives.
That is not a lesson to learn, that is a fact of life. Military might is brought to bear when political and diplomatic means do not find a resolution to a given problem.
I should have rephrased my initial sentence to say Congress should not try to run a war.
Edited by Tal, : No reason given.

Hard pressed on my right. My center is yielding. Impossible to maneuver. Situation excellent. I am attacking.
--Ferdinand Foch-- at the Battle of the Marne

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Chiroptera, posted 10-27-2006 9:37 AM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by DrJones*, posted 10-27-2006 9:29 PM Tal has not replied
 Message 180 by kuresu, posted 10-27-2006 9:50 PM Tal has not replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5697 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 182 of 191 (359419)
10-27-2006 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by RAZD
10-27-2006 9:57 PM


Re: There still is no "GWOT" (TAL's head is still in the sand)
Any point to that post?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by RAZD, posted 10-27-2006 9:57 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by RAZD, posted 10-29-2006 5:14 PM Tal has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024