| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, easy, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member, please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Obama's War Speech | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Dec 1 2009, 12:53 AM (134 Views) | |
| Post #1 Dec 1 2009, 12:53 AM | Bonzolee |
|
In less than 24 hours, the President is going to give a speech, a speech that, according to all reports, is going to mean an escalation in Afghanistan. I don't know about any of you, but this is the most I've been interested in a presidential speech in years. I'll be watching closely, listening to every last word, to see if this White House actually knows what it's doing when it comes to the Middle East. My guess? They don't. I'm just going to go ahead and assume that he's going to sell this is as "finishing the job" or "ending a mission", which is surely blurring things quite a bit. Why did we go to Afghanistan in the first place? To capture/kill Osama Bin Laden. We failed, allowing him to escape. According to various reports, he is now camping out in Pakistan. The mission was a failure. The target escaped. So, my question is this: just what mission is Obama talking about? If he wants to lay out a new mission, he should do just that; calling this move "ending a mission" is bullshit. And if he acts this way tomorrow, you can expect a rant from myself. Furthermore, unless they work with and get the support of either the Taliban or Pakistan, I don't see this little experiment going anywhere. |
 
|
|
"Brain disorders, like madness, are themselves contagious. The frequency of madness among doctors who are specialists for the mad is notorious." – Gustave Le Bon "The fact that audiences would rather go to Wonderland than face Iraq speaks volumes." – Random Youtube Poster | |
 
|
 |
| Post #2 Dec 1 2009, 01:01 PM | Huxley |
|
I for one sincerely hope that was not the mission statement. As we understand it here in the Uk, the Afghanistan mission is to rid that shithole of the Taliban and thus deny Al Quaeda areas to train and learn. We were told and repeatedly told, this action keeps the streets of the UK (and the US) safer. Bin laden would be candy. I hope therefore that Uk soldiers and Us soldiers that have died have kept our streets safe. We have known for some time that Bin Laden is in Pakistan. If this is so, the mission in Afghanistan is unnecessary. We should come home. What more could we achieve? We didnt go there to prop up a deranged and corrupt government steeped in drug dealing. The afghani's have tradiotnally rebuffed all efforts at westernisation - and why would they not. I am therefore forced to conclude that this troop 'surge' is to complete the job we were tasked with and then get the hell out. Right wingers say we have to show the Pak's that we are in it for the long haul. But if they are whining their tits off at unmanned drones bombing the shit out of the Taliban and they object fiercely to American and Nato troops on their soil then what is to do? They cant do it on their own and I would think their resolve to do anything except surrender to the insurgents would prove overwhelming. If the surge did the job for Iraq (as most military commanders assert) then we should do the same in Afghanistan. Git her done and outta there. |
|
  | |
|
|
|
| Post #3 Dec 1 2009, 05:50 PM | magicshoemonkey |
| I agree with both of you. Except I don't really see how staying in the country to kill the insurgents is going to do anything at this point. We've pretty much taken about 75% of their power, which I think is about as good as we're going to get. The problem is they can still recruit more people, and the more we stay there and act in some kind of military occupation, the easier it's going to be for them to recruit people to oppose us/oppress people/etc. The government is corrupt to the point of lunacy, and we knew almost immediately after we invaded that the people are so morally bankrupt that we can't really deal with them (at least with military action). |
 
|
|
|
|
| Post #4 Dec 1 2009, 11:33 PM | Bonzolee |
That was the original mission: revenge. We went there to take down those who were behind the 9/11 attacks. You fuck with us, you wind up in the ground. We were successful in driving Al Qaeda out, but that's not really much when you look at the big picture. We never got the showdown that so many Americans wanted. We never got Bin Laden, and the group responsible for 9/11 was allowed to retreat to safer areas. Of course, some people wanted to stay there longer, so the mission changed. Keep in mind that different people wanted to go there for different reasons, and with several different intentions. Though, I think if you were to ask the average American why we went there, they would have said to take down Bin Laden. I think the bulk of the work that was done in Afghanistan happened in the earliest moments of the war. Since then, there's been no point.
And they've evolved quite well, haven't they? I'm still trying to figure out what is so hard about mapping out a terrorist attack. Really, if you don't mind getting captured or killed, it's quite easy to inflict damage on a free society. People need training for this? And Al Qaeda isn't even the center of this. The center goes WAY back many, many years. If all of Al Qaeda were to be either captured or killed, you'd still face a threat from the Islamists; and any responsible policy would acknowledge that.
Iraq and Afghanistan are two very different countries, with many different dynamics at work. And who do you propose we pay off in Afghanistan? Afghanistan isn't even about Afghanistan; it's about Pakistan. And we can't really do shit there. We allowed Bin Laden to escape, and that's that. You can't turn back the clocks to fix that error. I mean, unless we're living in a work of fiction and someone has David Tennant's phone number.
What use is that? If you take down the major players over there (Taliban, scatters of Al Qaeda) and leave, all you're doing is creating a void– and it will be filled. Think that pawn government will last long without our force behind them? My thoughts on the matter is this: if any other country feels it's worth it, feel free to invade Afghanistan and assume the bill. Because I don't think any of this really matters in the long run. There are so many better things we could be focusing on that would help do damage to Islamists 'round the world. ... As for the speech, I did see it earlier tonight, but I'll have to wait to give my thoughts on it as I'm running on a little under 2 hours of sleep and my thoughts aren't even close to being clear at the present moment. |
|
|
"Brain disorders, like madness, are themselves contagious. The frequency of madness among doctors who are specialists for the mad is notorious." – Gustave Le Bon "The fact that audiences would rather go to Wonderland than face Iraq speaks volumes." – Random Youtube Poster | |
|
|
|
| Post #5 Dec 2 2009, 06:27 AM | Huxley |
|
I watched the speech. Not very inspiring for those who have been at war over eight years. If he proposes to surge the area it will prove valueless when we leave in 18 months time. The Taliban and thus Al Qaeda will just move back in, destrying whatever we accomplished. Afghanistan has had no stomach for a standing army or Police Force in centuries. There sno good reason to think they will change; the majority would welcome the Taliban back in a heartbeat. That is just the way it is. I have a hunch. I think Obama prevaricated on sending troops because he has his eye on the big picture. I think he is looking at Iran and sorting his logistics for that. He has what? a 160,000 American trops in Iraq and countelss thousand Nato troops there too. And they are right next door. Iran is just taking the piss and taunting the West, Obama in particular. If Israel does not decide to act (and I find that extremely unlikely) then NATO will have to sort out the Persians. I think he has one eye on all that and doesn't want to commit a larger amount in Shitholeistan. Could there be some other reason that Obama imagines he can achieve in 18 months what has taken 8 years? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Post #6 Dec 3 2009, 12:30 AM | Bonzolee |
... Pakistan finally deciding to go balls to the wall against Al Qaeda (possibly with a little help), thus ensuring the safety of their nukes? I really don't think Iran plays into this at all. And no, I really don't see Pakistan doing that just because we camp out in Afghanistan longer. Pakistan can go fuck themselves. |
|
|
"Brain disorders, like madness, are themselves contagious. The frequency of madness among doctors who are specialists for the mad is notorious." – Gustave Le Bon "The fact that audiences would rather go to Wonderland than face Iraq speaks volumes." – Random Youtube Poster | |
|
|
|
| Post #7 Dec 3 2009, 06:36 PM | Huxley |
| Incidentally, as an outsider, can someone please tell me how Joe Liebermann, the independent, seems to have a pivotal role in voting? Or does it just seem that way? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics, News, and other informative stuff · Next Topic » |
4:34 PM Jul 31
