Afghanistan Is it a war that can't be won

derivicus said:
Most of those in the US with a stomach for blood and lasting conviction are on the wrong side of the law.

JMHO, of course. :wink:

Listen, Howie, we will NEVER win another war, and for reasons I stated above.
Click to expand...

you can quit preaching to me. stick to being an electrician. i'll trust your opinion on that subject.
 
LennyWaiting.gif
 
markwein said:
I think the implication is the NYC is full of un-patriotic (or at least overly liberal) Americans. Sine my Brooklyn born father is a WW2 vet currently buried at the National Cemetery in Riverside, CA I'm not a fan of that implication.
Click to expand...

It wasn't NYC so much as the prevailing stances that seem common to the Nation's largest metro areas, but are by no means limited to them.

I seriously don't mean to sound brash, or disrespect anyone, but NYC'ers are an overwhelmingly liberal lot (and that's okay, I'm liberal in some areas myself) and that group has opposed almost every military action we've endeavored up to and including the Korean conflict.

You gotta want to win to win, fellas. That's my only point and it's important to me that you don't paint me as some kind of a dickbag for having the cahones to say it like it is.

We're men here. :wink:
 
Last edited:
Help!I'maRock! said:
you can quit preaching to me. stick to being an electrician. i'll trust your opinion on that subject.
Click to expand...

Well, if we didn't have some degree of personal concern we wouldn't even debate these things. That's a good thing and I respect you for it.

I just wish we had a good plan and the resolve necessary to eliminate the threat that is very real to us all. :(
 
Seems like the author is making his case based on this statement:

"Even with President Barack Obama's plan initially to send 17,000 more U.S. soldiers and Marines to that mountainous nation this year, the combined NATO-American force will be smaller than the Soviet contingent was. Moscow's failure to pacify Afghanistan, which broke the back of the Soviet Union, doesn't mean that the same fate awaits Obama's efforts, but ignoring a decade of experience there would be a mistake, former envoys and generals warn."


However, they are two totally different situations.

The Russians were not a highly motivated volunteer Army, Afghanistan was their Vietnam.

Unlike our efforts to work with the Northern Alliance early on in the war the Russians just said "we are invading" with no regard or respect for establishing an independent, organized Afghan government.

During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan we were training the Afghan fighters and arming them with state of the art weapons like Stinger missiles. The current insurgency doesn't have access to that kind of weaponry.
 
derivicus said:
It wasn't NYC so much as the prevailing stances that seem common to the Nation's largest metro areas, by are by no means limited to them.

I seriously don't mean to sound brash, or disrespect anyone, but NYC'ers are an overwhelmingly liberal lot (and that's okay, I'm liberal in some areas myself) and that group has opposed almost every military action we've endeavored up to and including the Korean conflict.

You gotta want to win to win, fellas. That's my only point and it's important to me that you don't paint me as some kind of a dickbag for having the cahones to say it like it is.

We're men here. :wink:
Click to expand...

protests happen in major metropolitan areas because historically that's where they get the most attention. most people in cities are just trying to get through their day, and avoid whatever parade or poltiical event is happening at all costs. but i'm sure that the advent of 24 hour news channels and the internet will allow protests in Anywhere, USA to get just as much coverage in the future.

the question these people have is "why are we there?" its a valid question that needs to be answered by our leadership. if anything, blame them for an unconvincing argument. nobody was against the war in Afghanistan after 9/11. but it was handled poorly and our attention was unnecessarily diverted. had our leadership directed the military to stay on the ball, we wouldn't find ourselves in this predicament, or in this discussion.
 
Last edited:
Dew Knot Hump said:
During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan we were training the Afghan fighters and arming them with state of the art weapons like Stinger missiles. The current insurgency doesn't have access to that kind of weaponry.
Click to expand...

i'm not yet convinced they aren't being armed by the Soviets and/or Chinese.
 
Help!I'maRock! said:
protests happen in major metropolitan areas because historically that's where they get the most attention. most people in cities are just trying to get through their day, and avoid whatever parade or poltiical event is happening at all costs. but i'm sure that the advent of 24 hour news channels and the internet will allow protests in Anywhere, USA to get just as much coverage in the future.

the question these people have is "why are we there?" its a valid question that needs to be answered by our leadership. if anything, blame them for an unconvincing argument. nobody was against the war in Afghanistan after 9/11. but it was handled poorly and our attention was unnecessarily diverted. had our leadership directed out military to stay on the ball, we wouldn't find ourselves in this predicament, or in this discussion.
Click to expand...

I cant help but agree with this. I was a big supporter of W. and even I knew he/his administration screwed the pooch on his wars. He did NOT convince the public that the sacrifice of American lives was worth it. Where were the WMDs? Not that Im sorry to see Saddam go at all but a lot of people have died over a false premise.

As far as the real point here, Afghanistan, well that was/is certainly more justified, but we still dont have Bin Laden. Bush didnt convince me we really know what we are doing over there. And again, I was a supporter. So I understand why people protest these wars. He made ME mad. Really frustrated. We didnt get the truth. If someone like me, who liked him, got upset with him, I can only imagine what someone who didnt like him in the first place must have felt like.
 
derivicus said:
I just wish we had a good plan and the resolve necessary to eliminate the threat that is very real to us all. :(
Click to expand...

that would involve a degree of federalism that would be unprecedented in this nation's history. it would involve completely re-vamping the educational system in this country so every child in every state is taught exactly the same thing out of the same texts and curriculums. in some ways, that could be very good, and in others very, very bad.

until then, we'll just have to learn how to talk to people, understand their opinions, and not marginalize them into groups as though they're pack animals.
 
derivicus said:
It wasn't NYC so much as the prevailing stances that seem common to the Nation's largest metro areas, but are by no means limited to them.

I seriously don't mean to sound brash, or disrespect anyone, but NYC'ers are an overwhelmingly liberal lot (and that's okay, I'm liberal in some areas myself) and that group has opposed almost every military action we've endeavored up to and including the Korean conflict.

You gotta want to win to win, fellas. That's my only point and it's important to me that you don't paint me as some kind of a dickbag for having the cahones to say it like it is.

We're men here. :wink:
Click to expand...


The problem is that we have not decisively won a war since WW2. Korea and Vietnam were messes that we didn't achieve our objectives in, Iraq I was successful because they stopped where they did and Iraq II "is what it is".

Afghanistan I believe was necessary in the wake of September 11th. We were doing fine there up to a point.

The reason I personally feel that we have not had decisive victories in any of these places is because we wage war by committee and spend too much time worrying about what the media thinks and is going to tell America. War is an ugly business, and anything you do to effectively wage it will look ugly and wrong on CNN.com. Especially in that part of the world where our quaint notions of what is fair and who is a non-combatant our obsolete.

I personally think going back to Iraq was a mistake but since I have friends and extended family who have spent time over there (one friend did 3 tours, and was effectively lied to by the military in order to get him to fill a spot for the 3rd one) I have always been supportive of the people we have over there. It is impossible not to be. Without those people we essentially do not have a way of protecting the way of life that we live.

Should they have had to go there in the first place? I don't think so.
 
Help!I'maRock! said:
protests happen in major metropolitan areas because historically that's where they get the most attention. most people in cities are just trying to get through their day, and avoid whatever parade or poltiical event is happening at all costs. but i'm sure that the advent of 24 hour news channels and the internet will allow protests in Anywhere, USA to get just as much coverage in the future.

the question these people have is "why are we there?" its a valid question that needs to be answered by our leadership. if anything, blame them for an unconvincing argument. nobody was against the war in Afghanistan after 9/11. but it was handled poorly and our attention was unnecessarily diverted. had our leadership directed the military to stay on the ball, we wouldn't find ourselves in this predicament, or in this discussion.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that the lack of support for our national interest hails from living in areas where information flows more freely. Propaganda flows more freely there too. :wink:

I see it as an issue of deteriorating morals.

If we are to succeed, we MUST unite. The alternative is the demise of the West as we know it.
 
If it is truly a matter of national security, why would the military listen to protesting civilians? They have a job to do, so do it.

On the other hand, the middle east has been rocked with wars for how long now? Oh yeah, all of recorded history. Let them war in peace. I'd imagine if we left them alone, they'd have much less reason to hate us :wink:
 
derivicus said:
If we are to succeed, we MUST unite. The alternative is the demise of the West as we know it.
Click to expand...

the "decline of the West" doesn't mean the end of civilization. it simply throws the balance of power back to the East, which held it previously. the USA is the filter through which this has been happening since Admiral Perry threatened Japan by force to trade with us in 1853. this was furthered by Nixon "opening" China, and the subsequent economic expansion into southeast Asia by companies looking for cheap labor for high profits domestically. if anything, that is the threat from within, not who we wage war with.
 
Help!I'maRock! said:
i'm not yet convinced they aren't being armed by the Soviets and/or Chinese.
Click to expand...

By all accounts they are receiving training and explosive materials mainly from Iran which I guess is indirect support from the Russians and China.

However, if they Russians were directly arming the Afghans you'd see a lot more of our aircraft being shot down and our bases and armor attacked with much more firepower than ineffective mortar and RPG fire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top