What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Ready. Set. Shop view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com Black Friday Sale starting 11/25 3PM PST. No Lines, No Crowds, Click and Save.
75 Comments
- badqat, on 10/27/2009, -6/+33Indeed - bring our men and women home. It would be the best decision Obama could make.
- BotchaMcCoola, on 10/27/2009, -6/+24What president will go against the Miltiary and War Industry interests? Only those of us paying for these wars are against them. Not those that are profiting from them.
- dhowes23, on 10/28/2009, -2/+12The United States is involved in as few as 3 wars as of this moment
War on Drugs.
War in Afghanistan
War in Iraq.
United States will not win any of these wars. More missing limbs, more deaths, more money down the drain. I saw one article in the Boston Globe where Marines dropped cargo onto a poppy field in Afghanistan. The Marines promised to pay the farmer for the damages. I for one am disgusted, Ive had storm troopers raid my home over a couple small marijuana sales, and here are the kings of bad ass promising to pay for damages to someones addictive drug crop. - treehugger87, on 10/27/2009, -5/+13Our effort there cannot be won with military force. Well, it can, but that involves genocide.
Leave now, let them clean up there own mess. Be the beacon of freedom and democracy again and the rest of the world will rise up at their own pace. - Russelllucid, on 10/28/2009, -5/+12Sorry I just can't agree with the bring home the troops argument although I know it "feels" like the right decision. That part of the world has been deeply fractured by decades of outside intervention by many nations, we can't step away and leave it broken.
Don't let it fail like Somalia. Effort and concentration needs to be focused on bring in a broader coalition of nations that can support Afghanistan rebuild its self over years and decades just like our commitment to Bosnia and the surrounding countries.
I hope US, UK and other nations troops will hold ground until more nations can be brought in to rotate the troop levels in the country. - twoblink, on 10/28/2009, -2/+9If Obama and his minions hated all the Bush policies, then Obama should step up to the plate and either double down or fold and call them home. His indecision might be the worst decision of all.
I actually don't care if you agree with the war, or disagree; I however support the men and women. I think if you want to go in, then do so with a ridiculous amount of troops, and mop it up quickly. Otherwise, call them all home. Do what is right by the minimization of lives lost. - drunkCatholic, on 10/28/2009, -3/+10I doubt Obama has the balls to make such a decision.
Though I'd really like to be proven wrong on this one. - Averness, on 10/28/2009, -3/+9Afghanistan should deal with their own problems. We should not have troops fighting overseas. Obama should bring all the troops home before Christmas and be done with it.
- PolarBearFire, on 10/28/2009, -2/+8They're bleeding us dry. We have more troops there than there are Taliban and we still can't stabilize the country. They're bleeding us dry. We're spending TRILLIONS by borrowing money. We cannot help people who don't want help.
- inactive, on 10/28/2009, -5/+10I'm voting for Ron Paul, I bet he'd bring them home.
- GrandZooby, on 10/28/2009, -2/+7War is ultimately an economic activity. It doesn't take long to see that using million dollar missiles to take out the tents and huts of the Taliban is a losing proposition.
It's going to be hard to sustain a coalition of nations when the Taliban is taking out houses of UN personnel like they just did. Most of those countries are going to be pretty quick to cut their losses and leave us with the mess we created. - JohnReb, on 10/30/2009, -0/+4Let's take a look at your evidence.
Your first article says Mr. Naiz Naik of Pakistan claims to have been told by a group of Americans that if the Taliban didn't cooperate the US would use force. However, the people involved in this conference were all no longer members of their respective governments. The Americans claim it might have been mentioned, but class it as "hearsay" they were presenting during discussions. The Russians claim to not have heard anything like it. The Iranians, who must have been covering for the Bush administration, also don't have anything to say on it.
This isn't evidence, all it is is one person making an unsubstantiated claim that people with no official standing hinted at possible military action.
Looking at your second article, it simply tells the same story, but very carefully leaves out the contrary side of the claims, and allows Mr. Naik's claims to stand unquestioned, so not only does it not provide evidence of anything, it attempts to actually mislead the reader.
Sorry, as evidence, the first contradicts itself, the second provides insufficient factual reporting.
Neither is evidence of anything, and most certainly n ot proof. - quirkopatra, on 10/29/2009, -0/+4Dude....at least a couple of links. Is it THAT hard?
- Surkit, on 10/28/2009, -0/+4Yes, I did enlist, but was denied for medical reasons, so I joined ROTC. Bush was by far one of the worst leaders this country ever had, but during the Regan years, and H.W. Bush years, out state department funded through the C.I.A. and I.S.I. the militants groups we are currently fighting. Which I might add, we also stop contact with them after the soviets left. I'm all for diplomacy, but calling every tribal leader together for a conference doesn't seam plausible.
- Surkit, on 10/28/2009, -2/+6I'm a liberal, an anti-war one for that matter, however Soviet Russia cut their losses, and Afghanistan became the land of civil war. To just leave and hope they fix everything won't make us a beacon of freedom, it will make us monsters who turn their back on people. Yet we must allow the people of the land govern themselves.
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/28/2009, -0/+4It doesn't require genocide, it requires an effective counter insurgency strategy. That means getting the local civilians to trust you more than the other guys, convincing as many of the other guys as possible to stop fighting, then killing the rest of the other guys that cannot be convinced.
- 029A, on 10/28/2009, -1/+5Winning Afghanistan would not just require troops and money, it would take political and diplomatic will the US and "coalition" doesn't have. The Taliban can hide among the civilian population and use terror to control them. The only way to break this control and flush out the enemy would be to make the civilian population fear the US more than the Taliban. There cannot be done in today's political and diplomatic climate. We should get out now while KIA is still in four figures.
- GrandZooby, on 10/28/2009, -2/+6You say "follow it through to the end". That sounds great, but what exactly does that mean? And how much of our tax dollars and more importantly, how many of our young men and women should be spent to achieve that end?
What are the specific and measurable goals that must be achieved to be "at the end". And how long to we keep trying for that end before we decide it's not achievable? You know the British tried it, as did the Soviets, and both of those empires got sent home with their tails between their legs. In the case of the Soviets, we were "secretly" funding and equipping their opposition (in fact, that's part of Osama Bin Laden's history with us).
Do goals or the level of commitment change if there are external players helping fund and equip our opposition? Wouldn't it be ironic to find ex-KGB officials funneling funds and equipment to the Taliban?
People were making your exact same argument during the Vietnam "war" (never declared). Yet after losing more than 50k soldiers (and many more with permanent and debilitating injuries) and who knows how much money, we finally had to give up and leave. Just like the French did before us, and just like the British and Soviets left Vietnam.
And if 20% more of your income needs to be taxed to pay for this "war" in Afghanistan, will you be willing to pay it? What if it's just the income of your children and grandchildren? - BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/28/2009, -1/+4[*****]
- bannor78, on 10/28/2009, -0/+3This guy is the token race relations writer for the Washington post, but now that we have an African American president he feels that his years of studying, America the way it aught to be, can now be applied to Foreign policy.
A group from Afghanistan hijacked planes an flew them into our buildings.
Why did that happen?
because after Russia pulled out of Afghanistan the vacuum of power encourage every maniac to flock there and the country fell into the dark ages.
What do you think will happen if we pull out?
might it be a better idea to have the radicals shouting at us rather than attempting coups in Nuclear Pakistan?
Finally, and this is not a comment on the article. If I were a congressmen, before I voted on sending troops to a country I would want to know what expected losses would be, what historical losses were in similar engagements and what what the worst case scenario of losses could be. I am sure losses are above the expected but given historical numbers (such as Russia's 100k casualties) how can anyone argue that this operation is anything but a huge success.
Keep in mind that no Battle plan survives the first shot. - JohnReb, on 10/30/2009, -0/+3You claim a string of "facts" and admit you can't prove it?
Use of the word "proof" is evidence of arrogance?
Avoiding even trying to prove your claims is evidence of being wrong. If you can;t p rove it you can't claim it is a fact.
Facts are those things we can prove. If you can not prove it, it is opinion at best, lies at worse. - akeldama, on 10/28/2009, -1/+4Naturally you have and will provide citations for all of these "[FACTS]."
- JohnReb, on 10/30/2009, -0/+3He made the claim, no one else at the meeting agrees it was said according to your own evidence. So claiming now that some unnamed "others" confirmed his claim is a rather obvious attempt to add that missing support with out bothering to provide the evidence that someone did do so.
That means his claim is unsubstantiated, as in it has on other evidence to support it.
Or did you accept the claims made by our Secretary of State Colin Powell simply because of his official position? - z0rk, on 10/28/2009, -2/+5Last time i checked they were hired to defend this country not wage an unneeded never ending war half way around the world. Maybe you should turn off Fox news and do some research into what our military was charged to do from the beginning.
- JohnReb, on 10/30/2009, -0/+3And yet you still have not provided any proof, nor even evidence that withstands the simplest review.
Perhaps "engaged in mush" is a bit of projection. - Davrioza, on 10/28/2009, -6/+8Yes, and leave a country completely ***** up. Good plan. All of these anti-war protesters campaining for peace really annoy me. Do you think peace will miraculously prevail if the troops leave? Do you think more human lives will be saved by leaving? Of course they won't. Sure we could have not invaded in the first place, but people are quick to ignore the fact that the people in power before we did kinda made the lives of everybody hell, and killed a seriously large amount of people. The only option is to follow it through to the end, any other route is hugely irresponsible and will descend the country into chaos worse than ever before.
- IIAmusedII, on 10/29/2009, -2/+4Yeah, Obama plays golf and parties too much. Now Bush, on the other hand, never took even one vacation. Bush was a hard worker. Yup.
- akpanga, on 10/28/2009, -3/+5The troops should not have been there in the first place!
- govtdoesnotwork, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2Ok, serious question. Why would they trust us when they know we've been supporting a government many of them rightly think is corrupt, especially when now it comes out that we've had their corrupt President's drug smuggling brother on our payroll?
We've spent a lot of time accusing the other side of smuggling, but clearly, the corruption and profit potential of the illegal drug trade takes no political sides. I'd say under such conditions (as in the Iraq surge, come to think of it) the only way to prevail will be to buy "trust," which will last exactly as long as the money lasts and then we're back to square one. I fail to see any good end to this... - vurb, on 10/28/2009, -1/+3They won't win any of them, but a lot of money sure is being made, and that's what counts.
- alienufo, on 10/28/2009, -0/+2RTFA
it was about afghanistan not Iraq. - gradient01, on 10/28/2009, -1/+3But Obama said this was the good war ... unlike Iraq, we needed to win in Afghanistan and find Osama Bin Laden. He campaigned on being ready to lead on day one, knowing exactly what needs to be done, trusting the judgment of his generals, yada, yada, yada ...
- zoomaKabu, on 10/28/2009, -1/+2No. He could order them home tomorrow. The congress didn't send them. The troops are deployed by executive order. An executive order would bring them home. Obama said what he had to to get elected. He's a community organizer not a world leader.
- govtdoesnotwork, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1I fear "the end" actually means "bankruptcy."
- vurb, on 10/28/2009, -3/+4wrong. no nation building, no undeclared, unconstitutional wars. leave now.
- JohnReb, on 10/28/2009, -2/+3Oh course he won't provide proof, that would mean he had actually studied the situation
- Thistlejack, on 10/28/2009, -1/+2It seems pretty clear that Obama's waiting for the health care discussion to shake out before making a decision on Afghanistan. The public only seems to be able to digest one issue at a time, so he's trying to finish up the platform that could potentially save orders of magnitude more American lives.
I'm not saying that is the right answer, but it is probably the most politically correct decision he could make. The reason why the right is pushing so hard on Afghanistan NOW is to splinter the President's support for health care reform. They hope to position him in 2012 as having accomplished nothing. - norman619, on 10/28/2009, -4/+4Ah yes... Help further the view that we go in utterly ***** up other countries then leave them to pick up the pieces. My god people like you really do have a hard time stepping back and seeing the big picture. Things aren't as smple as your simple mind seems to wish they were.
- IIAmusedII, on 10/29/2009, -1/+1I'm so sick of socialized war. I want to opt out. Those who want the war can pay for it and fight it themselves. Don't make the rest of us pay for your idiocy.
- rthakidn, on 10/28/2009, -1/+1The "strategy" in Afghanistan is doomed for failure. A failure that unfortunately our military will pay the price. In place, or soon to be, will be a strategy that is political in nature. The administration cannot withdrawl for fear of being perceived weak. They cannot provide the resources requested by McChrystal for fear of pissing off the anti-war left. They have given a battle plan that will not satisify the top General there, so it will be ineffective. McChrystal should go. Nothing against him, but he's now been given a bucket of crap and will be asked to make a nine course meal. He'll be blamed for it's failure. Afghanistan IS Vietnam. Either do what it takes or get the hell out.
- teichenauer, on 10/28/2009, -2/+2There are US soldiers who do good deeds while in Iraq. However, there are far more US soldiers whose task is to protect the current Afghanistan government and suppress rebellion.
The Russian occupation was no more "for the natives benefit" than the US occupation is. When the US Army has left Afghanistan all the resources that could aid the people of Afghanistan will be available without the overwhelming distraction of counterinsurgency. - Lemethe, on 10/29/2009, -1/+1Let me try to explain one point, the two party system is a failure. The
fact that our politics can be easily explained on a grid where opposing
axis represent economic freedom and social freedom respectively and
decided upon by only two groups should be a red flag to anyone.
I will refer you to this graph:
http://jph3.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/grid.gif
The x axis is economic freedom
The y axis is social freedom
The exploitation is simple. Both parties should align themselves with
one quadrant of the graph. Then they can mutually agree to ignore all
concerns which come from the two remaining political quadrants. In our
current case we have the upper right quadrant (republicans) and the
bottom left quadrant (democrats). The both mutually agree to ignore the
libertarians and the populists (say who?). They can agree on these
things because it serves both of their self interests.
But there is another more important point here.
The two party system will always lead to alienation of the people from
their government as the two parties will consciously or unconsciously
agree to a political stalemate OR their actions being nothing different
from centrist. In a nutshell there is no challenger to the stagnant
behavior of a two sided debate over a four sided problem. - treehugger87, on 10/28/2009, -3/+3I would argue that you don't understand what the war we are fighting is all about. The Middle East is filled with ethnic divisions that have been separated over the years by national borders established by the West and the Russians in order to limit the power of each group. A nuclear genocide of the ethnic group(s) that hate the West the most would certainly "win" the war.
- norman619, on 10/28/2009, -5/+5I think you need to look up what genocide is. Don't use words you don't understand.
- Russelllucid, on 10/28/2009, -3/+3Even if you forget any moral obligation to help a nation rebuild after we have disrupted it, I think that the willingness of Al Qaeda sheltered by the Taliban to expand into bordering nations should sound alarm bells. Bringing the troops home by Christmas is an over simplistic solution to say the least.
Whilst scare stories about nukes in terrorists hands are the fairytale's of Fox news. Governments like Pakistan falling and conventional weapons combined with troop defections to a clearly religiously insane group of fanatics is, unfortunately, within the realms of possibility. - Surkit, on 10/28/2009, -1/+1I did enlist, and was denied for medical reason, so I joined R.O.T.C.
- norman619, on 10/28/2009, -4/+4It doesn't take balls to make the wrong decision. It just takes arrogance, stypidity, or apathy.
- quirkopatra, on 10/29/2009, -1/+1Like it or not the president has said that Afghanistan is a righteous war and that he would listen to his commanders on the ground.
Iraq is wrapping up anyway.
It would be wrong to cut and run before the country has a trained force to protect stability.
As for Afghanistan, I think he needs decide. - johlorax, on 10/28/2009, -3/+3We will never know why Obama will be forced to make the decision they want him to make. We'll never know what 'compromise' they'll offer him - 'public option' for more war? They will literally stop at nothing to insure their 'freedom' to take their battle to any enemy, at any time, in any place, and for any reason. And we'll never know who 'they' are - but 'they' are very, very real. Too, too bad for Obama.
- JagPop, on 10/29/2009, -1/+1You left off 'politics'.
-
Show 51 - 76 of 76 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 