Should We Still Be In Afghanistan / Iraq???

Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:18 pm

weirdobeardo wrote:

I have some suspicions that Bin Laden is dead and has been for a few years now.

Either that or he ran out of videotapes.

Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:22 pm

lol Talking of Bin Laden and food watch this -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFauJ5U9fhQ

Laughing

Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:28 pm

SoDaSeeD wrote:

lol Talking of Bin Laden and food watch this -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFauJ5U9fhQ

Laughing

LMAO nice find Laughing

Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:28 pm

eldestFLeTcH wrote:

SoDaSeeD wrote:

Who was he and why was he banned? I was just getting into that.

voidsurfer - new account/ban evasion

Posted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 3:57 am

If the objective is to WIN, stay. If the objective only has political ramifications, pull out immediately. Politicians should learn that their function is only to declare when to fight a war, and it is the duty of the military to fight and win the war. If they want to run the war hands on, then they should ship out with the troops and find out what it's like to fight a war. Perhaps then they would think much differently than they do now.

Posted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 5:25 am

aftac wrote:

If the objective is to WIN, stay. If the objective only has political ramifications, pull out immediately. Politicians should learn that their function is only to declare when to fight a war, and it is the duty of the military to fight and win the war. If they want to run the war hands on, then they should ship out with the troops and find out what it's like to fight a war. Perhaps then they would think much differently than they do now.

heck yeah
i like that

Posted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 11:35 am

eldestFLeTcH wrote:

aftac wrote:

If the objective is to WIN, stay. If the objective only has political ramifications, pull out immediately. Politicians should learn that their function is only to declare when to fight a war, and it is the duty of the military to fight and win the war. If they want to run the war hands on, then they should ship out with the troops and find out what it's like to fight a war. Perhaps then they would think much differently than they do now.

heck yeah
i like that

Yeah I know what you mean and it would be great no doubt but often winning isn't enough. Sometimes decisions are required that cannot be made by a general whose only concern is winning the war. It is unfortunate that the broader picture is usually available to those we call politicians.

Besides the conflicts we see these days can hardly be called wars anymore. Such is the situation that winning and leaving as conquering heroes has possibilities for damaging repercussions. History is testimony to this. It is also testimony that an army is ill equipped to deal with the aftermath of a war. Nor would any sane general subject his soldiers to such an ordeal least his army lose the stomach for the next fight.

Is it not true that the greatest advocates of peace are soldiers who have seen war? But yet they understand the need for it. A paradox of the highest order. To serve that which you seek the hardest to prevent.

It is unfortunate but the counter balancing effect of those who have never seen war but yet comment on it is a necessary evil, in my opinion. As are the politicians. Otherwise, I fear, the military would rule the world and freedom would have a different meaning.

Posted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 12:02 pm

aftac wrote:

If the objective is to WIN, stay. If the objective only has political ramifications, pull out immediately. Politicians should learn that their function is only to declare when to fight a war, and it is the duty of the military to fight and win the war. If they want to run the war hands on, then they should ship out with the troops and find out what it's like to fight a war. Perhaps then they would think much differently than they do now.

Can i ask, win what?

Is this about defeating the Taliban? If so how do you defeat an ideology? Surely that can only be accomplished thru mutually beneficial goals. We need to ask ourselves and our politicians what those goals are exactly. We also need to ask ourselves if these goals on both sides are reconcilable.

Isnt an army that stay on not fighting a war anymore but manning an occupation?

Posted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 1:46 pm

Some time ago I've read an article about neo-liberalism - it compared it to fascism, well if you'll look on the 'war' it will look really similar : P Occupation for oil....

Anyways - I'm from poland and our army support US army in afghanistan/iraq so I think that my vote is also important. I think that we shall leave them alone with their problems - try to imagine when there is a home war inside your country and other countries are putting an attemps to help - they would be enemies for me.

Posted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 6:17 pm

hcubyc wrote:

Some time ago I've read an article about neo-liberalism - it compared it to fascism, well if you'll look on the 'war' it will look really similar : P Occupation for oil....

David Harvey wrote a book about that, The New Imperialism .

Posted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 11:10 pm

SoDaSeeD wrote:

aftac wrote:

If the objective is to WIN, stay. If the objective only has political ramifications, pull out immediately. Politicians should learn that their function is only to declare when to fight a war, and it is the duty of the military to fight and win the war. If they want to run the war hands on, then they should ship out with the troops and find out what it's like to fight a war. Perhaps then they would think much differently than they do now.

Can i ask, win what?

Is this about defeating the Taliban? If so how do you defeat an ideology? Surely that can only be accomplished thru mutually beneficial goals. We need to ask ourselves and our politicians what those goals are exactly. We also need to ask ourselves if these goals on both sides are reconcilable.

Isnt an army that stay on not fighting a war anymore but manning an occupation?

Win what? I guess you'd have to ask each individual that question as I doubt seriously every one would answer in the same way.
Ideologies are either changed or defeated by eliminating those who hold them. It can sometimes be accomplished peacefully, and as one of Obama's controllers recently said, "when the power of persuasion doesn't work we must use the persuasion of power", which can become quite violent. As long a humans can think freely there will remain differences that cannot be reconciled. That leaves us to find ways to deal with the negative aspects as we reap the benefits of the positive aspects that emanate from the thoughts of individual human minds.

Occupation at the end of a war can be more of a necessity when wars are fought without accomplishing victory and total submission of the opponent such as has been the case beginning with Korea. WW II was the last war fought to a more or less permanent conclusion. But I think there will be more wars in the future until the human species becomes extinct. That's simply the nature of life. There will always be two choices to make, submit or revolt.

Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:21 am

aftac wrote:

Win what? I guess you'd have to ask each individual that question as I doubt seriously every one would answer in the same way.

A nation hardly goes to war over the over the individual opinions of each of it's citizens. There must be a collective consensus on the need(s) for waging a war.

aftac wrote:

Ideologies are either changed or defeated by eliminating those who hold them.

aftac wrote:

As long a humans can think freely there will remain differences that cannot be reconciled.

I would say the reverse is true. They do not think freely. They think in terms that their perception of reality allows them to think in. A reality often heavily influenced by various ideologies. They day they start to think freely, as in free from the influence of such ideologies and perceptions, they will realize the futility of conflict.

And because of this ideologies can only be supplanted by different ideology more relevant to the times.

aftac wrote:

But I think there will be more wars in the future until the human species becomes extinct. That's simply the nature of life. There will always be two choices to make, submit or revolt.

My word, sir, your sixty years of education have resulted in dire cynicism. I do not pretend to know the future, but my limited experiences have led me to believe that the nature of life is to survive no matter what. That gives me hope and a reason to believe that though we may be extinct one day, it shall not be of our own doing.

If hope is lost, what is left?

Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:57 am

aftac wrote:

That's simply the nature of life. There will always be two choices to make, submit or revolt.

You of course mean that in philosophical term and not in terms of biological natural terms...right?
Careful how you define nature of humans, especially in black or white terms.

Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:02 am

aftac wrote:

Quote:

WW II was the last war fought to a more or less permanent conclusion.

What do you mean by that? That the borders that were a result of this war are still the same? East/West Germany, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia would seem to contradict this, Estonia, Latvia... That it's the last war that resulted in the disputed territory being occupied by one side only? Vietnam, Falklands, Kuwait... I honestly don't see how a reasonable interpretation of this could possibly be true. (I assume that you're aware that Spain had a fascist government for many years after WW II under Franco.)

aftac also wrote:

Quote:

"when the power of persuasion doesn't work we must use the persuasion of power"

Why must we do anything to these people? That's not a justification, it's a (very) slightly amusing play on words that assumes righteousness without addressing it.

Aside from that, I might comment that words such as Machiavellian and draconian spring to mind, although Machiavelli took care to make his policy recommendations seem somewhat more palatable.

Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:18 am

jeef wrote:

....although Machiavelli took care to make his policy recommendations seem somewhat more palatable.

Indeed...

"If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolo Machiavelli