0
   

Democrats arguing for war in Afghanistan

 
 
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2008 06:23 pm
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/07/democrats_say_m_1.html

Karen Finney of DNC wrote:
It is disappointing that John McCain doesn't recognize that the war in Afghanistan was not only the first major conflict after 9/11, and is in fact a major front in the fight against terrorism. No wonder John McCain doesn't understand why the American people are looking for new leadership that will bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end so we can direct the resources we need to getting the job done in Afghanistan,"


Nice sentiment...but anybody wanna take a bet that after the first thousand or so casualties in Afghanistan this tune will change...

Anybody with an inkling of military history and strategy would recognize that Afghanistan is the real quagmire, not Iraq. For more than a century, beginning with the Brits in the 19th century, western powers have repeatedly invaded and tried to "rebuild" Afghanistan in their image, only to fail time and again. In that light, drawing the battle of terrorism to Iraq (a much more favorable battlefield) is a stroke of brilliance and has clearly served to greatly weaken Al Qaeda and other muslim extremists.

Now Obama and some Dems are arguing that we need to move the fight to Afghanistan. I'm all for that, but if Dems really want to win this war on terror, they'd better be prepared for "the long war" (maybe even 100 years) in Afghanistan. Furthermore, they need to recognize that abandoning Iraq in order to "surge" troops to Aghanistan will be self-defeating for it is a virtual certainty that Iraq will then quickly become a Pakistan-like refuge for the extremists. To win this war you need a broad front of stability throught southwest Asia. Iraq seems to be making good progress and a good place to tackle next is Afghanistan but don't go into Afghanistan if you are not prepared for a long and costly war.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 638 • Replies: 8
No top replies

 
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jul, 2008 02:58 pm
http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/gm/2008/gm080722.gif
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jul, 2008 03:24 pm
Re: Democrats arguing for war in Afghanistan
slkshock7 wrote:

Anybody with an inkling of military history and strategy would recognize that Afghanistan is the real quagmire.


perhaps. didn't work out so great for the ussr. unfortunately, afghanistan, not iraq is where the group that planned 9/11 were, and are.

so, now that you have stated that escalating war there would be a quagmire, looks like maybe terrorism really is a law enforcement issue rather than a military issue after all.

glad you've seen the light, brutha...
0 Replies
 
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jul, 2008 03:52 pm
Yeah, if there were some kind of international police force, they would be best suited to chase down Osama, but since such a force doesn't exist, it's left to the military.

Osama's not stupid, that's why he hides in those mountainous hideaways between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Going into those mountains has always been a given...heck, going into the tribal areas of Pakistan is a given before this war is truly over.

I'm glad that Obama has seen the light...unfortunately I don't have a lot of faith he has the stick-to-itiveness to win the war.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jul, 2008 04:01 pm
slkshock7 wrote:
Yeah, if there were some kind of international police force, they would be best suited to chase down Osama, but since such a force doesn't exist, it's left to the military.

Osama's not stupid, that's why he hides in those mountainous hideaways between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Going into those mountains has always been a given...heck, going into the tribal areas of Pakistan is a given before this war is truly over.

I'm glad that Obama has seen the light...unfortunately I don't have a lot of faith he has the stick-to-itiveness to win the war.


interpol? interpiol/terrorism

i'm convinced that in order to catch a stealthy opponent, you have to be even stealthier.

seems like an excellent opportunity to improve that model to me.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jul, 2008 04:06 pm
slkshock7 wrote:

I'm glad that Obama has seen the light...unfortunately I don't have a lot of faith he has the stick-to-itiveness to win the war.


sorry, forgot that part...

i don't think he's gonna have much choice. the american public seems to have had it with iraq, but most of us are still pretty pissed about bin laden and the wtc.

and since i was already angry about the taliban prior to 9/11, i see more than one axe to grind there. what those guys do to people over their frakkin' islamic bullshit is barbaric.
0 Replies
 
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jul, 2008 07:12 pm
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
I don't think he's gonna have much choice. the american public seems to have had it with iraq, but most of us are still pretty pissed about bin laden and the wtc.

and since i was already angry about the taliban prior to 9/11, i see more than one axe to grind there. what those guys do to people over their frakkin' islamic bullshit is barbaric.


DTOM,
You have much more faith in the american public than I do. I estimate the appetite of the American people and Democrats to be at most two years and 1500 american deaths. Don't have a lot on which to base this assessment except the current war. It was about Mar 2005 (two years after the invasion) that approval of the war dropped below 50%. Correspondingly, in Mar 2005, the american fatality count was about 1500.

Using that stat, I predict that, despite their current hawkish rhetoric on Afghanistan, Obama and his fellow Democrats will abandon Afghanistan within two years of taking office...or when the Afghan fataility count exceeds 1500.

Therefore, if Obama wins, he'll have to finish this war on terror in two years before the liberal peaceniks force his hand. But IMHO, there is now way that we can clean up and stablize Afghanistan in two years or less. It will require considerably more time...and unfortunately neither Obama and his fellow Dems have the requisite backbone or endurance.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jul, 2008 08:35 pm
If a president Obama puts enough military with equipment in Afghanistan right from the beginning, unlike genius W, who only made a token effort, and gets the corruption out of running the war, we just might see it take a turn in our favor. I side now with those who argued for police actions and diplomacy, but the war is ongoing, and so it's either put up or get out. Obviously, Obama and McCain plan on staying in.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jul, 2008 08:59 pm
slkshock7 wrote:
Therefore, if Obama wins, he'll have to finish this war on terror in two years before the liberal peaceniks force his hand.


along with other discussions i've had with different folks all over the country, any doubt that the majority of americans have had enough of iraq was squashed by my recent 3 month stay in east tennessee. not a lot of peacenik liberals there. sure a lot of pissed off conservatives though.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Democrats arguing for war in Afghanistan
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/22/2023 at 02:46:26