GET OUT OF AFGHANISTAN

@msolga,

You are very correct. Naturally, we had to go into Afghanistan to attack al-Qaida, which we quickly defeated. (Unfortunately, the Bush administration allowed bin-Laden and the other leadership to escape the country.) We should have then quickly left the country.

Instead, Bush, who thought we were omnipotent, occupied the country, leading to the present mess we are in.

We should now leave the country and let the Afghans run their own affairs.

2 Replies

@Advocate,

It's a real shame that Clinton allowed Bin-Laden and the other leadership to escape before we were attacked.
Clinton's inaction put in this mess that President Bush inherited.
We should stay and expand our efforts to defeat our enemies.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

I disagree. There is no parallell to Vietnam in that war, but it could go on much longer and never be satisfactorily resolved. I don't like the killing of so many civilians in the strikes at suspected enemy combatants, for one thing. For another, these people are by and large unable to get to America to strike at us. It is the secretive cells of terrorists who do these things, not the ones who swarm out of the woodwork to strike at the Great Satan in the theater of the war. Our leaders have wasted American money and resources for too many years in these types of conflicts. Time to bring our boys and girls home and rebuild the military.

The Taliban are bad, bad people, and they gave safe haven to a terrorist organization who killed thousands of your fellow countrymen, just because they were Americans. It's the good fight, and America should try harder to win it. If retaliation for 9/11 isn't sensible to you, what war would be? Would you have said the same about WW2? Where is it written that if a war proves hard, we run away? What kind of message would that send to future would-be enemies or future would-be allies? Totally disagree.

2 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

The Taliban are bad, bad people, and they gave safe haven to a terrorist organization who killed thousands of your
fellow countrymen, just because they were Americans. It's the good fight, and America should try harder to win it.

Well said sir!!

I do not understand the defeatism that has spread across this country... it baffles me.

0 Replies

How many lives must the USA sacrifice for those killed in the 9/11 attack? Would 25,000 be enough (in addition to tens of thousands of innocent Afghans)?

We now need to make a business-type decision.

2 Replies

@H2O MAN,

Oh right.

Do enlighten us then.

Perhaps you'd like to explain "the mission" & "the job at hand" .

I look forward to your detailed explanation (& not a sentence or two, either).

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

Naturally, we had to go into Afghanistan to attack al-Qaida, which we quickly defeated. (Unfortunately, the Bush administration allowed bin-Laden and the other leadership to escape the country.) We should have then quickly left the country.

Instead, Bush, who thought we were omnipotent, occupied the country, leading to the present mess we are in.

We should now leave the country and let the Afghans run their own affairs.

better yet, they should have never gone to iraq and concentrated all their efforts on afghanistan

0 Replies

@Advocate,

we will all know that the war in afghanistan has ended and that afghanistan and the U.S. are friendly trade partners , when a future U.S. president welcomes the then president of afghanistan .
the welcoming speech may be copied from the speech president bush used to welcome the president of vietnam (anyone remember : vietnam , the communist enemy ! ) .

press release by the white house - see full text :

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/06/20070622-2.html

Quote:

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
June 22, 2007

President Bush Welcomes President Nguyen Minh Triet of Vietnam to the White House
The Oval Office

10:50 A.M. EDT

PRESIDENT BUSH: Mr. President, thank you for coming. Laura and I remember very fondly our trip to your beautiful country. And I remember so very well the warm reception that we received from your government and the people of Vietnam.

I explained to the President we want to have good relations with Vietnam. And we've got good economic relations. We signed a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement. And I was impressed by the growing Vietnamese economy.

1 Reply

@hamburger,

will tens of thousands of people will have to die in afghanistan before it is being realized that friendly relations are possible - and better than war ?

president bush seems quite relaxed in welcoming the president of the SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM to the white house and the United States .

official white house photo :

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/06/images/20070622-2_d-0263-4-515h.jpg

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

I disagree. There is no parallell to Vietnam in that war, but it could go on much longer and never be satisfactorily resolved. I don't like the killing of so many civilians in the strikes at suspected enemy combatants, for one thing. For another, these people are by and large unable to get to America to strike at us. It is the secretive cells of terrorists who do these things, not the ones who swarm out of the woodwork to strike at the Great Satan in the theater of the war. Our leaders have wasted American money and resources for too many years in these types of conflicts. Time to bring our boys and girls home and rebuild the military.

The Taliban are bad, bad people, and they gave safe haven to a terrorist organization who killed thousands of your fellow countrymen, just because they were Americans. It's the good fight, and America should try harder to win it. If retaliation for 9/11 isn't sensible to you, what war would be? Would you have said the same about WW2? Where is it written that if a war proves hard, we run away? What kind of message would that send to future would-be enemies or future would-be allies? Totally disagree.

I never suggested letting bygones be bygones for 911. We have killed far more of them than they have killed of us. Where does retaliation end? When there are no more people left in Afghanistan? There are no parallells here for WWII. Here, you are talking killing practically a whole population, since the enemy is ensconced with the civilians and accepted by the majority. You may temporarily pacify them, but, the instant the iron hand relaxes, true to character, they will be likely to revert to the old system.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

The enemy is essentially holding the civilians population hostage in their own country.
These innocent civilians are the ones that must revolt against the ensconced enemy if they want any chance at survival.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

These innocent civilians are the ones that must revolt against the ensconced enemy

Correct, and that is why we should get out. Let them form their own destiny.

0 Replies

This is a fascinating discussion here. If I remember correctly, both Democrats and Republicans overwhelmingly supported going to Afghanistan, and we successfully routed the Taliban. Slowly, they have rebuilt their determination and reorganized to now pose a bigger threat again, however the Democrats have all consistently promoted the idea that we should put more troops into Afghanistan and expand our presence there. That has been Obama's stated position throughout the campaign. So I find this fascinating, is the left now reversing their position on this, and will they now pressure Obama, and will Obama now backtrack and do an about face? That would not surprise me in the least if this process does unfold in the next few months. I do not believe Obama has the fortitude to be committed to anything militarily, as he really is uninterested in national defense. At least that is my assessment of his political personality. He is far more interested in his leftist domestic agenda.

1 Reply

@okie,

The Reps never bucked Bush on anything. They marched lockstep with Bush and Cheney, no matter how bad and stupid the cause.

The Dems will NOT similarly go along with O. Count on it.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

How many lives must the USA sacrifice for those killed in the 9/11 attack? Would 25,000 be enough (in addition to tens of thousands of innocent Afghans)?

We now need to make a business-type decision.

We're at war. People actually do die in wars. The other side is at war too. As always, we do everything we can to avoid killing innocent people. We cannot give up going to war ever again because, as always, despite our best efforts some people die. No one else takes that position. How many civilians were killed by us, and how many by the other side and by suicide bombers? In this case, our civilians were actually attacked as the primary, intended target on our own soil. If there's one right we absolutely do have, it's to retaliate for a deliberate attack on our civilians in our country.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

I disagree. There is no parallell to Vietnam in that war, but it could go on much longer and never be satisfactorily resolved. I don't like the killing of so many civilians in the strikes at suspected enemy combatants, for one thing. For another, these people are by and large unable to get to America to strike at us. It is the secretive cells of terrorists who do these things, not the ones who swarm out of the woodwork to strike at the Great Satan in the theater of the war. Our leaders have wasted American money and resources for too many years in these types of conflicts. Time to bring our boys and girls home and rebuild the military.

The Taliban are bad, bad people, and they gave safe haven to a terrorist organization who killed thousands of your fellow countrymen, just because they were Americans. It's the good fight, and America should try harder to win it. If retaliation for 9/11 isn't sensible to you, what war would be? Would you have said the same about WW2? Where is it written that if a war proves hard, we run away? What kind of message would that send to future would-be enemies or future would-be allies? Totally disagree.

I never suggested letting bygones be bygones for 911. We have killed far more of them than they have killed of us. Where does retaliation end? When there are no more people left in Afghanistan? There are no parallells here for WWII. Here, you are talking killing practically a whole population, since the enemy is ensconced with the civilians and accepted by the majority. You may temporarily pacify them, but, the instant the iron hand relaxes, true to character, they will be likely to revert to the old system.

We should try to defeat the people we're at war with. That is normally the goal in war. It cannot help us for everyone to know that if an enemy makes it tough for us, we'll always skulk out.

1 Reply

Brandon wrote:

We should try to defeat the people we're at war with. That is normally the goal in war. It cannot help us for everyone to know that if an enemy makes it tough for us, we'll always skulk out.

The enemy certainly made it tough for us in Iraq, but we persevered, and now we're even going to draw-down our troops there. What exactly have we won there, though? The suicide bombings have been reduced, but not eliminated. We've bought off the Sunni and Shiite factions that are against our presence there. Iran stands to make significant political ties with the Shiite dominated government in Iraq. We've about faced and agreed to a timetable for leaving. Is that something along the lines of the defeat of, and victory over our enemies we're to expect in Afghanistan? Our ruinous trillion dollar wars amount to those kinds of victories?

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

You appear to me to have the mindset that European style warfare is the norm. Defeat the opposing army and victory is conceded. Other peoples don't see it like that. Generational wars are for the long haul. In Afghanistan, they should have planned a strategy for going in and getting bin Laden, then getting out. Instead, they moved in and squatted. That changed it from a get even for 911 operation into nation building in a nation that does not want us. In short, we are persevering in a war without a cause. Time to get out.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

We aren't in AG for nation building.

0 Replies

We forget that the Talaban are Afghans, and that they didn't attack us. Admittedly, they ran the government on 9/11, and they harbored al-Qaida, but they did not engineer the attack on us.

Accordingly, it is now time for us to go away. We are increasingly gaining the hatred of the Afghans, who will never act like, say, the Germans once we won the war.

3 Replies

GET OUT OF AFGHANISTAN

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know