THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Our military can't leave any theater quickly after being there for over six years; we must save our equipment and materials

It wasnt that long ago (before the election) that I made the exact same argument.
I was told then that we could leave our equipment behind, in depots like we have in Saudi Arabia.

That it was more important to get our people out, that the equipment was expendable.

And if memory serves, it was you that was telling me that.

Quote:

mm claims he was in the military and got waterboarded, but he doesn't remember American history in Vietnam when our troops left rather quickly, and leaving behind many innocent people to get killed.

I will be happy to allow you to look at my DD-214 if you doubt what I am claiming.
As for Vietnam, since I was born in 1960, and wasnt old enough to really understand Vietnam, your right I dont remember it.

But let me ask you this...
If the Iraqi govt demanded that we leave right now, immediately, would we honor their demand and start leaving?
Or would we say no, and stay to protect the "innocent people" that the Iraqi govt is supposed to protect.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

apropos to nothing...
An American soldier shot and killed 5 U.S. soldiers at a gathering place in Afghan where soldiers were being treated for "stress disorders." That troubled me. It is bad enough that they died but, if their anonymity as patients was compromised, that is really bad.
I fired off an angry email to NPR about this, and they are now saying that the shootings happened at Camp Liberty and have dropped the reference to the "stress place."

0 Replies

I saw a report where Al Qaeda is not headquartered in Afghanistan, they are in Pakistan instead. So, according to the reasoning right here on A2K, how come are we still in Afghanistan? Why are innocent civilians still dying there? How come soldiers are dying there? When will Obama sign an executive order, to get us out of Afghanistan?

1 Reply

@okie,

I agree, we should be moving on to Pakistan if more of an effort is not made from them to capture and detain AQ.

1 Reply

@revel,

So are you actually in favor of invading another country?

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

I was in favor of invading Afghanistan when Bin Laden and AQ were there, I was in favor of following AQ and Bin Laden past Tora Bora instead of diverting most of our time and energy and resources to Iraq.S o yes, if Pakistan does not actually do something about the AQ camp instead of just talking a good game; I do favor invading Pakistan. I am not a pacifist, I was against the Iraq war because it had nothing to do with the attack on our country.

Intelligence lapses or flawed strategy

Quote:

Intelligence lapses or flawed strategy

Pir Baksh Bardiwal, the intelligence chief for the Eastern Shura, which controls eastern Afghanistan, says he was astounded that Pentagon planners didn't consider the most obvious exit routes and put down light US infantry to block them.

"The border with Pakistan was the key, but no one paid any attention to it," he said, leaning back in his swivel chair with a short list of the Al Qaeda fighters who were later taken prisoner. "And there were plenty of landing areas for helicopters, had the Americans acted decisively. Al Qaeda escaped right out from under their feet."

The intelligence chief contends that several thousand Pakistani troops who had been placed along the border about Dec. 10 never did their job, nor could they have been expected to, given that the exit routes were not being blocked inside Afghanistan.

2 Replies

@revel,

What does the country of Pakistan now have to do with 9/11?

1 Reply

@okie,

Try to keep up, okay? Bin Laden and AQ (who were behind the attack on 9/11 just in case you had a memory lapse) are in Pakistan and so far I have not seen much of an effort from the Pakistan leaders to capture them.

3 Replies

@revel,

revel, Actually, al Qaida and the Taliban spend time on the border regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan in the eastern mountainous region of those two countries.

0 Replies

@revel,

revel wrote:

I am not a pacifist, I was against the Iraq war because it had nothing to do with the attack on our country.

exactimundo.

0 Replies

@revel,

revel wrote:

Try to keep up, okay? Bin Laden and AQ (who were behind the attack on 9/11 just in case you had a memory lapse) are in Pakistan and so far I have not seen much of an effort from the Pakistan leaders to capture them.

it looks like they got the holy moly scared out of them though, and they've been stepping up their military activities the last couple of weeks.

the taliban had taken over a town not too far from islamabad, i think it was like 40 miles away or something. the paki army went over and made a much improved effort and dislodged them.

i think that one of the most important ingredients here is going to be getting india and pakistan to quit barking at each other. they both have a fair amount to lose by ignoring the islamic extremists.

1 Reply

KNOW THE REALITY OF ISLAM.

Quote:

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/islam_unbelievers.html
Islam and Non-believers
...
By Abdul Shaitan Vexen Crabtree, 2006 Sep 27
1. Conversion, Subjugation, or Death
2. Apostasy
3. Moderate Muslims and the West
4. Blasphemy and Islam

Conversion, Subjugation, or Death
The Qur'an contains detailed instructions and examples of how to meet unbelievers. The first instruction is that they should be called to Islam; in fact, the Qur'an says you cannot wage war against unbelievers until you have preached to them. The second instruction is that if they do not convert to Islam, then, they must be fought. The third instruction is that if they surrender, or convert, then you must stop waging war. The final instruction is that if they do not convert or surrender, then they must be killed. This is the optimum route for Islamist expansion: A tidal wave of war, subjugation and conversion.

There is another provision in the Qur'an though, because sometimes Muslims aren't in a position to wage war. In this occasion, the examples and teachings of the Qur'an are that Muslims may make deals with their enemies, with unbelievers, engage in truces and the like in order to recuperate and gain strength. The overriding concern is the fight against unbelievers; if this can't be achieved then it is ok to strategically lay low. To achieve more sneaky victories, it is acceptable to deceive, double-cross and break deals. Deals with unbelievers are not real deals, anyway, and are to be broken as soon as more aggressive moves can be made.
...

0 Replies

@DontTreadOnMe,

Perhaps they had their own motives in dislodging the Taliban in Afghanistan because I haven't seen any effort in trying to reign in AQ in their own side of the border.

Quote:

Sun, 10 May 2009 17:04:57 GMT

Gen. David Petraeus
Gen. David Petraeus says "very significant losses" in recent months have triggered al-Qaeda to move their headquarters from Afghanistan to western Pakistan.

Appearing on "FOX News Sunday" and CNN's "State of the Union," on Sunday the head of the US Central Command said the group was no longer holding its headquarters in Afghanistan.

Petraeus, however, said that some branches of the terrorist group are still active in "enclaves and sanctuaries" in Afghanistan.

The top US military commander also warned that "tentacles of al-Qaeda" have spread across the countries from the Middle East to northern Africa.

Petraeus said he believes Osama bin Laden and his No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahiri remain in charge of the terrorist network.

"They surface periodically. We see communications that they send out," Petraeus said.

Though Petraeus said there was no known location for either of the terrorists, he said al-Qaeda senior leadership clearly is rooted in the border region of western Pakistan.

"There's no question that al-Qaeda's senior leadership has been there and has been in operation for years," Petraeus said.

President Barack Obama and his team claim Pakistan is the new sanctuary for al-Qaeda and Taliban operatives, vowing to withdraw forces from Iraq and redeploy them in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Obama had earlier declared plans to send another 4,000 troops to Afghanistan in addition to 17,000 extra troops already deployed in the war-ravaged country.

source

But maybe if they see we now are serious about trying to fight AQ, they will make more an effort in their own borders to reign in and help us fight AQ.

2 Replies

@revel,

revel wrote:

Perhaps they had their own motives in dislodging the Taliban in Afghanistan because I haven't seen any effort in trying to reign in AQ in their own side of the border. ...

But maybe if they see we now are serious about trying to fight AQ, they will make more an effort in their own borders to reign in and help us fight AQ.

that's exactly what has changed. now that the islamic fundis are trying to do to pakistan what they did in afghanistan, they see that it's not just an "american" problem.

the survival instinct is pretty strong. and they have to know that if the fundis got hold of the paki nukes, pakistan's existence suddenly becomes a hell of lot less likely.

1 Reply

@revel,

revel, It's been pretty well known that al Qaida moved freely between Pakistan and Afghanistan in the past, and I don't see that scenario changing much in the future.

1 Reply

@DontTreadOnMe,

Quote:

the survival instinct is pretty strong. and they have to know that if the fundis got hold of the paki nukes, pakistan's existence suddenly becomes a hell of lot less likely.

Why would they make themselves extinct? I mean there are a good many Muslims who support AQ who live in Pakistan.

It is an American problem; if others want to support us, that is well and good, but it is up to us to make sure we fight AQ to make sure they don't attack us and also to negotiate and use diplomacy and try to find common ground to fight for the more moderates among Muslims to join us instead of AQ. Actually the latter is more important; but we need to find those responsible of the last attack and make them accountable or they will just have gotten away with it. (as cyclops old signature line used to say.)

Been spending too much time here in between spring my cleaning house, need to get back to cleaning.

1 Reply

@revel,

revel wrote:

Try to keep up, okay? Bin Laden and AQ (who were behind the attack on 9/11 just in case you had a memory lapse) are in Pakistan and so far I have not seen much of an effort from the Pakistan leaders to capture them.

There is one important distinction. The Taliban was ruling Afghanistan, and they were open supporters of Al Qaeda, but the same does not apply to Pakistan. Although Pakistan has not done enough in our view, they cannot be judged as open supporters of Al Qaeda, so I think my question is legitimate, can we justify open and more longterm invasions into Pakistan now, vs our surgical attacks or drone attacks in the past? Do we really wish to escalate the war into Pakistan? I don't think so.

There are also bad guys or terrorists operating out of many countries, such as Iran. Do we go into Iran as well? Revel, I think you need to step back a bit and take a harder look at the situation before you commit to anything.

Another point, Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11, but at the time they did 9/11, they were not headquartered in Pakistan.

I am just trying to call for consistency here on the part of liberals.

0 Replies

@revel,

revel wrote:

Quote:
the survival instinct is pretty strong. and they have to know that if the fundis got hold of the paki nukes, pakistan's existence suddenly becomes a hell of lot less likely.

Why would they make themselves extinct? I mean there are a good many Muslims who support AQ who live in Pakistan. ...

if the taliban, were to get hold of pakistan's nuclear weapons, it would pose a threat to the immediate neighborhood. russia, china, india would all be at risk. if a demand to disarm did not have any effect, there's a very good chance that there would be a nuclear strike on pakistan. by one, or maybe all three. and then there's the u.s. we couldn't just stand by, if pakistan does not already have missles sufficient to get warheads to mainland america, it would only be a matter of time. we would have to be fully involved.

it's a scorched earth waiting to happen. so it's better for everyone for pakistan to get off their duffs and kick a little taliban ass.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

It's been pretty well known that al Qaida moved freely between Pakistan and Afghanistan in the past, and I don't see that scenario changing much in the future.

It's been pretty well known that al Qaida moved freely between Afghanistan, IRAQ, and subsequently Pakistan in the past, and I don't see that scenario changing much in the future, IF WE LEAVE THOSE COUNTRIES PREMATURELY.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

It's been pretty well known that al Qaida moved freely... IRAQ,....

you are wrong.

2 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know