233416 Bullies, 3586 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 1 to 10 of 110
Page 1 of 11 1 2345 ... LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. CapnMunchh is offline

    Welterweight

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    792

    Posted On:
    12/30/2013 12:20pm

    Bullshido Newbie
     Style: TangSooDo/Yubiwaza

    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!

    Worst war ever!

    After 12 years of conflict, opposition to the War in Afghanistan stands at 82% of Americans, according to a CNN poll. This is higher than the opposition for the wars in Iraq (69%) and Viet Nam (60%).

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...n-u-s-history/

    Though troop withdrawals are contemplated, last November, NBC news announced it had a draft of a US-Afghan deal that suggests we'll continue to have somewhere between 7-15,000 troops for the next 10 years.

    http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2...efinitely?lite

    An unpopular war by a supposedly anti-war President. During seven years under George W. Bush, 630 Americans were killed in Afghanistan. Under Obama, 1,671 troops have been killed. Thousands of American deaths and possibly thousands more to come, increasing opposition by Congress, yet this War has been given little attention by the media -- which focuses our national attention instead on the manufactured remarks of celebrity buffoons.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-2014/?hpid=z5

    Where's the outrage? During the Viet Nam War, thousands took to the streets. Is it the absence of a draft? Is it that Americans don't care if thousands of our soldiers lose their lives as long as they've all volunteers? Does the military elite and defense industry place its own interests above that of enlisted men and women? Does anybody know what the hell we're fighting over? WTF?
    Last edited by CapnMunchh; 12/30/2013 12:48pm at .
  2. Tom .C is offline

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    3,126

    Posted On:
    12/30/2013 12:30pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: Aikido,Judo

    5
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I think the fake war on Christmas is the worst war ever. Merry New Year all you all!
  3. Devil is offline
    Devil's Avatar

    His heart was visible, and the dismal sack that maketh excrement of what is eaten.

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    6,795

    Posted On:
    12/30/2013 1:11pm

    supporting member
     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by CapnMunchh View Post
    Though troop withdrawals are contemplated, last November, NBC news announced it had a draft of a US-Afghan deal that suggests we'll continue to have somewhere between 7-15,000 troops for the next 10 years.
    7K - 15K troops is nothing. That's no more troops than we deploy all over the world for various ****. 7-15K troops is just business as usual. It's equivalent to a couple large naval vessels.
  4. CapnMunchh is offline

    Welterweight

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    792

    Posted On:
    12/30/2013 1:23pm

    Bullshido Newbie
     Style: TangSooDo/Yubiwaza

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Devil View Post
    7K - 15K troops is nothing. That's no more troops than we deploy all over the world for various ****. 7-15K troops is just business as usual. It's equivalent to a couple large naval vessels.
    That may be, but shouldn't we have a good reason to have them there anyway? For one thing, as long as there any American troops there, the potential for escalation exists. Hell, we arguably have a better reason to be in Iraq long term. There isn't even any oil in Afghanistan, and Osama is gone. The Russians got bogged down there too and left, and they arguably had a good reason to be there, since they shared a border. Al Queda and Anti American Muslim fundamentalists are everywhere. And the Taliban? I'm not willing to sacrifice American llives and money, in any amount, to save Afghanis from themselves, even if we could, which we can't.

    Edit -- we can try to justify our presence there because of the strategic advantage of deployment in that area, but our troops are under constant threat, and its not like we lack military presence elsewhere in that part of the world.
    Last edited by CapnMunchh; 12/30/2013 1:34pm at .
  5. Devil is offline
    Devil's Avatar

    His heart was visible, and the dismal sack that maketh excrement of what is eaten.

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    6,795

    Posted On:
    12/30/2013 1:29pm

    supporting member
     

    2
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by CapnMunchh View Post
    That may be, but shouldn't we have a good reason to have them there anyway? For one thing, as long as there any American troops there, the potential for escalation exists. Hell, we arguably have a better reason to be in Iraq long term. There isn't even any oil in Afghanistan, and Osama is gone. The Russians got bogged down there too and left, and they arguably had a good reason to be there, since they shared a border. Al Queda and Anti American Muslim fundamentalists are everywhere. And the Taliban? I'm not willing to sacrifice American llives and money, in any amount, to save Afghanis from themselves, even if we could, which we can't.
    We never kick ass and leave. That's just not the way it's done. We always keep people in place as a reminder that we'll kick some more ass if necessary.

    I don't really give a **** about Afghanistan one way or the other. But when there are only 7K-15K troops left, the war is over as far as I'm concerned. Military personnel are big boys and girls. They knew they'd be out protecting 'Murrica's interests when they signed on the dotted line. They could just as easily get wasted while deployed to the Mediterranean. It's nothing to fret over.
  6. CapnMunchh is offline

    Welterweight

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    792

    Posted On:
    12/30/2013 1:52pm

    Bullshido Newbie
     Style: TangSooDo/Yubiwaza

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Devil View Post
    We never kick ass and leave. That's just not the way it's done. We always keep people in place as a reminder that we'll kick some more ass if necessary.

    I don't really give a **** about Afghanistan one way or the other. But when there are only 7K-15K troops left, the war is over as far as I'm concerned. Military personnel are big boys and girls. They knew they'd be out protecting 'Murrica's interests when they signed on the dotted line. They could just as easily get wasted while deployed to the Mediterranean. It's nothing to fret over.
    Sure, if it might necessary to kick more ass. But I still don't see why it should be necessary in Afghanistan. What did we gain from being there, given that Osama wasn't even there? And how will we know when its ok to leave?

    I don't doubt our military personnel's readiness to serve, for which I have a great deal of respect. But I'm uncomfortable with the idea that its only 7-15,000 so its ok. Just because we have a large standing army doesn't reduce the value of each individual soldier's life. Tho its secondary, there's also the expense -- you and I will be adding our tax dollars to the billions that we will spend there.

    And like I said, its not like we really need Kabul as a military base. We have bases in Turkey, and solid allies in Israel and India. And a lot more places in the world where Lockheed and Boeing can make money.

    Edit -- it was one thing to chase Osama, but now we have a long-term war that's being carried out without full support from Congress. The Constitution gave Congress that prerogative, the President's power is not meant to extend that far.
    Last edited by CapnMunchh; 12/30/2013 2:01pm at .
  7. W. Rabbit is offline
    W. Rabbit's Avatar

    heaven sent and hell bent but weapons clenched and well kept

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Work
    Posts
    8,623

    Posted On:
    12/30/2013 2:03pm

    supporting member
     Style: 無木兔

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by CapnMunchh View Post
    Where's the outrage? During the Viet Nam War, thousands took to the streets. Is it the absence of a draft? Is it that Americans don't care if thousands of our soldiers lose their lives as long as they've all volunteers? Does the military elite and defense industry place its own interests above that of enlisted men and women? Does anybody know what the hell we're fighting over? WTF?
    What Devil said. They're there to maintain strategic presence in the region, something the Soviets failed at after a very long, MUCH bloodier conflict. THAT war killed up to 1.5 Million Afghan civilians, on top of around 15k Soviet and 18K Afghan military casualties over a 9 year period..

    So by comparison, the US campaign has been unbelievably successful.

    There has also been a major change in strategic tactics against foreign insurgencies since Vietnam.

    Back then, the brass had no problems carpet bombing densely populated civilian areas if they happened to be Communist civilians. Americans protesting in the streets were not just protesting the deaths of American soldiers by the thousands, but also the deaths of Vietnamese civilians by the hundreds of thousands.

    Even the conservative think tanks like Heritage Foundation agree that the "Hearts and Minds" route is a more effective way to promote counterinsurgency than "bombing into the Stone Age" or all out military action, especially in information age where it is hard to hide from the public.

    The more troops we remove from Afghanistan, the fewer at risk. It stops being a war, and it actually looks like we're supporting the local government and security instead of occupying, which is what the Soviets tried and failed to do, leading in part to the eventual dissolution of the entire Soviet state.

    Last edited by W. Rabbit; 12/30/2013 2:08pm at .
  8. Devil is offline
    Devil's Avatar

    His heart was visible, and the dismal sack that maketh excrement of what is eaten.

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    6,795

    Posted On:
    12/30/2013 2:07pm

    supporting member
     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by CapnMunchh View Post
    Sure, if it might necessary to kick more ass. But I still don't see why it should be necessary in Afghanistan. What did we gain from being there, given that Osama wasn't even there? And how will we know when its ok to leave?

    I don't doubt our military personnel's readiness to serve, for which I have a great deal of respect. But I'm uncomfortable with the idea that its only 7-15,000 so its ok. Just because we have a large standing army doesn't reduce the value of each individual soldier's life. Tho its secondary, there's also the expense -- you and I will be adding our tax dollars to the billions that we will spend there.

    And like I said, its not like we really need Kabul as a military base. We have bases in Turkey, and solid allies in Israel and India. And a lot more places in the world where Lockheed and Boeing can make money.

    Edit -- it was one thing to chase Osama, but now we have a long-term war that's being carried out without full support from Congress. The Constitution gave Congress that prerogative, the President's power is not meant to extend that far.

    You're using Afghanistan because you think it can generate an emotional response from people but there's no point in bitching about it unless you want to take on the larger issue of how the U.S. chooses to deploy troops around the world. Afghanistan is no different than anywhere else.

    Why do we need Camp Schwab in Okinawa? Why do we need people in Malta? We have troops deployed globally. Unless you want to take up that discussion, I'm not taking the bait on 7K pairs of boots in Afghanistan.
  9. CapnMunchh is offline

    Welterweight

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    792

    Posted On:
    12/30/2013 2:20pm

    Bullshido Newbie
     Style: TangSooDo/Yubiwaza

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by W. Rabbit View Post
    What Devil said. They're there to maintain strategic presence in the region, something the Soviets failed at after a very long, MUCH bloodier conflict. THAT war killed up to 1.5 Million Afghan civilians, on top of around 15k Soviet and 18K Afghan military casualties over a 9 year period..

    So by comparison, the US campaign has been unbelievably successful.

    There has also been a major change in strategic tactics against foreign insurgencies since Vietnam.

    Back then, the brass had no problems carpet bombing densely populated civilian areas if they happened to be Communist civilians. Americans protesting in the streets were not just protesting the deaths of America soldiers by the thousands, but also the deaths of Vietnamese civilians by the hundreds of thousands.

    Even the conservative think tanks like Heritage Foundation agree that the "Hearts and Minds" route is a more effective way to promote counterinsurgency than "bombing into the Stone Age" or all out military action, especially in information age where it is hard to hide from the public.

    The more troops we remove from Afghanistan, the fewer at risk. It stops being a war, and it actually looks like we're supporting the local government and security instead of occupying, which is what the Soviets tried and failed to do, leading in part to the eventual dissolution of the entire Soviet state.

    If 15,000 troops isn't much and its what we keep in many other places, then how impressive a strategic presence is that?

    I'm all for the Hearts and Minds approach instead of carpet bombing, but isn't that undercut by the presence of armed military occupation? You also said that the more troops we remove, the fewer at risk and it stops being a war and looks more like we're supporting the local government. So isn't the best way to show our support for the locals to pull military out completely and leave only civilian advisors?

    And how are we more successful than the Russians? Because we lost fewer soldiers? I ask again, what has our country gained other than the "strategic presence" for which we have no demonstrable use? I don't think this is all worth the billions we've spent.
  10. CapnMunchh is offline

    Welterweight

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    792

    Posted On:
    12/30/2013 2:28pm

    Bullshido Newbie
     Style: TangSooDo/Yubiwaza

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Devil View Post
    You're using Afghanistan because you think it can generate an emotional response from people but there's no point in bitching about it unless you want to take on the larger issue of how the U.S. chooses to deploy troops around the world. Afghanistan is no different than anywhere else.

    Why do we need Camp Schwab in Okinawa? Why do we need people in Malta? We have troops deployed globally. Unless you want to take up that discussion, I'm not taking the bait on 7K pairs of boots in Afghanistan.
    No, I'm bringing up Afghanistan because I read an article today saying its the most unpopular war ever. I'm not taking an anti-military stance. That would actually be an easier argument, but one I don't support. I support keeping U.S. military presence in places where it will do some demonstrable good, for us or for them. Like in Turkey, for instance. I just don't see that the cost is worth the return in Afghanistan. And there's also a big difference beween Afg. and Okinawa or Malta, or other places where we're not being shot at.

    And I also think that if we're going to declare war, it should be an official act by our representatives in Congress.
Page 1 of 11 1 2345 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.