Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Is it time to leave Afghanistan?

Well in that context, quibble duth feed the masses. The media in this country elected a president with it.

3 down, seven to go<grin>.

,...sounds like a word that could be integrated into a limerick.

Old Colin was not prone to quibble,
When seeking new bits for his kibble,
Though hard on his sight,
He'd bed them all night,
Then wince at the pain in his dribble.

Yes you did!

You offended me when you:

- Said you voted for Obama

- Said you supported abortion

- Said you did not support our military effort in Afghanistan.

- Said you were a tree hugger

Yup.............as far as I'm concerned, you and your queer friend derby_dude are quite "offensive"!!!!

His masters (and I'm not speaking of American voters) have yet to give him permission to do anything like that.

Then expect to be there for at least another thousand years.

The folks actually in charge of these societies are not the suicidal type. They enjoy living in luxury too much. They are fine with sending other people to their deaths for the glory of Allah, but when it comes to their own lives, they very much prefer to hang on to them. This is why MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) will always work. Seeing the entire Islamic world a smoldering crater is just as horrifying a thought to their leaders as seeing the United States that way is to ours. MAD, in the nuclear age, is the very worst possible way to keep the world from blowing up, except for anything else that's ever been tried. It's far better than one world government (world enslavement), that much is for certain.

How is that any business of the United States Government? It's not the government of the world. Just of the United States. Yours is an argument for one world government. Is that what you want?Can we afford to invade, occupy, and by force transform every nation in the world where terrorist organizations choose to hide? A far better policy would be to announce that any terrorist attack will be responded to in kind with devastating retaliation against the nation which supported the attackers (starting with the capital city and the dictator's palaces), and then carry this out in each and every case without delay. Soon it will not be us rooting out the terrorists in these places, but the dictators in charge, as was the case in Iraq before we invaded it.

The Taliban has grown 1000% since the US invaded. The Average Afghan see the US as an invader, and every time some innocent Afghani gets killed, it becomes a recruiting point for the insurgents.

If Chinese troops invaded the US to topple Obama and put a Republican in charge, would you be out cheering (possibly?) - particularly if that person was clearly (in your mind) a puppet of the Chinese?

The election fraud certainly hasn't helped

Cole you are the 10 watt bulb in the 60 watt pack.

You are right. I've yet to see one leader with a suicide bomb strapped to his back.

That's what we need to do, put the monkey on the back of leaders of countries who support terrorists. When they know that their houses, their families, their holy shrines are not safe than and only than will the Muslim terror attacks stop. All we are doing is targeting the common man and woman and pissing them off.

http://www.pipelinenews.org/index.cfm?page=wazir10.12.09%2Ehtm

Obama's Dithering On McChrystal Request May Doom Pak Move Against Taliban

By WILLIAM MAYER


October 12, 2009 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org - With news of today's Taliban attack in Pakistan [suicide bombing in the city of Alpuri, located adjacent to the recently liberated Swat valley, at least 41 dead] just filtering into Western consciousness, president Obama's paralysis in the face of Gen. McChrystal's troop request assumes even weightier dimensions.

In April of 2008 the Pakistani government established a truce with the Taliban [negotiated between then president Musharraf and the former Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud - killed in an August 2009 U.S. Predator attack], hopeful that would constrain further territorial ambitions by the jihadists.

The Taliban faction Mehsud represented, Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, is believed responsible for both the assassination of Benazir Bhutto [2007] as well as a spate of terror bombings over the past week throughout the region.

Musharraf's paper m�ch� truce with the Taliban did not hold of course; they boldly took control of Pakistan's Swat valley in May of this year and were only forcibly removed by Pak forces after a viciously fought summer campaign.

One of the back stories here is that the Taliban has a critical mass of support among both Pakistan's ISI [state intelligence service] as well as the military. The ISI is seen as having been instrumental in the rise of the Afghan Taliban, reportedly receiving aid under an acquiescing prime minister, Benazir Bhutto [served 1988-1990 and again in 1990-1993], which in turn led to it having the ability to seize Kabul in 1996.

With enough of the Pakistanis apparently now of the belief that no compromise is possible with the Taliban, despite its remaining popularity within enclaves of the country's power structure, the government is now promising to move forcibly against the group's stronghold in Waziristan, the historically ungovernable "tribal areas" which continues to provide refuge to the terror network.


"Pakistani jet fighters pounded Taliban targets in the troubled north-western region near the Afghan border on Monday, killing at least 12 militants, officials said...'Jets strafed suspected militant hideouts in the Mamund area, destroying several houses,' a duty officer of the local administration said...The aerial attacks in Bajaur came as Pakistani troops are awaiting a final go-ahead to launch a ground offensive in the South Waziristan tribal district, a key Taliban bastion littered with al-Qaeda sanctuaries." [source, http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/289754,pakistani-airstrikes-kill-12-militants-near-afghan-border.html]
With a resurgent Taliban now operating largely unimpeded on both sides of the Afghan/Pakistan border, an effective U.S. counter-insurgency strategy might at this time entail the deployment of troops in sufficient number southeast of the city of Ghazni, along the Afghan border with Waziristan to effect the classic military trapping technique [a "pincers" strategy] preventing potentially fleeing Taliban fighters from seeking refuge in Afghanistan, assuming the long promised Pak offensive takes place with sufficient ferocity to displace the estimated 10,000 Taliban fighters which reside in the area.

In a Panglossian world, even a temporary removal of the restrictions barring U.S. forces from operating in Pakistan - yielding a joint U.S./Pak effort - might result in a near total destruction of the al-Qaeda/Taliban nerve center, perhaps even killing bin-Laden. Unfortunately, absent provision of the increased troop levels that General McChrystal has requested, there is zero chance of this happening.

Given that reality, every day Obama dithers on committing sufficient force to prevail in Afghanistan makes stalemate and ultimate defeat of the United States all that more likely, a development which will have incalculably deadly long-term repercussions.

�1999-2009 PipeLineNews.org LLC. All rights reserved.

Guess your perception of me is different than mine of you. I always thought you were smart enough (even if a bit eccentric) to not get panty-bunched over comments on an internet message board, about things that either you or I will always have exactly zero input on anyway.

You are both very bright guys, as is Jeff. You are all about 90% in agreement on most issues, too. The problem is that the closer people are on the issues, the uglier can be the disagreements.

This is a very serious topic and from what ive seen everyone is presenting pretty reasonable positions.

Political threads on boards not intended for political discussions sometimes get out of hand.

I even remember a board that went poof one day because there was this ridiculous rivavly between two posters, one of them knew a little about site cracking programming and succeeded on about the 4th or 5th try to totally disable the board.

So in my opinion this is nothing.

Are you schitting me???

Are you really this stupid or what???

Tell me again why "Jeff_O (short for Obama) was a "bright guy" for helping to elect the Devil will ya?

Ahh........forget it......................just realized that a dolt like you couldn't tell anyone anything!

The history of war teaches a few lessons so clear that all can see. One of those lessons: you must take your enemy where you find him. Right now, "where you find him" is principally the Afghan-Pakistani border. Unfortunately, this seems to be OK with the people of Pakistan.

This is a terrible situation. It's looking more and more as though the only "solution" is kill all of them, "them" being Islamists. That would result in countless deaths of people who do not wish us ("us" meaning Americans, in this context) ill.

At the end, it comes back to "better them than us." That is an inherently immoral position, but we may have to be guided by situation ethics, always a slippery slope.

They started it...we will finish it.

I see no solution that conforms to both Christian teaching and
American safety. Kill them, be done with it, ask forgiveness. Cynicism is sometimes necessary.

That's not "being cute". That was "being an a$$hole". This wasn't so much a thread about how to run your country as it was a thread about joint forces in Afghanistan. And as you can see by the responses from both Canadians and Americans, that you had intended it as a joke (which I doubt), the intent sure was not obvious.

It was intended as a joke and a slam at some of your more thin-skinned fellow citizens. Both the intent of the posts and the apology for them have been extended. If you can take neither and still want some then I further extend you a big invitation to KMA. I hope that makes it better for you. You'll have to get in line behind JeffO though.

Uh... never mind.

BMT: you defined a stable government in Afganistan yada yada yada. I wasn't quibbling when I broached Pakistan; if an unstable government and large Taliban presence are the prerequisites for US occupation, it would seem they'd be a likely next candidate...

Then there's Iran.

Where does it stop, BMT?

It's playing Whack-a-Mole, is what it is. On a national level. And, every time you whack one, two more are created.