Nat'l Security It's time for large # of troops to GTFO of Afghanistan. - Page 3

**BigRedChief** · 02:55 PM

It's a no win situation for us. Brave Americans are fighting a war in which there is no hope of winning. In this type of war there will never be a "winner". All we are doing is providing easy targets for Taliban to kill.

We can't just ignore military history there and say our effort will be different.

We went into Afganistan with 1,300 troops. When the Taliban fell we had 2.500 troops on the ground. We now have 60,000 troops on the ground and the Taliban control 40-70% of the country's territory.

The new commander in Afghanistan says he sees no evidence of a large Al-Quaeda presense in Afghanistan. That is and will always be the only reason for us to be in Afghanistan. The only reason we are there in the first place. The only reason to sacrifice American lives.

I think we should hunt down and kill every single member of Al=Quaeda, no matter where they are hiding.

We shouldn't be sacrificing American lives to nation build in Afghanistan. Yeah, they want to go back to the 12th century but why should we sacrifice American lives to keep that from happening? Not worth it.

But if we leave the Taliban will take over swiftly and then provide a safe -haven for Al-Quaeda? We don't let that happen. We put cruise millsle up their azz. We send out the drones. We use special forces to take them out.

Edited:

I'm convinced that this is the right decision for these reasons.

We can't nation build in Afghanistan. We shouldn't be using our resources and sacrificing our troops to help them. Thats not why we are there. $300 billion spent so far. 900 brave Americans dead. Entering it's 9th year. Just when will it be enough?
The argument that the Taliban and Al-Quaeda will just come back may be true but there are several problems with that. Al-Quaeda can be anywhere in the world. So we keep them out of Afghanistan, they show up in Pakistan, Somalia, where ever. I read there is only 100 Al-Quaeda operatives in Afghanistan. There are probably more than that in the USA. If we keep them out of Afghanistan. they will just go some other place. We need a 21st century approach. We won't be able to defeat Al-Quaeda with conventional weapons and strategy. We can always go back in with surgical strikes to take out prime targets and more large scale attacks to prevent Al-Quaeda from establishing bases again. We can't let 100,000 Americans become easy to reach targets for Al-Quaeda.
The government is corrupt beyond repair. For those who want to nation build, how can you with a totally corrupt government that the people don't trust? Nation building won't work no matter how many troops or how much money you throw at the problem with a corrupt government distrusted by the people.
Afghanistan has no resources. What exactly are they going to make money at, build their country with? It would be a transfer of wealth from us to them.
The population outside of Kabul is run by drug overlords. The majority of the population works in the poppy fields because its the only way they can feed their family. How are we going to change that? Provide jobs for those people to feed their families? A lot of those poppy field profits are going right to the Taliban. Just how are you going to end this cycle without a major infusion of American money. Again, a transfer of wealth.

KILLER_CLOWN · 09-12-2009, 11:51 AM

Airlift of Evil
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The so-called Airlift of Evil refers to the evacuation of thousands of Pakistani military personnel, Afghan sympathizers, and some members of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda from the city of Kunduz during the week before its capture by the forces of the Northern Alliance during the early days of the War in Afghanistan (2001-present).

The idea that the American military had aided the escape of potentially dangerous individuals was politically contentious, and sparked a debate in the western media. [1][2][3] It is generally thought that the airlift was an attempt to avoid destabilizing the government of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, who, although an ally in the War on Terror, had historically supported the Taliban.

In 2008, more details have emerged in "Descent into Chaos" by Ahmed Rashid:

One senior (U.S.) intelligence analyst told me, "The request was made by Musharraf to Bush, but Cheney took charge--- a token of who was handling Musharraf at the time. The approval was not shared with anyone at State, including Colin Powell, until well after the event. Musharraf said Pakistan needed to save its dignity and its valued people. Two planes were involved, which made several sorties a night over several nights. They took off from air bases in Chitral and Gilgit in Pakistan's northern areas, and landed in Kunduz, where the evacuees were waiting on the tarmac. Certainly hundreds and perhaps as many as one thousand people escaped. Hundreds of ISI officers, Taliban commanders, and foot soldiers belonging to the IMU and al Qaeda personnel boarded the planes. What was sold as a minor extraction turned into a major air bridge. The frustrated U.S. SOF who watched it from the surrounding high ground dubbed it "Operation Evil Airlift." Another senior U.S. diplomat told me afterward, "Musharraf fooled us because after we gave approval, the ISI may have run a much bigger operation and got out more people. We just don't know. At the time nobody wanted to hurt Musharraf, and his prestige with the army was at stake. The real question is why Musharraf did not get his men out before. Clearly the ISI was running its own war against the Americans and did not want to leave Afghanistan until the last moment."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airlift_of_Evil

Warrior5 · 09-12-2009, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

And yet even if we do that, we still don't win. Al-Quaeds are like cockroaches we will have to go in every cave, turn over every rock to kill them.

This appears to contradict your OP.

**bevischief** · 09-12-2009, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calcountry

It's time to turn the mountains into glass.

It would be easy then then to get the oil out of the ground.

**BigRedChief** · 09-12-2009, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warrior5

This appears to contradict your OP.

Opening post said the same thing. The major point is that 100000 troops on the ground in Afghanistan is not the best way to kill Al-Quaeda cockroaches. Which is what the hell we are suppose to be doing. Killing every last Al-Quaeda SOB.

Simplex3 · 09-12-2009, 12:13 PM

To "win" in Afghanistan now we would have to remove the government we installed and find some way to install one that wasn't corrupt from a cesspool of corruption.

I'm (sort of) with BRC on this one. If we're going to stay there then we put all of our troops in bases outside of populated areas. They only leave to kill someone and then they go right back. We have drones up in the skies in huge numbers. If one goes down to enemy fire everyone in a half mile radius of the drone dies, no questions asked.

**patteeu** · 09-12-2009, 12:14 PM

It didn't take long for Barack Obama's base to give up on "the good war". I predict that it won't take long for Obama to cave in to the pressure.

KILLER_CLOWN · 09-12-2009, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu

It didn't take long for Barack Obama's base to give up on "the good war". I predict that it won't take long for Obama to cave in to the pressure.

Obama has no say, he reads the teleprompter. Brzezinski will not abandon this war or the expansion thereof. The only argument so far has been over one side wanting to use the red bombs and the other wants to use the ones with the blue on the label.

**BigRedChief** · 09-12-2009, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu

It didn't take long for Barack Obama's base to give up on "the good war". I predict that it won't take long for Obama to cave in to the pressure.

The "good war" is killing Al-Quaeda terriosts. And as I've said numerous times in this thread and since 9/11. We should hunt down and kill every single Al-Quaeda member as long as they don't lay down their arms. You continue to plot attacks against Americans, we will continue to pursue you and kill you and or destroy your ability to do harm to Americans.

WilliamInnerCircle · 09-12-2009, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu

It didn't take long for Barack Obama's base to give up on "the good war". I predict that it won't take long for Obama to cave in to the pressure.

Obama has a unique problem, which you just highlighted:

Obama makes radical shift in policy and really does remove US military presence. Months later, AQ regroups and plots a new attack which they pull off with any degree of success in the US or on it's interests.

He's crucified as a weakling on defense and "he emboldened" the terrorists. It' would play perfectly well on a populace of dolts. So instead the administration stands pat and hold the line, avoiding a big hole that any 2012 opponent could exploit.

So what BRC proposes isn't going to happen.

**BigRedChief** · 09-12-2009, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WilliamTheIrish

So what BRC proposes isn't going to happen.

Sadly, I agree. There will be a policy to placate both sides. Go down the middle. And no one wants a middle of the road policy.

Taco John · 09-12-2009, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Sadly, I agree. There will be a policy to placate both sides. Go down the middle. And no one wants a middle of the road policy.

Tell that to Kotter. Kotter believes half measures are practical.

BucEyedPea · 09-12-2009, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calcountry

I would use all means to fight them. Be glad I am not president.

Even if some of those means don't work?

Do you realize how big Chaostan is?

Calcountry · 09-12-2009, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taco John

Only after the American public took power away from Republicans to give it to him.

Make no mistake. Both wars represent Republican shame. Listening to Bush voters whine about how weak Obama is after watching Bush play with his pud for years with a failed strategy while American troops died would be funny if there weren't so much blood on the ground.

Why do you think he played with his pud for years?

Do you think it had anything to do with traitorous one who sucks the peniss in the media, and Uncle Harry dick reid, using casualties for political gain?

Calcountry · 09-12-2009, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Even if some of those means don't work?

Do you realize how big Chaostan is?

TO THE DEATH!

I could give a fug how big the MOOSLIMS are.

WilliamInnerCircle · 09-12-2009, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calcountry

Why do you think he played with his pud for years?

Do you think it had anything to do with traitorous one who sucks the peniss in the media, and Uncle Harry dick reid, using casualties for political gain?

Harry Reid and the media caused the previous administration to not win in Afghansitan by playing up the < 450 American casualties?

09-12-2009, 09:50 AM
BigRedChief Brainwashed Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Swims with fishes Casino cash: $2264722	It's time for large # of troops to GTFO of Afghanistan. It's a no win situation for us. Brave Americans are fighting a war in which there is no hope of winning. In this type of war there will never be a "winner". All we are doing is providing easy targets for Taliban to kill. We can't just ignore military history there and say our effort will be different. We went into Afganistan with 1,300 troops. When the Taliban fell we had 2.500 troops on the ground. We now have 60,000 troops on the ground and the Taliban control 40-70% of the country's territory. The new commander in Afghanistan says he sees no evidence of a large Al-Quaeda presense in Afghanistan. That is and will always be the only reason for us to be in Afghanistan. The only reason we are there in the first place. The only reason to sacrifice American lives. I think we should hunt down and kill every single member of Al=Quaeda, no matter where they are hiding. We shouldn't be sacrificing American lives to nation build in Afghanistan. Yeah, they want to go back to the 12th century but why should we sacrifice American lives to keep that from happening? Not worth it. But if we leave the Taliban will take over swiftly and then provide a safe -haven for Al-Quaeda? We don't let that happen. We put cruise millsle up their azz. We send out the drones. We use special forces to take them out. Edited: I'm convinced that this is the right decision for these reasons. We can't nation build in Afghanistan. We shouldn't be using our resources and sacrificing our troops to help them. Thats not why we are there. $300 billion spent so far. 900 brave Americans dead. Entering it's 9th year. Just when will it be enough? The argument that the Taliban and Al-Quaeda will just come back may be true but there are several problems with that. Al-Quaeda can be anywhere in the world. So we keep them out of Afghanistan, they show up in Pakistan, Somalia, where ever. I read there is only 100 Al-Quaeda operatives in Afghanistan. There are probably more than that in the USA. If we keep them out of Afghanistan. they will just go some other place. We need a 21st century approach. We won't be able to defeat Al-Quaeda with conventional weapons and strategy. We can always go back in with surgical strikes to take out prime targets and more large scale attacks to prevent Al-Quaeda from establishing bases again. We can't let 100,000 Americans become easy to reach targets for Al-Quaeda. The government is corrupt beyond repair. For those who want to nation build, how can you with a totally corrupt government that the people don't trust? Nation building won't work no matter how many troops or how much money you throw at the problem with a corrupt government distrusted by the people. Afghanistan has no resources. What exactly are they going to make money at, build their country with? It would be a transfer of wealth from us to them. The population outside of Kabul is run by drug overlords. The majority of the population works in the poppy fields because its the only way they can feed their family. How are we going to change that? Provide jobs for those people to feed their families? A lot of those poppy field profits are going right to the Taliban. Just how are you going to end this cycle without a major infusion of American money. Again, a transfer of wealth. Last edited by BigRedChief; 10-27-2009 at 02:55 PM..
Posts: 37,871

09-12-2009, 11:51 AM	#31
KILLER_CLOWN Be HEALED!!!!!!! Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Fascist State Casino cash: $11108892	Airlift of Evil From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search The so-called Airlift of Evil refers to the evacuation of thousands of Pakistani military personnel, Afghan sympathizers, and some members of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda from the city of Kunduz during the week before its capture by the forces of the Northern Alliance during the early days of the War in Afghanistan (2001-present). The idea that the American military had aided the escape of potentially dangerous individuals was politically contentious, and sparked a debate in the western media. [1][2][3] It is generally thought that the airlift was an attempt to avoid destabilizing the government of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, who, although an ally in the War on Terror, had historically supported the Taliban. In 2008, more details have emerged in "Descent into Chaos" by Ahmed Rashid: One senior (U.S.) intelligence analyst told me, "The request was made by Musharraf to Bush, but Cheney took charge--- a token of who was handling Musharraf at the time. The approval was not shared with anyone at State, including Colin Powell, until well after the event. Musharraf said Pakistan needed to save its dignity and its valued people. Two planes were involved, which made several sorties a night over several nights. They took off from air bases in Chitral and Gilgit in Pakistan's northern areas, and landed in Kunduz, where the evacuees were waiting on the tarmac. Certainly hundreds and perhaps as many as one thousand people escaped. Hundreds of ISI officers, Taliban commanders, and foot soldiers belonging to the IMU and al Qaeda personnel boarded the planes. What was sold as a minor extraction turned into a major air bridge. The frustrated U.S. SOF who watched it from the surrounding high ground dubbed it "Operation Evil Airlift." Another senior U.S. diplomat told me afterward, "Musharraf fooled us because after we gave approval, the ISI may have run a much bigger operation and got out more people. We just don't know. At the time nobody wanted to hurt Musharraf, and his prestige with the army was at stake. The real question is why Musharraf did not get his men out before. Clearly the ISI was running its own war against the Americans and did not want to leave Afghanistan until the last moment." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airlift_of_Evil __________________ "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father ... And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." "If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 19,714

09-12-2009, 12:13 PM	#35
Simplex3 MVP Join Date: Sep 2003 Casino cash: $15827	To "win" in Afghanistan now we would have to remove the government we installed and find some way to install one that wasn't corrupt from a cesspool of corruption. I'm (sort of) with BRC on this one. If we're going to stay there then we put all of our troops in bases outside of populated areas. They only leave to kill someone and then they go right back. We have drones up in the skies in huge numbers. If one goes down to enemy fire everyone in a half mile radius of the drone dies, no questions asked.
Posts: 28,535

09-12-2009, 12:14 PM	#36
patteeu The 23rd Pillar Join Date: Sep 2002 Casino cash: $416191	It didn't take long for Barack Obama's base to give up on "the good war". I predict that it won't take long for Obama to cave in to the pressure. __________________ "After voters re-elected an administration that added five trillion dollars to the nation’s debt, left 23 million Americans unemployed, surrendered Iraq to America’s enemy Iran, and enabled the Muslim Brotherhood to gain control of the largest country in the Middle East, the one lesson Republicans should agree on is that elections are driven by emotions, not reason." - David Horowitz
Posts: 67,067

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode