MoD admits campaign in Afghanistan is 'an unwinnable war'

[revelarts]

UK Ministry of Defense



British soldiers fighting in Afghanistan are part of a campaign that attempted to “impose an ideology foreign to the Afghan people” and was “unwinnable in military terms”, according to a damning report by the Ministry of Defence.

The internal study says that Nato forces have been unable to “establish control over the insurgents’ safe havens” or “protect the rural population”, and warns the “conditions do not exist” to guarantee the survival of the Afghan government after combat troops withdraw next year.

The report, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, says that when troops leave, Afghanistan “will be left with a severely damaged and very weak economic base”, which means that the West will have to continue to fund “large-scale support programmes” for many years to come.

Even if the internal situation were stable, the Afghan government may not survive the destabilising activities of its neighbours. “Regional players do not have a vested interest in the success of the Kabul government”, states the document in a clear reference to Pakistan.

The report, Lessons from the Soviet Transition in Afghanistan, is an internal research project produced in November last year by the MoD’s think-tank, the Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre (DCDC). Based in Shrivenham, Wiltshire, the DCDC’s reports “help inform decisions in defence strategy, capability development and operations” across all three branches of the armed forces.

The study examines the “extraordinary number of similar factors that surround both the Soviet and Nato campaigns in Afghanistan” and highlights lessons that military commanders could learn.

“The highest-level parallel is that both campaigns were conceived with the aim of imposing an ideology foreign to the Afghan people: the Soviets hoped to establish a Communist state while Nato wished to build a democracy,” it says. “Equally striking is that both abandoned their central aim once they realised that the war was unwinnable in military terms and that support of the population was essential.”

It continues: “Both interventions have been portrayed as foreign invasions attempting to support a corrupt and unpopular central government against a local insurgent movement which has popular support, strong religious motivation and safe havens abroad. In addition, the country will again be left with a severely damaged and very weak economic base, heavily dependent upon external aid.”

In unusually frank terms, it goes on: “The international setting for both campaigns has significant similarities with world opinion judging both as failed interventions. Both faced a loss of confidence in their strategic world leadership and increasing domestic and financial pressure to abandon the enterprise.”

Turning to lessons for the armed forces, it says: “The military parallels are equally striking; the 40th Army [of the Soviet Union] was unable decisively to defeat the mujahedin while facing no existential threat itself, a situation that precisely echoes the predicament of Isaf [the Nato-led security mission]. Neither campaign established control over the country’s borders and the insurgents’ safe havens; both were unable to protect the rural population.”
....

An MoD spokesman said: “We are in Afghanistan to protect our national security by helping Afghans to take control of their own. We are not trying to build a perfect Afghanistan – rather one that does not again provide safe haven for international terrorists.


MoD admits campaign in Afghanistan is 'an unwinnable war' - UK Politics - UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mod-admits-campaign-in-afghanistan-is-an-unwinnable-war-8535291.html)

[Drummond]

UK Ministry of Defense


MoD admits campaign in Afghanistan is 'an unwinnable war' - UK Politics - UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mod-admits-campaign-in-afghanistan-is-an-unwinnable-war-8535291.html)

Thank you for this report from the Independent .. a broadly Left-wing newspaper from the UK. Oh, I know the name 'Independent' promises non-bias .. and indeed, it did start out that way. But they lurched to the Left during the Iraq War, and haven't looked back, since ...

... and I can reciprocate with another report which says the same thing. Yes, this is from an IRANIAN site ...

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/03/15/293685/uk-slyly-admits-afghan-war-unwinnable/

Headline:


UK slyly admits Afghan war unwinnable
... there y'go.

As for the report itself, I hardly have anything to say, other than to register my disgust at their defeatist attitude.

I also ask why your OWN seems geared to finding justifications for doing LESS and LESS to fight terrrorism.

Care to explain that ? And 'I'm a Leftie, so what else can you expect me to do' isn't a good enough answer.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

UK Ministry of Defense


MoD admits campaign in Afghanistan is 'an unwinnable war' - UK Politics - UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mod-admits-campaign-in-afghanistan-is-an-unwinnable-war-8535291.html)

Rev, the lefties and the muslims are firmly in control in Britain. One must understand why they would post or would gladly echo such garbage.
The muslims there force the dumbass government to placate them , their ideology and their relentless hatred. A SAD FACT.. --Tyr

[revelarts]

Rev, the lefties and the muslims are firmly in control in Britain. One must understand why they would post or would gladly echo such garbage.
The muslims there force the dumbass government to placate them , their ideology and their relentless hatred. A SAD FACT.. --Tyr
Tyr OK Drummond assumes that since the Left wing paper printed it wrong already , as if they wrote the report , instead of the U.K's Ministry of Defense.
I'm not sure how the Paper is to blame for the CONTENT of the report an the report is therefore dismisses it on one level because the paper is left wing. It make perfect sense to Drummond and i won't debate him on it. his mind is made up. And Huffs about the Defeatist attude in the Report but no acknowledgement of the fact that lead to the conclusion. Or how trrorism gets a victory if the U.K. leaves. the taliban has never attacked the U.K. or the U.S. except byit drug trade which certian parts of our gov'ts are for anyway.

You at least acknowledge that the Gov't wrote the paper but you want to dismiss it because you ASSUME they HAD TO write the report because of presure from muslims.

Do you have ANY specific proof that this report was written for that reason?
If not it's a far fecthed assumption it seems to me.

you and drummond may "KNOW" what's happeing in the UK's M.O.D. because you are "right" because you just know the report can't be true, but the rest of us poor souls can only go by what people who work their actual SAY, Write and other public evidence.


But the full report, itself mentions that the division of the M.O.D. produced it often tries to factually challenge the M.O.D.s status quo somewhat.
so if you want to grab a thread of a reason to reject the report outright there's one for you.

However it'd ne better if you guys said something like.
the Report is wrong because the evidence shows that Afghanistan is well on it's way to becoming a self sufficient democracy, it's economy is great, the Taliban are in retreat, the puppet gov't in Kabel is Strong and well manged and ready to transition in the next elections, and there's little corruption. The Afghan Army is a fine well oiled fight force for a democratic and free Afghanistan. or some or all of that, ANY of that is around the corner in 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years...

But you know none of that is true.
so Drummond whines about the Independent being a liberal paper. which has ZERO to do with the fact that Afghanistan is a hot mess that no one, not even Alexander the Great, has ever been able to defeat. America and the U.K. can add it's names to the list of empires that have come fought, and left. Left SOON i hope.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tyr OK Drummond assumes that since the Left wing paper printed it wrong already , as if they wrote the report , instead of the U.K's Ministry of Defense.
I'm not sure how the Paper is to blame for the CONTENT of the report an the report is therefore dismisses it on one level because the paper is left wing. It make perfect sense to Drummond and i won't debate him on it. his mind is made up. And Huffs about the Defeatist attude in the Report but no acknowledgement of the fact that lead to the conclusion. Or how trrorism gets a victory if the U.K. leaves. the taliban has never attacked the U.K. or the U.S. except byit drug trade which certian parts of our gov'ts are for anyway.

You at least acknowledge that the Gov't wrote the paper but you want to dismiss it because you ASSUME they HAD TO write the report because of presure from muslims.

Do you have ANY specific proof that this report was written for that reason?
If not it's a far fecthed assumption it seems to me.

you and drummond may "KNOW" what's happeing in the UK's M.O.D. because you are "right" because you just know the report can't be true, but the rest of us poor souls can only go by what people who work their actual SAY, Write and other public evidence.


But the full report, itself mentions that the division of the M.O.D. produced it often tries to factually challenge the M.O.D.s status quo somewhat.
so if you want to grab a thread of a reason to reject the report outright there's one for you.

However it'd ne better if you guys said something like.
the Report is wrong because the evidence shows that Afghanistan is well on it's way to becoming a self sufficient democracy, it's economy is great, the Taliban are in retreat, the puppet gov't in Kabel is Strong and well manged and ready to transition in the next elections, and there's little corruption. The Afghan Army is a fine well oiled fight force for a democratic and free Afghanistan. or some or all of that, ANY of that is around the corner in 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years...

But you know none of that is true.
so Drummond whines about the Independent being a liberal paper. which has ZERO to do with the fact that Afghanistan is a hot mess that no one, not even Alexander the Great, has ever been able to defeat. America and the U.K. can add it's names to the list of empires that have come fought, and left. Left SOON i hope.

Actually Drummond has far more knowledge about Britain and its leftist/Islamic corruption in government than do I. HERE IS JUST A SMALL SAMPLE FOR YOU TO CONSIDER..-Tyr

Muslim Council of Britain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Council_of_Britain)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Council_of_Britain
The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) is a self-appointed umbrella body for national, .... The MCB received £150,000 of public money from the Government for a .... a role", but emphasised: "such propaganda can only be effective because of the ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3235/anti-semitic-iranian-propaganda-uk (http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3235/anti-semitic-iranian-propaganda-uk)



British Allow Anti-Semitic Iranian Propaganda in the UK

by Lee Kaplan (http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/author/Lee+Kaplan)
August 1, 2012 at 4:45 am


Despite these convictions for "hate crimes" against Islam, the British government is apparently perfectly willing to overlook the converse: anti-Semitic attacks by Iranian front groups against Jews. The deeper question for the British government is this: If British citizens can be fined or incarcerated for expressing unsavory opinions about Islam, how come Lady Renouf and Philip Bree are not being charged with "hate crimes" as well for doing exactly the same thing against the Jewish people?

"The Heritage and Destiny Channel," on You Tube, run by Iran, currently features a video with two British subjects (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxxWlQhkbGI): an actress and film producer named Michelle Renouf, whose real name is Michelle Mainwaring, 62, a former Australian television model, now a British citizen, and a barrister named Philip Bree, who lives in London. Both star in mock interviews by Iranian TV, and try to lend an air of rational authority in their interviews as they methodically explain that the Olympic logo being used at this week's Olympic Games in London is in fact a conspiratorial "subliminal Zion race-supremacy logo," and part of an international conspiracy conducted by the Jews. According to Lady Renouf, the zigzag design of the logo's lettering spells out the word "Zion," and refers to Jews and Israel. The video can be seen in the UK as well as on You Tube.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The British have been in the news lately for their stretched-to-the-limit political correctness concerning militant Islamists, and have even been jailing British subjects (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/09/uk-christian-couple-charged-with-criminal-offense-after-offending-muslims-during-discussion-of-relig.html) or fining them for allegedly making insulting remarks about Islam. Despite these convictions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGNgKB6bLHo) for "hate crimes" against Islam – one British police official referred to them as a "zero tolerance policy" – the British government seems perfectly willing to overlook the converse: anti-Semitic attacks by Iranian front groups against the Jewish community.
At issue here is more than some paid Jew-haters attempting to fan the flames of anti-Semitism at the 2012 Olympics in London. In addition, the Olympics Committee also refused to allow one minute of silence as a memorial for Israelis murdered at Munich Olympics of 1972 simply for being Jews. It is not clear if no Jewish names were submitted when the British read out other names, or whether these Jewish names had been officially submitted, as requested, but were the expunged before they could publicly be read.
The deeper question for the British Government is this: If British citizens can be fined or incarcerated for expressing unsavory opinions about Islam, how come Lady Renouf and Philip Bree are not being charged with "hate crimes" as well for doing the exactly the same against the Jewish people?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

But you know none of that is true.
so Drummond whines about the Independent being a liberal paper. which has ZERO to do with the fact that Afghanistan is a hot mess that no one, not even Alexander the Great, has ever been able to defeat. America and the U.K. can add it's names to the list of empires that have come fought, and left. Left SOON i hope.

I call bullshit on that bolded above. Had we went in with all our might and blasted the country as we easily could have done in less than 3 months time the entire country would have been decimated and their defeat would have been a sealed fate.
So your view that NOBODY can defeat them is GROSSLY WRONG!
I could have if given command of our military issued orders that would have defeated them. Our military holds back too damn much! And always has ever since the victory in WW2. Any military historian worth his salt can safely vouch for that..
Come on we can (or once could have) defeated the Soviets and the Chinese combined but we could never defeat the bastards in A-stan!!!!!
Our country has not fought a war all out since WW2!!!!
And that politically induced mistake has cost us dearly both in treasure and more importantly lives lost...--Tyr

[revelarts]

I call bullshit on that bolded above. Had we went in with all our might and blasted the country as we easily could have done in less than 3 months time the entire country would have been decimated and their defeat would have been a sealed fate.
So your view that NOBODY can defeat them is GROSSLY WRONG!
I could have if given command of our military issued orders that would have defeated them. Our military holds back too damn much! And always has ever since the victory in WW2. Any military historian worth his salt can safely vouch for that..
Come on we can (or once could have) defeated the Soviets and the Chinese combined but we could never defeat the bastards in A-stan!!!!!
Our country has not fought a war all out since WW2!!!!
And that politically induced mistake has cost us dearly both in treasure and more importantly lives lost...--Tyr

Did the Soviets hold back when they fought Afghanistan?
You know as well as I that fighting a war against home grown guerrilla forces is not easy.
THat's why i say a gov't war against the People of the U.S. won't be easy even though the millitary will out gun the people as far a high powered weapon go. The French were defeated in WW2 but there was still the french resistance.

Unless you literally made Afghanistan a parking lot. Or went to every village and and cave and shot all the males over 14. Then replaced them with Americans you'd probably not have victory seems to me. Many of those people don't even know what 9-11 IS. Or why the heck the U.S. are fighting they just know that it's their home.

regarless we've been there over 10 years and we have not won. 3 generals over 200,000 troops at a time. Will a million boots on the ground win it for us?

And that still begs the question what the heck are we doing there anyway?

[taft2012]

And that still begs the question what the heck are we doing there anyway?

I'll give you another question in response.

It might be easier, and will lead to the answer to your question: If the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, why were we fighting Germans in northern Africa?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Did the Soviets hold back when they fought Afghanistan?
You know as well as I that fighting a war against home grown guerrilla forces is not easy.
THat's why i say a gov't war against the People of the U.S. won't be easy even though the millitary will out gun the people as far a high powered weapon go. The French were defeated in WW2 but there was still the french resistance.

Unless you literally made Afghanistan a parking lot. Or went to every village and and cave and shot all the males over 14. Then replaced them with Americans you'd probably not have victory seems to me. Many of those people don't even know what 9-11 IS. Or why the heck the U.S. are fighting they just know that it's their home.

regarless we've been there over 10 years and we have not won. 3 generals over 200,000 troops at a time. Will a million boots on the ground win it for us?

And that still begs the question what the heck are we doing there anyway?

My friend, like I said, we haven't fought a war all out since WW2..
I would bet my life that I could have taken charge and ordered actions that would have had complete victory there in about 3 months.
Shooting 14 year old and above included if it became a damn necessity. War is pure hell no time for niceties . Besides cite the niceties that our opposition there engages in.
Here let me help to start you off.
1. Zero..

[fj1200]

UK Ministry of Defense

MoD admits campaign in Afghanistan is 'an unwinnable war' - UK Politics - UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mod-admits-campaign-in-afghanistan-is-an-unwinnable-war-8535291.html)

Probably true.

[Drummond]

Did the Soviets hold back when they fought Afghanistan?
You know as well as I that fighting a war against home grown guerrilla forces is not easy.
THat's why i say a gov't war against the People of the U.S. won't be easy even though the millitary will out gun the people as far a high powered weapon go. The French were defeated in WW2 but there was still the french resistance.

Unless you literally made Afghanistan a parking lot. Or went to every village and and cave and shot all the males over 14. Then replaced them with Americans you'd probably not have victory seems to me. Many of those people don't even know what 9-11 IS. Or why the heck the U.S. are fighting they just know that it's their home.

regarless we've been there over 10 years and we have not won. 3 generals over 200,000 troops at a time. Will a million boots on the ground win it for us?

And that still begs the question what the heck are we doing there anyway?

Obviosly - very obviously - you're itching to get American troops out of Afghanistan as soon as possible. You're clearly unhappy about them having any involvement with the place. Never mind the fact that Afghanistan was a Failed State, hosting Al Qaeda and all the training camps they could ever want. Never mind the fact that their hosts, the Taliban, are STILL not a defeated force. Never mind the fact that, if it isn't properly arranged to the contrary, the Taliban will gain a decisive foothold once more and AGAIN open up the likelihood of being terrorist enablers once more.

And, never mind the MIND BOGGLING STUPIDITY OF A LEFTIE PRESIDENT TELLING THOSE WHO ARE HIS SUPPOSED ENEMIES, YEARS IN ADVANCE, OF WHEN HE INTENDS TO WITHDRAW ALL HIS FORCES !!!

Why, I repeat, WHY, are Lefties so intent on making life for terrorists so EASY ? Thanks to Obama'a announcement, they know that if they last out beyond a certain time, they'll have no more 'trouble' from American forces !!

Tactically, that was (and at minimum) utterly stupid. Which means that the conditions of handover to local forces becomes far more critical to get right. By the time of withdrawal, AND by the set timetable, the 'locals' MUST be capable of keeping the Taliban firmly in check. BUT, Revelarts, what's your hope ? That they get out 'soon'.

Perhaps you want the chances of a Taliban resurgence maximised ? Or perhaps you don't care ?

Well .... I for one think it's vitally important that Afghanistan doesn't become AGAIN what it was back in 2001, a terrorist haven.

Or, perhaps .. you DON'T CARE ?

Your belief that wars undertaken in Afghanistan are 'unwinnable' because, in the past, wars have been lost ... makes no sense. Are all armies equal ? Have no advances in transport or weaponry occurred in the past century or more ?

Perhaps you've suddenly overlooked the fact that you have nukes .. or, is Afghanistan magically immune to them ? Whether or not their use should be wished for, FACTUALLY, you DO have the means to win, and to do so AT ANY TIME YOU CHOOSE.

I can tell you what today's lack of total success comes down to. It comes down to a LACK OF WILL TO DO WHAT IT TAKES TO WIN.

Indeed .... far better to wish for a swift retreat, eh ?

Sounds familiar ??

[Drummond]

My friend, like I said, we haven't fought a war all out since WW2..
I would bet my life that I could have taken charge and ordered actions that would have had complete victory there in about 3 months.
Shooting 14 year old and above included if it became a damn necessity. War is pure hell no time for niceties . Besides cite the niceties that our opposition there engages in.
Here let me help to start you off.
1. Zero..:clap::clap::clap:

[Drummond]

Probably true.

More defeatism ?

The Left Speaks Again ..

[aboutime]

More defeatism ?

The Left Speaks Again ..


Sir Drummond. Call it whatever you like, and it won't hurt my feelings. You see. Many of us here fully understand how our Democrat Party fellow Americans are, and have always been the Model's of Appeasement, Kissing Butt, Political Correctness, and generally a sense of CARTER/CLINTON, and now OBAMA Feminine Wuss Factor wearing Men's clothes, but having nothing between their legs to protect, with anything other than a Good, Strong Sanitary Napkin.

Granted. I am an American Veteran with three decades of military experience. So, my number One agenda is THE SECURITY of our Nation, and future of our five grand children. But. Since the present political administration has labeled me, and thousands of other American Veterans as Inbred, Homegrown Terrorists who practice Racism.
I am offended to learn how so many millions of American Male citizens are CHICKENS, and would prefer to WUSS their way out of any personal responsibility to DEFEND their Rights, Freedoms, and Liberties...like we have seen recently....4899. And the person shown in that photo is a GELDING who happily blames others for his ANTI-AMERICAN BullShit as the Majority WUSS in Congress.

[fj1200]

More defeatism ?

The Left Speaks Again ..

:laugh: You slay bro'.


Perhaps you want the chances of a Taliban resurgence maximised ? Or perhaps you don't care ?

Well .... I for one think it's vitally important that Afghanistan doesn't become AGAIN what it was back in 2001, a terrorist haven.

Prior to 9/11 we cared not a whit about the Taliban and didn't post 9/11 up until they refused to turn over OBL. So what is our winning strategy against a group we don't care about (but for AQ connections)?

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by revelarts http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=632849#post632849)


But you know none of that is true.
so Drummond whines about the Independent being a liberal paper. which has ZERO to do with the fact that Afghanistan is a hot mess that no one, not even Alexander the Great, has ever been able to defeat. America and the U.K. can add it's names to the list of empires that have come fought, and left. Left SOON i hope.



I call bullshit on that bolded above. Had we went in with all our might and blasted the country as we easily could have done in less than 3 months time the entire country would have been decimated and their defeat would have been a sealed fate.
So your view that NOBODY can defeat them is GROSSLY WRONG!
I could have if given command of our military issued orders that would have defeated them. Our military holds back too damn much! And always has ever since the victory in WW2. Any military historian worth his salt can safely vouch for that..
Come on we can (or once could have) defeated the Soviets and the Chinese combined but we could never defeat the bastards in A-stan!!!!!
Our country has not fought a war all out since WW2!!!!
And that politically induced mistake has cost us dearly both in treasure and more importantly lives lost...--Tyr

Author Peter Green explains in his top rated book that Alexander the Great did defeat Afghanistan.

To understand the role of the USA in Afghanistan, one needs to refer to General Tommy Franks book where he explains he did not intend to invade, but intended to have a civil war and help the Northern Alliance win using Air power or bomb and missile power supplied by his forces.

But he did not invade as he did in Iraq.

Ask Franks if he defeated Saddam and I believe he would say he did. This was with an actual invasion.

I believe TYR when he says he would have kicked some butt.

[Robert A Whit]

Prior to 9/11 we cared not a whit about the Taliban and didn't post 9/11 up until they refused to turn over OBL. So what is our winning strategy against a group we don't care about (but for AQ connections)?

Were we wrong for the Clinton team to not care about the Taliban where he only turned his attention to bombing Iraq over and over and over? Maybe he should not have bombed Yugoslavia over and over for many many days. And the war against Yugoslavia was based on lies. But the media actively promoted that war.

0bama does not have a winning plan or strategy.

[fj1200]

Were we wrong for the Clinton team to not care about the Taliban where he only turned his attention to bombing Iraq over and over and over? Maybe he should not have bombed Yugoslavia over and over for many many days. And the war against Yugoslavia was based on lies. But the media actively promoted that war.

0bama does not have a winning plan or strategy.

BO may not have one but the question raised is there ANY winning strategy in Afg. I'm not sure I get the point of your question. We should be concerned about our national securities first and foremost; the Taliban not so much, AQ definitely.

[Drummond]

BO may not have one but the question raised is there ANY winning strategy in Afg. I'm not sure I get the point of your question. We should be concerned about our national securities first and foremost; the Taliban not so much, AQ definitely.

To an extent, this defies logic. It also absolutely defies historical fact.

In case you've forgotten, the Taliban played host to Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, back at the turn of the century.

Now, what do you imagine would happen if the Taliban, once again, managed to gain control of Afghanistan ? Do you know that they would NOT, again, facilitate groups such as Al Qaeda ?

If this came to pass .. what do you think would follow from it ? A determination to go BACK to Afghanistan and finally finish the job ? Or, would Lefties instead unite in a chorus of 'This is unwinnable .. we must sit back, keep clear of Afghanistan altogether, and adopt a bunker mentality to security instead' ?

In such a scenario, security forces must always successfully defend against threats, the scope or severity of which they cannot control, because they're not stemming the cause of them at their source.

The issues you raised are interconnected, all important, all requiring the proper, remedial action to best serve America's security needs.

[fj1200]

To an extent, this defies logic. It also absolutely defies historical fact.

In case you've forgotten, the Taliban played host to Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, back at the turn of the century.

Do you purposely not read everything?


Prior to 9/11 we cared not a whit about the Taliban and didn't post 9/11 up until they refused to turn over OBL. So what is our winning strategy against a group we don't care about (but for AQ connections)?

BWe should be concerned about our national securities first and foremost; the Taliban not so much, AQ definitely.

IIRC Bush was perfectly willing to let the Taliban go on their merry way if they would only turn over OBL, et al. Does that sound like the Taliban being our enemy?

So, what would be our winning strategy?


... Or, would Lefties instead ...

:rolleyes: Always with the Lefties with you... I know it's a crutch but come on.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Always with the Lefties with you... I know it's a crutch but come on.

So what? He should deny a known fact to please your view that the lefties are docile and of little consequence in American or British politics?
I'd say it is not he that has the crutch but instead it is you and your obvious need to placate the leftists. -Tyr

[fj1200]

So what? He should deny a known fact to please your view that the lefties are docile and of little consequence in American or British politics?

Invocation of a fallacy is not a "known fact."


I'd say it is not he that has the crutch but instead it is you and your obvious need to placate the leftists. -Tyr

:rolleyes:

[jimnyc]

so Drummond whines about the Independent being a liberal paper. which has ZERO to do with the fact that Afghanistan is a hot mess that no one, not even Alexander the Great, has ever been able to defeat. America and the U.K. can add it's names to the list of empires that have come fought, and left. Left SOON i hope.

That's because liberal weenies want to redefine war and how we fight it. If it were REALLY a war, and we didn't tie the hands of our soldiers, we could have obliterated Afghanistan. Going cave to cave is effing stupid, and what they count on to "win", that and time. If we don't "win", do you really see them "winning"? Simply because they hid for years and years? Eradicate and defeat them in days, or GTFO.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by revelarts http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=632849#post632849)

so Drummond whines about the Independent being a liberal paper. which has ZERO to do with the fact that Afghanistan is a hot mess that no one, not even Alexander the Great, has ever been able to defeat. America and the U.K. can add it's names to the list of empires that have come fought, and left. Left SOON i hope.



That's because liberal weenies want to redefine war and how we fight it. If it were REALLY a war, and we didn't tie the hands of our soldiers, we could have obliterated Afghanistan. Going cave to cave is effing stupid, and what they count on to "win", that and time. If we don't "win", do you really see them "winning"? Simply because they hid for years and years? Eradicate and defeat them in days, or GTFO.

They need to stop saying Alexander the Great did not defeat them. Peter Green and A.B. Bosworth both top rated historians explain that Alexander the Great did defeat that area and proceeded past Pakistan into India and due to various factors, the army turned back home with generals in charge of defeated areas.

General Franks realized the problem so he put his efforts backing the natives who fought the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Bin Laden fled and was never proven to have been in the battle areas.

Bush correctly tried to keep the war in the hands of the natives of Afghanistan.

The natives can mop up. There is no need at all for the US troops to lose lives trying to do the job of the natives living there.

[Drummond]

IIRC Bush was perfectly willing to let the Taliban go on their merry way if they would only turn over OBL, et al. Does that sound like the Taliban being our enemy?

What it 'sounds like' is Bush giving the Taliban the chance to do the decent thing.

I am perfectly aware of the opportunity Bush gave them to turn OBL over to American forces. He waited for a couple of weeks for them to comply, didn't he ? HOWEVER .. WHAT WAS THEIR RESPONSE ?

... answer ... THEY REFUSED. They preferred to risk an all-out attack on Afghanistan to complying .. well aware that military forces had been sent to the region in readiness to act.

And we know how they've been conducting themselves since that time, don't we ? AS THE TERRORIST ENEMIES THAT THEY ARE.


So, what would be our winning strategy?

You need my advice ?

I suspect that the answer isn't quite as simple as flooding the territory with far greater numbers of troops. Although, frankly, it works for me ! Let them get a taste of real opposition, a display of military might. Let them understand how puny a force they really are, by comparison.

Do you not have highly effective, non-nuclear yet powerful, means to bomb the daylights out of whatever strongholds they still have ?

What ultimately matters is that (a) you show opposition through a show of strength .. and NOT weakness .. and, (b) resolve does NOT evaporate away. The point being to break your enemy's morale.


Always with the Lefties with you... I know it's a crutch but come on.

It's simply the truth.

Would you have me think that there is no such thing as a Leftie mentality ? Or that there are no set parameters defining what one can expect a Leftie to say or argue for ? Perhaps ... there are no such things as Left-wing political entities, with manifestos which define their thinking ?

No, Leftie thinking has certain characteristics which show up again and again. Such as, a willingness, maybe even a determination, to be soft on terrorists, come-what-may. Observe someone approaching with an appeasement strategy ... the chances are high that it comes from a Leftie.

Some of us are thoroughly sick of those sellout-types. Such as myself.

[fj1200]

What it 'sounds like' is Bush giving the Taliban the chance to do the decent thing.
...
And we know how they've been conducting themselves since that time, don't we ? AS THE TERRORIST ENEMIES THAT THEY ARE.

Regardless of what it 'sounds like' it shows that the Taliban was not the enemy but for the AQ presence. Proper enemy identification is key.


You need my advice ?

Not really. Now explain why we should extend that to every other failed nation state that harbors terrorists.


It's simply the truth.

Would you have me think that there is no such thing as a Leftie mentality ?

The problem is constant misapplication of "leftie mentality."

[Robert A Whit]

Regardless of what it 'sounds like' it shows that the Taliban was not the enemy but for the AQ presence. Proper enemy identification is key.



Not really. Now explain why we should extend that to every other failed nation state that harbors terrorists.



The problem is constant misapplication of "leftie mentality."

Read General Franks book since he commanded Centcom.

Franks men were not the fighters. Franks ramped way up the presence of the CIA and they paid the northern alliance and the Taliban were indeed the enemy of the northern alliance.

Our role was to facilitate. I guess too few recall the actual war or have not yet read Franks book on this. Franks added our air-power to the fighting done by the Afghanistan fighters.

Franks intended to bust up the freedom of the AQ in order to eliminate their using the country as a base. Sure, he hoped to also get Bin Laden but blowing up locations he might be at is not a very good way to capture a person. OBL was not observed. And Franks was livid that the Afghans refused to go into Tora Bora, hoping that maybe OBL was there. But he never was seen by anybody.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Invocation of a fallacy is not a "known fact."



:rolleyes:

Invocation of the truth is and always will be amigo..;)

[Robert A Whit]

Invocation of the truth is and always will be amigo..;)

I am puzzled. I have read, I suppose, all of your posts or most of them. I know you speak the truth. Why would a sane person claim you speak fallacies?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I am puzzled. I have read, I suppose, all of your posts or most of them. I know you speak the truth. Why would a sane person claim you speak fallacies?

That particular person happens to be a very confused liberal that thinks(or pretends that) he is a conservative. He needs help and I've been tutoring him for a long time now. Tha' guy is a very poor student but I have great hope a miracle shall fall from the sky and he open his eyes to see the light. The generous thing to do is to say a small prayer for him!;)
That is iffin' ya can find it in your heart to overlook his blabbering appeasing posts and ego...
RSR NAILS HIM SO OFTEN THAT HE WEIGHS AN EXTRA TWENTY POUNDS JUST FROM THE IRON! :laugh:--Tyr

[Drummond]

Regardless of what it 'sounds like' it shows that the Taliban was not the enemy but for the AQ presence. Proper enemy identification is key.

... so, let me get this straight. Terrorist ENABLERS are, by your reckoning, not an enemy ???

If you were right, then they could've handed OBL over. They REFUSED TO.

Your attempt to NOT see the Taliban as enemies is typical Leftie perversity.


Now explain why we should extend that to every other failed nation state that harbors terrorists.

... er'm, because (depending on exact circumstances) .. they represent a threat to your security !

Have you really, seriously, not grasped the principle behind military actions taken to fight the War on Terror ?? Have you not understood why there's needed to be a troop presence in Afghanistan for so long ?

Did you, maybe, think your service personnel were just there 'to get away from it all' ?


The problem is constant misapplication of "leftie mentality."

Actually, it seems to me that your posts help to characterise what I mean by 'Leftie mentality'.

You must surely grasp what it is I'm explaining to you .. and have been aware of these sorts of arguments before I ever bothered to take time out to post explanations of them. Nonetheless, being true to a 'Leftie mentality', you've embarked on a stance that feigns non-understanding, and dismissiveness, of tactical and logistical fundamentals. And, for why ? In the hope of furthering the stance that has it that one CAN be, SHOULD be, both ignorant of basic dangers to your security, AND of the mentality driving terrorism and terrorists.

You want alertness to these dangers put to sleep .. because, for some reason I've never been able to fathom, it serves the LEFTIE MENTALITY to be as soft on terrorists - or other ideological adversaries - as it's possible to be. Example: when Obama gained the Presidency, how quickly did he declare TO AMERICA'S ENEMIES a timetable of withdrawal from Afghanistan ? Had terrorist activity ceased at that time ? NO ... but he announced the withdrawal, all the same !!!

It's nuts. It really is !! Yet, time and again, you Lefties find ways of trying to get people to have some level of sympathetic consideration for them. 'They are not the danger the Right says they are'. 'Consider their human rights'. Stop fighting them, pull back, withdraw .. appeasement stances ... you Lefties, repeatedly, find perverse ways of favouring them.

Weird in the extreme. And, more .. downright dangerous.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

... so, let me get this straight. Terrorist ENABLERS are, by your reckoning, not an enemy ???

If you were right, then they could've handed OBL over. They REFUSED TO.

Your attempt to NOT see the Taliban as enemies is typical Leftie perversity.



... er'm, because (depending on exact circumstances) .. they represent a threat to your security !

Have you really, seriously, not grasped the principle behind military actions taken to fight the War on Terror ?? Have you not understood why there's needed to be a troop presence in Afghanistan for so long ?

Did you, maybe, think your service personnel were just there 'to get away from it all' ?



Actually, it seems to me that your posts help to characterise what I mean by 'Leftie mentality'.

You must surely grasp what it is I'm explaining to you .. and have been aware of these sorts of arguments before I ever bothered to take time out to post explanations of them. Nonetheless, being true to a 'Leftie mentality', you've embarked on a stance that feigns non-understanding, and dismissiveness, of tactical and logistical fundamentals. And, for why ? In the hope of furthering the stance that has it that one CAN be, SHOULD be, both ignorant of basic dangers to your security, AND of the mentality driving terrorism and terrorists.

You want alertness to these dangers put to sleep .. because, for some reason I've never been able to fathom, it serves the LEFTIE MENTALITY to be as soft on terrorists - or other ideological adversaries - as it's possible to be. Example: when Obama gained the Presidency, how quickly did he declare TO AMERICA'S ENEMIES a timetable of withdrawal from Afghanistan ? Had terrorist activity ceased at that time ? NO ... but he announced the withdrawal, all the same !!!

It's nuts. It really is !! Yet, time and again, you Lefties find ways of trying to get people to have some level of sympathetic consideration for them. 'They are not the danger the Right says they are'. 'Consider their human rights'. Stop fighting them, pull back, withdraw .. appeasement stances ... you Lefties, repeatedly, find perverse ways of favouring them.

Weird in the extreme. And, more .. downright dangerous.

Bravo.. So well stated amigo. :beer:
My guess is that , like Jafar, fj too knows that already but for ideological purposes chooses to pretend ignorance.
Such pretending so often allows for not answering the hard questions.
Which is another favorite lefty trick but fj claims to be no lefty..:laugh:

Guy has his shoes made special to fit his two left feet..:laugh2:-Tyr

I bet rsr gets a big kick out of that one....

[Robert A Whit]

Bravo.. So well stated amigo. :beer:
My guess is that , like Jafar, fj too knows that already but for ideological purposes chooses to pretend ignorance.
Such pretending so often allows for not answering the hard questions.
Which is another favorite lefty trick but fj claims to be no lefty..:laugh:

Guy has his shoes made special to fit his two left feet..:laugh2:-Tyr

I bet rsr gets a big kick out of that one....

I am so puzzled on this topic.

I can name two books by authorities that dispel the myth our troops fought that war on the ground.

By the time Franks won, he might have had something like 100 guys on the ground and they were to handle spotting targets and guarding an airfield Franks needed.

This was waged as the Northern Alliance fighting the Taliban. We gave them millions of dollars and paid for loyalty. But the war was between the Alliance and the Taliban.

General Franks explains it in his book, THE AMERICAN SOLDIER

And to button it down, later General Mike DeLong wrote his fine book and he entirely backs up General Franks.

Most wars are our troops in combat but this time Franks use of the military in combat was air power. Bombs from over 30,000 feet did the job and missiles from the Navy.

I realize once the new government was in power, that we did have some troops based in Afghanistan but by that time the Taliban was gone as were the AQ.

The enemy was the Taliban and the troops were the northern alliance. This is a vital and important distinction.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I am so puzzled on this topic.

I can name two books by authorities that dispel the myth our troops fought that war on the ground.

By the time Franks won, he might have had something like 100 guys on the ground and they were to handle spotting targets and guarding an airfield Franks needed.

This was waged as the Northern Alliance fighting the Taliban. We gave them millions of dollars and paid for loyalty. But the war was between the Alliance and the Taliban.

General Franks explains it in his book, THE AMERICAN SOLDIER

And to button it down, later General Mike DeLong wrote his fine book and he entirely backs up General Franks.

Most wars are our troops in combat but this time Franks use of the military in combat was air power. Bombs from over 30,000 feet did the job and missiles from the Navy.

I realize once the new government was in power, that we did have some troops based in Afghanistan but by that time the Taliban was gone as were the AQ.

The enemy was the Taliban and the troops were the northern alliance. This is a vital and important distinction.

A victory must be maintained when the enemy is not completely obliterated. New government there did no such maintaining and our politicians interfered in military operations there too much.
We were bound to not achieve a true victory once we decided to stop destroying the enemy well before their numbers were very close to zero! When we showed such weakness they gained new recruits, the savages there only respect massive brute force and death. Too stupid to see a future without their believed cult and cult leaders--Islam ... -Tyr

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=633382#post633382)
I am so puzzled on this topic.

I can name two books by authorities that dispel the myth our troops fought that war on the ground.

By the time Franks won, he might have had something like 100 guys on the ground and they were to handle spotting targets and guarding an airfield Franks needed.

This was waged as the Northern Alliance fighting the Taliban. We gave them millions of dollars and paid for loyalty. But the war was between the Alliance and the Taliban.

General Franks explains it in his book, THE AMERICAN SOLDIER

And to button it down, later General Mike DeLong wrote his fine book and he entirely backs up General Franks.

Most wars are our troops in combat but this time Franks use of the military in combat was air power. Bombs from over 30,000 feet did the job and missiles from the Navy.

I realize once the new government was in power, that we did have some troops based in Afghanistan but by that time the Taliban was gone as were the AQ.

The enemy was the Taliban and the troops were the northern alliance. This is a vital and important distinction.


A victory must be maintained when the enemy is not completely obliterated. New government there did no such maintaining and our politicians interfered in military operations there too much.
We were bound to not achieve a true victory once we decided to stop destroying the enemy well before their numbers were very close to zero! When we showed such weakness they gained new recruits, the savages there only respect massive brute force and death. Too stupid to see a future without their believed cult and cult leaders--Islam ... -Tyr

You are dead right. But think of who did the fighting. Let the Alliance keep the victory. Franks got his orders to boot out the Al Qaeda first and then the alliance could deal with the Taliban. The alliance won't allow themselves to lose again. And if they do, what does it matter now?

Even if we try super hard, I really see no way for our guys to keep the Taliban or Al Qaeda out. Not with Obama running the show. He plans to bail out.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You are dead right. But think of who did the fighting. Let the Alliance keep the victory. Franks got his orders to boot out the Al Qaeda first and then the alliance could deal with the Taliban. The alliance won't allow themselves to lose again. And if they do, what does it matter now?

Even if we try super hard, I really see no way for our guys to keep the Taliban or Al Qaeda out. Not with Obama running the show. He plans to bail out.

Obama will do whatever is NOT in our best interests... and do so deliberately..-Tyr

[fj1200]

Read General Franks book since he commanded Centcom.

Franks men were not the fighters. Franks ramped way up the presence of the CIA and they paid the northern alliance and the Taliban were indeed the enemy of the northern alliance.

Our role was to facilitate. I guess too few recall the actual war or have not yet read Franks book on this. Franks added our air-power to the fighting done by the Afghanistan fighters.

Franks intended to bust up the freedom of the AQ in order to eliminate their using the country as a base. Sure, he hoped to also get Bin Laden but blowing up locations he might be at is not a very good way to capture a person. OBL was not observed. And Franks was livid that the Afghans refused to go into Tora Bora, hoping that maybe OBL was there. But he never was seen by anybody.

No argument there.


Invocation of the truth is and always will be amigo..;)

:rolleyes:


That particular person happens to be a very confused liberal that thinks(or pretends that) he is a conservative. He needs help and I've been tutoring him for a long time now. Tha' guy is a very poor student but I have great hope a miracle shall fall from the sky and he open his eyes to see the light. The generous thing to do is to say a small prayer for him!;)
That is iffin' ya can find it in your heart to overlook his blabbering appeasing posts and ego...
RSR NAILS HIM SO OFTEN THAT HE WEIGHS AN EXTRA TWENTY POUNDS JUST FROM THE IRON! :laugh:--Tyr

:facepalm99:

[fj1200]

Bravo.. So well stated amigo. :beer:


I see the daisy chain is in full effect here.

[fj1200]

... so, let me get this straight. Terrorist ENABLERS are, by your reckoning, not an enemy ???

If you were right, then they could've handed OBL over. They REFUSED TO.

Your attempt to NOT see the Taliban as enemies is typical Leftie perversity.

Again, do you purposely ignore what's not convenient to your point? Question withdrawn: You argue like a lefty. AQ is the enemy and thus the Taliban became the enemy per the Bush Doctrine but at heart the enemy is AQ.


... er'm, because (depending on exact circumstances) .. they represent a threat to your security !

So you think we should wage war against any regime that harbors terrorists?


... 'Leftie mentality'.

... 'Leftie mentality', ...

... LEFTIE MENTALITY ...

... you Lefties ... you Lefties...

You might try arguing the actual points rather than fighting the boogeyman.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I see the daisy chain is in full effect here.

I prefer this-- Not to partial to daisies myself...-Tyr
http://www.photographyblogger.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/flower3.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/55948751@N00/3670782878/)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You might try arguing the actual points rather than fighting the boogeyman.

Perhaps you should try admitting to yourself that this particular bogeyman exists and has murdered tens of thousands worldwide.
Here a reminder just for you!
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/


<tbody>
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index_files/boston-marathon-4.jpg
This photo from Boston is for those Muslim-Americans
who claim they were "traumatized (http://newamericamedia.org/2013/03/report-nypd-spy-program-traumatized-muslim-communities.php)" by NYPD surveillance.
(As can be seen, the effort to accommodate angry, self-absorbed
Muslims isn't working out too well for the rest of us either.)








Islam's Latest Contributions to Peace
"Mohammed is God's apostle. Those who follow him are harsh
to the unbelievers but merciful to one another" Quran 48:29


<tbody>
2013.04.23 (Baghdad, Iraq) - Muslims bomb a rival mosque, killing seven worshippers.


2013.04.22 (Fallujah, Iraq) - Nine people at a restaurant are taken out in mid-bite by Mujahid bombers.


2013.04.21 (Pattani, Thailand) - A 49-year-old Buddhist woman is gunned down in a targeted attack by Muslim militants.


2013.04.21 (Paktika, Afghanistan) - Three civilians at a shopping mall are blown to bits by a Shahid suicide bomber.


2013.04.20 (Khar, Pakistan) - A female Fedayeen blows herself up outside a hospital, taking four innocents with her.


2013.04.19 (Wana, Pakistan) - Taliban extremists send rockets into an election rally, killing four people.

</tbody>


</tbody>

[fj1200]

I prefer this-- Not to partial to daisies myself...-Tyr
http://www.photographyblogger.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/flower3.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/55948751@N00/3670782878/)

I would have thought tulips.

[fj1200]

Perhaps you should try admitting to yourself that this particular bogeyman exists and has murdered tens of thousands worldwide.

Thanks for the validation of my point. Terrorists are the enemy.

[taft2012]

... so, let me get this straight. Terrorist ENABLERS are, by your reckoning, not an enemy ???

If you were right, then they could've handed OBL over. They REFUSED TO.

Your attempt to NOT see the Taliban as enemies is typical Leftie perversity.


"Leftie perversity" is an excellent way of putting it.

We must remember from where these "people" come. Thirty years ago a tinhorn dictator could "invite" in 10,000 Soviet troops and they'd swear up and down this was not an indicator these tinhorns were part of the Soviet sphere of influence.

Ay rational president who took steps to address this problem was labelled a "war monger."

Same play book, different players. Any enemy of my country is my ally.

[Drummond]

Thanks for the validation of my point. Terrorists are the enemy.

Congratulations - we can agree. Terrorists are an enemy. Undoubtedly so.

Some Lefties might take issue with that ... I can well believe it. But, at least, you can recognise this as true. Which in turn means, of course, that offering arguments which favour them SHOULDN'T be an option for you.

Can we agree on that ?

[Drummond]

Again, do you purposely ignore what's not convenient to your point?

I shall offer you a countering comment further on. Be patient ....


You argue like a lefty.

Don't be ridiculous.

Lefties will use any debating trick they can to win out .. up to, and including, bias .. propaganda .. misdirection .. non-contextual offerings .. outright untruths .. emotive posturing .. and more besides.

Me, I'm grounded in reality. I argue realistically, backing up my arguments with supportive material when both possible and appropriate. Further, I'm grounded by my own sense of decency. How many Lefties is this TRULY applicable to ?


AQ is the enemy and thus the Taliban became the enemy per the Bush Doctrine but at heart the enemy is AQ.

Now, how should I categorise this offering ?

Al Qaeda is an enemy .. absolutely. This goes without saying.

BUT .. what about terrorist ENABLERS ? Are you seriously telling me that terrorist enablers are NOT your enemy ??

The Taliban were playing host to, and enabling, Al Qaeda to the hilt ! Thanks to them, Al Qaeda had a base from which to operate, one where they could do whatever they liked.

On 11th September 2001, America saw what that led to.

Now, by your reckoning, does that make the Taliban your FRIENDS ?? Or, by enabling Al Qaeda as they did, could it JUST be .. wait for it, utterly staggering suggestion coming up .. yes ..... that this, too, made them ENEMIES ??

Bush gave the Taliban the chance to do the decent thing, and hand OBL over to them. Now, did the Taliban show its 'friendship' by REFUSING to comply ?

Since then, tell me also .. have the Taliban given you the slightest cause to think they might be your friends ? Is the planting of IED's a friendly act ? Is any of their sniping actually 'friendly' fire ? Maybe the soldier who's had a leg blown off by a Taliban-planted IED feels motivated to send his assailants Christmas cards for their trouble ??

OR .. is it far more reasonable to suppose that the Taliban have been your enemies, at LEAST since they first starting helping Al Qaeda out ??

Cue a counter-argument from you to suggest that the Taliban are much-misunderstood chums, easily deserving of some apologist rot ? H'm ?


So you think we should wage war against any regime that harbors terrorists?

I think Bush had the right idea, from the very start. He asserted that either regimes - nation States - should support the War on Terror, or, if they refused to be a part of the remedy against terrorism, they should instead be seen as part of the problem.

So tell me, why should America be tolerant of regimes insisting upon being a part of that problem .. and most especially when this includes harbouring terrorists ???

Harbour a terrorist, and you help terrorism to thrive. This, ultimately, translates into otherwise preventable death and destruction. WHY tolerate the proliferation of any of this, when instead the instigators of it can and should be stopped ?

Though it wasn't the reason for the 2003 invasion ... Saddam's regime DID harbour Zarqawi, a major Al Qaeda terrorist. So, I say that Saddam's regime earned what it ultimately suffered, on those grounds alone.

But still .. what DOES constitute 'war' .. anyway ?

It may be possible, depending upon the regime in question, to engage in warfare of a non-military nature. Cyber-warfare, perhaps. Or, economic sanctions which cripple said regime's viability.

But if not, AND the terrorists involved are at all likely to pose a threat, I consider that whatever action which can be effective against them, should be taken. My answer is that you do what it takes, whatever that is, to deal with those terrorists ... AND THEIR ENABLERS.


You might try arguing the actual points rather than fighting the boogeyman.

This is where I remind you of the comment you made previously, namely ..


... do you purposely ignore what's not convenient to your point?

From all of the quotations of my words which you offered, where did you include ANY contextual material ???

'Leftie mentality', 'Lefties' and the like .. when I use those terms, I do so according to the intended context of the time. YOU, however, 'purposely ignored' what was not 'convenient to your point', by taking my words TOTALLY out of context !!

My suggestion is that you stop accusing ME of what is true for YOU.

[taft2012]

I think Bush had the right idea, from the very start. He asserted that either regimes - nation States - should support the War on Terror, or, if they refused to be a part of the remedy against terrorism, they should instead be seen as part of the problem.



After a long day of digging through rubble looking for fellow New Yorkers' remains, it gave me an absolute arousal in my shorts to come home and hear him say that.

"You're either with us or against us."

The greatest truths are black and white.

Looking back, remembering that pile of rubble, I don't think many Americans understand what happened. That pile of rubble was still probably bigger than the tallest buildings in many American cities.

[jimnyc]

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/cpPABLW6F_A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Drummond]

After a long day of digging through rubble looking for fellow New Yorkers' remains, it gave me an absolute arousal in my shorts to come home and hear him say that.

"You're either with us or against us."

The greatest truths are black and white.

Looking back, remembering that pile of rubble, I don't think many Americans understand what happened. That pile of rubble was still probably bigger than the tallest buildings in many American cities.

Yep, well said.

I can't claim that 'arousal' was my reaction to Bush's position. But I felt from that very moment that Bush said exactly what needed to be said. He was absolutely right.

How much better a position would the world be in, today, if that 'doctrine' had been steadfastly followed through ? In a world where terrorism had to be viewed as a self-toxic activity, where no regimes ever wanted to give terrorists house-room, not least for fear of the consequences if they ever did .. to what extent would the War on Terror have succeeded, if we'd seen all of that come to pass ?

Instead of all that - and heyy, Fj, if you're reading this, spot the context !! - LEFTIES in various countries found arguments, 'reasons', excuses, to be terrorist apologists, to be soft on them, or to try and create more tolerant viewpoints. Aznar, the leader in Spain and a staunch (admirably so) anti-terrorist Conservative figure, was ousted by Zapotero, his LEFTIE opposition, and promptly began backsliding on Spain's commitments to fight terrorism.

It's What They Do.

Cue a Jimmy Carter, to argue for terrorist HUMAN RIGHTS ?????

Or, in the UK, for a substantial chunk of Blair's OWN Party to turn against him, for allegedly being, as was derisively said of him, 'Bush's poodle' ??

All too often, the Left has been gratuitously, and offensively, PRO-TERRORIST when it had neither the right nor reason to be.

[Drummond]

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/cpPABLW6F_A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

[fj1200]

Congratulations - we can agree. Terrorists are an enemy. Undoubtedly so.

Some Lefties might take issue with that ... I can well believe it. But, at least, you can recognise this as true. Which in turn means, of course, that offering arguments which favour them SHOULDN'T be an option for you.

Can we agree on that ?

You should review the OP:



British soldiers fighting in Afghanistan are part of a campaign that attempted to “impose an ideology foreign to the Afghan people” and was “unwinnable in military terms”, according to a damning report by the Ministry of Defence.

The internal study says that Nato forces have been unable to “establish control over the insurgents’ safe havens” or “protect the rural population”, and warns the “conditions do not exist” to guarantee the survival of the Afghan government after combat troops withdraw next year.

MoD admits campaign in Afghanistan is 'an unwinnable war' - UK Politics - UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mod-admits-campaign-in-afghanistan-is-an-unwinnable-war-8535291.html)

"Imposing an ideology is unwinnable." I'll prefer to properly identify the enemy and take action against them.

[fj1200]

Instead of all that - and heyy, Fj, if you're reading this, spot the context !! - ... to be terrorist apologists, to be soft on them...

It's What They Do.

I can certainly spot the strawman.

[Drummond]

You should review the OP:



"Imposing an ideology is unwinnable." I'll prefer to properly identify the enemy and take action against them.

As I've already indicated, I've felt disgust as a reaction to the MoD's stance.

Properly identifying the enemy and taking action against them is reasonable.

What is also reasonable, even essential, is to include the recognition that terrorist enablers are a part of the problem, and themselves 'identifiable enemies'. They should not entirely escape, in real terms, the proper culpability for their supportive actions.

See this .. Bush's initial measured televised reaction to 9/11, broadcast just hours after it happened. I recall seeing this on TV that evening. It was the point when, for me, Bush took his place as a world statesman.

Note Bush's words here ... 2 mins 53 seconds into the recording.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbqCquDl4k4&feature=player_detailpage#t=172s

[jimnyc]

Another one of the lines of his that I loved:

"We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts, and those who harbor them."

It's a shame that so many felt the same about this that evening, but no longer fully support them words.

[Drummond]

I can certainly spot the strawman.

.. Truth ..

[Drummond]

Another one of the lines of his that I loved:

"We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts, and those who harbor them."

It's a shame that so many felt the same about this that evening, but no longer fully support them words.:clap::clap:

I couldn't agree more, Jim.

[fj1200]

I shall offer you a countering comment further on. Be patient ....

:holdsbreath:


Don't be ridiculous.

Lefties will use any debating trick they can to win out .. up to, and including, bias .. propaganda .. misdirection .. non-contextual offerings .. outright untruths .. emotive posturing .. and more besides.

I'm not. Thanks for the list.


Now, how should I categorise this offering ?

Al Qaeda is an enemy .. absolutely. This goes without saying.

BUT .. what about terrorist ENABLERS ? Are you seriously telling me that terrorist enablers are NOT your enemy ??

Already addressed.


The Taliban were playing host to, and enabling, Al Qaeda to the hilt ! Thanks to them, Al Qaeda had a base from which to operate, one where they could do whatever they liked.

And now they can't.


Since then, tell me also .. have the Taliban given you the slightest cause to think they might be your friends ? Is the planting of IED's a friendly act ? Is any of their sniping actually 'friendly' fire ? Maybe the soldier who's had a leg blown off by a Taliban-planted IED feels motivated to send his assailants Christmas cards for their trouble ??

I'm not sure why you think they are just going to accept our presence without resistance.


OR .. is it far more reasonable to suppose that the Taliban have been your enemies, at LEAST since they first starting helping Al Qaeda out ??

Cue the 20/20 hindsight that suggests we should have taken proactive steps prior to 9/11.


Cue a counter-argument from you to suggest that the Taliban are much-misunderstood chums, easily deserving of some apologist rot ? H'm ?

Like I said; argue like a lefty.


I think Bush had the right idea, from the very start. He asserted that either regimes - nation States - should support the War on Terror, or, if they refused to be a part of the remedy against terrorism, they should instead be seen as part of the problem.

So tell me, why should America be tolerant of regimes insisting upon being a part of that problem .. and most especially when this includes harbouring terrorists ???

Harbour a terrorist, and you help terrorism to thrive. This, ultimately, translates into otherwise preventable death and destruction. WHY tolerate the proliferation of any of this, when instead the instigators of it can and should be stopped ?

Though it wasn't the reason for the 2003 invasion ... Saddam's regime DID harbour Zarqawi, a major Al Qaeda terrorist. So, I say that Saddam's regime earned what it ultimately suffered, on those grounds alone.

But still .. what DOES constitute 'war' .. anyway ?

It may be possible, depending upon the regime in question, to engage in warfare of a non-military nature. Cyber-warfare, perhaps. Or, economic sanctions which cripple said regime's viability.

But if not, AND the terrorists involved are at all likely to pose a threat, I consider that whatever action which can be effective against them, should be taken. My answer is that you do what it takes, whatever that is, to deal with those terrorists ... AND THEIR ENABLERS.

Done rambling?


This is where I remind you of the comment you made previously, namely ..

:exhales:


From all of the quotations of my words which you offered, where did you include ANY contextual material ???

'Leftie mentality', 'Lefties' and the like .. when I use those terms, I do so according to the intended context of the time. YOU, however, 'purposely ignored' what was not 'convenient to your point', by taking my words TOTALLY out of context !!

My suggestion is that you stop accusing ME of what is true for YOU.

I haven't ignored anything. My suggestion is that you stop leaning on your "lefty crutch."

[fj1200]

As I've already indicated, I've felt disgust as a reaction to the MoD's stance.

Properly identifying the enemy and taking action against them is reasonable.

What is also reasonable, even essential, is to include the recognition that terrorist enablers are a part of the problem, and themselves 'identifiable enemies'. They should not entirely escape, in real terms, the proper culpability for their supportive actions.

At which point you began your screed against "lefties" without addressing the analysis... that I saw anyway. Please point out if I missed it.


.. Truth ..

I'm surprised you agree with that. Given the context of my statement.

[Drummond]

:holdsbreath:

Careful, now ...


Thanks for the list.

My pleasure.


Already addressed.

... but the weakness of your stance was not.

The Taliban, by enabling Al Qaeda, proved themselves to be your enemies. Unless, of course, they thought Al Qaeda were only running holiday camps, not terrorist training camps ?

.... 'Butlins', eat your heart out ...


And now they can't.

Correct - they were treated as the enemy they were, and are. The result was that the 'holiday camps' were properly neutralised.


I'm not sure why you think they are just going to accept our presence without resistance.

They could indulge in a Taliban equivalent of the British 'It's a Fair Cop, Guv' ... which translates as the Taliban accepting responsibility for having brought their misfortunes down upon themselves, for their aid to Al Qaeda scum. BUT ... true to the purpose of their alliance with Al Qaeda, they chose to remain consistently hostile to Al Qaeda's enemies.

It's what they earned for themselves, as well, by not doing the right thing when they still had a chance to. The Taliban had no right in offering OBL any form of protection. Nonetheless, as ENEMIES, this is what they did.

They suffered accordingly.

They even had a further chance to do the right thing. They could've surrendered to American forces. But, instead, they chose to fight Al Qaeda's enemies for them, and to do so, for ... HOW many years has it been ?


Cue the 20/20 hindsight that suggests we should have taken proactive steps prior to 9/11.

.... which runs contrary to preferred Leftie thinking. Better to do the MINIMUM for safety and security, and not the MAXIMUM ...


Like I said; argue like a lefty.

I know the Leftie mind. It's a lot to do with why I'm a proud Conservative.

A good tactician anticipates its opposition's reasoning. That does not make the tactician the equivalent of his opposition.


Done rambling?

I never started.


:exhales:

Admit it. My arguments take your breath away ... ;)


I haven't ignored anything. My suggestion is that you stop leaning on your "lefty crutch."

I wouldn't dream of ever doing so, since such a crutch is bound to be infested with a terminal case of woodworm (i.e utter 'rot') ...:lol:

[Drummond]

At which point you began your screed against "lefties" without addressing the analysis... that I saw anyway. Please point out if I missed it.

I am entitled to my views, and to express them - and especially if, in so doing, I educate along the way ..

As for 'the analysis', I take that to be the MoD stuff. I think my disgust got in the way of further consideration.


I'm surprised you agree with that. Given the context of my statement.

... There, you see ? You've started caring about CONTEXT.

I can see that I'm having a beneficial influence on you. :rolleyes:

[aboutime]

I am entitled to my views, and to express them - and especially if, in so doing, I educate along the way ..

As for 'the analysis', I take that to be the MoD stuff. I think my disgust got in the way of further consideration.



... There, you see ? You've started caring about CONTEXT.

I can see that I'm having a beneficial influence on you. :rolleyes:


Sir Drummond. As you have no doubt noticed. fj is, and has become the miniature, wannabe version of Robert. The know-all, see-all, hear-all, unconditionally perfect, always right about everything, and everyone.
We are not permitted to venture into the opinion, or idea realms of thought here...unless we get the full, undivided attention, and permission of certain members here...who must insist...ONLY THEY are intelligent, smart, wise, and knowledgeable enough to decide WHAT YOU, and I are allowed to say, think, or believe.
Otherwise. Talking to either of them is Worthless, and a waste of time.

[jimnyc]

AT - please stay on topic and don't drag others into this.

[aboutime]

AT - please stay on topic and don't drag others into this.


Oh. Excuse me. Now I am not permitted to agree, or disagree with another member...whom I posted to?

Check and see. I was on topic with Drummond.

[jimnyc]

Oh. Excuse me. Now I am not permitted to agree, or disagree with another member...whom I posted to?

Check and see. I was on topic with Drummond.

You brought Robert into this discussion and I don't even see him posting here. This is how the crap starts.

[aboutime]

You brought Robert into this discussion and I don't even see him posting here. This is how the crap starts.


Whatever you say.

[fj1200]

Let me look for anything meaningful in here.


The Taliban, by enabling Al Qaeda, proved themselves to be your enemies....

Correct - they were treated as the enemy they were, and are. The result was that the 'holiday camps' were properly neutralised.

Which is why they were taken out... appropriately.


It's what they earned for themselves, as well, by not doing the right thing when they still had a chance to. The Taliban had no right in offering OBL any form of protection. Nonetheless, as ENEMIES, this is what they did.

What you define as their right is irrelevant. I for one am not shocked when an invading force is opposed.


I know the Leftie mind. It's a lot to do with why I'm a proud Conservative.

I already know that you're big-government. You know the "leftie mind" because you're so close to it.


Admit it. My arguments take your breath away ... ;)


Is that what you call those?


I am entitled to my views, and to express them - and especially if, in so doing, I educate along the way ..

As for 'the analysis', I take that to be the MoD stuff. I think my disgust got in the way of further consideration.

Who said you couldn't express your views. Don't be surprised when someone tells you that you're wrong especially when you ignore the premise of the thread.


... There, you see ? You've started caring about CONTEXT.

I can see that I'm having a beneficial influence on you. :rolleyes:

If you could teach anything about context you surely would have within the context of the OP.

[fj1200]

We are not permitted to venture into the opinion...

What? This again? Say whatever you want, have whatever opinion you want, but don't be surprised when someone tells you how stupid it is.

[Drummond]

Which is why they were taken out... appropriately.

Which is ALSO - in part, anyway - why the Taliban has been fought against, for a number of years. Not because they're any 'friends' of yours, but because they enabled your enemies.

I don't doubt that, given enough of a chance, they'd do it all over again.


What you define as their right is irrelevant. I for one am not shocked when an invading force is opposed.

'Shock' is irrelevant. The Taliban invited all that they've been contending with because they proved to be fully supportive of your enemies. They've reaped what they've sown. They have earned the outcome - having chosen it.

Put it this way. If criminals are aided and abetted in their crimes, isn't it a well recognised principle that those doing the aiding are culpable as accessories ?

So, why shouldn't the Taliban have paid the price that they have ? And, why shouldn't they EXPECT to, since they hold responsibility for their actions ?


I already know that you're big-government. You know the "leftie mind" because you're so close to it.

Conditions, I grant you, are different in Britain. Though you meant your comment as a form of barb, it isn't entirely lacking in truth.

But here's the thing. Over here, institutionalised conditioning is far more written into our society than it is yours. I'm anti-Leftie because, in part, its methodology here has to do with active propaganda management, and the shaping of attitudes on a grand scale through the force of the State. THIS, I am against with every fibre of my being.

'Big-Government' thinking, however, is the comparative norm here. The Conservative model doesn't quite find its match in America. Why ? Because decades of societal shaping and crafting have left their mark .... courtesy of our Left. When Conservatives retake power, they inherit conditions, and laws, left to them by their opposition. All too often they just accept aspects of what's been left to them.

Our National Health Service is a 'great' example. Introduced by the Left, the Conservatives would be committing political suicide if they ever scrapped it. Besides ... they don't really want to. David Cameron is on record as saying he 'loves' the NHS.

You say I'm 'close' to the Leftie mind. In the sense that I live with a structure I cannot help, you may have a point .. of sorts. But don't mistake the conditions I must live under with evidence of any lack of core Conservatism on my part.

I am, after all, 'Proudly Thatcherite'. But by trying to soft-pedal on perceptions of the Taliban, what are YOU ?

The rest of your post was just catty sniping. Sad to see - but also understandable in its way. When it comes down to it, lack of substance has to be substituted for something ... as nature abhors a vacuum.

If I had my way, it would abhor Leftieism, too ...

[Robert A Whit]

Drummond, since you are in England, maybe you have not read General Tommy Franks fine book on how he waged war.

I keep reading posts alleging our troops waged the war. We helped Afghan fight Afghan. We used a lot of air power. But as to the combat role, for the real fighting the Afghans fought each other. We had a few of our men riding with the Afghans but the Afghan warlords were stubborn men. They enjoyed our air power. But you won't find that we inserted thousands of our men to wage combat.

Franks put the war in the hands of the Afghanis and when he got orders to turn to Iraq, he did so.

By the time our air power was done, what was standing was what the Afghans needed. Franks did not want to blow up cities.

Even here in America, I notice many if not most don't seem to know the difference.

Iraq is where we invaded. No doubt at all we did that along with many allies.

[fj1200]

Which is ALSO...

The problem is this:


British soldiers fighting in Afghanistan are part of a campaign that attempted to “impose an ideology foreign to the Afghan people” and was “unwinnable in military terms”, according to a damning report by the Ministry of Defence.

... as I said a long time ago, is "probably true." No amount of your blathering on about Lefties is going to change that. Now if you could possibly explain how the statement is not true, or how we can set up a workable government that will continually fight our war against Taliban insurgents for us, then a rational discussion could be had. I don't expect it.


Conditions, I grant you, are different in Britain. Though you meant your comment as a form of barb, it isn't entirely lacking in truth.

Did you catch that I was referring to the internal struggle within your own ideologies of how you can on one hand complain incessantly about "lefties" while at the same time desiring overwhelming power of the State to advance your own aims? If so, then :clap:


The rest of your post was just catty sniping.

That's pretty pathetic coming from you who prefers to erect strawmen for burning while ignoring the central points that posters are trying to make.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The problem is this:



... as I said a long time ago, is "probably true." No amount of your blathering on about Lefties is going to change that. Now if you could possibly explain how the statement is not true, or how we can set up a workable government that will continually fight our war against Taliban insurgents for us, then a rational discussion could be had. I don't expect it.



Did you catch that I was referring to the internal struggle within your own ideologies of how you can on one hand complain incessantly about "lefties" while at the same time desiring overwhelming power of the State to advance your own aims? If so, then :clap:



That's pretty pathetic coming from you who prefers to erect strawmen for burning while ignoring the central points that posters are trying to make.

Damn fj you actually are trying to post more than a one liner!
Bravo for not being so lazy. Now if you could just defend your position a bit better I'd score you two gold stars for the massive and futile effort.;)--Tyr

(sshhh folks, just giving him a little moral support because -D- is smashing him up so badly) . Don't tell him..lol

[fj1200]

Damn fj you actually are trying to post more than a one liner!
Bravo for not being so lazy. Now if you could just defend your position a bit better I'd score you two gold stars for the massive and futile effort.;)--Tyr

:confused: Screaming "leftie, leftie, leftie" is defending a position? Who knew.


(sshhh folks, just giving him a little moral support because -D- is smashing him up so badly) . Don't tell him..lol

Link? Apparently you rate discussions by mere word count.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

:confused: Screaming "leftie, leftie, leftie" is defending a position? Who knew.



Link? Apparently you rate discussions by mere word count.

Damn dude, I gave you a bravo. You just do not know how to take a compliment.

Word count is not as important as is the quality and truthfulness of those words. I've not seen where you disproved any of his !!

Dummond did so very much more than just shout "leftie".. That is just all you chose to concentrate on.

Face it you will never master him or his knowledge about the Brits, the Brit government, the Muslim scum there or the damn lefties.
That you think you will is your arrogance amigo.

Carry on as I am enjoying the schooling -D- is so generously giving you . And I too am learning from his generosity.
See , unlike you, I freely admit that I still have lots to learn .-Tyr

[fj1200]

Damn dude, I gave you a bravo. You just do not know how to take a compliment.

Word count is not as important as is the quality and truthfulness of those words. I've not seen where you disproved any of his !!

Dummond did so very much more than just shout "leftie".. That is just all you chose to concentrate on.

Given this was his post in response to my first:

More defeatism ?

The Left Speaks Again ..

I'd say that it pretty much set the tone of the rest of our "discussion." From that point he has danced nowhere near the OP.


Face it you will never master him or his knowledge about the Brits, the Brit government, the Muslim scum there or the damn lefties.
That you think you will is your arrogance amigo.

Please point out where the discussion became about Brits or the Brit government. And I do acknowledge that he is more knowledgeable in Muslim hate sites than I.


Carry on as I am enjoying the schooling -D- is so generously giving you . And I too am learning from his generosity.
See , unlike you, I freely admit that I still have lots to learn .-Tyr

I know I have lots to learn I just know where I don't expect to get it. One thing I have learned is typically one of you knuckleheads will attempt discussion while the remainder stand behind saying, "get him Spike, attaboy Spike..."

Now for your next post, be sure and call me a lib again; it works so well. :rolleyes:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Please point out where the discussion became about Brits or the Brit government. And I do acknowledge that he is more knowledgeable in Muslim hate sites than I. :rolleyes:

ok I will but must go after this post ... going to buy another hate stick, bangy bangy stick, lib hated tool--gun...:laugh:

Drummond wrote....


Conditions, I grant you, are different in Britain. Though you meant your comment as a form of barb, it isn't entirely lacking in truth.

But here's the thing. Over here, institutionalised conditioning is far more written into our society than it is yours. I'm anti-Leftie because, in part, its methodology here has to do with active propaganda management, and the shaping of attitudes on a grand scale through the force of the State. THIS, I am against with every fibre of my being.

'Big-Government' thinking, however, is the comparative norm here. The Conservative model doesn't quite find its match in America. Why ? Because decades of societal shaping and crafting have left their mark .... courtesy of our Left. When Conservatives retake power, they inherit conditions, and laws, left to them by their opposition. All too often they just accept aspects of what's been left to them.

Our National Health Service is a 'great' example. Introduced by the Left, the Conservatives would be committing political suicide if they ever scrapped it. Besides ... they don't really want to. David Cameron is on record as saying he 'loves' the NHS.

You say I'm 'close' to the Leftie mind. In the sense that I live with a structure I cannot help, you may have a point .. of sorts. But don't mistake the conditions I must live under with evidence of any lack of core Conservatism on my part.

I am, after all, 'Proudly Thatcherite'. But by trying to soft-pedal on perceptions of the Taliban, what are YOU ?

The rest of your post was just catty sniping. Sad to see - but also understandable in its way. When it comes down to it, lack of substance has to be substituted for something ... as nature abhors a vacuum.

If I had my way, it would abhor Leftieism, too ...

[Drummond]

... as I said a long time ago, is "probably true." No amount of your blathering on about Lefties is going to change that. Now if you could possibly explain how the statement is not true, or how we can set up a workable government that will continually fight our war against Taliban insurgents for us, then a rational discussion could be had. I don't expect it.

So, then, what's Karzai been doing all this time ? Perhaps you weren't aware of his existence ?

I'm sure you will appreciate this following report, coming as it does from the BBC ....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16771301


Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai has thanked the British people for sacrificing "blood and treasure" for the future of his country.

His comments followed talks with David Cameron at the UK prime minister's Buckinghamshire residence, Chequers.

The leaders signed an agreement detailing how their countries would work together after UK combat troops withdraw from Afghanistan in 2014.

Mr Cameron said the relationship would be based on diplomacy, trade and aid.

Mr Karzai said the agreement was "one more step" in Britain's long-term commitment to Afghanistan.

He said Britain had been Afghanistan's "steadfast friend", particularly over the past 10 years.

Speaking the day after the death of a UK soldier in Helmand province - the 397th military death since 2001 - Mr Karzai said Britain had sacrificed "blood and treasure" in his country.

"The Afghan people recognise that, respect that and remember that".

Mr Karzai said Britain's continued help would move Afghanistan "towards becoming a fundamentally strong democratic state, free of terrorism".

He added: "May I convey to the people of Britain the gratitude of the Afghan people for all that Britain has offered Afghanistan, for having been ready to sacrifice, and for having been ready to share Britain's hard-earned taxpayers' money with Afghanistan for the betterment of the Afghan life, and for a better, more secure vision and - as a consequence - entire world."

OK, how's that ? Being from the BBC, I'm sure that, for you, it must really hit the spot ...


Did you catch that I was referring to the internal struggle within your own ideologies of how you can on one hand complain incessantly about "lefties" while at the same time desiring overwhelming power of the State to advance your own aims? If so, then :clap:

'Internal struggle' ?? How bizarre ... 'you wish' ....

Actually, I've no idea what you're talking about.

I have pointed out to you that State power is more the 'norm' over here than I'm sure is true, even now, for America. That's just the way of things here. I have no control over that reality .. it simply IS what it IS.

We could do with a break from the 'hive mind' Leftie approach which devalues the worth of the individual. But, we're not going to get it.

And if you'd claim non-understanding of what I'm talking about, just watch Obama work. Being a Leftie himself, he'll be in favour of State controls, control of people which detracts from their own individual rights.

[Robert A Whit]

President Bush loved learning the plans of General Franks and his staff and not trying to force franks to do it how an ex air force officer might do it. He trusted General Franks for many reasons.

I want to address this one point.


The problem is this:

British soldiers fighting in Afghanistan are part of a campaign that attempted to “impose an ideology foreign to the Afghan people” and was “unwinnable in military terms”, according to a damning report by the Ministry of Defence.




Any such imposition would not be by the Brits or Americans nor the other many forces in Afghanistan over these past years, but it would come from Kabul primarily with the locals standing for their system.

We call the country by one name. But when you see how it is governed, it has many forms of government

Even when the people of Afghanistan worked on their constitution, they spent many days and weeks trying to come up with a document useful to the entire area.

This is my opinion and am entitled to it..

[Drummond]

Damn dude, I gave you a bravo. You just do not know how to take a compliment.

Word count is not as important as is the quality and truthfulness of those words. I've not seen where you disproved any of his !!

Dummond did so very much more than just shout "leftie".. That is just all you chose to concentrate on.

Face it you will never master him or his knowledge about the Brits, the Brit government, the Muslim scum there or the damn lefties.
That you think you will is your arrogance amigo.

Carry on as I am enjoying the schooling -D- is so generously giving you . And I too am learning from his generosity.
See , unlike you, I freely admit that I still have lots to learn .-Tyr

Tyr, many thanks ...

Unfortunately, I can only 'school' Fj if he's prepared to listen. Cherrypicking what he WANTS to consider, isn't helpful to the process. But, unfortunately, that describes the way Lefties think - to see what they want to see ...

[Drummond]

President Bush loved learning the plans of General Franks and his staff and not trying to force franks to do it how an ex air force officer might do it. He trusted General Franks for many reasons.

I want to address this one point.



Any such imposition would not be by the Brits or Americans nor the other many forces in Afghanistan over these past years, but it would come from Kabul primarily with the locals standing for their system.

We call the country by one name. But when you see how it is governed, it has many forms of government

Even when the people of Afghanistan worked on their constitution, they spent many days and weeks trying to come up with a document useful to the entire area.

This is my opinion and am entitled to it..

Points well made, and thanks.

[fj1200]

ok I will but must go after this post ... going to buy another hate stick, bangy bangy stick, lib hated tool--gun...:laugh:

Drummond wrote....

OK, so HE started talking about lib leftie Brits. I, however, am trying to stay on topic.

[fj1200]

Tyr, many thanks ...

Unfortunately, I can only 'school' Fj if he's prepared to listen. Cherrypicking what he WANTS to consider, isn't helpful to the process. But, unfortunately, that describes the way Lefties think - to see what they want to see ...

When, and if, I get schooled I'm pretty sure it will be by someone who understands what the topic is. :slap:

[fj1200]

So, then, what's Karzai been doing all this time ? Perhaps you weren't aware of his existence ?

I'm sure you will appreciate this following report, coming as it does from the BBC ....

OK, how's that ? Being from the BBC, I'm sure that, for you, it must really hit the spot ...

1. Kudos for straying dangerously close to the actual topic.
2. How do you contrast your article with two politicians saying nice things one year before the MoD report that casts doubt on long-term success? Perhaps our own actions are undercutting our expectations of success:

<nyt_headline version="1.0" type=" ">Intractable Afghan Graft Hampering U.S. Strategy (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/world/asia/corruption-remains-intractable-in-afghanistan-under-karzai-government.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)</nyt_headline>
As Americans pull back from Afghanistan, Mr. Farnood’s case exemplifies how the United States is leaving behind a problem it underwrote over the past decade with tens of billions of dollars of aid and logistical support: a narrow business and political elite defined by its corruption, and despised by most Afghans for it.

3. Why would I care that it's from the BBC?


Actually, I've no idea what you're talking about.

I'm not surprised, my applause was premature.


I have pointed out to you that State power is more the 'norm' over here than I'm sure is true, even now, for America. That's just the way of things here. I have no control over that reality .. it simply IS what it IS.

We could do with a break from the 'hive mind' Leftie approach which devalues the worth of the individual. But, we're not going to get it.

And if you'd claim non-understanding of what I'm talking about, just watch Obama work. Being a Leftie himself, he'll be in favour of State controls, control of people which detracts from their own individual rights.

:confused: When have I suggested that BO was not a "leftie"?

And as far as devaluing the worth of an individual I'd say your support of government being able to classify an individual as "subhuman" certainly qualifies.

[aboutime]

When, and if, I get schooled I'm pretty sure it will be by someone who understands what the topic is. :slap:


fj. The very least you could do for the rest of us...in convincing us about being schooled....would be.

Post a copy of your PRE-SCHOOL graduation certificate, dated TODAY.

[fj1200]

fj. The very least you could do for the rest of us...in convincing us about being schooled....would be.

Post a copy of your PRE-SCHOOL graduation certificate, dated TODAY.

Thank you for contributing. I hear a circle calling your name.

[aboutime]

Thank you for contributing. I hear a circle calling your name.


And with you as the Pivot. Oh happy day.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

OK, so HE started talking about lib leftie Brits. I, however, am trying to stay on topic.

I disagree, as that fits in with the topic IMHO.. If it were not so I'd agree with you because truth matters more to me...-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

1. Kudos for straying dangerously close to the actual topic.

Are you holding that lefty opposition to the Afghan war is not part of the topic at hand? Be they Brit or American lefties? Leftist opposition to the war is huge both here and there.--Tyr



:confused: When have I suggested that BO was not a "leftie"?

Congrats, your open admission that BO is a damn leftie deserves high praise and kudos!!!!-- :beer:--Tyr


And as far as devaluing the worth of an individual I'd say your support of government being able to classify an individual as "subhuman" certainly qualifies.

Do you hold that there are no subhuman people??
Because I can prove there are...--Tyr



All in all you appear to be coming along fairly well.
Big D gets high marks for teaching you and
YOU GET HIGH MARKS FOR LEARNING!
Praise the Lord......-TYR

[fj1200]

I disagree, as that fits in with the topic IMHO.. If it were not so I'd agree with you because truth matters more to me...-Tyr

I do agree that you love your truth but as far as Socialist Brits in regards to Afghanistan? Not so much.

[fj1200]

Are you holding that lefty opposition to the Afghan war is not part of the topic at hand? Be they Brit or American lefties? Leftist opposition to the war is huge both here and there.--Tyr

Yes, I don't base my entire argument on "lefties" as do you folks.


Congrats, your open admission that BO is a damn leftie deserves high praise and kudos!!!!-- :beer:--Tyr

When have I said otherwise? Another creation of your imagination I suppose.


Do you hold that there are no subhuman people??
Because I can prove there are...--Tyr

Have at it.


All in all you appear to be coming along fairly well.
Big D gets high marks for teaching you and
YOU GET HIGH MARKS FOR LEARNING!
Praise the Lord......-TYR

Ranting =/= teaching.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I do agree that you love your truth but as far as Socialist Brits in regards to Afghanistan? Not so much.

How about socialist Americans in regards to opposition on the Afghan war?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Yes, I don't base my entire argument on "lefties" as do you folks.



When have I said otherwise? Another creation of your imagination I suppose.



Have at it.



Ranting =/= teaching.

Come on now..... Much of that was just good nature humor. I do not hold that you are half as silly as some of your posts would leave some people to believe.;)

I base most my views on this, the lib/dem/leftist, anti-God, anti-gun, anti-American cadre deserves only utter contempt and maybe a damn good ass kickin'. Preferably given by my left foot on their silly asses as hard as I can deliver it. Sort of like kicking a football for distance.:laugh:--Tyr

[fj1200]

How about socialist Americans in regards to opposition on the Afghan war?

What about them?


Come on now..... Much of that was just good nature humor. I do not hold that you are half as silly as some of your posts would leave some people to believe.;)

:facepalm99:


I base most my views on this, the lib/dem/leftist, anti-God, anti-gun, anti-American cadre deserves only utter contempt and maybe a damn good ass kickin'. Preferably given by my left foot on their silly asses as hard as I can deliver it. Sort of like kicking a football for distance.:laugh:--Tyr

That explains your utter inability to have a rational discussion on many topics.

[revelarts]

Necro Thread 2013

the 1st post was basically

UK: Ministry of Defense admits campaign in Afghanistan is 'an unwinnable war'
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mod-admits-campaign-in-afghanistan-is-an-unwinnable-war-8535291.html



British soldiers fighting in Afghanistan are part of a campaign that attempted to “impose an ideology foreign to the Afghan people” and was “unwinnable in military terms”, according to a damning report by the Ministry of Defence.

The internal study says that Nato forces have been unable to “establish control over the insurgents’ safe havens” or “protect the rural population”, and warns the “conditions do not exist” to guarantee the survival of the Afghan government after combat troops withdraw next year.

The report, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, says that when troops leave, Afghanistan “will be left with a severely damaged and very weak economic base”, which means that the West will have to continue to fund “large-scale support programmes” for many years to come.

Even if the internal situation were stable, the Afghan government may not survive the destabilising activities of its neighbours. “Regional players do not have a vested interest in the success of the Kabul government”, states the document in a clear reference to Pakistan.

The report, Lessons from the Soviet Transition in Afghanistan, is an internal research project produced in November last year by the MoD’s think-tank, the Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre (DCDC). Based in Shrivenham, Wiltshire, the DCDC’s reports “help inform decisions in defence strategy, capability development and operations” across all three branches of the armed forces.

The study examines the “extraordinary number of similar factors that surround both the Soviet and Nato campaigns in Afghanistan” and highlights lessons that military commanders could learn.

“The highest-level parallel is that both campaigns were conceived with the aim of imposing an ideology foreign to the Afghan people: the Soviets hoped to establish a Communist state while Nato wished to build a democracy,” it says. “Equally striking is that both abandoned their central aim once they realised that the war was unwinnable in military terms and that support of the population was essential.”

It continues: “Both interventions have been portrayed as foreign invasions attempting to support a corrupt and unpopular central government against a local insurgent movement which has popular support, strong religious motivation and safe havens abroad. In addition, the country will again be left with a severely damaged and very weak economic base, heavily dependent upon external aid.”

In unusually frank terms, it goes on: “The international setting for both campaigns has significant similarities with world opinion judging both as failed interventions. Both faced a loss of confidence in their strategic world leadership and increasing domestic and financial pressure to abandon the enterprise.”

Turning to lessons for the armed forces, it says: “The military parallels are equally striking; the 40th Army [of the Soviet Union] was unable decisively to defeat the mujahedin while facing no existential threat itself, a situation that precisely echoes the predicament of Isaf [the Nato-led security mission]. Neither campaign established control over the country’s borders and the insurgents’ safe havens; both were unable to protect the rural population.”

The report states that the Soviet withdrawal plan was handicapped by a publicly announced timetable. Western commanders have blamed the British and American governments for publicly presenting just such a timetable....


one Definition of insanity ... doing the same thing and expecting different results.

[Gunny]

Necro Thread 2013

the 1st post was basically

UK: Ministry of Defense admits campaign in Afghanistan is 'an unwinnable war'
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mod-admits-campaign-in-afghanistan-is-an-unwinnable-war-8535291.html


British soldiers fighting in Afghanistan are part of a campaign that attempted to “impose an ideology foreign to the Afghan people” and was “unwinnable in military terms”, according to a damning report by the Ministry of Defence.

The internal study says that Nato forces have been unable to “establish control over the insurgents’ safe havens” or “protect the rural population”, and warns the “conditions do not exist” to guarantee the survival of the Afghan government after combat troops withdraw next year.

The report, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, says that when troops leave, Afghanistan “will be left with a severely damaged and very weak economic base”, which means that the West will have to continue to fund “large-scale support programmes” for many years to come.

Even if the internal situation were stable, the Afghan government may not survive the destabilising activities of its neighbours. “Regional players do not have a vested interest in the success of the Kabul government”, states the document in a clear reference to Pakistan.

The report, Lessons from the Soviet Transition in Afghanistan, is an internal research project produced in November last year by the MoD’s think-tank, the Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre (DCDC). Based in Shrivenham, Wiltshire, the DCDC’s reports “help inform decisions in defence strategy, capability development and operations” across all three branches of the armed forces.

The study examines the “extraordinary number of similar factors that surround both the Soviet and Nato campaigns in Afghanistan” and highlights lessons that military commanders could learn.

“The highest-level parallel is that both campaigns were conceived with the aim of imposing an ideology foreign to the Afghan people: the Soviets hoped to establish a Communist state while Nato wished to build a democracy,” it says. “Equally striking is that both abandoned their central aim once they realised that the war was unwinnable in military terms and that support of the population was essential.”

It continues: “Both interventions have been portrayed as foreign invasions attempting to support a corrupt and unpopular central government against a local insurgent movement which has popular support, strong religious motivation and safe havens abroad. In addition, the country will again be left with a severely damaged and very weak economic base, heavily dependent upon external aid.”

In unusually frank terms, it goes on: “The international setting for both campaigns has significant similarities with world opinion judging both as failed interventions. Both faced a loss of confidence in their strategic world leadership and increasing domestic and financial pressure to abandon the enterprise.”

Turning to lessons for the armed forces, it says: “The military parallels are equally striking; the 40th Army [of the Soviet Union] was unable decisively to defeat the mujahedin while facing no existential threat itself, a situation that precisely echoes the predicament of Isaf [the Nato-led security mission]. Neither campaign established control over the country’s borders and the insurgents’ safe havens; both were unable to protect the rural population.”

The report states that the Soviet withdrawal plan was handicapped by a publicly announced timetable. Western commanders have blamed the British and American governments for publicly presenting just such a timetable....


one Definition of insanity ... doing the same thing and expecting different results.It was and is not an unwinnable war. The war can easily be won.

Just not by the West. A people who have shackled themselves to their own ideology to the point that it has hamstrung itself. Nobody in Afghanistan is capable of beating us, or most any other modern nation in the world. We're beating ourselves.

[JakeStarkey]

The war in Afghanistan is unwinnable.

[JakeStarkey]

Gunny, thank you for realizing that We the People will not even entertain a war that would require such expenditures of people and assets to beat Afghanistan. Americans, in general, are correct that this is not the war for us: wrong time, wrong people, wrong place. Alexander the Great found that out the hard way.

[Gunny]

Gunny, thank you for realizing that We the People will not even entertain a war that would require such expenditures of people and assets to beat Afghanistan. Americans, in general, are correct that this is not the war for us: wrong time, wrong people, wrong place. Alexander the Great found that out the hard way.I realize the futility of half-assing a war by not even understanding the enemy nor how to defeat it, then just quitting.

Alexander the Great died of food poisoning. He was on top at the time and had subjugated Persia. Try again.

[fj1200]

It was and is not an unwinnable war. The war can easily be won.

Would it be safe to say that the war is winnable but the peace is not?

[Gunny]

Would it be safe to say that the war is winnable but the peace is not?War and peace. Hmmm ... Sounds like a good title for a book :)

You win wars. You maintain "peace". "Maintain" means forever, if need be. Our 60-minute game mindset is not well-suited to people who have existed for and think in terms of centuries upon centuries, Neither is our concept of mercy.

[fj1200]

War and peace. Hmmm ... Sounds like a good title for a book :)

You win wars. You maintain "peace". "Maintain" means forever, if need be. Our 60-minute game mindset is not well-suited to people who have existed for and think in terms of centuries upon centuries, Neither is our concept of mercy.

I guess that's a completely different thing. Good post.

[SassyLady]

War and peace. Hmmm ... Sounds like a good title for a book :)

You win wars. You maintain "peace". "Maintain" means forever, if need be. Our 60-minute game mindset is not well-suited to people who have existed for and think in terms of centuries upon centuries, Neither is our concept of mercy.
Mic drop, Gunny
:clap::clap:

[Black Diamond]

War and peace. Hmmm ... Sounds like a good title for a book :)

You win wars. You maintain "peace". "Maintain" means forever, if need be. Our 60-minute game mindset is not well-suited to people who have existed for and think in terms of centuries upon centuries, Neither is our concept of mercy.

I feel like that's what we did with Germany and Japan. Japan especially fitting your post. Many are upset about us nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan but I can't seem to get a rebuttal out of them when I bring up the Marshall plan.

[fj1200]

I feel like that's what we did with Germany and Japan. Japan especially fitting your post. Many are upset about us nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan but I can't seem to get a rebuttal out of them when I bring up the Marshall plan.

Didn't we essentially do that? Or try to?

[Black Diamond]

Didn't we essentially do that? Or try to?

Yes but why the different result? We didn't win the hearts and minds of afghans. There weren't many Nazi believers left in 1960 Munich. From a military standpoint did we not fight to win?

[fj1200]

Yes but why the different result? We didn't win the hearts and minds of afghans. There weren't many Nazi believers left in 1960 Munich. From a military standpoint did we not fight to win?

Good questions. But we still have a presence in Germany and Japan.

[Gunny]

I feel like that's what we did with Germany and Japan. Japan especially fitting your post. Many are upset about us nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan but I can't seem to get a rebuttal out of them when I bring up the Marshall plan.


Didn't we essentially do that? Or try to?


Good questions. But we still have a presence in Germany and Japan.


Yes but why the different result? We didn't win the hearts and minds of afghans. There weren't many Nazi believers left in 1960 Munich. From a military standpoint did we not fight to win?Comparing WWII to Afghanistan? No, we did not. In WWII, we took out Italy's and Germany's fascist governments and all its leaders. They were Western European nations based on Judeo Christian values. The people didn't have to be "retrained from birth" as we had a common basis to start with. We essentially just chopped the head of the snake and put it back together.

Add the Cold War. West Germany didn't have a whole lot of time to choose its fate. Us or them.

Winning the "hearts and minds" could apply to Japan. They do not have a commonality in beliefs with the West. But, we (MacArthur according to Japanese-think) kicked their asses. They were bested in battle by a stronger foe. In the Japanese mind, you study this foe and understand how he accomplished this and adopt whatever you can to put you back at his level as a warrior. Remember when the Japanese were buying up America (so it was stated at the time) back in the 80s? That was the Japanese competing with us in battle on our terms.

One decision (made by MacArthur not the US in Japanese think) changed the end of WWII Japan that didn't turn it into another "war on terror": We did not prosecute Hirohito. We could have dropped 10 A-bombs on Japan and they'd have fought to the death to the last man to protect their Emperor.

MacArthur was the military governor of Japan. He dealt with Japanese people fairly and firmly. He'd been in Asia for so long he understood the Asian mind. For all his egotistical BS, he was the right man for the job in that regard. The Japanese people loved him.

In both instances, you have countries and a people that embraced change for their own reasons.

Ragheads don't want to change. They still ride camels. They don't want to hear from us. They don't want to hear our idealism. They've been who they are for centuries. They don't want to hear from these shitbag terrorists either. Leave them alone and be whoever you think you are where you're from. I'm fine with that. Except they have these terrorist organizations that demand everybody convert or die. But from the tribal Arab's POV, who are you going to side with? Other Arabs who are a pain in the ass or some outsiders who are telling you everything you think and how you live is wrong? They have something in common with dirtbag terrorists. Nothing with us.

What if it was us? You come in here and start forcing change at gunpoint and you'll just have to kill me. I'm going to fight. Not because I'm some badass. Because you're an asshole.

[SassyLady]

Comparing WWII to Afghanistan? No, we did not. In WWII, we took out Italy's and Germany's fascist governments and all its leaders. They were Western European nations based on Judeo Christian values. The people didn't have to be "retrained from birth" as we had a common basis to start with. We essentially just chopped the head of the snake and put it back together.

Add the Cold War. West Germany didn't have a whole lot of time to choose its fate. Us or them.

Winning the "hearts and minds" could apply to Japan. They do not have a commonality in beliefs with the West. But, we (MacArthur according to Japanese-think) kicked their asses. They were bested in battle by a stronger foe. In the Japanese mind, you study this foe and understand how he accomplished this and adopt whatever you can to put you back at his level as a warrior. Remember when the Japanese were buying up America (so it was stated at the time) back in the 80s? That was the Japanese competing with us in battle on our terms.

One decision (made by MacArthur not the US in Japanese think) changed the end of WWII Japan that didn't turn it into another "war on terror": We did not prosecute Hirohito. We could have dropped 10 A-bombs on Japan and they'd have fought to the death to the last man to protect their Emperor.

MacArthur was the military governor of Japan. He dealt with Japanese people fairly and firmly. He'd been in Asia for so long he understood the Asian mind. For all his egotistical BS, he was the right man for the job in that regard. The Japanese people loved him.

In both instances, you have countries and a people that embraced change for their own reasons.

Ragheads don't want to change. They still ride camels. They don't want to hear from us. They don't want to hear our idealism. They've been who they are for centuries. They don't want to hear from these shitbag terrorists either. Leave them alone and be whoever you think you are where you're from. I'm fine with that. Except they have these terrorist organizations that demand everybody convert or die. But from the tribal Arab's POV, who are you going to side with? Other Arabs who are a pain in the ass or some outsiders who are telling you everything you think and how you live is wrong? They have something in common with dirtbag terrorists. Nothing with us.

What if it was us? You come in here and start forcing change at gunpoint and you'll just have to kill me. I'm going to fight. Not because I'm some badass. Because you're an asshole.

:yourock:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Comparing WWII to Afghanistan? No, we did not. In WWII, we took out Italy's and Germany's fascist governments and all its leaders. They were Western European nations based on Judeo Christian values. The people didn't have to be "retrained from birth" as we had a common basis to start with. We essentially just chopped the head of the snake and put it back together.

Add the Cold War. West Germany didn't have a whole lot of time to choose its fate. Us or them.

Winning the "hearts and minds" could apply to Japan. They do not have a commonality in beliefs with the West. But, we (MacArthur according to Japanese-think) kicked their asses. They were bested in battle by a stronger foe. In the Japanese mind, you study this foe and understand how he accomplished this and adopt whatever you can to put you back at his level as a warrior. Remember when the Japanese were buying up America (so it was stated at the time) back in the 80s? That was the Japanese competing with us in battle on our terms.

One decision (made by MacArthur not the US in Japanese think) changed the end of WWII Japan that didn't turn it into another "war on terror": We did not prosecute Hirohito. We could have dropped 10 A-bombs on Japan and they'd have fought to the death to the last man to protect their Emperor.

MacArthur was the military governor of Japan. He dealt with Japanese people fairly and firmly. He'd been in Asia for so long he understood the Asian mind. For all his egotistical BS, he was the right man for the job in that regard. The Japanese people loved him.

In both instances, you have countries and a people that embraced change for their own reasons.

Ragheads don't want to change. They still ride camels. They don't want to hear from us. They don't want to hear our idealism. They've been who they are for centuries. They don't want to hear from these shitbag terrorists either. Leave them alone and be whoever you think you are where you're from. I'm fine with that. Except they have these terrorist organizations that demand everybody convert or die. But from the tribal Arab's POV, who are you going to side with? Other Arabs who are a pain in the ass or some outsiders who are telling you everything you think and how you live is wrong? They have something in common with dirtbag terrorists. Nothing with us.

What if it was us? You come in here and start forcing change at gunpoint and you'll just have to kill me. I'm going to fight. Not because I'm some badass. Because you're an asshole.

Muslims are --sworn-- to convert , enslave or else totally destroy us!
Truth is they prefer the totally destroy us part and find it most convenient to sate their natural bloodlusts.
Idiot politicians ignore that reality -ignore that truth.
They --CAN NEVER BE TRUSTED!!! -Tyr