Five Facts About Afghanistan

Page 2 of 2 First 12

  1. One thing that will gain you instant respect from a Georgian, is to insult his mother.










  2. A couple comments. These radical religous idiots have been killing their own brothers over interpritations in a book for thousands of years. Killing women because they got raped-by being outdoors without their husband, i.e. it's the bitches fault.

    They fund their war with drugs that are shipped to the US.


    You want your holyland? I say turn it to glass with a dozen or so nukes. It would be soo holy you couldn't walk through it for 40 or so years due to radiation.

    Would anyone really miss these F'tards? including their own women? I'm in the Twin Cities area. Full of Somalies. Why the hell would you come from a country thats about 100 degrees to Minnesota? Yeah their great cab drivers, til it snows or rains.

    I'm sick of bailing out the world at taxpayer expense. If we go into a country I say we wipe out the bad seed and keep it for ourselves. Lets start with the Carribean!
    •   
       

  3. lutherblsstt
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Vance View Post

    I can't wait for the day where luther actually has an opinion of his own rather than just cut and pasting a bunch of anti-US crap. If you hate America dude, as I've said to you across multiple threads, take the time to strap on a pair and say it, "I hate America" Don't hate America but don't like the policies? That's fine too, just say I disagree with <whatever>, this is <why> and <this> is what I think we should do differently.

    Stop hiding behind other people's words and then going, "Hey I'm an ex-pat American I'm not anti-US" because buddy, it's bull**** and nobody is buying it.
    I am posting critiques of the current policy,you are reading "I hate America" into it.Remember the words of Senator Fulbright:

    "To criticize one's country is to do it a service and pay it a compliment. It is a service because it may spur the country to do better than it is doing; it is a compliment because it evidences a belief that the country can do better than it is doing. Criticism, in short, is more than a right; it is an act of patriotism -- a higher form of patriotism, I believe, than the familiar rituals and national adulation."
  4. lutherblsstt
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Army Guy View Post
    Point 1 on the 40,000: these are not just combat troops. This is GEN Petraeus' plan that he used In Iraq, something that turned the tide there. There will be combat advisers throughout this force, something that I have a little experience with given that I am one doing the mission as I write this in Iraq. The mission of the 40,000 is to surge in with more security for the first few months, while that happens guys like me get the local police, border agencies, and militaries up to speed. After 8-9 months there is a slow transition that begins and the local populace begins taking over and owning ground while the US forces join them on these patrols, but they are led by the locals. Once the US Commanders feel the new military or police have enough experience then US forces start going on less and less patrols.
    This approach does a few things. It gives the country way more stability with the extra combat forces. Locals feel this immediately and recruiting goes through the roof. The training that we provide them during the 6 months is second to none. The confidence of the local forces goes through the roof, especially on the first few joint patrols. It also gives the locals national pride in their own forces once they begin to see their success.
    Bottom line, no one need compare this to Vietnam. The Russians had their Vietnam here, we had ours in Asia. This is a new war with new problems. If the politicians would finally get out of the way and allow this surge, like we did in Iraq (which one the war for us here in case you missed it) then the security in Afghanistan would be secured and it would force the Jihadist into the hills of either Iran or Pakistan.
    And Luther... try getting your news from a website other than antiwar.com because one could argue they have a slight agenda. Trust me, I hate war. I have been on 4 of these damn deployments and am ready for a break to see the family. Help us with the peace process by not posting hatefilled one sided pieces. Support the offense so we never have to go back on defense!
    AG
    Now I am enjoying your responses and actually learning things from your posts. Here is more from Ivan Eland,the guy who wrote about the 5 things and I think he makes very valid points:

    "Fire McChrystal and Get Out of Afghanistan
    October 8, 2009
    Ivan Eland

    "Whether Obama takes the politically incorrect and unlikely route of firing McChrystal, the U.S. must face two stark facts. First, a surge in Afghanistan to match the “successful” surge in Iraq is not likely to work because Afghanistan is a larger country with guerilla-friendly mountainous terrain, has a more zealous insurgency than Iraq, and where the insurgency has a sanctuary (in Pakistan).

    And now Afghanistan will likely have an illegitimate government. Besides, it is far from clear that the surge in Iraq worked. In 2005, the U.S. also conducted a similar troop surge in Iraq, and violence increased. Prior ethnic cleansing and paying off Sunni guerillas to redirect their belligerence from U.S. forces to al-Qaeda are probably more likely reasons for the lower violence, which is likely to be temporary.

    Iraq’s underlying ethno-sectarian fissures remain, the country’s security is fragile, and violence will likely erupt again when the U.S. draws down its forces.

    Second, even opponents of the surge in Afghanistan understate their case against it. Their correct conclusions are that in a democracy, it is dangerous to escalate a war on which U.S. public opinion has soured after eight long years of losing and that al-Qaeda in Pakistan can be effectively fought using fewer troops, drones, cruise missiles, and intelligence. However, proponents of the surge answer, seemingly cogently, that Afghanistan must be stabilized or it will be a safe haven yet again from which al-Qaeda will attack the United States.

    Because politicians are intrinsically cautious when it comes to national security, the proponents are likely to win this argument unless Americans finally face up to the question that they have avoided since 9/11: Why do radical Islamists, such as al-Qaeda, which are halfway across the world, focus their attacks on the United States?

    The answer is in plain sight, but it is too painful for Americans to acknowledge. Osama bin Laden has repeatedly given us his reasons—U.S. occupation of Muslim lands and support for corrupt Middle Eastern dictators. For example, in 1998, bin Laden charged that it was “an individual duty for every Muslim” to “kill the Americans” and drive their military “out of all the lands of Islam.”

    So the nation-building, drug-busting fiasco in Afghanistan is merely inflaming the Islamist urge to throw out the foreign occupiers. It is no coincidence that the resurgence of the Taliban is correlated with increases in the foreign military presence in Afghanistan. Furthermore, nation-building in Afghanistan has destabilized neighboring Pakistan, a country with nuclear weapons.

    In conclusion, the likely futile attempt to stabilize Afghanistan to prevent another safe haven for al-Qaeda is actually fueling the fires of anti-U.S. Islamist rage.

    Withdrawing from Afghanistan and focusing on neutralizing the real threat from al-Qaeda in Pakistan—not the Taliban—using the aforementioned techniques with a lighter footprint will give the U.S. better results."

    Ivan Eland is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute. Dr. Eland is a graduate of Iowa State University and received an M.B.A. in applied economics and Ph.D. in national security policy from George Washington University. He has been Director of Defense Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, and he spent 15 years working for Congress on national security issues, including stints as an investigator for the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office. He is author of the books

    Partitioning for Peace: An Exit Strategy for Iraq,
    http://www.independent.org/store/boo....asp?book****79 and

    Recarving Rushmore
    http://www.independent.org/store/boo....asp?book****77.

  5. Quote Originally Posted by lutherblsstt View Post
    Now I am enjoying your responses and actually learning things from your posts.
    If only we could say the same about you, luther.

    Here is more from Ivan Eland,the guy who wrote about the 5 things and I think he makes very valid points:

    "Fire McChrystal and Get Out of Afghanistan
    October 8, 2009
    Ivan Eland

    "Whether Obama takes the politically incorrect and unlikely route of firing McChrystal, the U.S. must face two stark facts. First, a surge in Afghanistan to match the “successful” surge in Iraq is not likely to work because Afghanistan is a larger country with guerilla-friendly mountainous terrain, has a more zealous insurgency than Iraq, and where the insurgency has a sanctuary (in Pakistan).

    And now Afghanistan will likely have an illegitimate government. Besides, it is far from clear that the surge in Iraq worked. In 2005, the U.S. also conducted a similar troop surge in Iraq, and violence increased. Prior ethnic cleansing and paying off Sunni guerillas to redirect their belligerence from U.S. forces to al-Qaeda are probably more likely reasons for the lower violence, which is likely to be temporary.
    temporary? That's conjecture. The US, despite a very rocky start (due to rumsfeld involvement), has done amazingly well, defying all odds so far. I wouldn't be so quick to bet against the US.

    Iraq’s underlying ethno-sectarian fissures remain, the country’s security is fragile, and violence will likely erupt again when the U.S. draws down its forces.

    Second, even opponents of the surge in Afghanistan understate their case against it. Their correct conclusions are that in a democracy, it is dangerous to escalate a war on which U.S. public opinion has soured after eight long years of losing and that al-Qaeda in Pakistan can be effectively fought using fewer troops, drones, cruise missiles, and intelligence. However, proponents of the surge answer, seemingly cogently, that Afghanistan must be stabilized or it will be a safe haven yet again from which al-Qaeda will attack the United States.

    Because politicians are intrinsically cautious when it comes to national security, the proponents are likely to win this argument unless Americans finally face up to the question that they have avoided since 9/11: Why do radical Islamists, such as al-Qaeda, which are halfway across the world, focus their attacks on the United States?

    The answer is in plain sight, but it is too painful for Americans to acknowledge. Osama bin Laden has repeatedly given us his reasons—U.S. occupation of Muslim lands and support for corrupt Middle Eastern dictators. For example, in 1998, bin Laden charged that it was “an individual duty for every Muslim” to “kill the Americans” and drive their military “out of all the lands of Islam.”
    Ok, let me get it straight: we're supposed to listen to OBL when he threatens us, but ignore Ahmedinejad when HE threatens us. Gotcha.

    The 'answer' that is so painful for Americans is bull****, standard leftist propoganda. You are essentially saying that because some islamist ******* from Podunk, Arabia decides 'his' lands need to be american-free, we should capitulate and aquiesce to his wishes. This, despite the fact that we are in the countries he wishes to free by invitation of the people (in iraq) and/or the rulers (saudi arabia, which is OBL's main gripe, he wants the us out of SA, as well as Jordan, Egypt, etc). This, despite the fact that al Qaeda has been severely damaged by our actions, and they've replaced the top leaders several time due to assassination.

    If Muslims fell wronged, or unhappy with their position or stature on the world stage, or dislike US involvement in their countries affairs, they should take action. Attacking the US or US interests is not the right course of action. Change comes from within, and right now, iraq is case in point. For the first time these people have the opportunity to have a say in their governance, and most all of them prefer that to the dictatorship cum torture chamber which iraq was before. You might say it's artificial, orchestrated by the US, and to some degree you are correct. I would call it a guiding hand, just like the US lent in Japan post-wwII. You couldn't expect the Japanese mentality to change overnight, it took 50+ years; and so, you can't expect the Muslim mentality to change overnight, either.

    You seem to believe it's their right to choose a terror-infected, militant islamist gov't and path. I disagree; that's like saying it's my choice to choose a path as a serial killer. Sure I can make that choice, but I can also expect to have the worlds finest hunting me down, because there really isn't room for that kind of evil in the world. Militant islam must not be allowed to choose for the rest of the Muslim world just because they have the biggest guns, and balls, and aren't afraid to use em. That's not a valid form of governance, or shouldn't be, if there's another option. Muslims need to change their mentality, learn to accept others, and join everyone else on the world stage, and take part, without using threats to do so. **** gets a hell of a lot better, as well as more fun, when that happens.

    People today are products of the internet age, and require instant results. It doesn't work like that. It took the Japanese 50 years, I expect it'll take the Muslim world just as long or longer.

    So the nation-building, drug-busting fiasco in Afghanistan is merely inflaming the Islamist urge to throw out the foreign occupiers. It is no coincidence that the resurgence of the Taliban is correlated with increases in the foreign military presence in Afghanistan. Furthermore, nation-building in Afghanistan has destabilized neighboring Pakistan, a country with nuclear weapons.
    **** the Islamists. Tossers. You think that the women who now walk around feeling wind on their faces, who go to school, who hold gov't positions give a flying five what the Islamists think or want? You think they're unhappy the US 'meddled' in Afghanistan?

    Do you really believe we should throw those women who finally have a chance to live and learn like human beings, not cattle, under the bus in order to capitulate to the will of a violent minority of ignorant *******s?

    In conclusion, the likely futile attempt to stabilize Afghanistan to prevent another safe haven for al-Qaeda is actually fueling the fires of anti-U.S. Islamist rage.

    Withdrawing from Afghanistan and focusing on neutralizing the real threat from al-Qaeda in Pakistan—not the Taliban—using the aforementioned techniques with a lighter footprint will give the U.S. better results.
    Have you not been watching the news? The US has been conducting cross border raids and targeted bombings into Pakistan for several years now, and just this month Pakistan finally mobilized a massive operation against the Islamists. If you think this is not because of US pressure, you're wrong. What's wrong with a 2 pronged approach: keep after Afghanistan, and coerce Pakistan to kick some ass?

    Withdrawing from Afghanistan now could be fatal, for them and us. Leaving those we've freed to the wolves is inhuman and would undermine our actions in any country in the world for decades. It's dishonest and cruel. It would also be construed as defeat; on one hand, it shouldn't matter, but on the other, it would rally support for the Islamists, and create a backlash of terror for the US. They would gain support through their 'success', and that's the last thing we need.
    •   
       

  6. lutherblsstt
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by jakellpet View Post
    luther - appreciate the thought-provoking articles you post here mate.

    . . I guess the question is, the US Military hierachy must know the facts as presented above . . . what is their real agenda?
    Good books on the subject are:

    THE GRAND CHESSBOARD - American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives," Zbigniew Brzezinski

    An examination of selected quotes from "The Grand Chessboard," in the context of current events reveals the darker agenda behind military operations that were planned long before September 11th, 2001.

    "...The last decade of the twentieth century has witnessed a tectonic shift in world affairs. For the first time ever, a non-Eurasian power has emerged not only as a key arbiter of Eurasian power relations but also as the world's paramount power. The defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union was the final step in the rapid ascendance of a Western Hemisphere power, the United States, as the sole and, indeed, the first truly global power... (p. xiii)

    "... But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book. (p. xiv)

    "The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. (pp 24-5)

    "For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia... Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia - and America's global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained. (p.30)

    "America's withdrawal from the world or because of the sudden emergence of a successful rival - would produce massive international instability. It would prompt global anarchy." (p. 30)

    "In that context, how America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world's GNP and about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31)

    It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America's power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization." (p.35)

    "Two basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them;... second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above..." (p. 40)

    "...To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together." (p.40)

    "Henceforth, the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America's status as a global power." (p.55)

    Another book: http://www.williambowles.info/ini/ini-0375.html

    Gangster Capitalism – The United States and the Global rise of Organized Crime by Michael Woodiwiss

    Gangster Capitalism’ does one heck of a job in documenting the process,it is relentless in its exposure and all the while revealing the underlying motivations; power and control by the few over the many.

    For video Check out:

    RFK at Greg Palast's ARMED MADHOUSE Book Release

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXw7epzrl_U"]YouTube - RFK at Greg Palast's ARMED MADHOUSE Book Release[/ame]
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Facts About Vitamin E
    By David Dunn in forum Supplements
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-13-2009, 03:07 PM
  2. Funny Fact About 2-Androstenol
    By thesinner in forum Supplements
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 04-27-2008, 08:44 PM
  3. Interesting facts about Yohimbine HCl
    By Pax in forum Supplements
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 01-22-2006, 07:48 PM
  4. 30 Facts about Chuck Norris you may not know!!!!
    By Brfish in forum General Chat
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 12-18-2005, 04:25 PM
  5. Article-Boiling up the facts about pasta and GI
    By windwords7 in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-07-2002, 04:45 PM
Log in
Log in