Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When the answer is war the wrong question is being asked.
The Cold War is dead get over it.
well that's kind of dumb. "when the answer is war the wrong question is being asked?" really?
geez. I don't think the people suffering under Vichy france agreed.
nor the 14 million victems of the holocaust.
as it relates to the cold war, yes it is over. but when individuals TODAY speak of what happened in 1953 as though the Cold War did not exist, it is certainly important to redirect and place things in their context.
thank you for standing up and saying what so many people can see as utter sillieness.
sometimes (not all the time) but sometimes, war is the only answer.
You could have voted for Jill Stein of the Green Party the last time, I don't see how anyone could vote for Obama a second time, he is just as bad as the Republicans if not worst. We did not need four more years of slow decline under Obama which is what Hillary will give us if she is elected.
We are slowly letting ourselves bleed out.
We were led by a president that made promises, we expected to see reform but Obama abandoned the people that he made so many promises to. Sold us out to the corporations and continued to add to the abuses of power created by the Bush administration in the name of national security.
Obama was always the best choice of a slew of bad choices. If we get a Republican in the White House, it will be aggressive, unilateral war. It is bad enough under Obama, but if we get another neoconservative type in office, it will be truly awful for this country, and the world.
Remember, Rubio and Jeb both said that they would do Iraq all over again if they had the choice. And I doubt any of the other clones would do much different, even if they are smart enough to not admit it.
Hillary would likely do the same. I like Jill Stein, but these candidates who have never held office and run for President, like Dr. Jill Stein, would never win the election. If Carson is the GOP candidate, he will be blown out in the election.
You don't get it, more bombing won't solve anything. It will make things worse. You, and everyone in this country, have no idea on how to "win" anything in Afghanistan. Perpetual war is making people money, so not winning is more profitable. And it's our only alternative anyway, so all the bluster about an Afghan government and Afghan military is a joke. They only exist because we are paying them and supporting them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny
The conservatives who are here "arguing" in favor of ending these wars at one time were very loud and vocal supporters of the Iraq invasion, and are against Afghanistan because Pres. Obama is in charge of it.
i supported the iraq war, and i supported the afghan war as well, but even bush started losing my support for both wars because he was prosecuting them much like nixon and johnson prosecuted the vietnam war, and like truman prosecuted the korean war, more to not lose than to win. in all cases there is(was) no real goal that would indicate what victory was.
and instead of letting the military go in and do the job they need to do to achieve a proper victory, the politicians micromanage the wars. and obama is carrying on the afghan war like bush did, incompetently.
had obama come into office, and set parameters that would indicate victory in afghanistan, and the let the military loose to achieve those goals, then i would have applauded him for the effort, even if the military ended up losing.
we need to stop pussyfooting around, have the politicians set the goals for victory, and turn the military loose and let them get the job done, and screw world opinion because we are in a war, and we are going to win that war.
i supported the iraq war, and i supported the afghan war as well, but even bush started losing my support for both wars because he was prosecuting them much like nixon and johnson prosecuted the vietnam war, and like truman prosecuted the korean war, more to not lose than to win. in all cases there is(was) no real goal that would indicate what victory was.
and instead of letting the military go in and do the job they need to do to achieve a proper victory, the politicians micromanage the wars. and obama is carrying on the afghan war like bush did, incompetently.
had obama come into office, and set parameters that would indicate victory in afghanistan, and the let the military loose to achieve those goals, then i would have applauded him for the effort, even if the military ended up losing.
we need to stop pussyfooting around, have the politicians set the goals for victory, and turn the military loose and let them get the job done, and screw world opinion because we are in a war, and we are going to win that war.
I'm so sick of this argument being used by conservatives, this stupid "We need to just let the military do its job" nonsense like we are holding them back from doing their job. How do you propose doing something different in Afghanistan will bring about ultimate victory? Using nuclear weapons maybe?
And also, how do you define "victory", if we did quit "micromanaging" the war? What is the definition of victory in Afghanistan, and how could our military achieve this? We both know it is not possible, and it has been 14 years long.
That is longer than our involvement in WWI, WWII, and the Civil War combined. We have absolutely nothing to show for it at this point.
I'm so sick of this argument being used by conservatives, this stupid "We need to just let the military do its job" nonsense like we are holding them back from doing their job. How do you propose doing something different in Afghanistan will bring about ultimate victory? Using nuclear weapons maybe?
And also, how do you define "victory", if we did quit "micromanaging" the war? What is the definition of victory in Afghanistan, and how could our military achieve this? We both know it is not possible, and it has been 14 years long.
That is longer than our involvement in WWI, WWII, and the Civil War combined. We have absolutely nothing to show for it at this point.
that you would even ask the questions and make the statements you just did, means you have no knowledge of history, and the capability of the US military.
remember what FDR told macaurthur, eisenhower, and nimitz when he sent them into battle? FDR told them dont come home until you have beaten germany and japan and gotten an unconditional surrender.
its not my job to set the parameters of victory, that is the job of the commander in chief. he tells the military what the conditions of victory are, and then tells the military to meet those conditions. and then he turns the military loose to let them decide how best to proceed.
the reason we have been there for 14 years is because none of our commander in chiefs has set the parameters of victory, and they both have micromanaged the wars like johnson and nixon did in the vietnam war, and like truman did in the korean war. perhaps what you need to do is crack open a history book and study it.
You don't get it, more bombing won't solve anything. It will make things worse. You, and everyone in this country, have no idea on how to "win" anything in Afghanistan. Perpetual war is making people money, so not winning is more profitable. And it's our only alternative anyway, so all the bluster about an Afghan government and Afghan military is a joke. They only exist because we are paying them and supporting them.
I honestly want the U.S. to stay in Afghanistan in a similar capacity to Germany. I don't want to bomb anyone, but to not abandon Kabul in effort to keep maximum communication between Kabul and Washington, and in the event the Taliban does try to take on Kabul, we can fight a quick campaign to keep things running smoothly. The unfortunate reality is Afghanistan, with all we've invested, is still one of the most backwards places on earth. We account for over 50% of their economy easily.
As inane as this may sound: I don't support ever leaving Afghanistan, at least until the situation warrants it. I'm expecting much backlash for that statement of course, but I also don't want to ever leave Japan, SK, Germany, Etc. so that gives a gist of my views.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
