Remind me, I forgot

[Jim O'Bryan]

Why are we about to reinvigorate the war in Afghanistan, the true Vietnam of the Mideast? The most powerful army in the world got their asses kicked and financially broken there, what chance do we have to do any better?

I mean they were a true military powerhouse that was healthy with a huge economy backed with petro-dollars, and communist state run labor. We are a broke country with some serious issues here at home.

So many of my liberal friends agree with my friends on the right and think we must go in and take back Afghanistan.

To print/borrow trillions of dollars from the Federal Reserve, after spending and spending trillions on the last war in Iraq. How can anyone be happy with the thought of borrowing more, for another war?


.

[Bill Call]

Why are we about to reinvigorate the war in Afghanistan, the true Vietnam of the Mideast? The most powerful army in the world got their asses kicked and financially broken there, what chance do we have to do any better?

One of the reasons I was so hard on Obama was that I thought he actually meant what he said about the war in Iraq. It turns out he didn't. That is a good thing.

While the headline will say "Obama to withdraw troops in 16 months" the small print will point out that only combat troop will be withdrawn. Combat troops make up only a small part of the total force in Iraq. The remainig forces will number about 50,000 and they will be there indefinately. The will return ff they are needed. That was the George Bush policy.

The truth is that Democrats would have been quite willing to have the Iraq war end in defeat and mass slaughter if it happend under Bush. There is no way in the world they will engineer that type of defeat when they are in charge.

You've been had.

[ryan costa]

The Bush Administration and their corporate co-horts printed the words "nine eleven" billions of time and spent them on encouraging us to allow them to invade Iraq. Later they will say they meant to say Iran. they will ask for a do-over.

The Soviets weren't known for pulling punches to serve a politically correct agenda when they were in Afghanistan. On the whole, most Afghanis thought the Soviets were jerks.

it will take a competent authoritarian Afghani government of Afghanis to quell the insurgency in Afghanistan, insure some measure of civil rights for men and women there, etc. They will have to do as good a job there as Saddam Hussein did in Iraq in the 1970s and 1980s. Which is much better a job than the U.S. has done in Iraq in the 2000s. People can vote in Cleveland, but most of the Plain Dealer editorial staff don't live in Cleveland.

Calling in missile strikes when you think bandits are hiding in some Afghani wedding party doesn't do much for Afghani cooperation. If the bandits are hiding from you, you are not in imminent danger. Civilians can understand small arms fire coming from individual troops, but when massive bombs or napalm fall out of the sky it is coming directly from the American flag.

Boss Hogg never called in a missile strike on the Duke Boys when they were hiding in Cooter's garage. I want you to compare Boss Hogg favorably to the Bush-Cheney regime.

At the start of the American Revolution, most colonists weren't very interested. They got more interested when the British began rousting their farms and villages looking for insurgents. Patriotism isn't about ideology: it is about banding together against better armed outsiders who are jerking you around. The British had the same religion and language with us, and were our number one trading partner and could vote for parliaments like us. But they were far away, and thought we were hicks and hillbillies. Good luck.

[Jim O'Bryan]

At the start of the American Revolution, most colonists weren't very interested. They got more interested when the British began rousting their farms and villages looking for insurgents. Patriotism isn't about ideology: it is about banding together against better armed outsiders who are jerking you around. The British had the same religion and language with us, and were our number one trading partner and could vote for parliaments like us. But they were far away, and thought we were hicks and hillbillies. Good luck.

Ryan

I love your posts.

The impression continues to this day. In all of my dealings with Brits in motor sports, at BP America I always walked away with the feeling that they were thinking, "When will these hillbillies aplogize and beg for us to take them back." We often laughed that after a good bum spanking all would be better.

Bill

We have all been had, for at least 30 years.

The president changed, we made a small step forward in race relations, maybe. But the sucking sound on the pockets of the middle class in America will continue at a remarkable space.

In the end, Dwight D. Eisenhower was right, "Beware of the military industrial complex."

FWIW


.

[ryan costa]

Bush was clear in defining Iraq as the challenge of our generation. like many baby boomers, he has a flare for wanting to live up to his perception of the world war II generation.

After World War II, the U.S. set up military bases around the world. Europe, Japan, South Korea. They've been there sixty years since world war II, and 20 years since the fall of Communism.

Following that line of thought...it is time to close down all the bases in western europe, south korea, and Japan. and rebuild them in Afghanistan and Iraq for the next sixty years. Maybe Nigeria. Nigeria has a lot of oil. West Africa has a lot of oil. You'll have to put U.S. personnel under near quarantine living conditions. There's a lot of HIV there. It is much harder to have a good time safely there.

[Stephen Eisel]

Why are we about to reinvigorate the war in Afghanistan, the true Vietnam of the Mideast? The most powerful army in the world got their asses kicked and financially broken there, what chance do we have to do any better?

Maybe they were not the most powerfule army in the world? It looks like more of the same in the Middle East

[Stephen Eisel]

I need the edit button

[Valerie Molinski]

The most powerful army in the world got their asses kicked and financially broken there, what chance do we have to do any better?

I mean they were a true military powerhouse that was healthy with a huge economy backed with petro-dollars, and communist state run labor. We are a broke country with some serious issues here at home.

This is a gross generalization. You should read up on the Soviets and their involvement in Afganistan...and why they failed.

You're comparing apples and oranges here. But it is my sincere belief that hadd we not opened up a new front in Iraq, we would have been out of Afghanistan with some success by now. As it currently stands, we are sinking in multiple ships as we bail water. We cannot leave Afghanistan in the state it is in now... which is to say even worse than how the Soviets left it.

[Valerie Molinski]

I meant OVERSIMPLIFICATION.... not generalization.

Wish I had an EDIT button.

[Stephen Eisel]

The most powerful army in the world got their asses kicked and financially broken there, what chance do we have to do any better?

I mean they were a true military powerhouse that was healthy with a huge economy backed with petro-dollars, and communist state run labor. We are a broke country with some serious issues here at home.

This is a gross generalization. You should read up on the Soviets and their involvement in Afganistan...and why they failed.

You're comparing apples and oranges here. But it is my sincere belief that hadd we not opened up a new front in Iraq, we would have been out of Afghanistan with some success by now. As it currently stands, we are sinking in multiple ships as we bail water. We cannot leave Afghanistan in the state it is in now... which is to say even worse than how the Soviets left it.

Excellent point ! You are my poster of the day!

[Jim O'Bryan]

Excellent point ! You are my poster of the day!

Stephen

Thank you I am honored.

Al Quida attacked us not Afghanistan. We are in Afghanistan for the natural pipeline to the Caspian Sea, and the poppy field production.

Again why are we waging a war against a country that did not attack us?

The Soviets came in and created a half-assed attempt to "control" Afghanistan for theoretical strategic reasons. Hence their Vietnam when the CIA underwrote the Taliban and Usama BinLadin.

We have zero reason to be there, expecially now that all analysts claim that to destroy AlQuida is almost like our war a terrorism, simple buzz words.

FWIW


.

[Stephen Eisel]

I was talking about Valerie's post.. you silly goose

[Valerie Molinski]

Al Quida attacked us not Afghanistan. We are in Afghanistan for the natural pipeline to the Caspian Sea, and the poppy field production.

Again why are we waging a war against a country that did not attack us?

I'll remind you...since you forgot.

And take this FWIW, because I am the last person to espouse our last administration's agenda here.

BUT.... I'll put it in simplified terms...

Al Qaeda attacked us. Yes. We asked the Taliban to 'hand em over.' They said no. They protected Al Qaeda. We said "fine, we will come get them anyway." Taliban said, "OK, but we'll fight you too for invading us." End scene.

Not for nothing, but I remember a TON of petitions and emails going around BEFORE September 11 about Afghanistan and the Taliban.... about how horrible they were to women, keeping them chained to their homes and basically holding them hostage as third class citizens... then one about them destroying the Giant Buddhas because they were false idols... and everyone was all "yeah, we should get involved!! Get rid of this regime because they dont allow their citizens basic human rights... genocide... etc.. etc..."

Did you happen to sign any of those petitions pre-Sept. 11?

[Valerie Molinski]

Here's a really fast link you can read:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99090399

"The common view of the war was that it was a Soviet territorial grab. But the truth was much more confused," Feifer tells Renee Montagne.

Feifer says the Soviets actually spent about a year turning down requests from the Afghan communist government to bring in troops. Eventually, the Soviets decided to take action — by getting rid of the Afghan leader. After two bungled attempts to poison him, Moscow decided to send in troops — a kind of "inertia," Feifer says, surrounding these failed assassination attempts.

"There was no one decision to launch an invasion," he says.

A brutal and scarring experience for both Russian soldiers and the local population, the Soviet war in Afghanistan provides many lessons applicable to the current coalition war there.

Does the LPL have The Great Gamble by Greg Feifer? I would highly recommend it to you, Jim. Fascinating. There is an excerpt at the above link.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Valerie

Thanks for the link, but even that mentions "not the only reason." I am also always wondering about what could be considered revisionist theory, that comes from down the road, as opposed to uncovered facts.

I have zero knowledge on what this is, or no inside insight either way.

I will find the book and read it as it is a fascinating subject to me.

One thing I found interesting is the idea of "And our mission is to rebuild the society so that the government can be sustainable." I have a close friend that spent three years in special ops there. At no point did he ever think there was a "society" to build from. His job was to go by helicopter for "tribe/town" to find the "mayor/warlord" sit down and deal with them. Each one had to be handled differently, he compare it to the Wild West.

This compares to everything I have ever heard of the country and why, BinLadin was able to use it as a training area. No one cared or knew, he was just the tribe that was over there.

We have no fight with Afghanistan, all we are doing is protecting a gas pipeline, and making sure the poppy fields are in full production.

We also know know to kill the "head" of AlQuiada will only create hundreds of them, making it even harder to track or defeat.

We cannot afford the cost, the human life, or the pride.

FWIW


.