Four thousand to Afghanistan

[Rob Roy]

Not a war

 

[Jimdamick]

An Afghan soldier opened fire on American soldiers on Saturday, injuring at least seven, the US military said. It was the second such insider attack by an Afghan soldier in the past week.

Last week three US soldiers were killed by an Afghan soldier in eastern Nangarhar province. In that case Mujahid claimed that the shooter was a Taliban loyalist who infiltrated the army specifically to seek out opportunities to attack foreign soldiers.

This is a new Viet Nam.

Do we ever fucking learn?

 

[PetFlora]

In 'merica the president doesn't control the military industrial complex, it controls the president, regardless of party

the sooner some of you get this the sooner you will stop the senseless threads about president x, or party x did this or that.

 

[Jimdamick]

Nope, I have disdain for every POTUS since I was born. Obama was far from the worst.

Your assumption and attempt at labeling me to your wish speaks volumes though.

I personally liked Carter, but maybe you weren't born yet.

 

[SneekyNinja]

An Afghan soldier opened fire on American soldiers on Saturday, injuring at least seven, the US military said. It was the second such insider attack by an Afghan soldier in the past week.

Last week three US soldiers were killed by an Afghan soldier in eastern Nangarhar province. In that case Mujahid claimed that the shooter was a Taliban loyalist who infiltrated the army specifically to seek out opportunities to attack foreign soldiers.

This is a new Viet Nam.

Do we ever fucking learn?

Considering the acts carried out by mercenaries "on behalf of" team stars and bars...(the civilians don't care that they're contractors, they just think "Americans")

Is it surprising?

I'm not saying it's justified, just probably inevitable.

 

[UncleBuck]

In 'merica the president doesn't control the military industrial complex, it controls the president, regardless of party

the sooner some of you get this the sooner you will stop the senseless threads about president x, or party x did this or that.

your boy trump said "i and i alone can fix it".

why didn't he tell his cult followers like you that "i will be a deep state stooge". you retard?

 

[Fogdog]

There are still high value Isis targets around the world, likely plotting to do terrorist attacks.

We can discuss this shit all day, but we're really guessing without complete and total knowledge.

I still remember Obama was going to stop 2 wars immediately, but when briefed on them by national security people, he changed his mind. Quickly.

My opinion might change when I know what they know.

Until then, I like drones more than boots on the ground.

And I'll bet military parents and wives would agree. They are going to try to hit those targets, one way or another.

It's been 15 years since 9-11 and we've been continuously at war with and killing people who are viewed as patriots in their own country but we call them terrorists. How's it going? Has it stopped the terrorists?

Maybe we should stop threatening people.

 

[Fogdog]

In 'merica the president doesn't control the military industrial complex, it controls the president, regardless of party

the sooner some of you get this the sooner you will stop the senseless threads about president x, or party x did this or that.

Aren't you the one who says we should just stop voting or was that another nutjob?

 

[tangerinegreen555]

Right. Tell the families of those killed about the difference.

You mistakenly assume all of our actions are automatically just and right. That's not how everyone sees it.

No, actually I do not.

But, there are a hell of a lot of people here who seem to think everything the government and military does is wrong which is utter nonsense based on conspiracy theory, fake news sites, feelings and conjecture.

Nobody here has national security clearance to actually study the situations around the globe.

So, what happens if we stop chasing Isis targets and just withdraw from everywhere? Better world or worse?
More terrorism or less?

We haven't had a major catastrophic event since 9/11/01. 3000 lost.

We would have had more major events if we did nothing, no?

I think we're doing well on the military end. The political end is entirely another story.

 

[tangerinegreen555]

It's been 15 years since 9-11 and we've been continuously at war with and killing people who are viewed as patriots in their own country but we call them terrorists. How's it going? Has it stopped the terrorists?

'patriots' whose primary targets in the 21st century are anybody including women and children aren't my idea of patriots. Or yours, I'm sure.

Has it stopped the terrorists? The ones we droned, yes. Not all of them obviously.

Fighting against a 'strategy' is not going to be as successful as fighting against a country.

You can try to negotiate with a country. And you can get a surrender agreement with a country.

This is a much different fight.

 

[Fogdog]

'patriots' whose primary targets in the 21st century are anybody including women and children aren't my idea of patriots. Or yours, I'm sure.

Has it stopped the terrorists? The ones we droned, yes. Not all of them obviously.

Fighting against a 'strategy' is not going to be as successful as fighting against a country.

You can try to negotiate with a country. And you can get a surrender agreement with a country.

This is a much different fight.

It doesn't matter what you or I think of the Taliban. What matters is what the people living there think of our presence and our killing of civilians in a decades long attempt to use violence to control the region. To many, what we call a terrorist, they would call a patriot.

After all this time, the violence and struggle has gotten wider and engaged more and more people. You sound like the proponents for the Vietnam war who claim we didn't bomb the VC hard enough. The drone strikes and limited troop deployment by the US have grown resistance and weakened the US's position and moral authority in the world. That's the unbroken trend-line, isn't it?

Maybe we should emphasize defense in our National Defense. I supported Obama's draw down of troops in Afghanistan and policy of limited engagement in Syria. The concept of regime change was dumb and a blunder by Obama. To me, the only real answer to war in those areas is peace and it's time the US starts doing its part.

 

[tangerinegreen555]

It doesn't matter what you or I think of the Taliban. What matters is what the people living there think of our presence and our killing of civilians in a decades long attempt to use violence to control the region. To many, what we call a terrorist, they would call a patriot.

After all this time, the violence and struggle has gotten wider and engaged more and more people. You sound like the proponents for the Vietnam war who claim we didn't bomb the VC hard enough. The drone strikes and limited troop deployment by the US have grown resistance and weakened the US's position and moral authority in the world. That's the unbroken trend-line, isn't it?

Maybe we should emphasize defense in our National Defense. I supported Obama's draw down of troops in Afghanistan and policy of limited engagement in Syria. The concept of regime change was dumb and a blunder by Obama. To me, the only real answer to war in those areas is peace and it's time the US starts doing its part.

Actually, I spent years marching against the Viet Nam war. Years. I don't appreciate the innuendo on that point.

That was an unjust war against a country because Johnson and those in power at the time didn't like their form of government over there.

And, they never attacked us.

The terrorists did attack, slaughtered as many people at the WTC as Pearl Harbor and it was and continues to be a justified military target to chase down other terrorists who are trying to do similar attacks.

And ask the women of the region how they feel about the Taliban.

I don't advocate boots on the ground, but have zero problems with chasing terrorist leaders with drones.

 

[Fogdog]

Actually, I spent years marching against the Viet Nam war. Years. I don't appreciate the innuendo on that point.

That was an unjust war against a country because Johnson and those in power at the time didn't like their form of government over there.

And, they never attacked us.

The terrorists did attack, slaughtered as many people at the WTC as Pearl Harbor and it was and continues to be a justified military target to chase down other terrorists who are trying to do similar attacks.

And ask the women of the region how they feel about the Taliban.

I don't advocate boots on the ground, but have zero problems with chasing terrorist leaders with drones.

What do you think the US would do if a foreign government hunted their enemies in the US and regularly killed US citizens in their strikes?

Fifteen years of this policy and things are worse for women and children in certain Middle Eastern countries now than ever before. How does sitting on sidelines lobbing bombs at mostly Taliban leaders but with a lot of civilian casualties do anything to protect women's rights or Afghani people, for that matter. Are you so concerned about women's rights in Afghanistan that you think we should go in there and enforce our own ethos? As you say, you aren't willing to put more boots on the ground then you aren't actually so concerned about securing western rights for Afghani women. This would be done by killing their men. Killing their men would make their lives even less secure. I don't understand your intent when you talk about this.

The crisis in the middle east is much worse today after all the violence. Drone strikes are but a part of the the whole effort. I'm not saying they are better or worse than anything else, I'm saying that US military objectives have been met and it's time to get out of the area.

 

[tangerinegreen555]

What do you think the US would do if a foreign government hunted their enemies in the US and regularly killed US citizens in their strikes?

Change 'foreign government' to terrorist organization and change 'their enemies' to innocent civilians and you have 9/11.

You figure they'll leave us alone if we leave them alone?

They like killing people. We're stuck with them. You can fight back or lay down. They put no value on human life with suicide missions.
I support fighting back with drones.

Unless you think they will negotiate?

 

[Fogdog]

Change 'foreign government' to terrorist organization and change 'their enemies' to innocent civilians and you have 9/11.

You figure they'll leave us alone if we leave them alone?

They like killing people. We're stuck with them. You can fight back or lay down. They put no value on human life with suicide missions.
I support fighting back with drones.

Unless you think they will negotiate?

Umm, no.

I asked a different question than you made it out to be.

What do you think the US would do if a foreign government hunted their enemies in the US and regularly killed US citizens in their strikes? This is what we are doing in Afghanistan and other countries in the region. If you can't handle the question, just ignore it. No need to rewrite it into something you want to say.

How can you be so certain that a government that is antagonistic towards the US would be the result of our leaving? And if one like that did form, there are plenty of options other than invasion and drone strikes that can contain the threat. There are plenty of countries in the world that are antagonistic to the US. Is being antagonistic to the US a reason for invading and dismantling the economy of a country?

We had moral authority and legal authority to invade Afghanistan in 2001. It was necessary too. But the US botched the job. Fifteen years on, the situation looks nothing like what we faced in 2001. We've committed too many atrocities, killed too many civilians and every leader who could have been involved back then is probably dead. The situation now is a civil war where nobody is wholly right or wrong, including the US. The people the US backed after we took out the Taliban turned out to be brutal and corrupt. Their army has no will to fight the Taliban. Care to venture a reason why? It's their country.

And finally, the 9-11 disaster occurred because GW botched his job as head of national security. He made great political hay out of the disaster. This is something I'm concerned about with Trump as prez.

 

[tangerinegreen555]

Umm, no.

I asked a different question than you made it out to be.

What do you think the US would do if a foreign government hunted their enemies in the US and regularly killed US citizens in their strikes? This is what we are doing in Afghanistan and other countries in the region. If you can't handle the question, just ignore it. No need to rewrite it into something you want to say.

How can you be so certain that a government that is antagonistic towards the US would be the result of our leaving? And if one like that did form, there are plenty of options other than invasion and drone strikes that can contain the threat. There are plenty of countries in the world that are antagonistic to the US. Is being antagonistic to the US a reason for invading and dismantling the economy of a country?

We had moral authority and legal authority to invade Afghanistan in 2001. It was necessary too. But the US botched the job. Fifteen years on, the situation looks nothing like what we faced in 2001. We've committed too many atrocities, killed too many civilians and every leader who could have been involved back then is probably dead. The situation now is a civil war where nobody is wholly right or wrong, including the US. The people the US backed after we took out the Taliban turned out to be brutal and corrupt. Their army has no will to fight the Taliban. Care to venture a reason why? It's their country.

And finally, the 9-11 disaster occurred because GW botched his job as head of national security. He made great political hay out of the disaster. This is something I'm concerned about with Trump as prez.

9-11 would have happened whether Bush or Gore was prez.

We were simply not ready to accept people would commandeer jets and crash them into buildings until it happened.

GW botched the aftermath, not much to do about that now.

Terrorist orginazations continue to thrive and are a threat in the region.

It would be best not to ignore them and be blindsided again.

Learn from history, as opposed to repeating it. Welcome to the 21st century.
It is what it is. It's not going to change. Terrorism is here to stay.

 

[ttystikk]

It's been 15 years since 9-11 and we've been continuously at war with and killing people who are viewed as patriots in their own country but we call them terrorists. How's it going? Has it stopped the terrorists?

Maybe we should stop threatening people.

For all our other differences, we are of one voice here.

 

[ttystikk]

In 'merica the president doesn't control the military industrial complex, it controls the president, regardless of party

the sooner some of you get this the sooner you will stop the senseless threads about president x, or party x did this or that.

The MIC, the CIA, the FBI...

Most Americans are to uncomfortable with this truth to acknowledge it.

That's one big reason it continues.

We've been awfully busy making enemies around the world for decades now. They- and there's plenty of them- will come for us someday. We can't say they don't have good reason.

 

[ttystikk]

No, actually I do not.

But, there are a hell of a lot of people here who seem to think everything the government and military does is wrong which is utter nonsense based on conspiracy theory, fake news sites, feelings and conjecture.

Nobody here has national security clearance to actually study the situations around the globe.

So, what happens if we stop chasing Isis targets and just withdraw from everywhere? Better world or worse?
More terrorism or less?

We haven't had a major catastrophic event since 9/11/01. 3000 lost.

We would have had more major events if we did nothing, no?

I think we're doing well on the military end. The political end is entirely another story.

Bullshit Strawman argument.

Followed by a 'you don't REALLY know' excuse.

I work hard to keep up on world events and history. No one gets it right all the time and that absolutely includes the US defense and intelligence services, who have plenty of motives to go fucking with people we don't need to and have no business with.

I call bullshit. We do NOT need to be going around the world, making up excuses to kill people who are no threat to us.

It does not make us more secure, more moral or more just.

Just more murderous.

That's no longer acceptable, if indeed it ever was.

 

[ttystikk]

'patriots' whose primary targets in the 21st century are anybody including women and children aren't my idea of patriots. Or yours, I'm sure.

Has it stopped the terrorists? The ones we droned, yes. Not all of them obviously.

Fighting against a 'strategy' is not going to be as successful as fighting against a country.

You can try to negotiate with a country. And you can get a surrender agreement with a country.

This is a much different fight.

Indeed; the fight is now with the profit motives of American military manufacturers and service providers.

Maybe if we stopped killing them, they'd stop trying so hard to kill us?