How do we win in Afghanistan?

#101
#101
Grand Vol said:
Yes, you certainly can. What's past is prologue and there is a distinct precedent set by any other nation that goes into Afghanistan.

They just don't win.

Now, you can be as partisan as you want to be with the whole idea Trump has no idea what he's doing. But the simple fact is, each Administration prior to this has punted on Afghanistan as well. And to deny that means you really aren't even being objective at all.
Click to expand...

They can't do anything to change the direction but Trump can. I agreed that the past administration have failed in Afghanistan, but to call it partisan to judge Trump on his policies alone (if he has one) is disingenuous. This is about Trump's policies and strategies not the failed ones of the past. I'm sure you can find people that want to "But Obama or But Bush" but I'm not one of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#103
#103
Mick said:
They can't do anything to change the direction but Trump can. I agreed that the past administration have failed in Afghanistan, but to call it partisan to judge Trump on his policies alone (if he has one) is disingenuous. This is about Trump's policies and strategies not the failed ones of the past. I'm sure you can find people that want to "But Obama or But Bush" but I'm not one of them.
Click to expand...

I do agree the ball is in his court. And I do agree he needs to come up with a "strategy" or as a minimum, let Mattis and Dunford do what they do best. However, if four/eight years go by and we're still there with no clear exit strategy or "winning" moves, I cannot and will not play the "but, but, but TRUMP!" card on it. He'll have been no different than his predecessors in punting the decision.

Best thing he can do, as I've said all along, is adopt the Soviet strategy in getting out. Put into power the faction we want and run like hell. Because in six months time, they'll be fighting again.
 
#104
#104
Grand Vol said:
I do agree the ball is in his court. And I do agree he needs to come up with a "strategy" or as a minimum, let Mattis and Dunford do what they do best. However, if four/eight years go by and we're still there with no clear exit strategy or "winning" moves, I cannot and will not play the "but, but, but TRUMP!" card on it. He'll have been no different than his predecessors in punting the decision.

Best thing he can do, as I've said all along, is adopt the Soviet strategy in getting out. Put into power the faction we want and run like hell. Because in six months time, they'll be fighting again.
Click to expand...

US generals first suggested they were concerned the Russian government was seeking to arm the Afghan insurgents back in April, but images from the battlefield here corroborating these claims have been hard to come by.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/25/asia/taliban-weapons-afghanistan/index.html
 
#106
#106
Grand Vol said:
Yes, you certainly can. What's past is prologue and there is a distinct precedent set by any other nation that goes into Afghanistan.

They just don't win.

Now, you can be as partisan as you want to be with the whole idea Trump has no idea what he's doing. But the simple fact is, each Administration prior to this has punted on Afghanistan as well. And to deny that means you really aren't even being objective at all.
Click to expand...

Who denied it? Why are you still talking about this point that didn't need to be made?...could it be?...deflection?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#107
#107
Grand Vol said:
If by "they" you mean both the previous Administrations as well, yes, I'll agree.
Click to expand...

Maybe someday we will have administration that doesn't mind rolling into a country, destroying it and making it even worse than it original was, killing who needed to be killed, then flip them the bird and leave. No more nation building.
 
#109
#109
Grand Vol said:
Go drink a juicy box and let the adults talk. Mick and I are having a nice conversation.
Click to expand...

Speaking of objectivity....flip this story on its side and pretend Fox News is reporting this meeting about Obama and pentagon officials...what is your reaction? Is your first move to point out that Bush got us into Afghanistan, make sure twice that nobody is denying this fact, and make a plea for objectivity?

I think we'd get some sort of speech about how Obama needs to listen to the people who have served, with some accusations of "no respect for military leaders" sprinkled in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#110
#110
Wish that as part of the sweetheart deal with the Russians that Putin would have told Trump that from their own experience Afghanistan is a quagmire. Alas, it was just all about the Benjamins.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#111
#111
volfanhill said:
And fundamentalisits of all kinds do horrible things.
Click to expand...

So trivial an interjection. Truly an emotional ejaculation of intellectual simplicity.
Yada yada yada.

So do athiests.
So do agnostics.
So do Catholics.
So do Buddists.
So do Hindu.
So do Protestants.
So?

So? I was only,.. only talking about how a larger fraction of the fundamental Islam sects than is acknowledged approve of, or turn a blind eye to, 'thighing'.

Which is masturbating by rubbing on a child's (girl or boy) thigh to reach orgasm. It's accepted because of Mohammed's betrothal to a 6 yr old girl and then marrying her 3 years later. It's in the Quran. And Other actions by him are described. Such as fondling young virgins and having them fondle him. And who had to clean his ejaculate off his robes before he got in front of a crowd.

A 'Prophet of God'.
Really?

-----------------------
https://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=9668.0


Regarding the practice of "thighing", the masterbating between the legs of a female infant or actually sodomizing her, Islamic clerics have this to say:"... sic...

..."As for the prophet, his thighing his fiancée Aisha when she was six years of age and not able to consummate the relationship was due to her small age. That is why the Prophet used to place his male member between her thighs and massage it, as the prophet had control of his male member not like other men.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, The Supreme Leader of Iran, the Shia Grand Ayatollah, 1979-89 said in his official statements:

"A man can quench his sexual lusts with a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate. Sodomizing the baby is halal (allowed by sharia). If the man penetrates and damages the child, then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however, does not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girl’s sister. It is better for a girl to marry when her menstruation starts, and at her husband's house rather than her father's home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven."

Khomeini, "Tahrirolvasyleh" fourth volume, Darol Elm, Gom, Iran, 1990

“It is not illegal for an adult male to 'thigh' or enjoy a young girl who is still in the age of weaning; meaning to place his penis between her thighs, and to kiss her.”...
----------------------
I'm only talking about what we in America, and most of the world, consider pedophilia, but is approved by too many muslim leaders. Only that.
 
Last edited:
#112
#112
n_huffhines said:
Speaking of objectivity....flip this story on its side and pretend Fox News is reporting this meeting about Obama and pentagon officials...what is your reaction? Is your first move to point out that Bush got us into Afghanistan, make sure twice that nobody is denying this fact, and make a plea for objectivity?

I think we'd get some sort of speech about how Obama needs to listen to the people who have served, with some accusations of "no respect for military leaders" sprinkled in.
Click to expand...

Here's objectivity for you...

Grand Vol said:
I do agree the ball is in his court. And I do agree he needs to come up with a "strategy" or as a minimum, let Mattis and Dunford do what they do best. However, if four/eight years go by and we're still there with no clear exit strategy or "winning" moves, I cannot and will not play the "but, but, but TRUMP!" card on it. He'll have been no different than his predecessors in punting the decision.

Best thing he can do, as I've said all along, is adopt the Soviet strategy in getting out. Put into power the faction we want and run like hell. Because in six months time, they'll be fighting again.
Click to expand...

Now, see? That's an objective outlook that doesn't point the partisan finger as the mess in Afghanistan is both Bush and Obama's fault. Bush started it, didn't finish it. Obama inherited it, didn't finish it. Trump has inherited it and closure cannot be predicted at this time.

If the status quo remains when his term(s) is/are up, he'll have been no different than Obama or Bush. That's objective. If he gets us out, he's better than both Bush and Obama. That's objective.

Simple. Now, was your juicy box apple, grape, fruit punch? Inquiring minds want to know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#113
#113
Grand Vol said:
And funny how you said history doesn't play...
Click to expand...

Never said history doesn't play into Foreign Policy even the history of past failures should play an big role in shaping new policy. You are the one that interjected past administrations as an means to "objectively" judge Trump's lack of cohesive strategy. It was your way of saying "but Obama" and "but Bush" at the same time. Right there you injected partisan bias that is not conducive to "Objectivity" when we are trying to "objectively" judge Trump's strategies. Then you say I'm being partisan when I agree that the past 2 Administrations strategies didn't work. Go figure.
 
#114
#114
Mick said:
Never said history doesn't play into Foreign Policy even the history of past failures should play an big role in shaping new policy. You are the one that interjected past administrations as an means to "objectively" judge Trump's lack of cohesive strategy. It was your way of saying "but Obama" and "but Bush" at the same time. Right there you injected partisan bias that is not conducive to "Objectivity" when we are trying to "objectively" judge Trump's strategies. Then you say I'm being partisan when I agree that the past 2 Administrations strategies didn't work. Go figure.
Click to expand...

No, I never directly accused you of being partisan. If you took it that way, my apologies. However, I was pointing out Trump not having a coherent strategy in regards to the Stan as being no better (or worse) than his predecessors, both GOP and DNC. I did agree the ball was in his court and he has the chance to change the way we are conducting business, but it remains to be seen how or if he changes. And there certainly is objectivity in saying Trump is no better or worse than Obama/Bush for not having a coherent strategy. When did Obama outline a plan for Afghanistan? When did Bush?

I'm also not one of those who will point the finger at Obama without noting it was Bush who got us into that mess. Or at Bush without recognizing Obama had eight years to get us the eff out. Both parties are to blame. Both parties are at fault. I am being objective in realizing if Trump doesn't do anything and punts, he's no more or less to blame than either of them.
 
#115
#115
Grand Vol said:
No, I never directly accused you of being partisan. If you took it that way, my apologies. However, I was pointing out Trump not having a coherent strategy in regards to the Stan as being no better (or worse) than his predecessors, both GOP and DNC. I did agree the ball was in his court and he has the chance to change the way we are conducting business, but it remains to be seen how or if he changes. And there certainly is objectivity in saying Trump is no better or worse than Obama/Bush for not having a coherent strategy. When did Obama outline a plan for Afghanistan? When did Bush?

I'm also not one of those who will point the finger at Obama without noting it was Bush who got us into that mess. Or at Bush without recognizing Obama had eight years to get us the eff out. Both parties are to blame. Both parties are at fault. I am being objective in realizing if Trump doesn't do anything and punts, he's no more or less to blame than either of them.
Click to expand...

I think we are in agreement but I thought we were in agreement before I posted the Russian arming the Taliban story. So we good.

What I guess I was getting at with the story is they may be arming the people we are fighting. That is their strategy.
 
#116
#116
Grand Vol said:
Here's objectivity for you...



Now, see? That's an objective outlook that doesn't point the partisan finger as the mess in Afghanistan is both Bush and Obama's fault. Bush started it, didn't finish it. Obama inherited it, didn't finish it. Trump has inherited it and closure cannot be predicted at this time.

If the status quo remains when his term(s) is/are up, he'll have been no different than Obama or Bush. That's objective. If he gets us out, he's better than both Bush and Obama. That's objective.

Simple. Now, was your juicy box apple, grape, fruit punch? Inquiring minds want to know.
Click to expand...

Valid points. Except if he just "gets us out" and a new ISIS-style group takes over the country, will you be will g to criticize him like you did Obama for leaving Iraq?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#117
#117
Mick said:
I think we are in agreement but I thought we were in agreement before I posted the Russian arming the Taliban story. So we good.

What I guess I was getting at with the story is they may be arming the people we are fighting. That is their strategy.
Click to expand...

That's what I meant by history being the guide. The Russians arming the insurgents is certainly an ironic twist of history.
 
#118
#118
lawgator1 said:
Valid points. Except if he just "gets us out" and a new ISIS-style group takes over the country, will you be will g to criticize him like you did Obama for leaving Iraq?
Click to expand...

Did I criticize Obama for creating ISIS? I recall criticizing him for downplaying their significance when they were, in fact, growing and taking over massive amounts of territory.

But didn't you blame Bush as the start of it all?
 
#119
#119
Grand Vol said:
That's what I meant by history being the guide. The Russians arming the insurgents is certainly an ironic twist of history.
Click to expand...

Russia's history in Afghanistan yes but it is in line with Putin's interest against the US and our allies. Russia is laying in the background trying to undermine many of our foreign policy interest. (Syria, N. Korea, Iran)
 
#120
#120
Mick said:
Russia's history in Afghanistan yes but it is in line with Putin's interest against the US and our allies. Russia is laying in the background trying to undermine many of our foreign policy interest. (Syria, N. Korea, Iran)
Click to expand...

Russia gonna do what Russia gonna do. And in reality, the same thing we've done to them in the not so distant past.
 
#121
#121
Though I will disagree on undermining us in regards to North Korea. Russia has kind of sat on the sidelines for the most part in regards to that. They have made announcements and whatnot, but nothing direct so to speak.

North Korea is a whole 'nuther animal.
 
#122
#122
Grand Vol said:
Though I will disagree on undermining us in regards to North Korea. Russia has kind of sat on the sidelines for the most part in regards to that. They have made announcements and whatnot, but nothing direct so to speak.

North Korea is a whole 'nuther animal.
Click to expand...

I think they are closer to N. Korea than you do. The rapid advancements in weapons technology lately have only peaked my suspicions. I think N. Korea gets a lot of coal and oil from Russia.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/07/as-china-north-korea-ties-cool-russia-looks-to-benefit.html
 
#123
#123
#124
#124
n_huffhines said:
VN has all sorts of useless ways of defending Trump. They voted for him because he's different but then they point out he's the same whenever it's convenient.
Click to expand...

I voted for him because he's not a Democrat and NOT HiLIARly the Hildabeast. Didn't like him. Still don't. But literally anything crawling out of the gutter is better than that sewer rat HRC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#125
#125
Mick said:
I think they are closer to N. Korea than you do. The rapid advancements in weapons technology lately have only peaked my suspicions. I think N. Korea gets a lot of coal and oil from Russia.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/07/as-china-north-korea-ties-cool-russia-looks-to-benefit.html
Click to expand...

At most NK is a distraction to allow Russia to execute other plans while no one is looking. I don't see it as the old soviet style spreading of communism in order to provoke a proxy war.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top