Two-day conf on AFG - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Chas H · #16 09-21-2010, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

I disagree with that point. The original invasion was correct. Everything after that decision was made however was I agree, a massive CF.

- Peter.

Bush wasted almost a month by demanding the Taliban hand over OBL. The Taliban, predictably, larffed in his face. By the time Bush realized he either had to invade or admit he was humiliated by the Taliban there was only one choice for the cowboy.

#17 09-21-2010, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chas H

Bush wasted almost a month by demanding the Taliban hand over OBL. The Taliban, predictably, larffed in his face. By the time Bush realized he either had to invade or admit he was humiliated by the Taliban there was only one choice for the cowboy.

Making OBL the poster child for terrorists was the first of many mistakes.

pj67coll · #18 09-21-2010, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

I just don't see how it could have turned out any differently, what was the end game?

Right there is the problem with the American thought process. Worrying about he "end game" before thinking intelligently about the origin and first steps.

Remember, it hasnt "turned out" yet at all. It's ongoing and will probably be ongoing for decades to come. We might cut and run now, or soon, but we will be back, wether you like it or not.

Getting rid of the blight on humanity that was AQ and their medieval sponsoring thugs was the right thing do to. But it needed to be done right. Which meant the US had to blitzkrieg the place with no concern for US casualties with the intention of swamping the AQ hideouts and shocking and awing these goons sufficiently that there was enough of a "wedge" in the place that "maybe" something positive could have been accomplished.

It's a big "maybe" I agree. However failure was garanteed by the pussyfied way Bush danced with the UN (Blairs doing) and worried so much about the US public not wanting to hear about losing troops in a far away dusty place that they tried to do it by proxy using local gangs to attempt to do our dirty work for us. Never having enough troops in country so that they taliban could see we were too weak to be feared thus effectively fought until such time as our resolve broke. An now finally telling them to just hang on a few more months and we'll hand victory to them on a silver platter.

So we will then be in a position of having one of the ugliest gang of criminals back running the country and if Pakistan becomes inhospitable (for whatever reason) to AQ, ready to provide them with another safe haven.

But that's ok apparently just as long as yanks can pretend we dont have to fight anymore.

Until next time that is...

- Peter.

cmbdiesel · #19 09-22-2010, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

Right there is the problem with the American thought process. Worrying about he "end game" before thinking intelligently about the origin and first steps.

Remember, it hasnt "turned out" yet at all. It's ongoing and will probably be ongoing for decades to come. We might cut and run now, or soon, but we will be back, wether you like it or not.

Getting rid of the blight on humanity that was AQ and their medieval sponsoring thugs was the right thing do to. But it needed to be done right. Which meant the US had to blitzkrieg the place with no concern for US casualties with the intention of swamping the AQ hideouts and shocking and awing these goons sufficiently that there was enough of a "wedge" in the place that "maybe" something positive could have been accomplished.

It's a big "maybe" I agree. However failure was garanteed by the pussyfied way Bush danced with the UN (Blairs doing) and worried so much about the US public not wanting to hear about losing troops in a far away dusty place that they tried to do it by proxy using local gangs to attempt to do our dirty work for us. Never having enough troops in country so that they taliban could see we were too weak to be feared thus effectively fought until such time as our resolve broke. An now finally telling them to just hang on a few more months and we'll hand victory to them on a silver platter.

So we will then be in a position of having one of the ugliest gang of criminals back running the country and if Pakistan becomes inhospitable (for whatever reason) to AQ, ready to provide them with another safe haven.

But that's ok apparently just as long as yanks can pretend we dont have to fight anymore.

Until next time that is...

- Peter.

Wow....couldn't have pinned that on you any better if I had tried.

That reasoning is the worst of "The American Thought Process", give no consideration to resolution, objective or end game... just wade it with guns blazing and pray, to whatever God you believe in, that it all works out for you...

With your "no concern for US losses" remark, I expect your next comment to be that you just signed on to the infantry.... or do you posses concern for yourself, but not for others?

strelnik · #20 09-22-2010, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

Right there is the problem with the American thought process. Worrying about he "end game" before thinking intelligently about the origin and first steps.

Remember, it hasnt "turned out" yet at all. It's ongoing and will probably be ongoing for decades to come. We might cut and run now, or soon, but we will be back, wether you like it or not.

Getting rid of the blight on humanity that was AQ and their medieval sponsoring thugs was the right thing do to. But it needed to be done right. Which meant the US had to blitzkrieg the place with no concern for US casualties with the intention of swamping the AQ hideouts and shocking and awing these goons sufficiently that there was enough of a "wedge" in the place that "maybe" something positive could have been accomplished.

It's a big "maybe" I agree. However failure was garanteed by the pussyfied way Bush danced with the UN (Blairs doing) and worried so much about the US public not wanting to hear about losing troops in a far away dusty place that they tried to do it by proxy using local gangs to attempt to do our dirty work for us. Never having enough troops in country so that they taliban could see we were too weak to be feared thus effectively fought until such time as our resolve broke. An now finally telling them to just hang on a few more months and we'll hand victory to them on a silver platter.

So we will then be in a position of having one of the ugliest gang of criminals back running the country and if Pakistan becomes inhospitable (for whatever reason) to AQ, ready to provide them with another safe haven.

But that's ok apparently just as long as yanks can pretend we dont have to fight anymore.

Until next time that is...

- Peter.

Sadly, this whole situation makes me realize that there's no country on earth that is mature enough to run its own affairs, let alone anyone else's.

I agree that our original premise for AFG was correct, but the execution was flawed. So was Iraq, also by a larger measure. Plus we allowed opportunists in there.

And yes, AQ is a blight. Granted the West has done some terrible things, but they rarely institutionalize them these days.

Curiously enough, the only countries that still have slavery are Ethiopia and Sudan, both run by radical Muslims. No offense, chilcutt, I put the radicals in the same wacko bag as the abortion shooters.

The larger political end game that was created during and after WW2 was at least a start, but there do not seem to be any political leaders who have more vision or savvy than a high-school football coach.

The UN is a bankrupt, bloated bureaucracy, and key national powers keep making silly political mistakes which just further complicate things.

And people who have the brain of a small rodent or Gila monster, but who also possess used AK-47s, updates 2 or n3 from the 70s (still going strong like an MB diesel) keep on spreading their vitriol and their carnage.

Truly, we get what we deserve, because we have sanctioned it or pretended not to see it.

pj67coll · #21 09-22-2010, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

With your "no concern for US losses" remark, I expect your next comment to be that you just signed on to the infantry.... or do you posses concern for yourself, but not for others?

I've answered that silly jibe before. Not wasting my time with it again.

- Peter.

Honus · #22 09-22-2010, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

...However failure was garanteed by the pussyfied way Bush danced with the UN (Blairs doing) and worried so much about the US public not wanting to hear about losing troops in a far away dusty place that they tried to do it by proxy using local gangs to attempt to do our dirty work for us...

Really? I'm no expert, but I thought that the bigger problem was that Bush ignored Afghanistan from about 3/03 on.

I doubt that anything we could have done would have achieved the sort of success they are trying to achieve in Afghanistan. Our response to 9/11 should have been to bomb the crap out of selected al Qaeda targets and then build them a bunch of schools, hospitals, infrastructure, etc. That approach might have saved a bunch of American lives. It definitely would have saved us a bunch of money. It would not have resulted in people in that part of the world loving America, but it probably would have reduced the number of people who will hate us for generations to come. Another advantage to that approach is that we are unbelievably good at that sort of thing. Once we started dropping smart bombs down the chimneys of selected huts in Afghanistan, it would not take long for word to get around that you might be better off not messing with the US.

Maybe Obama made a mistake with his deadline for beginning to pull out troops, but I do not think it is fair to suggest that some other approach would have resulted in a happy ending in Afghanistan. In the end, his approach is probably no worse than any other.

pj67coll · #23 09-22-2010, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

Really? I'm no expert, but I thought that the bigger problem was that Bush ignored Afghanistan from about 3/03 on.

Long time between 9/11/01 and 03/03. The problem started from the get go. But you are right about Bush taking his eye off the ball. This is not just an Obama problem it's an American problem as I said before.

- Peter.

chilcutt · #24 09-23-2010, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strelnik

Sadly, this whole situation makes me realize that there's no country on earth that is mature enough to run its own affairs, let alone anyone else's.

I agree that our original premise for AFG was correct, but the execution was flawed. So was Iraq, also by a larger measure. Plus we allowed opportunists in there.

And yes, AQ is a blight. Granted the West has done some terrible things, but they rarely institutionalize them these days.

Curiously enough, the only countries that still have slavery are Ethiopia and Sudan, both run by radical Muslims. No offense, chilcutt, I put the radicals in the same wacko bag as the abortion shooters.

The larger political end game that was created during and after WW2 was at least a start, but there do not seem to be any political leaders who have more vision or savvy than a high-school football coach.

The UN is a bankrupt, bloated bureaucracy, and key national powers keep making silly political mistakes which just further complicate things.

And people who have the brain of a small rodent or Gila monster, but who also possess used AK-47s, updates 2 or n3 from the 70s (still going strong like an MB diesel) keep on spreading their vitriol and their carnage.

Truly, we get what we deserve, because we have sanctioned it or pretended not to see it.

If Pakistan and Afghanastan were to have the 'big throw-down', lets just hope that the U.S. doesnt do what they have done so many times before.
Ie: Send weapons, and $$ to the side they think will win...only to have those individuals turn on the U.S. eventually.
For the record: If a radical Imam tell me that I have to go kill Americans. I would say-"Where's the gun"?..and when handed the weapon , I would not once hesitate to turn it on him, and project the maniac into the next demision. Thats a fact.

Chilcutt~

cmbdiesel · #25 09-23-2010, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

I've answered that silly jibe before. Not wasting my time with it again.

- Peter.

Yes, the armchair quarterback..... Good thing you will never posses a position in which you have say in policy. You and your wife have kids yet? Your opinion about "no concern for US losses" may very well change when/if you do. It is all just like a video game to the uninvolved war mongers, but every kid that dies is somebody's son or daughter, and they deserve to have leadership that IS concerned with losses. Stick to Medal Of Honor, where the losses are truly imaginary.

pj67coll · #26 09-23-2010, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

Yes, the armchair quarterback..... Good thing you will never posses a position in which you have say in policy. You and your wife have kids yet? Your opinion about "no concern for US losses" may very well change when/if you do. It is all just like a video game to the uninvolved war mongers, but every kid that dies is somebody's son or daughter, and they deserve to have leadership that IS concerned with losses. Stick to Medal Of Honor, where the losses are truly imaginary.

Listen dude. I've been a conscript myself. You get it? Not a volunteer. No ****ing choice. So unless you were a draftee yourself I really don't give a damm what you think.

If a countries foreign policy is held hostage to the inability of it's citizenry to absorb the casualties necessary to to win whatever wars it gets involved in it might as well give up.

- Peter.

cmbdiesel · #27 09-23-2010, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

Listen dude. I've been a conscript myself. You get it? Not a volunteer. No ****ing choice. So unless you were a draftee yourself I really don't give a damm what you think.

If a countries foreign policy is held hostage to the inability of it's citizenry to absorb the casualties necessary to to win whatever wars it gets involved in it might as well give up.

- Peter.

Maybe you could replace "give up" with not get involved? That would make perfect sense. Getting involved with other peoples conflicts is the problem, not how we deal with the mess after we stick our nose in it.

Sorry that you were conscripted, doesn't sound like you enjoyed that part of your life, and glad that you emigrated to a country that does not treat it's people that way. Still, it's no excuse to treat others with the same disdain which you were. Our volunteer troops deserve every chance we can give them for success and survival, and throwing them in waves against the mountains of Afghanistan is irresponsible.

pj67coll · #28 09-23-2010, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

Maybe you could replace "give up" with not get involved? That would make perfect sense. Getting involved with other peoples conflicts is the problem, not how we deal with the mess after we stick our nose in it.

Really? So we could have ignored 911 huh?

Quote:

Our volunteer troops deserve every chance we can give them for success and survival,

Actually, therewith I agree.

Quote:

and throwing them in waves against the mountains of Afghanistan is irresponsible.

It comes down to a matter of strategy. Basically what I'm saying is, if you're going to do it at all, then make damm sure you do it right in the first place. That's the only way to ensure you are not wasting your troops lives in the long run. So instead of insufficient waves being wasted for years perhaps a tidal wave at the very beginning was what was needed. Unfortunately for purely domestic political considerations that didn't happen. And the whole sorry mess continues.

- Peter.

cmbdiesel · #29 09-23-2010, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

Really? So we could have ignored 911 huh?

Actually, therewith I agree.

It comes down to a matter of strategy. Basically what I'm saying is, if you're going to do it at all, then make damm sure you do it right in the first place. That's the only way to ensure you are not wasting your troops lives in the long run. So instead of insufficient waves being wasted for years perhaps a tidal wave at the very beginning was what was needed. Unfortunately for purely domestic political considerations that didn't happen. And the whole sorry mess continues.

- Peter.

Wouldn't say that, but a ground conflict in Afghanistan would not have been my first choice.

I personally like the "lop off the head and the body will die" approach, but essentially I believe we are on the same page regarding avoidance of drawn out battles of attrition with no real chance to succeed.

chilcutt · #30 09-23-2010, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

Really? So we could have ignored 911 huh?

Actually, therewith I agree.

It comes down to a matter of strategy. Basically what I'm saying is, if you're going to do it at all, then make damm sure you do it right in the first place. That's the only way to ensure you are not wasting your troops lives in the long run. So instead of insufficient waves being wasted for years perhaps a tidal wave at the very beginning was what was needed. Unfortunately for purely domestic political considerations that didn't happen. And the whole sorry mess continues.

- Peter.

If you did not serve with the United States armed forces-you are thinking like the armed forces you did serve with. Whole differant ball game.