RE: No Thread About 'The Speech'?

RE: No Thread About 'The Speech'? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Aneirin -> RE: No Thread About 'The Speech'? (12/2/2009 7:08:26 PM)
Although the speech was relayed live to our news services, I looked at the captive audience watching Obama, an audience of well trained and do as they are told squaddies, a sea of shaven headed green, why this address in front of those likely to fight and maybe not come back, it just seems odd, what was wrong with the traditional means, the oval office etc. Well, he said he is opposed to torture, and GTMO will be closed, so that is a good thing, but what is the time scale, and will another similar facility be made, or has it been made. But Afghanistan, a country I have for a long time been interested in, and one day I would love to see, all those places I have read about, but fear never will I go there because of the danger now, and the danger we will leave, the troops will not solve much, for the Pashtun an endangered ethnic people known to and under the concern of the WHO fight with the Taliban, and may even be descendants of Alexander the great's army of 330bce. The Pashtun also through enviromental disater and now the war have settled in Pakistan, and make up about a fifth of the Pakistani population, die hard fighters, with a history of fighting so much so, they were recruited into many armed forces,and known for their abilities with hardship and fighting. My worries are, is this proposed rout of Afghanistan going to destroy an ancient people in their home and ancestral lands. I would appreciate a reason for being there, the original reason, and stick to it, not a constantly changing reason as it seems there has been.

Lorsan -> RE: No Thread About 'The Speech'? (12/2/2009 7:15:12 PM)
Am I wrong in thinking that Obama just announced to the world that our new mission in Afghanistan is apparently to fight until we can train those guys and then start pulling out leaving them alone to fight a civil war that they may not be able to win? And if they do, we've left another Saddamish (as far as the corruption and the like goes) regime in power? That's really our strategy now? That's certainly what it sounded like to me.

slvemike4u -> RE: No Thread About 'The Speech'? (12/2/2009 7:18:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lorsan Am I wrong in thinking that Obama just announced to the world that our new mission in Afghanistan is apparently to fight until we can train those guys and then start pulling out leaving them alone to fight a civil war that they may not be able to win? And if they do, we've left another Saddamish (as far as the corruption and the like goes) regime in power? That's really our strategy now? That's certainly what it sounded like to me. Short answer...Yes your wrong.

DarkSteven -> RE: No Thread About 'The Speech'? (12/2/2009 7:18:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin I would appreciate a reason for being there, the original reason, and stick to it, not a constantly changing reason as it seems there has been. The reason for being there was that the Taliban harbored the terrorists that caused 9/11. We invaded to root them out. Eight years later, they're as deeply entrenched as ever, except Kabul. So time for a different strategy. Obama's strategy will likely fail. So would any other.

slvemike4u -> RE: No Thread About 'The Speech'? (12/2/2009 7:21:10 PM)
The thing is its not Obama's DS...it's McChrystal's and the Generals strategy...filtered through civilian leadership as we have been doing for 200 some odd years.

Musicmystery -> RE: No Thread About 'The Speech'? (12/2/2009 7:21:42 PM)
Yes, you're wrong. The "pullout" in 18 months is a start date, of an indeterminate number of troops (could be very few), and isn't written in stone (subject to evaluation at that time of conditions on the ground, as Senate and House hearings today clarified). It's not an end date--it's a hint to Afghanistan's leaders that they need to push this along too. In some regions, we can train now. In others, expect hard fighting this spring. But as analysts are repeating--we may see a reduction, but we're going to be there for quite some time.

Lorsan -> RE: No Thread About 'The Speech'? (12/2/2009 7:25:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: Lorsan Am I wrong in thinking that Obama just announced to the world that our new mission in Afghanistan is apparently to fight until we can train those guys and then start pulling out leaving them alone to fight a civil war that they may not be able to win? And if they do, we've left another Saddamish (as far as the corruption and the like goes) regime in power? That's really our strategy now? That's certainly what it sounded like to me. Short answer...Yes your wrong. Okay how so? He said That they are going to have to start taking responsibility and that we're going to start pulling out in 18 months. When we do, the Taliban will come back. Assuming Karzai doesn't cut some kind of deal with them, they'll be in the middle of a civil war. And we'll be leaving. Well, that also assumes we're not in the middle of a war with Iran by then too but that's beside the point. So where am I wrong?

Musicmystery -> RE: No Thread About 'The Speech'? (12/2/2009 7:28:26 PM)
See previous post.

slvemike4u -> RE: No Thread About 'The Speech'? (12/2/2009 7:36:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lorsan quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: Lorsan Am I wrong in thinking that Obama just announced to the world that our new mission in Afghanistan is apparently to fight until we can train those guys and then start pulling out leaving them alone to fight a civil war that they may not be able to win? And if they do, we've left another Saddamish (as far as the corruption and the like goes) regime in power? That's really our strategy now? That's certainly what it sounded like to me. Short answer...Yes your wrong. Okay how so?Pretty much on every point you made....the short answer version was just me being nice He said That they are going to have to start taking responsibility and that we're going to start pulling out in 18 months.He warned a currupt nominal partner(Karzia)that we are not to be considered patrons forever. When we do, the Taliban will come back.The Taliban and their al Quada brethern do not get to sit out the next 18 months...waiting for when we leave to persecute their "civil war".They will be under tremendous pressure between now and the proposed withdrawel Assuming Karzai doesn't cut some kind of deal with them, they'll be in the middle of a civil war.Karzai can't cut a deal with them they are religious fundamentalists...he is a secular leader And we'll be leaving.And thats a bad thing? Well, that also assumes we're not in the middle of a war with Iran by then too but that's beside the point.A whole nother story for a whole nother thread...in addition to being mere speculation on your part. So where am I wrong? That about covers it.

rulemylife -> RE: No Thread About 'The Speech'? (12/2/2009 7:38:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Where are the rest of NATO? Some are contributing more than others but even they are remarkably few in number by comparison to the Brits, let alone the Americans. E That has also been part of the plan, for NATO nations to commit more troops. Whether the administration succeeds in that remains to be seen.

Lorsan -> RE: No Thread About 'The Speech'? (12/2/2009 7:41:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery See previous post. Ah okay I just saw that. I know it's only the beginning of troop reduction. And that no end date was given. That's fair. But That still leaves the same problem. Afghanistan is not Iraq. We'll have to nearly build they country before we leave. As soon as we take the pressure off, it's Taliban or some random Afghan warlord vs Afghan regulars. Are they going to have the equipment to quickly move troops around as we can? Are they going to have a MASSIVE effort to build new roads and infrastructure and get it completed before we start reducing our presence? Is their military going to have substantial numbers sympathizing with the Taliban like in Pakistan? Are any other countries willing to leave troops there as well to help try to keep the country stable? Given how abysmal NATO's involvement has been on the whole outside of the UK and Turkey, that seems unlikely.

Musicmystery -> RE: No Thread About 'The Speech'? (12/2/2009 7:51:18 PM)
Again, quote: But as analysts are repeating--we may see a reduction, but we're going to be there for quite some time.

Lorsan -> RE: No Thread About 'The Speech'? (12/2/2009 7:52:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: Lorsan quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: Lorsan Am I wrong in thinking that Obama just announced to the world that our new mission in Afghanistan is apparently to fight until we can train those guys and then start pulling out leaving them alone to fight a civil war that they may not be able to win? And if they do, we've left another Saddamish (as far as the corruption and the like goes) regime in power? That's really our strategy now? That's certainly what it sounded like to me. Short answer...Yes your wrong. Okay how so?Pretty much on every point you made....the short answer version was just me being nice He said That they are going to have to start taking responsibility and that we're going to start pulling out in 18 months.He warned a currupt nominal partner(Karzia)that we are not to be considered patrons forever. When we do, the Taliban will come back.The Taliban and their al Quada brethern do not get to sit out the next 18 months...waiting for when we leave to persecute their "civil war".They will be under tremendous pressure between now and the proposed withdrawel Assuming Karzai doesn't cut some kind of deal with them, they'll be in the middle of a civil war.Karzai can't cut a deal with them they are religious fundamentalists...he is a secular leader And we'll be leaving.And thats a bad thing? Well, that also assumes we're not in the middle of a war with Iran by then too but that's beside the point.A whole nother story for a whole nother thread...in addition to being mere speculation on your part. So where am I wrong? That about covers it. Okay. Fair enough. Just a couple of points. The Taliban have to draw troops from somewhere. That's my whole civil war point. And yeah I think Karzai would be whatever kept him from getting his head chopped off. So I believe he'd cut a deal in a heartbeat if he thought he could. Sure the Iran thing is just speculation for now. That's why I said that's beside the point. Because that's a variable nobody can predict. But overall, fair enough. I see your points. I just have grave concerns.

Lorsan -> RE: No Thread About 'The Speech'? (12/2/2009 7:55:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Again, quote: But as analysts are repeating--we may see a reduction, but we're going to be there for quite some time. Yeah I get that. I guess I might have in my head a much faster troop reduction than might actually occur. I just have concerns that I'd like to have some answers to before announcing specific dates for any this kind of thing.

popeye1250 -> RE: No Thread About 'The Speech'? (12/2/2009 7:56:17 PM)
Right before we do leave Afganistan though those mountains are just begging for some chemical and biological weapons. As for Obama everything he does now you can tell he is bought and paid for by big corporations. If only all "the little people" who mailed in, "$10 or $15 of their hard earned money for Change" knew back then that the only "change" there would be would be which groups of corporations would be "in" and which would be "out." "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

slvemike4u -> RE: No Thread About 'The Speech'? (12/2/2009 8:01:07 PM)
The announcing of the date was more for the benifit of the Afghani audience ....it was a clear indication as well as a warning that they must get their own house in order. Leave it open ended and Karzai can and would continue business as usual.....up to and including allowing his brother to become enriched in the Opium trade.

jackod -> RE: No Thread About 'The Speech'? (12/2/2009 8:03:57 PM)
TALK is CHEAP,look what they are doing to us,the Bankers,they control everything since December 22,1913 ,they do as they wish,we are giving Taliban ONE billion$$$,to "not using the road bombings",to keep the war in perpetuarity,for ever,we did not have real president since Kennedy,the "new world order" administrator(husein obama) has only TWO option,do as he is told,or DIE,very simple,Reagan learned that fast..Regarding political parties;There is only ONE beast with two heads (R=D)spitting on each others to full the people(sheeple)(so we fight like cocks/rosters/dogs and entertain them.)Now the new world order demons(ROTHCHILDS,ROCKEFFELERS,ETC) are advancing rapidly: One world Goverment,Cashless society,CHIP in your hands,etc,Population controll(swine flu vaccine,etc) ABSOLUTE SLAVERY,jack

Musicmystery -> RE: No Thread About 'The Speech'? (12/2/2009 8:05:32 PM)
quote: Reagan learned that fast Reagan also helped arm Osama bin Laden. So much for simple answers.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: No Thread About 'The Speech'? (12/2/2009 8:05:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jackod TALK is CHEAP,look what they are doing to us,the Bankers,they control everything since December 22,1913 ,they do as they wish,we are giving Taliban ONE billion$$$,to "not using the road bombings",to keep the war in perpetuarity,for ever,we did not have real president since Kennedy,the "new world order" administrator(husein obama) has only TWO option,do as he is told,or DIE,very simple,Reagan learned that fast..Regarding political parties;There is only ONE beast with two heads (R=D)spitting on each others to full the people(sheeple)(so we fight like cocks/rosters/dogs and entertain them.)Now the new world order demons(ROTHCHILDS,ROCKEFFELERS,ETC) are advancing rapidly: One world Goverment,Cashless society,CHIP in your hands,etc,Population controll(swine flu vaccine,etc) ABSOLUTE SLAVERY,jack What?

slvemike4u -> RE: No Thread About 'The Speech'? (12/2/2009 8:12:28 PM)
Took the word right out of my mouth Panda......

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.125