• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Editorial: Trump's pullout from Afghanistan is rushed and self-serving

Hasn't every Presidential administration been promising to get us out of those foreign conflicts? Including Clinton and Obama/Biden. And nobody did jack. after 4 years I'd hardly call it rushed. when we've been there for decades.

?? What foreign conflicts did Clinton promise to take us out of? I don't recall any. In fact, Clinton resisted mounting public sentiment to attack Iraq, and ignored the infamous PNAC "open letter" calling for the ouster of Saddam Hussein.

As for Obama, during his campaign, he repeated over and over and over and over and over again that he thought Afghanistan was the right war, and that we should be there! He said Bush the Lesser had dropped the ball on Iraq, and that we should have never gone to war there. But just like Cheney himself had explained way back during Bush the Elder's time in the first Gulf War, Iraq became a quagmire and very difficult to extricate ourselves from. (Rather ironic that Cheney was a dove on Iraq occupation when he was with Bush the Elder, but then became very much a hawk on Iraq re-invasion and occupation when he became Bush the Lesser's VP)

So no - every presidential administration has not been promising to get us out of those conflicts. Frankly though, in my opinion, if Trump pulls us out of Afghanistan, it will be the only thing he has gotten right in his tenure in office.
 
Except it isn’t the Taliban‘s country and hasn’t been for a very long time, any more than Cambodia is the Khmer Rouge‘s country today, or Germany is the SS’

Yet another feeble straw man argument. Don't you ever tire of being corrected? Is it some form of masochism with you? Show me where I wrote that the Taliban are Afghani patriots. The comparison I drew was intended to point out that, from their perspective, they're no different than you or I would be if foreign boots were on American soil. Too subtle a distinction for you I guess, given the fact that their belief system is an islamic fundamentalist theocratic way of looking at the world, and your lack of imagination can't fathom that. More's the pity.

Hey - maybe if you keep making flawed comparisons with the Khmer Rouge and the SS over and over and over and over and over again, it might somehow become relevant. Probably not though. Just more jetsam from your sinking ship. But feel free to revisit them in your next post. I can't wait to see them referred to again. And don't hesitate to regurgitate machine-gunning little girls. We can never get enough of that, and since it's all you've got, we understand.


ZZZZ .... zzzz.
Yeah - we get it. The Taliban don't share our values or our world view. Do you think this is news to anybody??

The Taliban being able to “contest” the middle of nowhere, where there are approximately ten people and many more goats, is not the sign of.....anything, really. It’s certainly not progress for your beloved insurgents.

Hey - I've got an idea! Maybe if you keep calling the Taliban my "beloved insurgents", somebody will listen to you.
Nah - not likely. Just more scarecrows in the cornfield, waiting to be burned down. And I can understand why you'd be desperate to underplay their widespread occupation area. After all, it's embarrassing that the greatest military power on earth hasn't been able to eradicate them in 19 YEARS! OMG!! When the Taliban controlled areas are added to the contested zones, the total population is well over 17 million. In other words, over 2 million more people than the area totally controlled by the corrupt "ally" you seem to be so proud of defending. That's people BTW - not goats.

Not a single tax payer dollar should be pissed away on the Taliban‘s cheerleaders at home.

How many trillion$ are being pissed away on them? Oh - that's right. Not a penny. Need more bales of hay? I think you're running out.

Now that’s we’ve throughly established how clueless you are on the subject, feel free to keep babbling about how patriotic you think the ****ing Taliban are 😂

Big smiling finish - propping up the same old straw men. But don't let me ruin your cheerful mood. Hey - as long as your defense portfolio keeps paying off right? As far as you're concerned, you don't give a damn if we're having the same debate five or 10 years from now, when the Taliban still controls 30%- 50% of the country, and are still machine-gunning little girls. You can drag out and regurgitate all your same old feeble arguments about how we still need to be there.


And you're not even bright enough to be embarrassed.
Here - allow me to help you get started on your next post. I wouldn't want you to skip a beat.
Khmer Rouge
Pol Pot
SS
machine-gunning little girls
etc
 
I've never done any cheerleading for the Taliban. I've only been cheerleading for bringing our American service personnel back home and out of harms way. The lessons of Vietnam have slipped right past you.

Allow me to interpose with you and the poster thx to address your post I condensed by editing.

Out of harm's way izzit that you want.

This sounds like you want to return all US forces from abroad and pack 'em into Wyoming where they'll be safe, sound and tucked in each night. Use their rifles to do fly fishing instead. Defend against an invasion by Canada.

It is an all volunteer force Dervish that goes into harm's way as a profession and to inflict a great harm on the armed enemy of the United States. Reading your latte posts however I see and understand how and why you miss that completely.

Your Fortress America would in fact be a globalized Alamo.

The lesson of VN is not to put 500,000 troops to include many conscripts into a very distant land unless you mean it. VN was a war, Afghanistan is not a war. Afganistan is a low level generational conflict the primary mission of which is to fight 'em over there rather than have to fight 'em over here. Cause if we have to fight 'em over here that will leave you to defend us which means we are definitely screwed.
 
Allow me to interpose with you and the poster thx to address your post I condensed by editing.

Out of harm's way izzit that you want.

That and much more master Yoda.

This sounds like you want to return all US forces from abroad and pack 'em into Wyoming where they'll be safe, sound and tucked in each night. Use their rifles to do fly fishing instead. Defend against an invasion by Canada.

It sounds that way only if you're not actually listening - and making references to fishing and Canada when I've made none say more about your flights of fantasy than anything I've said.

It is an all volunteer force Dervish that goes into harm's way as a profession and to inflict a great harm on the armed enemy of the United States. Reading your latte posts however I see and understand how and why you miss that completely.

Uh ... no. First of all, the Taliban are not an "armed enemy of the United States" per se - they are an armed enemy of our invasion and occupational forces. Big difference. HUGE difference! Unto themselves, the Taliban have never had any designs on attacking the United States - at least certainly not before our boots were on their ground, and on their necks.

Your Fortress America would in fact be a globalized Alamo.

I have no Fortress America. I'm not an isolationist. I approved of going into Afghanistan after bin Laden - a noble task which I'll remind you was completed NINE YEARS AGO!

The lesson of VN is not to put 500,000 troops to include many conscripts into a very distant land unless you mean it. VN was a war, Afghanistan is not a war.

Actually Vietnam was NOT a war. It was a police action not unlike Afghanistan was. And this is your biggest folly - not learning the true lessons of Vietnam. They're not hard to find - in fact, they've been codified! The US military went to great time and effort to come up with The Powell Doctrine. Have you read it? If you have, I see no signs of it in your reasoning. It was designed specifically to keep us out of another Vietnam. Here it is in a nutshell:

The Powell Doctrine states that a list of questions ALL have to be answered affirmatively before military action is taken by the United States:
  1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
  2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
  3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
  4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
  5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
  6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
  7. Is the action supported by the American people?
  8. Do we have genuine broad international support?[2]
Look it over, and try to respond to numbers 2,3,5 & 6 vis-à-vis our Afghanistan debacle. Notice anything? That would be the beginning of wisdom.

Afganistan is a low level generational conflict the primary mission of which is to fight 'em over there rather than have to fight 'em over here. Cause if we have to fight 'em over here that will leave you to defend us which means we are definitely screwed.

For this I'd suggest you find a copy of "Blowing Up An Assumption" - an article written by Robert Pape way back in 2005. It addresses the specific folly in the idea of fighting them over there rather than having to fight them over here by pointing out the history of terrorism, and how closely it is linked to occupation. It's the closest thing to a scientific study I've read on the subject.
 
QUOTE="MamboDervish, post: 1073044816, member: 36133"]
I don't think the Taliban should be attacking US troops. I expect the Taliban to be attacking US troops. Learn the difference. We are an invading and occupying force in their country. Why would any fool not expect it? And you have a glaring deficiency in your understanding of the difference between a "terrorist group" and an insurgency. The Taliban are not a terrorist group, any more than you or I would be a terrorist group if we were attacking an occupying army on American soil. I won't speak for you, but I know that I would do whatever it takes to drive them out. But that's because I am a patriot.

[/QUOTE]

Yet another feeble straw man argument. Don't you ever tire of being corrected? Is it some form of masochism with





ZZZZ .... zzzz.
Yeah - we get it. The Taliban don't share our values or our world view. Do you think this is news to anybody??



Hey - I've got an idea! Maybe if you keep calling the Taliban my "beloved insurgents", somebody will listen to you.
Nah - not likely. Just more scarecrows in the cornfield, waiting to be burned down. And I can understand why you'd be desperate to underplay their widespread occupation area. After all, it's embarrassing that the greatest military power on earth hasn't been able to eradicate them in 19 YEARS! OMG!! When the Taliban controlled areas are added to the contested zones, the total population is well over 17 million. In other words, over 2 million more people than the area totally controlled by the corrupt "ally" you seem to be so proud of defending. That's people BTW - not goats.



How many trillion$ are being pissed away on them? Oh - that's right. Not a penny. Need more bales of hay? I think you're running out.



Big smiling finish - propping up the same old straw men. But don't let me ruin your cheerful mood. Hey - as long as your defense portfolio keeps paying off right? As far as you're concerned, you don't give a damn if we're having the same debate five or 10 years from now, when the Taliban still controls 30%- 50% of the country, and are still machine-gunning little girls. You can drag out and regurgitate all your same old feeble arguments about how we still need to be there.


And you're not even bright enough to be embarrassed.
Here - allow me to help you get started on your next post. I wouldn't want you to skip a beat.
Khmer Rouge
Pol Pot
SS
machine-gunning little girls
etc


Oh look, another pathetic performance from the local Taliban cheerleader. Good to know that you’d happily commit atrocities in the name of “patriotism“(not that the Taliban are Afghan patriots in the first place, which makes your attempted “comparison“ even more laughable. Here’s a hint bud— I don’t need to pretend that the Taliban‘s point of view is valid, because it isn’t. They are just as psychotic as the SS or Khmer Rouge, and you thinking that they aren’t so bad because you don’t care what happens to the people of Afghanistan doesn’t change the facts.

Good to know that you could care less about children being murdered. Really goes to show how your “but Trump“ posturing is meaningless. Hell, if anything you are worse than he is.

You fantasizing about burning things down alongside your beloved terrorists is rather telling, as is your squealing “OMG“ like an eleven year old girl. In case you missed it, the US military has inflicted numerous crushing defeats on the Taliban. The fact that they've managed to squirm their way under various and sundry rocks to avoid being utter annihilated is irrelevant; the past fifty plus years of history shows no insurgent group is ever truly annihilated. Perseverance is the key to guerrilla warfare, not squealing OMG because you think it’s taking too long.

When the areas the Taliban control are added to areas they don’t control, gee.....they still don’t control most of the country. All “contested” means is that the Taliban hasn’t been fully wiped out, not that they have any actual control in a region.

I’d rather my tax dollars be “pissed away“ on helping an ally than see a single cent wasted on cheerleaders for a terrorist group.

Yawn. Yet another reminder that “progressives“ are a bad joke. Keep on sniveling about how “patriotic“ you think the Taliban are
 
That and much more master Yoda.

It sounds that way only if you're not actually listening - and making references to fishing and Canada when I've made none say more about your flights of fantasy than anything I've said.

Your campaign to withdraw US troops from abroad which is the campaign of Putin, Xi Jinping, Donald Trump and you PutinTrumpRowers is real and it is the Fortress America Alamo on a global scale. And you are the guy who's introducing Master Yoga from a movie.



Uh ... no. First of all, the Taliban are not an "armed enemy of the United States" per se - they are an armed enemy of our invasion and occupational forces. Big difference. HUGE difference! Unto themselves, the Taliban have never had any designs on attacking the United States - at least certainly not before our boots were on their ground, and on their necks.

Taliban and anyone like 'em will attack the United States first and best chance they get facilitated by your Munich mentality.


I have no Fortress America. I'm not an isolationist. I approved of going into Afghanistan after bin Laden - a noble task which I'll remind you was completed NINE YEARS AGO!

A lot has occurred since since 9 years ago, mainly the installation of Donald Trump as Potus as the agent of Vladimir Putin as Potus in the Oval Office. We're talking PutinTrumpRowers traitors.



Actually Vietnam was NOT a war. It was a police action not unlike Afghanistan was.

You have it bass akwarards as 500,000 troops in VN is a ****ing war and less than 10% percent of that in Afg is a generational counter insurgency conflict designed from the start to fight 'em over there instead of fighting 'em over here where you in the Big Apple would be the disastrous and catastrophic last line of homeland latte defense.



For this I'd suggest you find a copy of "Blowing Up An Assumption" - an article written by Robert Pape way back in 2005. It addresses the specific folly in the idea of fighting them over there rather than having to fight them over here by pointing out the history of terrorism, and how closely it is linked to occupation. It's the closest thing to a scientific study I've read on the subject.

Pape misses the following which is vital to the Pentagon mission of "fighting them over there to keep from fighting them over here" where Mr. MamboDervish would be our catastrophic last line of his totally pathetic defense relaxed in his latte Big Apple coffee houses.



Smashing your is that a suicide attack may be intended simply to gain maximum publicity. Here is terrorism scholar David C. Rapoport:

When a bomb explodes, people take notice; the event attracts more attention than a thousand speeches or pictures.
As Charlie Winter recently explained, “ISIS has prioritized propaganda of the deed,” radiating its message across the world’s media with ever more shocking acts of violence and brutality. Publicity, as the philosopher Jeremy Waldron has observed, “is itself a strategic asset” for a terrorist group, which “it can use for all sorts of purposes, not just for the narrow range of intimidatory purposes.” . As the terrorism expert Clint Watts has argued:

Recent European attacks, viewed from afar, might imply that the Islamic State is stronger than ever, but it’s the reverse: The group desperately needs to show signs of success to shore up its ranks and inspire international popular support. And since those wins are harder to come by in Syria and Iraq, they have started looking elsewhere.
Connected to this is the idea of what the sociologist Mark Juergensmeyer has called “performance violence.” Referring to the 9/11 attacks and other “dramatic displays of power,” he wrote that “these creations of terror are done not to achieve a strategic goal but to make a symbolic statement.” They are, he contended, theatrical expressions of rage and empowerment, an attempt to shake off feelings of humiliation and impotence.

 
Last edited:
QUOTE="MamboDervish, post: 1073044816, member: 36133"]
I don't think the Taliban should be attacking US troops. I expect the Taliban to be attacking US troops. Learn the difference. We are an invading and occupying force in their country. Why would any fool not expect it? And you have a glaring deficiency in your understanding of the difference between a "terrorist group" and an insurgency. The Taliban are not a terrorist group, any more than you or I would be a terrorist group if we were attacking an occupying army on American soil. I won't speak for you, but I know that I would do whatever it takes to drive them out. But that's because I am a patriot.




Oh look, another pathetic performance from the local Taliban cheerleader. Good to know that you’d happily commit atrocities in the name of “patriotism“(not that the Taliban are Afghan patriots in the first place, which makes your attempted “comparison“ even more laughable. Here’s a hint bud— I don’t need to pretend that the Taliban‘s point of view is valid, because it isn’t. They are just as psychotic as the SS or Khmer Rouge, and you thinking that they aren’t so bad because you don’t care what happens to the people of Afghanistan doesn’t change the facts.

Good to know that you could care less about children being murdered. Really goes to show how your “but Trump“ posturing is meaningless. Hell, if anything you are worse than he is.

You fantasizing about burning things down alongside your beloved terrorists is rather telling, as is your squealing “OMG“ like an eleven year old girl. In case you missed it, the US military has inflicted numerous crushing defeats on the Taliban. The fact that they've managed to squirm their way under various and sundry rocks to avoid being utter annihilated is irrelevant; the past fifty plus years of history shows no insurgent group is ever truly annihilated. Perseverance is the key to guerrilla warfare, not squealing OMG because you think it’s taking too long.

When the areas the Taliban control are added to areas they don’t control, gee.....they still don’t control most of the country. All “contested” means is that the Taliban hasn’t been fully wiped out, not that they have any actual control in a region.

I’d rather my tax dollars be “pissed away“ on helping an ally than see a single cent wasted on cheerleaders for a terrorist group.

Yawn. Yet another reminder that “progressives“ are a bad joke. Keep on sniveling about how “patriotic“ you think the Taliban are
[/QUOTE]

LOL -- more of the same, eh? Time to move on.
 
Back
Top Bottom