- Joined
- Jul 1, 2011
- Messages
- 67,218
- Reaction score
- 28,530
- Location
- Lower Hudson Valley, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The Military commanders on the ground disagree......Looks to the US Allies like the US Military is cutting and Running
Trump is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
Liberals?
Does anybody else find it strange that the left is switching from Peace Doves to War Hawks.
That's nonsense.
people who think in labels
You do realize that just because the Orange Man-Child says it, doesn't make it true, right?We don't need to fight ISIS over there anymore.They are coming across the border from Mexico.We will be fighting them here.
That's nonsense.
ISISISISILDAESHWHATEVER doesn't have to send people "across the border from Mexico" there are THOUSANDS of "low hanging fruit" already in the US (many of them even born in the US).
if the average citizen wants continued involvement in this war, then a couple things need to happen.
1. declare war. if we're at war as a nation, then we are at war.
2. shared sacrifice. that means significant taxes and war bonds. chip the **** in or **** off.
i don't see either of these things happening, so scrap it. i don't like the modern American "oh, we're still there?" version of war.
This war needs to be defined, and as much more than some amorphous term like (a critical part of?) the war on terror.
When inside the US, "terrorists" are dealt with as criminals by our police forces and must be judged, as criminals, in a court of law. When "terrorists" are over there then the same acts of terror, done for the same reasons (motives?), are no longer said to be crimes requiring police action - then (and only then?) a (long term?) US (and allied?) military response is said to be required and we are told that it cannot ever be considered to be a police action.
Over there we allow (demand?) the line between police and military missions to be blurred (disappear entirely?) and those fighting "terrorists" suddenly become the amorphous "security forces" - not quite military and yet, we are told, absolutely not police. The mission therefore also becomes amorphous with very odd terms used for goals such as to "achieve (establish, ensure or maintain?) stability" in the nation/region.
When the mission statement itself is amorphous then so too becomes any measure of its completion. How can anyone define the precise point in time when Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria or 'the region' can be declared (partly, mostly or completely?) "stabiliized"? If anyone tells you that the mission statement for the US military "involvement" in Afghanistan, Iraq and/or Syria is clear then they are lying.
Welcome to the amorphous (and therefore endless?) "war on terror". Since it would be foolish to ask the question "When can we get rid of police forces fighting terror in the US?", it appears to have become equally foolish to ask the question "When can we end US support for security forces fighting terror in nation X or region Y?".
i don't see a good reason not to declare the war. i also believe that if a war is worth fighting, it's worth paying for. everyone should be paying more in taxes as long as this war is being fought.
The "war on terror" has definitely been declared. There is no way that either party dare raise "everyone's taxes" - that would be political suicide. To cover (eliminate?) the current federal deficit would require a 40% increase in total personal federal income tax revenue.
We don't need to fight ISIS over there anymore.They are coming across the border from Mexico.We will be fighting them here.
From NBC News
Taliban greets Pentagon's withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan with cries of victory
PESHAWAR, Pakistan — News that the White House had ordered the Pentagon to draw up plans for a troop withdrawal from Afghanistan provoked widespread criticism that the move would kneecap efforts to broker a peace deal to end America's longest war.
But there was one group on Friday celebrating the reports — the Taliban.
Senior members told NBC News the news was a clear indication they were on the verge of victory.
“The 17-year-long struggle and sacrifices of thousands of our people finally yielded fruit," said a senior Taliban commander from Afghanistan’s Helmand province. "We proved it to the entire world that we defeated the self-proclaimed world’s lone super power."
COMMENT:-
Apparently not everyone thinks that Mr. Trump is doing the wrong thing by pulling out of Afghanistan.
I wonder how the "conservatives" feel about finding themselves on the same side as the Taliban.
there is no declared state of war currently. if people aren't willing to share the sacrifice, then no one should be putting his or her life at risk.
Keep telling yourself that (bolded above) if you must. Most agree that when US military forces are engaged (deployed?) in authorized combat oppertions then we are "at war".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_lengths_of_United_States_participation_in_wars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war#Declared_wars_since_1945
declare the war and pay for it with wartime tax rates.
Does anybody else find it strange that the left is switching from Peace Doves to War Hawks. That perhaps the right is going back to their isolationist mode of pre-Vietnam? It's my opinion that G.W. Bush fought a very smart war in the beginning. A few SF and paramilitary on the ground, our air power, the 13 tribe northern alliance doing the fighting on the ground. Driving the Taliban out of Afghanistan.
Then the screw up, the thing G.W. called nation building which was in essence of us forcing democracy upon the Afghani which didn't want it. We've been there ever since. The remainder of Bush, all through Obama and now the beginnings of Trump. Just so we can ensure we choose their form of government. By not letting the Afghani choose themselves, they wanted Tribal rule by their elders and shamans or whatever they call their religious folks. This has caused a fall out of 8 or 9 of the 13 tribes originally on our side to oppose us.
Think about it. The Taliban wanted to bring all of Afghanistan under a single ruler instead of Tribal rulers. So we help them drive the Taliban out, then force them to be ruled by a single ruler from one of the tribes. All they wanted was to be ruled by their own tribal elders and religious folks.
what we have here is colonization by another name, nation building.
Congress would rather do neither and (safely?) bets that will not reduce their re-election rate of over 90%.