Is Afghanistan Obama's Vietnam?

[Cold Fusion38]

I do love those remote controlled killing machines!

 

[The Rabbi]

GAWD I just hope we don't start carpet boming IRAN thinking it will ready them for invasion.

Surgical strikes on Iran would be one thing, although a piss poor way to try and solve the situation there and hopefully it will never come to that...but invasion would be totally insane.

If Obama decided to go that route he would be as big a screw up as that last one we had...we never should have gone into Iraq and we should not have put near as many boots on the ground as we did in Afghanistan.

We should have retaliated but with surgical strikes and covert operations specializing in targeted assassination...no way we should have taken the actions that we have to date which basically fits into the category as Powell put it..."you break it, you bought it"...and now we are stuck in the middle of a fucking mess...why our leaders can't seem to learn from the past is beyond me...hell, the crap going on over there has been going on since the time of Christ and to think we are going to go into the region and "fix" it is the most arrogant bone-headed bullshit that I've ever heard...hell, junior didn't even bother to listen to his old man...

Excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998): While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

Dio you have a clue what you are talking about?? Assasinations are outlawed in the US. So that's out. Drones? WHat would that have done?
And you seem to believe we lost in Iraq. Any evidence?

 

[Huh?]

GAWD I just hope we don't start carpet boming IRAN thinking it will ready them for invasion.

Surgical strikes on Iran would be one thing, although a piss poor way to try and solve the situation there and hopefully it will never come to that...but invasion would be totally insane.

If Obama decided to go that route he would be as big a screw up as that last one we had...we never should have gone into Iraq and we should not have put near as many boots on the ground as we did in Afghanistan.

We should have retaliated but with surgical strikes and covert operations specializing in targeted assassination...no way we should have taken the actions that we have to date which basically fits into the category as Powell put it..."you break it, you bought it"...and now we are stuck in the middle of a fucking mess...why our leaders can't seem to learn from the past is beyond me...hell, the crap going on over there has been going on since the time of Christ and to think we are going to go into the region and "fix" it is the most arrogant bone-headed bullshit that I've ever heard...hell, junior didn't even bother to listen to his old man...

Excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998): While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

Dio you have a clue what you are talking about?? Assasinations are outlawed in the US. So that's out. Drones? WHat would that have done?
And you seem to believe we lost in Iraq. Any evidence?

So don't call it targeted assassination...what do you think snipers do? Oh yeah, we don't use snipers.

I didn't mention drones but now that you brought that up...I guess if we are going to use young folks in the military we might as well utilize video games...many are good at it.

What have we won in Iraq?

 

[Cold Fusion38]

GAWD I just hope we don't start carpet boming IRAN thinking it will ready them for invasion.

Surgical strikes on Iran would be one thing, although a piss poor way to try and solve the situation there and hopefully it will never come to that...but invasion would be totally insane.

If Obama decided to go that route he would be as big a screw up as that last one we had...we never should have gone into Iraq and we should not have put near as many boots on the ground as we did in Afghanistan.

We should have retaliated but with surgical strikes and covert operations specializing in targeted assassination...no way we should have taken the actions that we have to date which basically fits into the category as Powell put it..."you break it, you bought it"...and now we are stuck in the middle of a fucking mess...why our leaders can't seem to learn from the past is beyond me...hell, the crap going on over there has been going on since the time of Christ and to think we are going to go into the region and "fix" it is the most arrogant bone-headed bullshit that I've ever heard...hell, junior didn't even bother to listen to his old man...

Excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998): While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

Dio you have a clue what you are talking about?? Assasinations are outlawed in the US. So that's out. Drones? WHat would that have done?
And you seem to believe we lost in Iraq. Any evidence?

No matter how long we stay in Iraq the second we leave the New in power MAJORITY will decimate the new MINORITY. I think Saddam was a sick freakball but he managed that country by being brutal to keep the majority in check. Now when you have the MINORITY out of DICTORIAL control then we will see a lot of bad feelings come to the forefront. I beleive the new ruleing class will make Saddam's "Rape rooms" will look tame by comparison. These sects have been at war for a millenia and we aren't going to change that FACT.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

And yes political assassinations ARE ILLEGAL. But hey we have broken nearly every OTHER rule of a law abiding nation so why not use the "ends justify the means" argument.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

The ONLY thing we did was temporarily buy off the insurgents but once those pay checks stop comming and they break out the $10,000,000,000 that we "lost" and the massive # of "lost" weapons. BLOODY BLOODY BLOODY is what Iraq will become.

 

[Huh?]

And yes political assassinations ARE ILLEGAL. But hey we have broken nearly every OTHER rule of a law abiding nation so why not use the "ends justify the means" argument.

Political? Hell, they don't wear uniforms...anybody that we would kill would be a military target...

 

[The Rabbi]

Surgical strikes on Iran would be one thing, although a piss poor way to try and solve the situation there and hopefully it will never come to that...but invasion would be totally insane.

If Obama decided to go that route he would be as big a screw up as that last one we had...we never should have gone into Iraq and we should not have put near as many boots on the ground as we did in Afghanistan.

We should have retaliated but with surgical strikes and covert operations specializing in targeted assassination...no way we should have taken the actions that we have to date which basically fits into the category as Powell put it..."you break it, you bought it"...and now we are stuck in the middle of a fucking mess...why our leaders can't seem to learn from the past is beyond me...hell, the crap going on over there has been going on since the time of Christ and to think we are going to go into the region and "fix" it is the most arrogant bone-headed bullshit that I've ever heard...hell, junior didn't even bother to listen to his old man...

Dio you have a clue what you are talking about?? Assasinations are outlawed in the US. So that's out. Drones? WHat would that have done?
And you seem to believe we lost in Iraq. Any evidence?

So don't call it targeted assassination...what do you think snipers do? Oh yeah, we don't use snipers.

I didn't mention drones but now that you brought that up...I guess if we are going to use young folks in the military we might as well utilize video games...many are good at it.

What have we won in Iraq?

Comparing what snipers do to assassinations tells me that you don't have much of a clue about either.

 

[Huh?]

Dio you have a clue what you are talking about?? Assasinations are outlawed in the US. So that's out. Drones? WHat would that have done?
And you seem to believe we lost in Iraq. Any evidence?

So don't call it targeted assassination...what do you think snipers do? Oh yeah, we don't use snipers.

I didn't mention drones but now that you brought that up...I guess if we are going to use young folks in the military we might as well utilize video games...many are good at it.

What have we won in Iraq?

Comparing what snipers do to assassinations tells me that you don't have much of a clue about either.

Oh really...why don't you explain the difference then?

In 2002, the George W. Bush Administration prepared a list of "terrorist leaders" the CIA is authorized to assassinate, if capture is impractical and civilian casualties can be kept to an acceptable number. The list includes key al-Qa'ida leaders like Osama bin Laden and his chief deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, as well as other principal figures from al-Qa'ida and affiliated groups. This list is called the "high value target list". [18] The US president is not legally required to approve each name added to the list, nor is the CIA required to obtain presidential approval for specific attacks, although the president is kept well informed about operations.

Assassination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the Global War on Terrorism, American special operations forces and intelligence agencies employed manhunting[27] operations against key opponents and Al Qaeda terrorist leaders.

 

[The Rabbi]

Because someone who gets his information from Wiki is too dense to understand it. That's why.

 

[Huh?]

Because someone who gets his information from Wiki is too dense to understand it. That's why.

Lame excuse number whatever for not addressing the debate...you have been rather pathetic and obviously clueless in this one.

The wiki quotes were merely supplemental information and did not address the question asked...got any more lame excuses or should I just give up on you?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Because someone who gets his information from Wiki is too dense to understand it. That's why.

Almost as stupid as a Rat Lie who gets their news from right wing blogs.

 

[namvet]

Because someone who gets his information from Wiki is too dense to understand it. That's why.

Almost as stupid as a Rat Lie who gets their news from right wing blogs.

just curious. did you really serve????

 

[ABikerSailor]

Because someone who gets his information from Wiki is too dense to understand it. That's why.

Almost as stupid as a Rat Lie who gets their news from right wing blogs.

just curious. did you really serve????

Yep. First ship was USS CONCORD (AFS-5) in '82, and final tour was Navy supervisor of the MEPS here in Amarillo TX from 1999-2002, where I retired.

3 NAM's, several quals, and been to 26 different countries, 4 war zones and 49 different states.

What about you?

 

[The Rabbi]

Because someone who gets his information from Wiki is too dense to understand it. That's why.

Lame excuse number whatever for not addressing the debate...you have been rather pathetic and obviously clueless in this one.

The wiki quotes were merely supplemental information and did not address the question asked...got any more lame excuses or should I just give up on you?

You need to give up and go back to eating Cheetos and watching porn. Leave the adults alone to talk amongst ourselves.

 

[Huh?]

Because someone who gets his information from Wiki is too dense to understand it. That's why.

Lame excuse number whatever for not addressing the debate...you have been rather pathetic and obviously clueless in this one.

The wiki quotes were merely supplemental information and did not address the question asked...got any more lame excuses or should I just give up on you?

You need to give up and go back to eating Cheetos and watching porn. Leave the adults alone to talk amongst ourselves.

In other words, you still can't address the questions...no worries...I'll not be wasting much time on you since you have already shown yourself to be clueless and not very good at this.

 

[ABikerSailor]

And yes political assassinations ARE ILLEGAL. But hey we have broken nearly every OTHER rule of a law abiding nation so why not use the "ends justify the means" argument.

I'm betting that you're also one of those idiots that thinks torture (which is PROHIBITED under the Geneva Conventions) is a good idea.

Yes?

 

[The Rabbi]

Lame excuse number whatever for not addressing the debate...you have been rather pathetic and obviously clueless in this one.

The wiki quotes were merely supplemental information and did not address the question asked...got any more lame excuses or should I just give up on you?

You need to give up and go back to eating Cheetos and watching porn. Leave the adults alone to talk amongst ourselves.

In other words, you still can't address the questions...no worries...I'll not be wasting much time on you since you have already shown yourself to be clueless and not very good at this.

I can't address the question to someone of your intelligence and with your knowledge base. It's because I didn't pick special ed as my major.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You need to give up and go back to eating Cheetos and watching porn. Leave the adults alone to talk amongst ourselves.

In other words, you still can't address the questions...no worries...I'll not be wasting much time on you since you have already shown yourself to be clueless and not very good at this.

I can't address the question to someone of your intelligence and with your knowledge base. It's because I didn't pick special ed as my major.

You're right........it wasn't your major.

It was your day care.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfFRv_1XdDM]YouTube - Stephen Lynch - Special Ed[/ame]

I dedicate this song to you Rabid Lie.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

And yes political assassinations ARE ILLEGAL. But hey we have broken nearly every OTHER rule of a law abiding nation so why not use the "ends justify the means" argument.

I'm betting that you're also one of those idiots that thinks torture (which is PROHIBITED under the Geneva Conventions) is a good idea.

Yes?

Uh NO. I don't I guess you didn't really get the gist of my post.