The left does not allow us to fight properly !!

[Artevelde]

when they get the bomb you will change your outlook !!

Pakistan already has the bomb.

True and dangerous.

 

[Vidi]

The US never supported the Taliban and never really supported saddam Hussein either (although it did offer limited support to Iraq during its war with Iran).

These kinds of lies keep resurfacing, but they remain lies nevertheless.

Under Reagan, U.S. support for the mujahideen evolved into an official U.S. foreign policy, known as the Reagan Doctrine, which included U.S. support for anti-Soviet movements in Afghanistan, Angola, Nicaragua, and elsewhere.[48]Ronald Reagan praised mujahideen as "freedom fighters".

Mujahideen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Taliban are one of the mujahideen ("holy warriors" or "freedom fighters") groups that formed during the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan (1979-89).

Read more: The Taliban — Infoplease.com The Taliban — Infoplease.com

You're absolutely wrong.

The Taliban emerged much later and they fought the mujahideen and were fought by them. You should try to get better informed.

I'm informed just fine. The mujahideen consisted of many groups, including the Taliban, though they weren't unified under the Taliban name until later.

Just as my link explained.

The Taliban are one of the mujahideen ("holy warriors" or "freedom fighters") groups that formed during the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan (1979-89). After the withdrawal of Soviet forces, the Soviet-backed government lost ground to the mujahideen. In 1992, Kabul was captured and an alliance of mujahideen set up a new government with Burhanuddin Rabbani as interim president. However, the various factions were unable to cooperate and fell to fighting each other. Afghanistan was reduced to a collection of territories held by competing warlords.

Groups of taliban ("religious students") were loosely organized on a regional basis during the occupation and civil war. Although they represented a potentially huge force, they didn't emerge as a united entity until the taliban of Kandahar made their move in 1994. In late 1994, a group of well-trained taliban were chosen by Pakistan to protect a convoy trying to open a trade route from Pakistan to Central Asia. They proved an able force, fighting off rival mujahideen and warlords. The taliban then went on to take the city of Kandahar, beginning a surprising advance that ended with their capture of Kabul in September 1996.


Read more: The Taliban — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban.html#ixzz1pvDvs7rq

 

[Artevelde]

You're absolutely wrong.

The Taliban emerged much later and they fought the mujahideen and were fought by them. You should try to get better informed.

I'm informed just fine. The mujahideen consisted of many groups, including the Taliban, though they weren't unified under the Taliban name until later.

Just as my link explained.

The Taliban are one of the mujahideen ("holy warriors" or "freedom fighters") groups that formed during the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan (1979-89). After the withdrawal of Soviet forces, the Soviet-backed government lost ground to the mujahideen. In 1992, Kabul was captured and an alliance of mujahideen set up a new government with Burhanuddin Rabbani as interim president. However, the various factions were unable to cooperate and fell to fighting each other. Afghanistan was reduced to a collection of territories held by competing warlords.

Groups of taliban ("religious students") were loosely organized on a regional basis during the occupation and civil war. Although they represented a potentially huge force, they didn't emerge as a united entity until the taliban of Kandahar made their move in 1994. In late 1994, a group of well-trained taliban were chosen by Pakistan to protect a convoy trying to open a trade route from Pakistan to Central Asia. They proved an able force, fighting off rival mujahideen and warlords. The taliban then went on to take the city of Kandahar, beginning a surprising advance that ended with their capture of Kabul in September 1996.


Read more: The Taliban — Infoplease.com The Taliban — Infoplease.com

The Taliban emerged in 1994, long after the Mujahedeen had driven out the Soviets and destroyed the Soviet-backed regime in Kabul. They then attacked the mujahedeen-regime in Kabul and ultimately gained control over Afghanistan fighting against the Western-backed regime.

Get your facts straigth and stop just believing bullshit written on the internet.

 

[Vidi]

Mullah Mohammed Omar (Pashto: ملا محمد عمر; born c. 1959), often simply called Mullah Omar, is the spiritual leader of the Taliban. He was Afghanistan's de facto head of state from 1996 to late 2001, under the official title "Head of the Supreme Council". He held the title Commander of the Faithful of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, which was recognized by only three nations: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.


Omar fought as a guerrilla with the Harakat-i Inqilab-i Islami faction of the anti-Soviet Mujahideen under the command of Nek Mohammad, and fought against the Najibullah regime between 1989 and 1992.[14] It was reported that he was thin, but tall and strongly built, and "a crack marksman who had destroyed many Soviet tanks during the Afghan War."[15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Omar

Again...I am informed just fine

 

[Artevelde]

Mullah Mohammed Omar (Pashto: ملا محمد عمر; born c. 1959), often simply called Mullah Omar, is the spiritual leader of the Taliban. He was Afghanistan's de facto head of state from 1996 to late 2001, under the official title "Head of the Supreme Council". He held the title Commander of the Faithful of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, which was recognized by only three nations: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.


Omar fought as a guerrilla with the Harakat-i Inqilab-i Islami faction of the anti-Soviet Mujahideen under the command of Nek Mohammad, and fought against the Najibullah regime between 1989 and 1992.[14] It was reported that he was thin, but tall and strongly built, and "a crack marksman who had destroyed many Soviet tanks during the Afghan War."[15]

Mohammed Omar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again...I am informed just fine

If you're not interested in historical facts then that is your problem, not mine.

 

[Vidi]

Mullah Mohammed Omar (Pashto: ملا محمد عمر; born c. 1959), often simply called Mullah Omar, is the spiritual leader of the Taliban. He was Afghanistan's de facto head of state from 1996 to late 2001, under the official title "Head of the Supreme Council". He held the title Commander of the Faithful of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, which was recognized by only three nations: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.


Omar fought as a guerrilla with the Harakat-i Inqilab-i Islami faction of the anti-Soviet Mujahideen under the command of Nek Mohammad, and fought against the Najibullah regime between 1989 and 1992.[14] It was reported that he was thin, but tall and strongly built, and "a crack marksman who had destroyed many Soviet tanks during the Afghan War."[15]

Mohammed Omar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again...I am informed just fine

If you're not interested in historical facts then that is your problem, not mine.

The Taliban was formed in large part by the Pakistani ISI using remnants of the Mujahadeen, Mullah Mohamed Omar becoming their leader...a former Mujahadeen.

I've backed up every post with a link to facts supporting my statements.

Your entire argument is," Nuh uh"

 

[Artevelde]

Again...I am informed just fine

If you're not interested in historical facts then that is your problem, not mine.

The Taliban was formed in large part by the Pakistani ISI using remnants of the Mujahadeen, Mullah Mohamed Omar becoming their leader...a former Mujahadeen.

I've backed up every post with a link to facts supporting my statements.

Your entire argument is," Nuh uh"

With links from the internet you can "prove" that the moon landing never took place, that 9/11 never happened, etc. What counts are historical, documented facts.

That the Taleban were formed with the support of the ISI is true, but this happened long after the fight between the mujahedeen and the soviets was over. The Taleban were never supported by the US. that is the claim you made and which is patently false.

The Taleban emerged as a force opposed to the US-backed mujahedeen-regime.

 

[Vidi]

If you're not interested in historical facts then that is your problem, not mine.

The Taliban was formed in large part by the Pakistani ISI using remnants of the Mujahadeen, Mullah Mohamed Omar becoming their leader...a former Mujahadeen.

I've backed up every post with a link to facts supporting my statements.

Your entire argument is," Nuh uh"

With links from the internet you can "prove" that the moon landing never took place, that 9/11 never happened, etc. What counts are historical, documented facts.

That the Taleban were formed with the support of the ISI is true, but this happened long after the fight between the mujahedeen and the soviets was over. The Taleban were never supported by the US. that is the claim you made and which is patently false.

The Taleban emerged as a force opposed to the US-backed mujahedeen-regime.

Prove it.

 

[Artevelde]

The Taliban was formed in large part by the Pakistani ISI using remnants of the Mujahadeen, Mullah Mohamed Omar becoming their leader...a former Mujahadeen.

I've backed up every post with a link to facts supporting my statements.

Your entire argument is," Nuh uh"

With links from the internet you can "prove" that the moon landing never took place, that 9/11 never happened, etc. What counts are historical, documented facts.

That the Taleban were formed with the support of the ISI is true, but this happened long after the fight between the mujahedeen and the soviets was over. The Taleban were never supported by the US. that is the claim you made and which is patently false.

The Taleban emerged as a force opposed to the US-backed mujahedeen-regime.

Prove it.

Try reading a serious and documented book.

But if you don't care for accurate historical facts, again that's your problem, not mine.

 

[Vidi]

With links from the internet you can "prove" that the moon landing never took place, that 9/11 never happened, etc. What counts are historical, documented facts.

That the Taleban were formed with the support of the ISI is true, but this happened long after the fight between the mujahedeen and the soviets was over. The Taleban were never supported by the US. that is the claim you made and which is patently false.

The Taleban emerged as a force opposed to the US-backed mujahedeen-regime.

Prove it.

Try reading a serious and documented book.

But if you don't care for accurate historical facts, again that's your problem, not mine.

Sorry I missed the memo proclaiming you the accurate source on everything without any proof to back it up.

Jesus, ego much?

You're boring me now.

 

[Artevelde]

Prove it.

Try reading a serious and documented book.

But if you don't care for accurate historical facts, again that's your problem, not mine.

Sorry I missed the memo proclaiming you the accurate source on everything without any proof to back it up.

Jesus, ego much?

You're boring me now.

Yes, people who try to stick to the facts are often deemed boring by people who would much rather hear simplified stories.

Did you prove anything, except that you can copy paste unreliable internet-sources that contradict one another?

It's always best when entering a discussion to be sure that you know something about what you're going to talk about, rather than having to try to google some internet crap.

 

[Flopper]

I disagree profoundly. we are not at war with Islam, but with the jihadi's. Don't forget that the primary victims of jihadi terrorism are other muslims. The number of muslims killed by jihadi fighters is much higher than the number of Westerners.

when they get the bomb you will change your outlook !!

The point is you can't fight and ideology with bombs and expect to win. The military can be very effective at fighting nations, somewhat effective at fighting terrorist groups, but totally ineffective at fighting ideology. The best way fight the jihadists is too prove them wrong in the eyes of the people. They thrive on war and conflict.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

You miss my point entirely. War should be horrible. The mere thought of waging it should terrify everyone. My point is, we've sanitized war to where it is almost an acceptable alternative to diplomacy. I have no desire to wipe out large portions of any culture or civilian population. I desire for there never to be any doubt that attacking the United States will be met with the most strenuous retaliation possible.

That is because war today is big business! BIG BIG BUSINESS! The defense contractors that mushroomed up around Shrub's puzzling saber rattling at Iraq were no coincidence... that Cheney still sat on the board (AND RECEIVED COMPENSATION) from Halliburton while he was VP (hello, obvious conflict of interest!) was also no coincidence. Private contractors bled our government dry for faux "reconstruction" over there all with a knowing wink and nod of the Bush administration. You must follow the money if you're asking yourself why we find ourselves fighting perpetual unwinnable battles.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

I'm not being smart-ass. These are serious questions which i would like you to answer.
simple ...the enemy is muslims !!

does that include us citizens who are muslim? And muslims who serve in the us military?

yes !!

Wait, so 2/3 of my neightborhood is "terrists"? The nice Palestinian couple who run the Bodega and will hold packages and a spare set of keys for me? Or my nice cat-sitter lady who always leaves me a Xmas present, even though she's not Xtian (well, neither am I, but she doesn't know that). Wow, and they seem so nice! And all their kids were BORN here... You are a Grade A idiot.

 

[Nic_Driver]

properly fighting a war means to break the enemies will !!! not just their military but their populace as a whole ... we have not accomplished this since WW2 !!! the reason is very simple .....the political left !!! name an instance that the left has rallied around our troops and our country in a time of war in the past 50 yrs !!! they protest ,march,boycott,and rally in sympathy on behalf of our enemies example [Jane Fonda ] .... with the political clout the leftist carry our leaders are afraid to do what needs to be done against our enemies !!! and now with the UN [whom the lefties love ] dictating what we can and cannot do in a time of war we are fighting with one hand tied behind our backs !!! if we would have been allowed to wage the 2 wars we are currently involved in like we did in WW2 our troops would have come home yrs ago !!

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

I've made the same argument many times. 67 years ago, we beat 2 enemies into submission. We killed thousands of troops, but hundreds of thousands of civilians. They were completely demoralized, both militarily and domestically. Now we wage war casually, without conviction or fortitude. We avoid "collateral damage" like the plague.

All killing Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters does is breed more fighters.

If you're going to start a war, be ready to finish it. Completely destroy cities, kill thousands of people. Destroy their infrastructure and if necessary, turn deserts to glass.

Yes it's cruel, cold, horrible even. War is SUPPOSED to be horrible! The mere thought of going to war should terrify us, but it should terrify those that would attack us, even more.

I haven't read this entire thread, and I'm not going to , so perhaps this was already pointed out; but our military is not any more concerned about collateral damage now than we were then. That is to say we always have tried to avoid it, the difference is in the accuracy of today's weapons. We have the technology today to take out a target and leave a house standing around him, whereas 60 years ago leveling an entire neighborhood would have been necessary to get the same target.

 

[The T]

I've made the same argument many times. 67 years ago, we beat 2 enemies into submission. We killed thousands of troops, but hundreds of thousands of civilians. They were completely demoralized, both militarily and domestically. Now we wage war casually, without conviction or fortitude. We avoid "collateral damage" like the plague.

All killing Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters does is breed more fighters.

If you're going to start a war, be ready to finish it. Completely destroy cities, kill thousands of people. Destroy their infrastructure and if necessary, turn deserts to glass.

Yes it's cruel, cold, horrible even. War is SUPPOSED to be horrible! The mere thought of going to war should terrify us, but it should terrify those that would attack us, even more.

I haven't read this entire thread, and I'm not going to , so perhaps this was already pointed out; but our military is not any more concerned about collateral damage now than we were then. That is to say we always have tried to avoid it, the difference is in the accuracy of today's weapons. We have the technology today to take out a target and leave a house standing around him, whereas 60 years ago leveling an entire neighborhood would have been necessary to get the same target.

Think Dresden Germany...

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

properly fighting a war means to break the enemies will !!! not just their military but their populace as a whole ... we have not accomplished this since WW2 !!! the reason is very simple .....the political left !!! name an instance that the left has rallied around our troops and our country in a time of war in the past 50 yrs !!!

Name a war in the last 50 years that we couldn't have avoided.

they protest ,march,boycott,and rally in sympathy on behalf of our enemies example [Jane Fonda ] .... with the political clout the leftist carry our leaders are afraid to do what needs to be done against our enemies !!! and now with the UN [whom the lefties love ] dictating what we can and cannot do in a time of war we are fighting with one hand tied behind our backs !!!

Why did you post all that crap? All you needed to do was say "Jane Fonda is a slut" - and we know EXACTLY what you think on the topic of war.

if we would have been allowed to wage the 2 wars we are currently involved in like we did in WW2 our troops would have come home yrs ago !!

I'm sorry, but which party was in control of the White House and both houses of Congress from 2003 to 2007? The liberals?

Fucking asshole.



Here's the deal with war. I agree that war should be waged completely - when its waged. If the U.S. gets involved in a war, they should use as much force as possible to attain a crushing defeat of the enemy as soon as possible with as little risk to ourselves as possible. Like in WW II, when we opened up the bomb bay doors on the women and children of Dresden and Tokyo.

That being said - war should not be engaged in unless it is absolutely necessary for our survival. The last war like that was WW II.

To summarize:

When war is absolutely necessary for our nation to survive, it should be engaged in 100%


When war is not absolutely necessary for our nation to survive, it should be engaged in 0%

 

[Nic_Driver]

When did we declare war against whom did we declare it?

I know about the war on drug and the war on terrorism but those are just lofty platitudes.

 

[Nosmo King]

Atomic weapons.

After they were used, no one wants to see them unleashed ever again.

Liberals are not to blame for war by proxy or the political wars fought since 1945.

Plutonium is.

But small minds seek small answers. So, yes, yidnar, it's the Left's fault.

moron