Taliban in Afghanistan - Our Real Terrorist Enemy

[rayboyusmc]

LOL, YOU need a history lesson. Arabs have been slaughtering each other for centuries. And will be doing the same into the far future.

Hmmmmmmmm, Europeans haven't done too bad either killing each other.

 

[rayboyusmc]

I will type this very slowly for you, Retired. Stay off the drinks while you read it.

You and Rayboy are aware that the "Taliban" did not attack us either? They just chose to protect those that did. Remind me again how we could have just used police and diplomacy in that case?

First, I don't think I ever said "just", but you like to frame the argument on what you believe not what you read.

And yes good intelligence and police work by our intelligence agencies could have been used to infiltrate the Taliban in Afghanistan and Al Quaed and found out about this threat before it happend. Yah, I know it takes time. But what fuck is another 100 years in Iraq in a stupid fuking war?

Is that too fukking hard to understand?

Shit, I would think that you would understand you can't win an unconvetional war on so called "terrorism" on the battlefield. How many do you have to kill before you win this war?

 

[rayboyusmc]

Now, after blowing our initial success, General GW, asks for more NATO forces. If we had stayed the course in Afghanistan, the Taliban would not be this powerful and killing our troops. Thank you Military Geniuses NeoCants

NEPTUN, Romania - President Bush urged NATO allies on Wednesday to recognize the seriousness of the anti-Taliban mission in Afghanistan and step up with more troops for the fight.

"We expect our NATO allies to shoulder the burden necessary to succeed," Bush said, appearing alongside Romanian President Traian Basescu at a news conference on a wind-whipped Black Sea beach.

Bush welcomed recent announcements by at least 10 countries, including France, Germany, Norway and Poland, to provide additional troops to the 47,000-strong NATO force in Afghanistan. He stepped gingerly around a two-year dispute between member nations, including Britain, Canada and the U.S., that have combat troops in Afghanistan's most dangerous areas, and those such as Germany, Italy and Spain that are limiting their forces to the more stable north and west.

Bush showed some understanding of those countries' reluctance to participate on the front lines and in large numbers. Still, he said the outcome in Afghanistan is too important to turn away. Failure, he said, could produce a safe haven again for terrorists and destroy an aspiring democracy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080402/ap_on_re_eu/bush

 

[jreeves]

Now, after blowing our initial success, General GW, asks for more NATO forces. If we had stayed the course in Afghanistan, the Taliban would not be this powerful and killing our troops. Thank you Military Geniuses NeoCants

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080402/ap_on_re_eu/bush

Which one is it, do you want international help or not? First you liberals were bitching that we were going it alone in Iraq, now when he asks for more Nato help in Afgan. you bitch. Your pathetic.

 

[jreeves]

No, what I am saying is you are putting western values on how to deal with an invasion on ME values. They are different. I am not making your point, because you have none. You just don't get it..period.........

What values are we instilling on Iraqi's? We invaded Iraq with justification.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Which one is it, do you want international help or not? First you liberals were bitching that we were going it alone in Iraq, now when he asks for more Nato help in Afgan. you bitch. Your pathetic

No, you're pathetic. No one said anything about not wanting help, The POINT IS IF WE HAD DONE THIS RIGHT AND FINISHED THE JOB IN AFGHANISTAN, we wouldn't be having these problems now.

Now we have to have help because we have our military stretched very thin with the debacle, quagmire, never-eneding war in Iraq.

You don't start one war and then leave to take most of your forces to another war before the first fukking war is done.

 

[jreeves]

No, you're pathetic. No one said anything about not wanting help, The POINT IS IF WE HAD DONE THIS RIGHT AND FINISHED THE JOB IN AFGHANISTAN, we wouldn't be having these problems now.

Now we have to have help because we have our military stretched very thin with the debacle, quagmire, never-eneding war in Iraq.

You don't start one war and then leave to take most of your forces to another war before the first fukking war is done.

So what would you have considered a reasonable amount of time in finishing the job in Afgan.?

 

[AllieBaba]

There's no such thing. A reasonable amount of time is the amount of time it takes to get it done. You don't look at a timeline, you look at the job you have to do.

 

[jreeves]

There's no such thing. A reasonable amount of time is the amount of time it takes to get it done. You don't look at a timeline, you look at the job you have to do.

No I think he should be able to define what a reasonable amount of time would be. I have a point trust me.

 

[rayboyusmc]

You will at best go in and kill as many Taliban as you can. Then you keep them from reconstuting a military presence and hope the Afghan government can get it its shit together.

If they can't themself, you leave and let them kill each other. Check it out when this is done and then pick another option depending on who won.

You simply cannot pacify a country like this anymore unless you are willing to kill every person and bring in illegal immigrants who are in our jails to take their places.

 

[AllieBaba]

I have a different take. I agree about pacifying a country. You can't do it, particularly with a narrow time line.

But you still stay until the job's done. If that means 70 years, you stay 70 years.

 

[jreeves]

You will at best go in and kill as many Taliban as you can. Then you keep them from reconstuting a military presence and hope the Afghan government can get it its shit together.

If they can't themself, you leave and let them kill each other. Check it out when this is done and then pick another option depending on who won.

You simply cannot pacify a country like this anymore unless you are willing to kill every person and bring in illegal immigrants who are in our jails to take their places.

You made a statement that we shouldn't have started another war until the job was done. When, in your opinion, should that have been completed, its a simple question?

 

[jreeves]

You made a statement that we shouldn't have started another war until the job was done. When, in your opinion, should that have been completed, its a simple question?

Of course you won't answer the question, cause you want to make assisine comments, which are not based on facts.

 

[DeadCanDance]

I have a different take. I agree about pacifying a country. You can't do it, particularly with a narrow time line.

But you still stay until the job's done. If that means 70 years, you stay 70 years.

Jesus christ, republcians want a 70 year war in Iraq.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Jesus christ, republcians want a 70 year war in Iraq.

Your as ignorant as a rock.

 

[maineman]

No I would fight against them, your right. But I'm not going to blow myself up, to go to heaven to be with 12 young virgins either, or cut the heads off of journalists, slaughter people for cameras.....get the point? Yep, I'm sure that the terrorist from Syria feels great Iraqi national pride too.

as Grump intimated, it has little to do with "Iraqi national pride" and everything to do with arab pride and an islamic tradition about dealing with invading conquering and occupying infidels!

 

[jreeves]

as Grump intimated, it has little to do with "Iraqi national pride" and everything to do with arab pride and an islamic tradition about dealing with invading conquering and occupying infidels!

Guess that's why they attacked the World Trade Center on 9/11 huh, because we were occupying Iraq....oh shit that's right.

 

[maineman]

Guess that's why they attacked the World Trade Center on 9/11 huh, because we were occupying Iraq....oh shit that's right.

how many Iraqis were amongst the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11? moron?

 

[jreeves]

how many Iraqis were amongst the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11? moron?

But isn't it AQ in Iraq who is attacking us, well isn't it AQ that attacked us on 9/11. Sorry I don't see the difference.

 

[maineman]

But isn't it AQ in Iraq who is attacking us, well isn't it AQ that attacked us on 9/11. Sorry I don't see the difference.

"AQ in Iraq" is a group of Iraqis who took that name AFTER we invaded Iraq. I am sorry that you don't see the difference. If a pig decided to change its name to "cow", that wouldn't make the meat beef.