toldailytopic: Afganistan. If you were president what would you do about Afganistan?

[Granite]

So, what you're saying is, Obama's no different than his predecessor. So much for change.

...yes. Exactly. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. The idea that we'd get any change at all of substance by electing Obama was a joke. Always was. We live in a one-party system with the illusion of real choice. It's been that way for a very long time.

 

[DocJohnson]

...yes. Exactly. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. The idea that we'd get any change at all of substance by electing Obama was a joke. Always was. We live in a one-party system with the illusion of real choice. It's been that way for a very long time.

Something else you and I can agree on.

 

[Aimiel]

Aimiel, I love ya, man, but you're just wrong on this. The Afghan people are not disgruntled... yet. They will slowly become so the longer we continue to occupy their land. They are also perfectly capable of defending themselves against superior forces.

Most of them don't even have weapons. They're peaceful village people, being bullied by guys with formal military training, weapons and can't defend themselves at all. Many of them have lost family and friends to surgical attacks which were designed to kill one Taliban leader but 'accidentally' took out dozens of innocents. If that happened to me, I'd be more than disgruntled.

 

[DocJohnson]

Most of them don't even have weapons. They're peaceful village people, being bullied by guys with formal military training, weapons and can't defend themselves at all. Many of them have lost family and friends to surgical attacks which were designed to kill one Taliban leader but 'accidentally' took out dozens of innocents. If that happened to me, I'd be more than disgruntled.

If that's true, arm them like we did when the Soviets invaded. Problem solved.

 

[MaryContrary]

If the US ever masters giant asteroid technology, you might get a hole like that. Otherwise, not even close.

Not really a lot of technology to master. I mean, it'd be expensive as all getout but all you'd have to do is drop the appropriately sized rock in the right direction and let gravity do the rest.

Really, kinetic energy weapons are far superior to nukes. We should have seized on that a long time ago. Someone's going to get around to it eventually.

Project Thor FTW! :thumb:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment

 

[Aimiel]

If that's true, arm them like we did when the Soviets invaded. Problem solved.

They can't operate a firearm. They don't want to learn. They just want to grow their poppies and survive. Building the country's infrastructure to where it can police itself takes time. It's happening, but much slower than we expected. Corruption slows everything. The recent election was a travesty, and hopefully they'll take precautions from letting something like that happen again.

 

[DocJohnson]

They can't operate a firearm. They don't want to learn. They just want to grow their poppies and survive.

Riiiiiiiiiight.

Tell that to the Soviets.

 

[Aimiel]

The reason the Taliban is still a threat, armed only with rifles and rocket-launchers, is that the villagers aren't armed at all. They're peacful people, which you don't seem to have a concept of. You don't read very much, do you?

 

[DocJohnson]

The reason the Taliban is still a threat, armed only with rifles and rocket-launchers, is that the villagers aren't armed at all. They're peacful people, which you don't seem to have a concept of. You don't read very much, do you?

Not sure what reading has to do with reality. The Soviet invasion lasted ten years. Do you think a peaceful, unarmed, and completely helpless people would have lasted ten years against the Soviet onslaught?

 

[Aimiel]

Most of the ones who survived did so because they weren't armed at all, and were never considered a threat by the USSR.

 

[Aimiel]

Not sure what reading has to do with reality.

The reality is that the majority of the Afghan people are peaceful villagers who don't own a weapon and don't want to. National Geographic and US News and World Report might be a couple suggestions for you to start with.

 

[DocJohnson]

Most of the ones who survived did so because they weren't armed at all, and were never considered a threat by the USSR.

Aimiel, please... this is rediculous. You accuse me of being ignorant of the events, and yet you make a statement like that?

The Islamist mujahideen defeated their own Marxist government which was supported not only by the Soviets but by the Indian government as well. This was more than a small conflict that had little or no effect on the rest of the population. This was a nationwide war that effected everyone from border to border.

 

[Aimiel]

If that were the case, the soviets would have carpet-bombed the Afghan people into the stone age. They occupied, much like we have, and ignored the populace for the most part, as we did, early on. Now we're enlisting their help and asking their advice. I think it's a good strategy.

 

[DocJohnson]

If that were the case, the soviets would have carpet-bombed the Afghan people into the stone age. They occupied, much like we have, and ignored the populace for the most part, as we did, early on. Now we're enlisting their help and asking their advice. I think it's a good strategy.

Perhaps you missed the part about the Soviets being there at the request of the Afghan Marxist government to help restore order. Carpet-bombing would have destroyed the government they were there to assist.

 

[Aimiel]

They didn't round up citizens who were unarmed and haul them off to prison camps. They fought the Mujahadin where they found resistance to their occupation: in caves and strongholds. The US troops have decimated most every Taliban stronghold and are still finding resistance sporadically, throughout the countryside. It isn't the villagers, it is Taliban insurgents, from outside the country for the most part.

 

[DocJohnson]

The US troops have decimated most every Taliban stronghold and are still finding resistance sporadically, throughout the countryside.

Yeah, that's what I said. Sporadic resistance is not enough justification for our troops continuing to occupy the entire nation.

 

[Aimiel]

Maybe you need to read THIS ARTICLE. Or, perhaps McChrystal's Tactical Directive for Afghanistan. I believe that what he's doing is working, and that it's the best strategy for helping the Afghans and getting our boys home the soonest.

 

[DocJohnson]

Maybe you need to read THIS ARTICLE. Or, perhaps McChrystal's Tactical Directive for Afghanistan. I believe that what he's doing is working, and that it's the best strategy for helping the Afghans and getting our boys home the soonest.

I've read both, and I disagree.

I do agree with the U.S. Official who resigned recently. This former Marine captain wrote a four-page letter spelling out exactly why our boys don't need to be there anymore.

 

[elohiym]

dig for oil...

There is little oil in Afghanistan. The value is in using Afghanistan for a pipeline route. That's the oil connection.

 

[lightbringer]

We pulled out early from Korea and South Vietnam...South Vietnam has not continued to be a problem for us but they are under a rule that they did not want, the Korean theater ( still at war with the South Korean people, just not engaging in military assaults ) is still a thorn in the side of the free world?

Should we pull out early and risk further problems?

Russia pulled out of Afghanistan without completing the task and now we are involved?

How say you military tacticians?

Should we continue to become involved in theaters of operations to free a people, to clean up what we feel is a wrong or should we continue to do a job half way?

I know how the majority of our Armed Forces feel, how do you as an American feel?