MoD admits campaign in Afghanistan is 'an unwinnable war'

[Drummond]

Regardless of what it 'sounds like' it shows that the Taliban was not the enemy but for the AQ presence. Proper enemy identification is key.

... so, let me get this straight. Terrorist ENABLERS are, by your reckoning, not an enemy ???

If you were right, then they could've handed OBL over. They REFUSED TO.

Your attempt to NOT see the Taliban as enemies is typical Leftie perversity.

Now explain why we should extend that to every other failed nation state that harbors terrorists.

... er'm, because (depending on exact circumstances) .. they represent a threat to your security !

Have you really, seriously, not grasped the principle behind military actions taken to fight the War on Terror ?? Have you not understood why there's needed to be a troop presence in Afghanistan for so long ?

Did you, maybe, think your service personnel were just there 'to get away from it all' ?

The problem is constant misapplication of "leftie mentality."

Actually, it seems to me that your posts help to characterise what I mean by 'Leftie mentality'.

You must surely grasp what it is I'm explaining to you .. and have been aware of these sorts of arguments before I ever bothered to take time out to post explanations of them. Nonetheless, being true to a 'Leftie mentality', you've embarked on a stance that feigns non-understanding, and dismissiveness, of tactical and logistical fundamentals. And, for why ? In the hope of furthering the stance that has it that one CAN be, SHOULD be, both ignorant of basic dangers to your security, AND of the mentality driving terrorism and terrorists.

You want alertness to these dangers put to sleep .. because, for some reason I've never been able to fathom, it serves the LEFTIE MENTALITY to be as soft on terrorists - or other ideological adversaries - as it's possible to be. Example: when Obama gained the Presidency, how quickly did he declare TO AMERICA'S ENEMIES a timetable of withdrawal from Afghanistan ? Had terrorist activity ceased at that time ? NO ... but he announced the withdrawal, all the same !!!

It's nuts. It really is !! Yet, time and again, you Lefties find ways of trying to get people to have some level of sympathetic consideration for them. 'They are not the danger the Right says they are'. 'Consider their human rights'. Stop fighting them, pull back, withdraw .. appeasement stances ... you Lefties, repeatedly, find perverse ways of favouring them.

Weird in the extreme. And, more .. downright dangerous.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

... so, let me get this straight. Terrorist ENABLERS are, by your reckoning, not an enemy ???

If you were right, then they could've handed OBL over. They REFUSED TO.

Your attempt to NOT see the Taliban as enemies is typical Leftie perversity.



... er'm, because (depending on exact circumstances) .. they represent a threat to your security !

Have you really, seriously, not grasped the principle behind military actions taken to fight the War on Terror ?? Have you not understood why there's needed to be a troop presence in Afghanistan for so long ?

Did you, maybe, think your service personnel were just there 'to get away from it all' ?



Actually, it seems to me that your posts help to characterise what I mean by 'Leftie mentality'.

You must surely grasp what it is I'm explaining to you .. and have been aware of these sorts of arguments before I ever bothered to take time out to post explanations of them. Nonetheless, being true to a 'Leftie mentality', you've embarked on a stance that feigns non-understanding, and dismissiveness, of tactical and logistical fundamentals. And, for why ? In the hope of furthering the stance that has it that one CAN be, SHOULD be, both ignorant of basic dangers to your security, AND of the mentality driving terrorism and terrorists.

You want alertness to these dangers put to sleep .. because, for some reason I've never been able to fathom, it serves the LEFTIE MENTALITY to be as soft on terrorists - or other ideological adversaries - as it's possible to be. Example: when Obama gained the Presidency, how quickly did he declare TO AMERICA'S ENEMIES a timetable of withdrawal from Afghanistan ? Had terrorist activity ceased at that time ? NO ... but he announced the withdrawal, all the same !!!

It's nuts. It really is !! Yet, time and again, you Lefties find ways of trying to get people to have some level of sympathetic consideration for them. 'They are not the danger the Right says they are'. 'Consider their human rights'. Stop fighting them, pull back, withdraw .. appeasement stances ... you Lefties, repeatedly, find perverse ways of favouring them.

Weird in the extreme. And, more .. downright dangerous.

Bravo.. So well stated amigo.
My guess is that , like Jafar, fj too knows that already but for ideological purposes chooses to pretend ignorance.
Such pretending so often allows for not answering the hard questions.
Which is another favorite lefty trick but fj claims to be no lefty..

Guy has his shoes made special to fit his two left feet..-Tyr

I bet rsr gets a big kick out of that one....

[Robert A Whit]

Bravo.. So well stated amigo.
My guess is that , like Jafar, fj too knows that already but for ideological purposes chooses to pretend ignorance.
Such pretending so often allows for not answering the hard questions.
Which is another favorite lefty trick but fj claims to be no lefty..

Guy has his shoes made special to fit his two left feet..-Tyr

I bet rsr gets a big kick out of that one....

I am so puzzled on this topic.

I can name two books by authorities that dispel the myth our troops fought that war on the ground.

By the time Franks won, he might have had something like 100 guys on the ground and they were to handle spotting targets and guarding an airfield Franks needed.

This was waged as the Northern Alliance fighting the Taliban. We gave them millions of dollars and paid for loyalty. But the war was between the Alliance and the Taliban.

General Franks explains it in his book, THE AMERICAN SOLDIER

And to button it down, later General Mike DeLong wrote his fine book and he entirely backs up General Franks.

Most wars are our troops in combat but this time Franks use of the military in combat was air power. Bombs from over 30,000 feet did the job and missiles from the Navy.

I realize once the new government was in power, that we did have some troops based in Afghanistan but by that time the Taliban was gone as were the AQ.

The enemy was the Taliban and the troops were the northern alliance. This is a vital and important distinction.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I am so puzzled on this topic.

I can name two books by authorities that dispel the myth our troops fought that war on the ground.

By the time Franks won, he might have had something like 100 guys on the ground and they were to handle spotting targets and guarding an airfield Franks needed.

This was waged as the Northern Alliance fighting the Taliban. We gave them millions of dollars and paid for loyalty. But the war was between the Alliance and the Taliban.

General Franks explains it in his book, THE AMERICAN SOLDIER

And to button it down, later General Mike DeLong wrote his fine book and he entirely backs up General Franks.

Most wars are our troops in combat but this time Franks use of the military in combat was air power. Bombs from over 30,000 feet did the job and missiles from the Navy.

I realize once the new government was in power, that we did have some troops based in Afghanistan but by that time the Taliban was gone as were the AQ.

The enemy was the Taliban and the troops were the northern alliance. This is a vital and important distinction.

A victory must be maintained when the enemy is not completely obliterated. New government there did no such maintaining and our politicians interfered in military operations there too much.
We were bound to not achieve a true victory once we decided to stop destroying the enemy well before their numbers were very close to zero! When we showed such weakness they gained new recruits, the savages there only respect massive brute force and death. Too stupid to see a future without their believed cult and cult leaders--Islam ... -Tyr

[Robert A Whit]

Originally Posted by Robert A Whit
I am so puzzled on this topic.

I can name two books by authorities that dispel the myth our troops fought that war on the ground.

By the time Franks won, he might have had something like 100 guys on the ground and they were to handle spotting targets and guarding an airfield Franks needed.

This was waged as the Northern Alliance fighting the Taliban. We gave them millions of dollars and paid for loyalty. But the war was between the Alliance and the Taliban.

General Franks explains it in his book, THE AMERICAN SOLDIER

And to button it down, later General Mike DeLong wrote his fine book and he entirely backs up General Franks.

Most wars are our troops in combat but this time Franks use of the military in combat was air power. Bombs from over 30,000 feet did the job and missiles from the Navy.

I realize once the new government was in power, that we did have some troops based in Afghanistan but by that time the Taliban was gone as were the AQ.

The enemy was the Taliban and the troops were the northern alliance. This is a vital and important distinction.

A victory must be maintained when the enemy is not completely obliterated. New government there did no such maintaining and our politicians interfered in military operations there too much.
We were bound to not achieve a true victory once we decided to stop destroying the enemy well before their numbers were very close to zero! When we showed such weakness they gained new recruits, the savages there only respect massive brute force and death. Too stupid to see a future without their believed cult and cult leaders--Islam ... -Tyr

You are dead right. But think of who did the fighting. Let the Alliance keep the victory. Franks got his orders to boot out the Al Qaeda first and then the alliance could deal with the Taliban. The alliance won't allow themselves to lose again. And if they do, what does it matter now?

Even if we try super hard, I really see no way for our guys to keep the Taliban or Al Qaeda out. Not with Obama running the show. He plans to bail out.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You are dead right. But think of who did the fighting. Let the Alliance keep the victory. Franks got his orders to boot out the Al Qaeda first and then the alliance could deal with the Taliban. The alliance won't allow themselves to lose again. And if they do, what does it matter now?

Even if we try super hard, I really see no way for our guys to keep the Taliban or Al Qaeda out. Not with Obama running the show. He plans to bail out.

Obama will do whatever is NOT in our best interests... and do so deliberately..-Tyr

[fj1200]

Read General Franks book since he commanded Centcom.

Franks men were not the fighters. Franks ramped way up the presence of the CIA and they paid the northern alliance and the Taliban were indeed the enemy of the northern alliance.

Our role was to facilitate. I guess too few recall the actual war or have not yet read Franks book on this. Franks added our air-power to the fighting done by the Afghanistan fighters.

Franks intended to bust up the freedom of the AQ in order to eliminate their using the country as a base. Sure, he hoped to also get Bin Laden but blowing up locations he might be at is not a very good way to capture a person. OBL was not observed. And Franks was livid that the Afghans refused to go into Tora Bora, hoping that maybe OBL was there. But he never was seen by anybody.

No argument there.

Invocation of the truth is and always will be amigo..

That particular person happens to be a very confused liberal that thinks(or pretends that) he is a conservative. He needs help and I've been tutoring him for a long time now. Tha' guy is a very poor student but I have great hope a miracle shall fall from the sky and he open his eyes to see the light. The generous thing to do is to say a small prayer for him!
That is iffin' ya can find it in your heart to overlook his blabbering appeasing posts and ego...
RSR NAILS HIM SO OFTEN THAT HE WEIGHS AN EXTRA TWENTY POUNDS JUST FROM THE IRON! --Tyr

[fj1200]

Bravo.. So well stated amigo.

I see the daisy chain is in full effect here.

[fj1200]

... so, let me get this straight. Terrorist ENABLERS are, by your reckoning, not an enemy ???

If you were right, then they could've handed OBL over. They REFUSED TO.

Your attempt to NOT see the Taliban as enemies is typical Leftie perversity.

Again, do you purposely ignore what's not convenient to your point? Question withdrawn: You argue like a lefty. AQ is the enemy and thus the Taliban became the enemy per the Bush Doctrine but at heart the enemy is AQ.

... er'm, because (depending on exact circumstances) .. they represent a threat to your security !

So you think we should wage war against any regime that harbors terrorists?

... 'Leftie mentality'.

... 'Leftie mentality', ...

... LEFTIE MENTALITY ...

... you Lefties ... you Lefties...

You might try arguing the actual points rather than fighting the boogeyman.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I see the daisy chain is in full effect here.

I prefer this-- Not to partial to daisies myself...-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You might try arguing the actual points rather than fighting the boogeyman.

Perhaps you should try admitting to yourself that this particular bogeyman exists and has murdered tens of thousands worldwide.
Here a reminder just for you!
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

This photo from Boston is for those Muslim-Americans who claim they were "traumatized" by NYPD surveillance. (As can be seen, the effort to accommodate angry, self-absorbed Muslims isn't working out too well for the rest of us either.)

Islam's Latest Contributions to Peace "Mohammed is God's apostle. Those who follow him are harsh to the unbelievers but merciful to one another" Quran 48:29 2013.04.23 (Baghdad, Iraq) - Muslims bomb a rival mosque, killing seven worshippers. 2013.04.22 (Fallujah, Iraq) - Nine people at a restaurant are taken out in mid-bite by Mujahid bombers. 2013.04.21 (Pattani, Thailand) - A 49-year-old Buddhist woman is gunned down in a targeted attack by Muslim militants. 2013.04.21 (Paktika, Afghanistan) - Three civilians at a shopping mall are blown to bits by a Shahid suicide bomber. 2013.04.20 (Khar, Pakistan) - A female Fedayeen blows herself up outside a hospital, taking four innocents with her. 2013.04.19 (Wana, Pakistan) - Taliban extremists send rockets into an election rally, killing four people.

[fj1200]

I prefer this-- Not to partial to daisies myself...-Tyr

I would have thought tulips.

[fj1200]

Perhaps you should try admitting to yourself that this particular bogeyman exists and has murdered tens of thousands worldwide.

Thanks for the validation of my point. Terrorists are the enemy.

[taft2012]

... so, let me get this straight. Terrorist ENABLERS are, by your reckoning, not an enemy ???

If you were right, then they could've handed OBL over. They REFUSED TO.

Your attempt to NOT see the Taliban as enemies is typical Leftie perversity.

"Leftie perversity" is an excellent way of putting it.

We must remember from where these "people" come. Thirty years ago a tinhorn dictator could "invite" in 10,000 Soviet troops and they'd swear up and down this was not an indicator these tinhorns were part of the Soviet sphere of influence.

Ay rational president who took steps to address this problem was labelled a "war monger."

Same play book, different players. Any enemy of my country is my ally.

[Drummond]

Thanks for the validation of my point. Terrorists are the enemy.

Congratulations - we can agree. Terrorists are an enemy. Undoubtedly so.

Some Lefties might take issue with that ... I can well believe it. But, at least, you can recognise this as true. Which in turn means, of course, that offering arguments which favour them SHOULDN'T be an option for you.

Can we agree on that ?