MoD admits campaign in Afghanistan is 'an unwinnable war'

[Drummond]

Again, do you purposely ignore what's not convenient to your point?

I shall offer you a countering comment further on. Be patient ....

You argue like a lefty.

Don't be ridiculous.

Lefties will use any debating trick they can to win out .. up to, and including, bias .. propaganda .. misdirection .. non-contextual offerings .. outright untruths .. emotive posturing .. and more besides.

Me, I'm grounded in reality. I argue realistically, backing up my arguments with supportive material when both possible and appropriate. Further, I'm grounded by my own sense of decency. How many Lefties is this TRULY applicable to ?

AQ is the enemy and thus the Taliban became the enemy per the Bush Doctrine but at heart the enemy is AQ.

Now, how should I categorise this offering ?

Al Qaeda is an enemy .. absolutely. This goes without saying.

BUT .. what about terrorist ENABLERS ? Are you seriously telling me that terrorist enablers are NOT your enemy ??

The Taliban were playing host to, and enabling, Al Qaeda to the hilt ! Thanks to them, Al Qaeda had a base from which to operate, one where they could do whatever they liked.

On 11th September 2001, America saw what that led to.

Now, by your reckoning, does that make the Taliban your FRIENDS ?? Or, by enabling Al Qaeda as they did, could it JUST be .. wait for it, utterly staggering suggestion coming up .. yes ..... that this, too, made them ENEMIES ??

Bush gave the Taliban the chance to do the decent thing, and hand OBL over to them. Now, did the Taliban show its 'friendship' by REFUSING to comply ?

Since then, tell me also .. have the Taliban given you the slightest cause to think they might be your friends ? Is the planting of IED's a friendly act ? Is any of their sniping actually 'friendly' fire ? Maybe the soldier who's had a leg blown off by a Taliban-planted IED feels motivated to send his assailants Christmas cards for their trouble ??

OR .. is it far more reasonable to suppose that the Taliban have been your enemies, at LEAST since they first starting helping Al Qaeda out ??

Cue a counter-argument from you to suggest that the Taliban are much-misunderstood chums, easily deserving of some apologist rot ? H'm ?

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

I think Bush had the right idea, from the very start. He asserted that either regimes - nation States - should support the War on Terror, or, if they refused to be a part of the remedy against terrorism, they should instead be seen as part of the problem.

So tell me, why should America be tolerant of regimes insisting upon being a part of that problem .. and most especially when this includes harbouring terrorists ???

Harbour a terrorist, and you help terrorism to thrive. This, ultimately, translates into otherwise preventable death and destruction. WHY tolerate the proliferation of any of this, when instead the instigators of it can and should be stopped ?

Though it wasn't the reason for the 2003 invasion ... Saddam's regime DID harbour Zarqawi, a major Al Qaeda terrorist. So, I say that Saddam's regime earned what it ultimately suffered, on those grounds alone.

But still .. what DOES constitute 'war' .. anyway ?

It may be possible, depending upon the regime in question, to engage in warfare of a non-military nature. Cyber-warfare, perhaps. Or, economic sanctions which cripple said regime's viability.

But if not, AND the terrorists involved are at all likely to pose a threat, I consider that whatever action which can be effective against them, should be taken. My answer is that you do what it takes, whatever that is, to deal with those terrorists ... AND THEIR ENABLERS.

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

This is where I remind you of the comment you made previously, namely ..

... do you purposely ignore what's not convenient to your point?

From all of the quotations of my words which you offered, where did you include ANY contextual material ???

'Leftie mentality', 'Lefties' and the like .. when I use those terms, I do so according to the intended context of the time. YOU, however, 'purposely ignored' what was not 'convenient to your point', by taking my words TOTALLY out of context !!

My suggestion is that you stop accusing ME of what is true for YOU.

[taft2012]

I think Bush had the right idea, from the very start. He asserted that either regimes - nation States - should support the War on Terror, or, if they refused to be a part of the remedy against terrorism, they should instead be seen as part of the problem.

After a long day of digging through rubble looking for fellow New Yorkers' remains, it gave me an absolute arousal in my shorts to come home and hear him say that.

"You're either with us or against us."

The greatest truths are black and white.

Looking back, remembering that pile of rubble, I don't think many Americans understand what happened. That pile of rubble was still probably bigger than the tallest buildings in many American cities.

[jimnyc]

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/cpPABLW6F_A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Drummond]

After a long day of digging through rubble looking for fellow New Yorkers' remains, it gave me an absolute arousal in my shorts to come home and hear him say that.

"You're either with us or against us."

The greatest truths are black and white.

Looking back, remembering that pile of rubble, I don't think many Americans understand what happened. That pile of rubble was still probably bigger than the tallest buildings in many American cities.

Yep, well said.

I can't claim that 'arousal' was my reaction to Bush's position. But I felt from that very moment that Bush said exactly what needed to be said. He was absolutely right.

How much better a position would the world be in, today, if that 'doctrine' had been steadfastly followed through ? In a world where terrorism had to be viewed as a self-toxic activity, where no regimes ever wanted to give terrorists house-room, not least for fear of the consequences if they ever did .. to what extent would the War on Terror have succeeded, if we'd seen all of that come to pass ?

Instead of all that - and heyy, Fj, if you're reading this, spot the context !! - LEFTIES in various countries found arguments, 'reasons', excuses, to be terrorist apologists, to be soft on them, or to try and create more tolerant viewpoints. Aznar, the leader in Spain and a staunch (admirably so) anti-terrorist Conservative figure, was ousted by Zapotero, his LEFTIE opposition, and promptly began backsliding on Spain's commitments to fight terrorism.

It's What They Do.

Cue a Jimmy Carter, to argue for terrorist HUMAN RIGHTS ?????

Or, in the UK, for a substantial chunk of Blair's OWN Party to turn against him, for allegedly being, as was derisively said of him, 'Bush's poodle' ??

All too often, the Left has been gratuitously, and offensively, PRO-TERRORIST when it had neither the right nor reason to be.

[Drummond]

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/cpPABLW6F_A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>

[fj1200]

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 ?

You should review the OP:

British soldiers fighting in Afghanistan are part of a campaign that attempted to “impose an ideology foreign to the Afghan people” and was “unwinnable in military terms”, according to a damning report by the Ministry of Defence.

The internal study says that Nato forces have been unable to “establish control over the insurgents’ safe havens” or “protect the rural population”, and warns the “conditions do not exist” to guarantee the survival of the Afghan government after combat troops withdraw next year.

MoD admits campaign in Afghanistan is 'an unwinnable war' - UK Politics - UK - The Independent

"Imposing an ideology is unwinnable." I'll prefer to properly identify the enemy and take action against them.

[fj1200]

Instead of all that - and heyy, Fj, if you're reading this, spot the context !! - ... to be terrorist apologists, to be soft on them...

It's What They Do.

I can certainly spot the strawman.

[Drummond]

You should review the OP:



"Imposing an ideology is unwinnable." I'll prefer to properly identify the enemy and take action against them.

As I've already indicated, I've felt disgust as a reaction to the MoD's stance.

Properly identifying the enemy and taking action against them is reasonable.

What is also reasonable, even essential, is to include the recognition that terrorist enablers are a part of the problem, and themselves 'identifiable enemies'. They should not entirely escape, in real terms, the proper culpability for their supportive actions.

See this .. Bush's initial measured televised reaction to 9/11, broadcast just hours after it happened. I recall seeing this on TV that evening. It was the point when, for me, Bush took his place as a world statesman.

Note Bush's words here ... 2 mins 53 seconds into the recording.

[jimnyc]

Another one of the lines of his that I loved:

"We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts, and those who harbor them."

It's a shame that so many felt the same about this that evening, but no longer fully support them words.

[Drummond]

I can certainly spot the strawman.

.. Truth ..

[Drummond]

Another one of the lines of his that I loved:

"We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts, and those who harbor them."

It's a shame that so many felt the same about this that evening, but no longer fully support them words.

I couldn't agree more, Jim.

[fj1200]

I shall offer you a countering comment further on. Be patient ....

:holdsbreath:

Don't be ridiculous.

Lefties will use any debating trick they can to win out .. up to, and including, bias .. propaganda .. misdirection .. non-contextual offerings .. outright untruths .. emotive posturing .. and more besides.

I'm not. Thanks for the list.

Now, how should I categorise this offering ?

Al Qaeda is an enemy .. absolutely. This goes without saying.

BUT .. what about terrorist ENABLERS ? Are you seriously telling me that terrorist enablers are NOT your enemy ??

Already addressed.

The Taliban were playing host to, and enabling, Al Qaeda to the hilt ! Thanks to them, Al Qaeda had a base from which to operate, one where they could do whatever they liked.

And now they can't.

Since then, tell me also .. have the Taliban given you the slightest cause to think they might be your friends ? Is the planting of IED's a friendly act ? Is any of their sniping actually 'friendly' fire ? Maybe the soldier who's had a leg blown off by a Taliban-planted IED feels motivated to send his assailants Christmas cards for their trouble ??

I'm not sure why you think they are just going to accept our presence without resistance.

OR .. is it far more reasonable to suppose that the Taliban have been your enemies, at LEAST since they first starting helping Al Qaeda out ??

Cue the 20/20 hindsight that suggests we should have taken proactive steps prior to 9/11.

Cue a counter-argument from you to suggest that the Taliban are much-misunderstood chums, easily deserving of some apologist rot ? H'm ?

Like I said; argue like a lefty.

I think Bush had the right idea, from the very start. He asserted that either regimes - nation States - should support the War on Terror, or, if they refused to be a part of the remedy against terrorism, they should instead be seen as part of the problem.

So tell me, why should America be tolerant of regimes insisting upon being a part of that problem .. and most especially when this includes harbouring terrorists ???

Harbour a terrorist, and you help terrorism to thrive. This, ultimately, translates into otherwise preventable death and destruction. WHY tolerate the proliferation of any of this, when instead the instigators of it can and should be stopped ?

Though it wasn't the reason for the 2003 invasion ... Saddam's regime DID harbour Zarqawi, a major Al Qaeda terrorist. So, I say that Saddam's regime earned what it ultimately suffered, on those grounds alone.

But still .. what DOES constitute 'war' .. anyway ?

It may be possible, depending upon the regime in question, to engage in warfare of a non-military nature. Cyber-warfare, perhaps. Or, economic sanctions which cripple said regime's viability.

But if not, AND the terrorists involved are at all likely to pose a threat, I consider that whatever action which can be effective against them, should be taken. My answer is that you do what it takes, whatever that is, to deal with those terrorists ... AND THEIR ENABLERS.

Done rambling?

This is where I remind you of the comment you made previously, namely ..

:exhales:

From all of the quotations of my words which you offered, where did you include ANY contextual material ???

'Leftie mentality', 'Lefties' and the like .. when I use those terms, I do so according to the intended context of the time. YOU, however, 'purposely ignored' what was not 'convenient to your point', by taking my words TOTALLY out of context !!

My suggestion is that you stop accusing ME of what is true for YOU.

I haven't ignored anything. My suggestion is that you stop leaning on your "lefty crutch."

[fj1200]

As I've already indicated, I've felt disgust as a reaction to the MoD's stance.

Properly identifying the enemy and taking action against them is reasonable.

What is also reasonable, even essential, is to include the recognition that terrorist enablers are a part of the problem, and themselves 'identifiable enemies'. They should not entirely escape, in real terms, the proper culpability for their supportive actions.

At which point you began your screed against "lefties" without addressing the analysis... that I saw anyway. Please point out if I missed it.

.. Truth ..

I'm surprised you agree with that. Given the context of my statement.

[Drummond]

:holdsbreath:

Careful, now ...

Thanks for the list.

My pleasure.

Already addressed.

... but the weakness of your stance was not.

The Taliban, by enabling Al Qaeda, proved themselves to be your enemies. Unless, of course, they thought Al Qaeda were only running holiday camps, not terrorist training camps ?

.... 'Butlins', eat your heart out ...

And now they can't.

Correct - they were treated as the enemy they were, and are. The result was that the 'holiday camps' were properly neutralised.

I'm not sure why you think they are just going to accept our presence without resistance.

They could indulge in a Taliban equivalent of the British 'It's a Fair Cop, Guv' ... which translates as the Taliban accepting responsibility for having brought their misfortunes down upon themselves, for their aid to Al Qaeda scum. BUT ... true to the purpose of their alliance with Al Qaeda, they chose to remain consistently hostile to Al Qaeda's enemies.

It's what they earned for themselves, as well, by not doing the right thing when they still had a chance to. The Taliban had no right in offering OBL any form of protection. Nonetheless, as ENEMIES, this is what they did.

They suffered accordingly.

They even had a further chance to do the right thing. They could've surrendered to American forces. But, instead, they chose to fight Al Qaeda's enemies for them, and to do so, for ... HOW many years has it been ?

Cue the 20/20 hindsight that suggests we should have taken proactive steps prior to 9/11.

.... which runs contrary to preferred Leftie thinking. Better to do the MINIMUM for safety and security, and not the MAXIMUM ...

Like I said; argue like a lefty.

I know the Leftie mind. It's a lot to do with why I'm a proud Conservative.

A good tactician anticipates its opposition's reasoning. That does not make the tactician the equivalent of his opposition.

Done rambling?

I never started.

:exhales:

Admit it. My arguments take your breath away ...

I haven't ignored anything. My suggestion is that you stop leaning on your "lefty crutch."

I wouldn't dream of ever doing so, since such a crutch is bound to be infested with a terminal case of woodworm (i.e utter 'rot') ...

[Drummond]

At which point you began your screed against "lefties" without addressing the analysis... that I saw anyway. Please point out if I missed it.

I am entitled to my views, and to express them - and especially if, in so doing, I educate along the way ..

As for 'the analysis', I take that to be the MoD stuff. I think my disgust got in the way of further consideration.

I'm surprised you agree with that. Given the context of my statement.

... There, you see ? You've started caring about CONTEXT.

I can see that I'm having a beneficial influence on you.