Sgt home from afganhistan gives opinion

[TheStripey1]

The Taliban is "gaining strength" hiding out in caves and across the border in Pakistan? A far cry from controlling the government of Afghanistan as it once did.

It's kind of obvious bin Laden is hiding somewhere we aren't allowed to go. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. Or do you think it's not okay to invade Iraq, but is okay to violate the sovereignty of any and every other border we feel like looking for one man?

AQ was in Iraq before the US went in. Not even a good try.

I don't need to know who I'm talking to, I can smell you and your uneducated, extremist rhetoric. All I see are three talking points from the entry-level, left-wingnut handbook.

Had we applied the same force to Afghanistan that we wasted in attacking Iraq, we might have actually CAUGHT Bin Laden and the one eyed mullah too...

so gunny, where do you get your news?

Yeah... Al Qaeda was in Iraq before the invasion... they were called Al Ansawar (sp?) or something similar... but not to the extent they are there now... cuz they were holed up in KURDISH territory, hiding under the no fly zone umbrella... and had NOTHING whatsoever to do with Saddam...

but now they OWN Al Anbar province... and according to some journalists, have formed their own state within the country... and they've managed to start a civil war in the rest of the country...

but that's for another thread in another forum... I'll find it later... let's get back to Afghanistan...

How about those poppies?

[jillian]

Really? You libs bitched for how many years Bush needed to send more troops. Now he's sending more. You're against that. Firmly supports my opinion that no matter what decision he makes, it will be the wrong one to you lefties, and you're more than willing to reverse course in the middle of the dance to make it so.

It may be the job of the civilians and the CinC to define the mission, but it is amateurish interference for them to tell professionals in the field how to get it done.

"Sarge" is a disprespectful term.

You're criticizing what he's doing, and he's dishing it back. You call the Iraq War an "illegal" war, or Bush's War, not our war. There's no united front, and you want to hide behind your right to free speech as an excuse. Undermining the mission and morale goes a lot more against common sense than knowing when and how to voice disagreement.

Sarge isn't disrespectful, at all. I have a good buddy in the Air Force (he's going back for his 3rd trip to the desert in September) and I've called him sarge since the day we met online.

The only one who undermined the mission was your CinC and his cronies who mishandled it to the point where even an original PNAC neo-con like Paul Wolfowitz, who supported it say they never would have done so if they'd *known* how badly this would be handled. Iraq was used as an excuse to pursue the agenda of reshaping the middle east as set forth in the PNAC letter to Bill Clinton in 1998. See:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

I will always voice my disagreement when I see people dying for absolutely no reason. Bush has done absolutely nothing to earn my support, respect or silence.

I figure since I have a boy and if they keep this stuff up, there WILL need to be a draft, that I get to have my say. The neo-cons cannot keep using "oh... you're undermining the mission" in order to silence dissent... which comprises approximtely 2/3 of the country right now. Would you prefer we were all silent and the country left ignorant about how bad things are there?

[Gunny]

I didn't say IN the service... I said Have YOU been to WAR... you know... walked in their boots... been shot at...

you asked me the same question... so have you? Or do you think that ONLY right winged war mongers can ask that question?

I answered the question. To be more specific, I have been in combat, while in the service, and wearing the same crappy, no-support combat boots every other grunt had on his dogs.

But I did not ask a question. I made an assumption that you were some left-wing, armchair quarterback since they are far more abundant than left-wing combat vets who can't see that there's a time to stop talking and start playing the game.

I am far from a war-mongerer. When dealing with an enemy whose idea of "compromise" is us dead, words are wasted air.

[TheStripey1]

I don't need to know who I'm talking to, I can smell you and your uneducated, extremist rhetoric. All I see are three talking points from the entry-level, left-wingnut handbook.

You better pull your head out of your ass, bunny, cuz you ain't seeing anything but shit now...

here's gunny looking for his news...

[Gunny]

Sarge isn't disrespectful, at all. I have a good buddy in the Air Force (he's going back for his 3rd trip to the desert in September) and I've called him sarge since the day we met.

The only one who undermined the mission was your CinC and his cronies who mishandled it to the point where even an original PNAC neo-con like Paul Wolfowitz, who supported it say they never would have done so if they'd *known* how badly this would be handled. Iraq was used as an excuse to pursue the agenda of reshaping the middle east as set forth in the PNAC letter to Bill Clinton in 1998. See:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

I will always voice my disagreement when I see people dying for absolutely no reason. Bush has done absolutely nothing to earn my support, respect or silence.

I figure since I have a boy and if they keep this stuff up, there WILL need to be a draft, that I get to have my say. The neo-cons cannot keep using "oh... you're undermining the mission" in order to silence dissent... which comprises approximtely 2/3 of the country right now. Would you prefer we were all silent and the country left ignorant about how bad things are there.

You are absolutely incorrect. "Sarge" is a disrespectful term, period. Dirtbags get called "Sarge."

Still trying to sell that 2/3's of the country don't support the war crap? Two-thirds don't support the way it is being conducted, a difference you refuse to acknowledge.

[Gunny]

You better pull your head out of your ass, bunny, cuz you ain't seeing anything but shit now...

here's gunny looking for his news...

Oh wow ...I guess you told me.

[TheStripey1]

We are still in afganhistan. There are 40,000 NATO troops there now. There is serious fighting going on along the south pak border. Where is the media coverage on that? They are all in iraq trying to make Bush look bad.

bin laden and one eye are either in pakistan or iran. Safe and cozy.

When someone calling himself a vet makes the comments you have I question the vet status, just as Gunny has. I'm a combat vet myself and I don't care who I'm talking too. Get off your high horse.

Get off your own high horses before you tell me to get off mine...

you right winged war mongers aren't the only vets on this board... so did you actually GO to war or do you just talk about it like most of the repuglican congress critters do...

[TheStripey1]

and even if they WERE there, it was certainly without Saddam's knowledge or approval. Hell AQ was HERE IN THE US before 9/11...in Florida and Oklahoma...in Maine... in Boston..... what does THAT proove?

good point...

[jillian]

Hey, Gunny... I think I just clicked edit instead of reply when I answered you.

I'm going back in now to delete my part of it so it doesn't show up in your post.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.... still learning the controls.

[Gunny]

Get off your own high horses before you tell me to get off mine...

you right winged war mongers aren't the only vets on this board... so did you actually GO to war or do you just talk about it like most of the repuglican congress critters do...

Try scolling up and READING instead of trying so hard to be an insufferable ass.

[TheStripey1]

They are still here, as are hizbollah and hamas.

Al queda had a full blown training camp in northern iraq. There were a couple of hundred men there. The kurds with the help of special forces destroyed the camp and the survivors fled into iran. There's no way that camp could have been there without saddams blessing.

Just because the shea and sunnis hate each other doesn't mean they won't join forces against a common enemy. There are a number of al queda hiding out in iran right now. Including bin ladens son.

Hamas is in Iraq? Hezbollah too? where DO you get your news?

[TheStripey1]

When 9/11 happened the President said we would treat those that harbor terrorist the same as terrorists. So it means we would round up terrorists and capture/kill them no matter where they are, in the U.S., in Afganistan, in Iraq...

But NOT in Pakistan.... why is that?

[jillian]

You are absolutely incorrect. "Sarge" is a disrespectful term, period. Dirtbags get called "Sarge."

Still trying to sell that 2/3's of the country don't support the war crap? Two-thirds don't support the way it is being conducted, a difference you refuse to acknowledge.

Yeah... well, apparenly doesn't bother my friend, at least coming from me cause he knows it's not disrespectful Ah well..

And he refuses to change the way it's being conducted. This whole "surge" garbage, do you think, taking into account, troop rotations which will place approximately an extra 3,000 boots on the ground at the time is going to make a difference? You think our bravest should die in a civil war between Shi'a and Sunni? Sorry, I don't and Bush's judgment has been shown to be so flawed that I wouldn't believe a word he says if his tongue were notarized.

I'd have gone along with the Baker Commission's recommendations. Unfortunately, the "decider" didn't listen because it didn't comport with his whole "stay the course" insanity.

By the by, the 2/3 who you claim don't support the war the way it's being conducted (as opposed to not supporting the war), I'll concede that may be the case. But it is also true that the 2/3 doesn't trust your guy's judgment enough to give him any benefit of the doubt anymore... been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

[Gunny]

Hey, Gunny... I think I just clicked edit instead of reply when I answered you.

I'm going back in now to delete my part of it so it doesn't show up in your post.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.... still learning the controls.

Yeah... well, apparenly doesn't bother my friend, at least coming from me cause he knows it's not disrespectful Ah well..

And he refuses to change the way it's being conducted. This whole "surge" garbage, do you think, taking into account, troop rotations which will place approximately an extra 3,000 boots on the ground at the time is going to make a difference? You think our bravest should die in a civil war between Shi'a and Sunni? Sorry, I don't and Bush's judgment has been shown to be so flawed that I wouldn't believe a word he says if his tongue were notarized.

I'd have gone along with the Baker Commission's recommendations. Unfortunately, the "decider" didn't listen because it didn't comport with his whole "stay the course" insanity.

Obviously, he is changing the way it's being conducted. If you're looking for some major overhaul, it isn't going to happen. The reality of the situation does not support it.

As far as whether or not the additional troops will help, you tell me, since this time last year you lefties were dogging Bush out for not sending enough troops. Why would they have made a difference last year, but not this year?

[jillian]

Obviously, he is changing the way it's being conducted. If you're looking for some major overhaul, it isn't going to happen. The reality of the situation does not support it.

As far as whether or not the additional troops will help, you tell me, since this time last year you lefties were dogging Bush out for not sending enough troops. Why would they have made a difference last year, but not this year?

You can call me "leftie" all you want. It's a facile means of disregarding what I am saying. I was all with you guys on Afghanistan. It was a focused effort, made sense in the context of what happened 9/11.

The reason the GENERALS screamed there were not enough troops at the beginning and now say more is useless is because it will not longer effect the outcome. There is a civil war, caused by the lack of knowledge or understanding or caring by the pres about what would happen after he put his size 12's into Iraq. There isn't ANYTHING our guys and gals can do in a civil war except die for no reason.

At the beginning, additional troops would have stabilized the country, secured the borders and things wouldn't have deteriorated into chaos.

I'm really not sure why you guys keep yelling about that. Different circumstances require different responses.... someone really should tell that to the decider who believes the same thing on Wednesday that he did on Monday.... regardless of what happened on Tuesday.