Total Posts:82|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Obama's afghan plan

mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 10:47:03 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 10:22:44 AM, wonderwoman wrote:
Will it succeed?

Is it justified?

Is it a good idea?

I think it's generally a good plan, it worked in iraq (what do I know about war though).

I know that Afghanistan is quite a bit more spread out though, and harder to get secure, but hell he had to commit, or get out, and I think committing makes more sense right now. Hopefully this leads to a more stable/respected government to be able to be secured.

I did think his general lack of commitment early for the past 9 months though, and his lack of evident resolve in presenting the plan compromise it's possible effectiveness, in that it could encourage those who want it to fail.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 10:49:42 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 10:22:44 AM, wonderwoman wrote:
Will it succeed?

Is it justified?

Is it a good idea?

Define succeed.

It is not justified.

It is a bad idea.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 11:30:28 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Of course it won't work. Putting more troops into a country where the violence is fueled by extremists fueled by a foreign occupation is just moronic.

Look at Iraq; the surge should have lead to more deaths initially but it did not. What actually happened was the defense department paid off warlords to agree to a temporary ceasefire. Once this expired, death tolls skyrocketed. Since the U.S. has withdrawn from Baghdad, the death tolls have been the lowest since pre-invasion.

So the idea that more imperialism solves the problems of imperialism is strikingly stupid. What's more is that the facade of working -with- the Afghans is becoming more and more transparent. It's quite obvious that this is not peacekeeping, this is war. This is a war against extremism and the collateral damage is so high that it is causing more extremism.

It's winnable. Now is the time to go.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 12:11:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 10:22:44 AM, wonderwoman wrote:
Will it succeed?

Possibly.

Is it justified?

Yes.

Is it a good idea?

That is dependent upon question number one, isn't it?

In my opinion though, it is a good idea. One of the reasons is that the increase in troops is needed for the kind of operation this is turning out to be - long term.

Look at Kosovo. NATO and European Union troops there number 500,000 or some-odd, for a population of about 2.1 million - and the region has been amazingly stable and working. Kosovo is a shining example of the kind of operation that is occurring in Afghanistan which, to the displeasure of quite a few members of this site, is nation building.

Put that to the statistics in Afghanistan, where NATO and US troops number around 200,000, plus the ANA which is about 70,000 (I believe) - for a population of 28 million, spread out on an area of land similar to the size of Alaska. Nation-building isn't going to work with those small numbers, and given the rather lackluster efforts of some NATO countries, isn't going to work by just asking NATO for more troops.

The US troop surge is needed because the US is taking on the load here. I don't think they should be, but that is just the situation on the ground. The surge might not be enough to turn it around, but it will make a difference.
MikeLoviN
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 12:20:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 12:11:21 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 12/4/2009 10:22:44 AM, wonderwoman wrote:
Will it succeed?

Possibly.

Is it justified?

Yes.

Is it a good idea?

That is dependent upon question number one, isn't it?

In my opinion though, it is a good idea. One of the reasons is that the increase in troops is needed for the kind of operation this is turning out to be - long term.

Look at Kosovo. NATO and European Union troops there number 500,000 or some-odd, for a population of about 2.1 million - and the region has been amazingly stable and working. Kosovo is a shining example of the kind of operation that is occurring in Afghanistan which, to the displeasure of quite a few members of this site, is nation building.

Put that to the statistics in Afghanistan, where NATO and US troops number around 200,000, plus the ANA which is about 70,000 (I believe) - for a population of 28 million, spread out on an area of land similar to the size of Alaska. Nation-building isn't going to work with those small numbers, and given the rather lackluster efforts of some NATO countries, isn't going to work by just asking NATO for more troops.

The US troop surge is needed because the US is taking on the load here. I don't think they should be, but that is just the situation on the ground. The surge might not be enough to turn it around, but it will make a difference.

Right on the money.

Just when I was starting to think I could never agree with a Liberal supporter on foreign affairs issues. :D
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 12:20:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 10:22:44 AM, wonderwoman wrote:
Will it succeed?

Define succeed.

Is it justified?

No.

Is it a good idea?

I've already gone over this 3049804 times. No, it's not a good idea. There is no point of occupying Afghanistan. The terrorists are in Pakistan. Nukes are in Pakistan. If anything, Obama should be concerened with Pakistan - Afghanistan poses no threat, economically or militarily to the US. Not to mention the hundreds of billions wasted by occupying Afghanistan and the countless lives lost. Well, I know cost doesn't matter to Obama -- as evidenced by his tendency to spend like there's no tomorrow.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 12:31:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 12:20:49 PM, Nags wrote:
I've already gone over this 3049804 times. No, it's not a good idea. There is no point of occupying Afghanistan. The terrorists are in Pakistan. Nukes are in Pakistan. If anything, Obama should be concerened with Pakistan - Afghanistan poses no threat, economically or militarily to the US. Not to mention the hundreds of billions wasted by occupying Afghanistan and the countless lives lost. Well, I know cost doesn't matter to Obama -- as evidenced by his tendency to spend like there's no tomorrow.

To note, if we go into Pakistan, they'll go into Afghanistan. If we go into Afghanistan, they'll go into Pakistan. If we're in both places, then you're advocating quite a bit more of war than is truly tolerable. So, that isn't very good reasoning. :D
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 5:52:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 12:31:05 PM, Volkov wrote:
To note, if we go into Pakistan, they'll go into Afghanistan. If we go into Afghanistan, they'll go into Pakistan. If we're in both places, then you're advocating quite a bit more of war than is truly tolerable. So, that isn't very good reasoning. :D

Who is this we? Are you a member of the military?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
gr33k_fr33k5
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 5:55:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The way this war is being fought sickens me. . . .. every single civilian casualty over there is some extremely bad thing. . . but guess what?! its war . . . . good people get hurt. . . sorry bout that.

If you want to negotiate, do it without the army. . . . they have a purpoes, and that is to kill and destroy our enemies, I'm one of the few who supports Guantanamo Bay, I think that we should torture, but thats my warped ideas. . . .

so plan fails

justified

and I can't remember the last question . . . .
I am free, free indeed!

ignorance is bliss
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 5:56:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 5:55:22 PM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
I'm one of the few who supports Guantanamo Bay, I think that we should torture, but thats my warped ideas. . . .

Again with the "we" business.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 6:00:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 5:52:22 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Who is this we? Are you a member of the military?

You're way too literal for your own good.
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 6:02:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I don't know much about war. But I'm glad that we at least have a time table this time around. Too much have these endless wars cost. At least now, there is a foreseeable end.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
gr33k_fr33k5
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 7:23:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 6:02:50 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
I don't know much about war. But I'm glad that we at least have a time table this time around. Too much have these endless wars cost. At least now, there is a foreseeable end.

foreseeable? . . .. or false . . . ..
I am free, free indeed!

ignorance is bliss
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 7:51:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 12:31:05 PM, Volkov wrote:
To note, if we go into Pakistan, they'll go into Afghanistan. If we go into Afghanistan, they'll go into Pakistan. If we're in both places, then you're advocating quite a bit more of war than is truly tolerable. So, that isn't very good reasoning. :D

Thus, we go into Afghanistan? If there are more terrorists overall and more high-profile terrorists in Pakistan than Afghanistan, then it makes more sense to go into Pakistan than Afghanistan. I'm not calling for occupation against either, because as you just so clearly pointed out - wherever we occupy, the terrorists will just go somewhere else. My reasoning is much better than your reasoning - which you pretty much refuted yourself.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 7:54:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 7:51:20 PM, Nags wrote:
Thus, we go into Afghanistan? If there are more terrorists overall and more high-profile terrorists in Pakistan than Afghanistan, then it makes more sense to go into Pakistan than Afghanistan. I'm not calling for occupation against either, because as you just so clearly pointed out - wherever we occupy, the terrorists will just go somewhere else. My reasoning is much better than your reasoning - which you pretty much refuted yourself.

But, if we go into Pakistan, then we'll be occupying both Pakistan and Afghanistan.. and in charge of 200 million, or some-odd, people, most of whom I doubt like us very much.

Don't get me wrong, I think there needs to be a better focus on Pakistan, but we can't just go into it. There is quite a lot of problems with that, the least of which being sovereignty and a lack of concerted effort on the party of not only America's allies, but America's military itself.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 7:57:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 7:51:20 PM, Nags wrote:
At 12/4/2009 12:31:05 PM, Volkov wrote:
To note, if we go into Pakistan, they'll go into Afghanistan. If we go into Afghanistan, they'll go into Pakistan. If we're in both places, then you're advocating quite a bit more of war than is truly tolerable. So, that isn't very good reasoning. :D

Thus, we go into Afghanistan? If there are more terrorists overall and more high-profile terrorists in Pakistan than Afghanistan, then it makes more sense to go into Pakistan than Afghanistan. I'm not calling for occupation against either, because as you just so clearly pointed out - wherever we occupy, the terrorists will just go somewhere else. My reasoning is much better than your reasoning - which you pretty much refuted yourself.

Stop saying "we".

The US Military shouldn't "occupy" any country. It shouldn't exist in the first place.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 8:00:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 7:54:19 PM, Volkov wrote:
But, if we go into Pakistan, then we'll be occupying both Pakistan and Afghanistan.. and in charge of 200 million, or some-odd, people, most of whom I doubt like us very much.

The people in Afghanistan like us? I'm not saying go into Pakistan, I'm saying pull out altogether - but going moving troops from Afghanistan to Pakistan is more logical.

Don't get me wrong, I think there needs to be a better focus on Pakistan, but we can't just go into it. There is quite a lot of problems with that, the least of which being sovereignty and a lack of concerted effort on the party of not only America's allies, but America's military itself.

So you go into Afghanistan? Why? We already have established that terrorists move from country to country once zaid country is occupied by the US, so why be in Afghanistan at all? You're not solving a problem, you're just creating them.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 8:01:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 7:57:45 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Stop saying "we".

No.

The US Military shouldn't "occupy" any country. It shouldn't exist in the first place.

I don't think anarchists should exist, but it doesn't stop you from doing as such, does it?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 8:01:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 7:57:45 PM, Reasoning wrote:
The US Military shouldn't "occupy" any country. It shouldn't exist in the first place.

Wow, you really know your stuff.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 8:02:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 7:57:45 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Stop saying "we".

Why? It's common vernacular. News reporters, Congressmen, everyone uses "we".

The US Military shouldn't "occupy" any country. It shouldn't exist in the first place.

Lol. You don't think our foreign investments would be demolished and our borders would be open to invasion?
gr33k_fr33k5
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 8:02:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The US Military shouldn't "occupy" any country. It shouldn't exist in the first place.

are you completely moronic? .. . . and no i don't wanna debate this
I am free, free indeed!

ignorance is bliss
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 8:04:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 8:00:36 PM, Nags wrote:
The people in Afghanistan like us? I'm not saying go into Pakistan, I'm saying pull out altogether - but going moving troops from Afghanistan to Pakistan is more logical.

That is still a problem, unfortunately, even though it'd be effective on paper. Afghanistan is already under-staffed, and the US doesn't have a lot of soldiers or support to throw around. Hence why they're whipping the Pakistani Army into shape.

So you go into Afghanistan? Why? We already have established that terrorists move from country to country once zaid country is occupied by the US, so why be in Afghanistan at all? You're not solving a problem, you're just creating them.

Because Afghanistan needs to be strengthened enough to the point where it can resist, or even take part in, keeping the Taliban out. It certainly didn't have that capability before, and it still has limited capability now.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 8:05:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 8:01:07 PM, Volkov wrote:
I don't think anarchists should exist, but it doesn't stop you from doing as such, does it?

Anarchism: any philosophy that opposes all forms of initiatory coercion

What's wrong with that? Or more appropriately, what is right about initiatory coercion?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 8:06:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 8:02:19 PM, Nags wrote:
At 12/4/2009 7:57:45 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Stop saying "we".

Why? It's common vernacular. News reporters, Congressmen, everyone uses "we".

It's no surprise it's used by them. "We" is something you hear when people are trying to make a political move.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 8:07:48 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 8:05:29 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Anarchism: any philosophy that opposes all forms of initiatory coercion

What's wrong with that? Or more appropriately, what is right about initiatory coercion?

I don't agree with it. Like you don't agree with the military's existence.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 8:09:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 8:04:25 PM, Volkov wrote:
That is still a problem, unfortunately, even though it'd be effective on paper. Afghanistan is already under-staffed, and the US doesn't have a lot of soldiers or support to throw around. Hence why they're whipping the Pakistani Army into shape.

The Taliban is encroaching on Islamabad and you're more concerned with fighting a few terrorists in Afghanistan...

Because Afghanistan needs to be strengthened enough to the point where it can resist, or even take part in, keeping the Taliban out. It certainly didn't have that capability before, and it still has limited capability now.

If you want to apply this principle, you have to apply it to pretty much all countries in the Middle East, which is basically the War on Terror. If you don't apply the principle, then strengthening Afghanistan is pointless - as numerous other countries get taken over by terrorist groups. Do you agree with the War on Terror?
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 8:15:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 8:02:19 PM, Nags wrote:
At 12/4/2009 7:57:45 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Stop saying "we".

Why? It's common vernacular. News reporters, Congressmen, everyone uses "we".

Because it is the conflation of the individual with the state. It blurs clear thinking. "We" didn't do anything.

The US Military shouldn't "occupy" any country. It shouldn't exist in the first place.

Lol. You don't think our foreign investments would be demolished and our borders would be open to invasion?

"Our" foreign investments? "Our" borders?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 8:17:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 8:01:53 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/4/2009 7:57:45 PM, Reasoning wrote:
The US Military shouldn't "occupy" any country. It shouldn't exist in the first place.

Wow, you really know your stuff.

I try.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2009 8:19:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/4/2009 8:09:17 PM, Nags wrote:
The Taliban is encroaching on Islamabad and you're more concerned with fighting a few terrorists in Afghanistan...

No, I'm just about equally concerned, because I know if they are pushed back from Pakistan, and there isn't anything in Afghanistan there that will hold against their movement, we'll be very concerned about the Taliban encroaching on Kabul next...

If you want to apply this principle, you have to apply it to pretty much all countries in the Middle East, which is basically the War on Terror. If you don't apply the principle, then strengthening Afghanistan is pointless - as numerous other countries get taken over by terrorist groups. Do you agree with the War on Terror?

Afghanistan's situation is very different from some other countries focused on by the War on Terror. The Taliban are not simply terrorists - they're a large political and demographic base, mostly connected with the Pashtuns. Most other involved countries don't have anything similar that is large and distinct enough, and that includes Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, et al. The closest situation is Somalia, except that those in Somalia don't have the kind of trans-national movement that the Taliban do.

Al-Qaeda, as well, has never taken over a country. They don't even want to - they're a trans-national entity not very concerned with national identity, more so stopping the Westerners forming their next Crusade. The only real terrorist group not connected with any major demographic group that has taken over a national is, I guess, Hamas - but even then, its still political.

As for the War on Terror, I'm usually on the fence.