Afghanistan 2.0

[zagoshe]

"......Barrack Obama told the nation,
Have no fear of escalation I am trying everyone to please!
And though it's really not a war,
We're sending 30,000 more,
To help save Afghanistan from the Talibanese......"

 

[sporting_guista]

Finish the job and come home, how's that for apolitical? Unfortunately, its an endless battle I fear.
I just wish he hadn't set a deadline/timeline for finishing the job. Most unfortunate marketing strategy.

 

[zagoshe]

In some ways I am sad that the liberal mafia took its ball and went home.

I mean, this would have been the perfect thread to get out the popcorn and watch the Fenian nation go on and on and on with the "but but but but but THAT'S DIFFERENT" routine when asked why this decision by Obama to send more troops overseas is any more or less moral than any made by GWB in terms of sending troops somewhere.....

 

[Starman]

And here.... we.... go....

 

[goalmouth]

As someone once pointed out, the region has been a crossroads of brutality for 10 centuries. What can we do to change that?

 

[doggieseatdoggies]

Whatever the case, it's Obama's war now. He's made the move; quit bitching about Bush's role.

 

[Trouser_Buddah]

In some ways I am sad that the liberal mafia took its ball and went home.

I mean, this would have been the perfect thread to get out the popcorn and watch the Fenian nation go on and on and on with the "but but but but but THAT'S DIFFERENT" routine when asked why this decision by Obama to send more troops overseas is any more or less moral than any made by GWB in terms of sending troops somewhere.....

1) Most people supported the war in Afghanistan since that's where the people responsible for 9/11 were.

2) Many of those opposed to George W. Bush's sending troops overseas weren't against it in totality, the vast majority of it were opposed to WHERE they were being sent, as in, the Iraq war.

But then again, you already knew that.

 

[RickStain]

Yep. No chance whatsoever of being apolitical.

 

[Oggiedoggie]

I tried to install Afghanistan 2.0 and kept getting a "Could not find hard drive" error message.

So, I opened the computer's case and all I could find was sand, rocks and two hampsters speaking a funny language fighting over a dried-up mini marshmallow in one corner.

 

[zagoshe]

In some ways I am sad that the liberal mafia took its ball and went home.

I mean, this would have been the perfect thread to get out the popcorn and watch the Fenian nation go on and on and on with the "but but but but but THAT'S DIFFERENT" routine when asked why this decision by Obama to send more troops overseas is any more or less moral than any made by GWB in terms of sending troops somewhere.....

1) Most people supported the war in Afghanistan since that's where the people responsible for 9/11 were.

2) Many of those opposed to George W. Bush's sending troops overseas weren't against it in totality, the vast majority of it were opposed to WHERE they were being sent, as in, the Iraq war.

But then again, you already knew that.

Really? We know that the 9/11 terrorists are in Afghanistan? And is that who we are now going to fight against? Or are they in Pakistan now?

This is another "we're USA, let's measure our ****" move by our politicians, MOST of whom have no problem putting other people's 18 and 19 year olds at harm's way for these pissing contests but would never send their own and did everything in their power to make sure they didn't have to go when it was their turn years ago.....

It is no different and no more or less going to solve the problem than going into Iraq did or would of.

There is no correlation between invading Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, China, India, Costa Rica or anywhere else - and what happened on 9/11.

But since it is Obama's call to do this, well, I'm sure THAT'S DIFFERENT!!!!

 

[DanOregon]

It's interesting hearing people ***** and moan about the plan - anyone got any better idea?
We pull out and then what? Trust the bad guys to be so grateful they just leave us alone? What has bin Laden done to earn that trust?
The other option is to nuke the area, nuke Pakistan and the disputed areas between India and Pakistan and just get it over with.

 

[Trouser_Buddah]

In some ways I am sad that the liberal mafia took its ball and went home.

I mean, this would have been the perfect thread to get out the popcorn and watch the Fenian nation go on and on and on with the "but but but but but THAT'S DIFFERENT" routine when asked why this decision by Obama to send more troops overseas is any more or less moral than any made by GWB in terms of sending troops somewhere.....

1) Most people supported the war in Afghanistan since that's where the people responsible for 9/11 were.

2) Many of those opposed to George W. Bush's sending troops overseas weren't against it in totality, the vast majority of it were opposed to WHERE they were being sent, as in, the Iraq war.

But then again, you already knew that.

Really? We know that the 9/11 terrorists are in Afghanistan? And is that who we are now going to fight against? Or are they in Pakistan now?

This is another "we're USA, let's measure our ****" move by our politicians, MOST of whom have no problem putting other people's 18 and 19 year olds at harm's way for these pissing contests but would never send their own and did everything in their power to make sure they didn't have to go when it was their turn years ago.....

It is no different and no more or less going to solve the problem than going into Iraq did or would of.

There is no correlation between invading Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, China, India, Costa Rica or anywhere else - and what happened on 9/11.

But since it is Obama's call to do this, well, I'm sure THAT'S DIFFERENT!!!!

I will only speak for myself, but I was behind the initial invasion of Afghanistan because we were going after the Taliban and al-Qaida. It has nothing to do with who is/was president.

Iraq, in my opinion, was another matter. I judged the deployment on its merits, not by who was in the oval office.

 

[zagoshe]

It's interesting hearing people ***** and moan about the plan - anyone got any better idea?
We pull out and then what? Trust the bad guys to be so grateful they just leave us alone? What has bin Laden done to earn that trust?
The other option is to nuke the area, nuke Pakistan and the disputed areas between India and Pakistan and just get it over with.

So you had similar sentiments about the plan to invade Iraq and then stay there, I mean, because there clearly never is any alternative to going to war, even when it is a misguided idiotic political war against an opponent we can't clearly define and aren't quite sure who it is....

 

[zeke12]

Yup. Apolitical.

 

[zagoshe]

It doesn't have to be political - unfortunately the interpretation of facts involving decisions by our governments always is divided among partisan lines which is why most partisan people are full of ****.

It was either idiotic and a waste of resources and time to go to this war no matter where it takes place or it is not.

It really is that simple.

 

[RickStain]

It doesn't have to be political - unfortunately the interpretation of facts involving decisions by our governments always is divided among partisan lines which is why most partisan people are full of ****.

Decisions involving government are by definition political, whether divided by party lines or not.

 

[RickStain]

It's interesting hearing people ***** and moan about the plan - anyone got any better idea?
We pull out and then what? Trust the bad guys to be so grateful they just leave us alone? What has bin Laden done to earn that trust?

Your framing of the question implies that fighting over there reduces the chance of being attacked.

 

[zeke12]

As are wars, which are politics by other means.

But I've given up trying to figure out what in the **** the rules are around here.

 

[zagoshe]

It doesn't have to be political - unfortunately the interpretation of facts involving decisions by our governments always is divided among partisan lines which is why most partisan people are full of ****.

Decisions involving government are by definition political, whether divided by party lines or not.

I know this I don't view this as a decision that needs to be debated among the political bull**** that led to it.

The question which should be discussed is --- does this or going to Iraq, or Somalia (or wherever the hell the next politician thinks he can win some votes by sending troops) make America safer?

And the answer is always very clearly no, particularly when we haven't even defined who the enemy really is and what we are fighting against.

 

[DanOregon]

I don't know if being there or not being there would make Afghanistan safer. But that region is unstable. Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, mixed with nukes. It's like seeing a kid tap dancing in golf shoes on a glass table with a lighter in one hand and lighter fluid in the other. You can let things happen or try and do something to intervene.
This isn't just about Afghanistan, or terror fears at home, it's about world stability.