Pentagon Papers II

Sports Journalists Forum – Media, Newsroom & Reporting Talk

Help Support Sports Journalists Forum:

Boom_70

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2002
Messages
43,823
The NYT through WikiLeaks released classified military documents that paints a realistic but bleak picture of war in Afghanistan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/world/26wiki.html

"WikiLeaks.org, the online organization that posted tens of thousands of classified military field reports about the Afghan war on Sunday, says its goal in disclosing secret documents is to reveal “unethical behavior” by governments and corporations. "
 
Boom_70 said:
The NYT through WikiLeaks released classified military documents that paints a realistic but bleak picture of war in Afghanistan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/world/26wiki.html

"WikiLeaks.org, the online organization that posted tens of thousands of classified military field reports about the Afghan war on Sunday, says its goal in disclosing secret documents is to reveal “unethical behavior” by governments and corporations. "

Fixed. No original reporting here by the NYT.
 
It's also being reported by The Guardian in England and Der Spiegel in Germany, with all three working together on the release, in part to give themselves multijurisdictional cover.

It's the front 16 pages of The Guardian, so I haven't had a chance to read the whole thing yet. I'm hoping to get to it on the way home.
 
MileHigh said:
Boom_70 said:
The NYT through WikiLeaks released classified military documents that paints a realistic but bleak picture of war in Afghanistan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/world/26wiki.html

"WikiLeaks.org, the online organization that posted tens of thousands of classified military field reports about the Afghan war on Sunday, says its goal in disclosing secret documents is to reveal “unethical behavior” by governments and corporations. "

Fixed. No original reporting here by the NYT.

I guess it depends on how you define original reporting.
Certainly in today's paper The Times provides a lot of context and interpretation of the notes.
 
One of key concerns raised - Pakistan taking our aid but then turning around and training the Taliban to kill our troops.

If this is not a wake call to America I don't know what is.

Let the debate begin.
 
Boom_70 said:
One of key concerns raised - Pakistan taking our aid but then turning around and training the Taliban to kill our troops.

If this is not a wake call to America I don't know what is.

Let the debate begin.

A wake-up call for what? That we should get out of this war? Or that we need more troops and/or need to keep them there indefinitely?
 
suburbia said:
Boom_70 said:
One of key concerns raised - Pakistan taking our aid but then turning around and training the Taliban to kill our troops.

If this is not a wake call to America I don't know what is.

Let the debate begin.

A wake-up call for what? That we should get out of this war? Or that we need more troops and/or need to keep them there indefinitely?

I believe the wake-up call is that we need to start squabbling over which current or recent President to blame for the mess.

Well, that's what's going to happen anyway.
 
suburbia said:
Boom_70 said:
One of key concerns raised - Pakistan taking our aid but then turning around and training the Taliban to kill our troops.

If this is not a wake call to America I don't know what is.

Let the debate begin.

A wake-up call for what? That we should get out of this war? Or that we need more troops and/or need to keep them there indefinitely?

Exactly. We're past the wake up call now. I think we can all agree on how ****ed up the situation is. But how do we get out of it? Nobody wants to commit deeper to it, but pulling out right now would be viewed as Al Qaeda defeating us. So we remain stuck in this middle zone cluster****.
 
suburbia said:
Boom_70 said:
One of key concerns raised - Pakistan taking our aid but then turning around and training the Taliban to kill our troops.

If this is not a wake call to America I don't know what is.

Let the debate begin.

A wake-up call for what? That we should get out of this war? Or that we need more troops and/or need to keep them there indefinitely?

A wake up call to get out. We cannot even accurately pin point who we are fighting.

Hopefully Senator Kerry in his position as Chairman of Senate Foreign Relations committee becomes a voice of opposition. He can certainly speak from experience.
 
We leave now and the terrorists have won. Except this time that won't just be a dumb overused cliche.
 
Stoney said:
We leave now and the terrorists have won. Except this time that won't just be a dumb overused cliche.

Which terrorists? What have they won? As FHB asked is this worth sacrificing more American lives?

Who are we fighting? Al Queada? The Taliban? Pakistan?
 
suburbia said:
Boom_70 said:
One of key concerns raised - Pakistan taking our aid but then turning around and training the Taliban to kill our troops.

If this is not a wake call to America I don't know what is.

Let the debate begin.

A wake-up call for what? That we should get out of this war? Or that we need more troops and/or need to keep them there indefinitely?
can't we explode a dirty nuke in the mountain area, claim it was al queda and just leave?
 
If Pakistan is getting a hard-on thinking about the wonders of a theocratic nutter empire, we should firmly remind them that we can speed up the process and send them straight to Allah if that is what they so desire.
 
Boom_70 said:
Stoney said:
We leave now and the terrorists have won. Except this time that won't just be a dumb overused cliche.

Which terrorists? What have they won? As FHB asked is this worth sacrificing more American lives?

Who are we fighting? Al Queada? The Taliban? Pakistan?

I'm not necessarily saying I disagree with you. I'm not nearly smart enough to have any idea how to handle this.

But I do know if we leave right now it will be viewed by the world as monumental defeat for the U.S., probably surpassing Vietnam as the single most humiliating moment in American foreign policy history. And it will be viewed as a huge victory to muslim extremists all over the world. It'll be taken as proof that we can't beat them.

According to that NYT piece, the Taliban is now the strongest it has ever been since 2001, how long do you think it will take them to re-take Afghanistan if our troops are no longer there to stop it?

And, if you think Afghanistan was haven for terrorists before, wait til you see what it becomes now. The greatest military power the world has ever known just wasted a decade, hundreds of billions of dollars, and thousands of young lives trying to remove them and, in the end, failed? NOBODY'S ever gonna want to go in there again (especially considering that the same damn sort of thing happened when the British and Soviet empires invaded the same territory).

In short, EVERY one of our war goals when we initially invaded Afghanistan will ultimately end up being unfulfilled: we never caught Bin Laden, the Taliban will end up re-taking Afghanistan, and the region will become every bit or more of a safe haven terrorists than it was before the war.
 
If you're a glass half-full kind of guy, letting the Taliban retake Afghanistan could be a positive.

We could withdraw, let the Taliban retake Afghanistan, let it fill up with terrorists then start reducing our nuclear stockpile one missile at a time by bombing the country forward into the Stone Age.

This is an issue that has no correct answer. But withdrawing is probably the worst of a lot of ****ty options.
 
There were even people in the Bush administration that were saying that we were going to be in Afghanistan for 25 years. Unlike Iraq, they weren't promising a quick victory. And in this case, I can believe them.

What we should be doing is reminding Karzai that without us, he'd be getting his ass kicked by the Taliban because his beard isn't long enough and that if we tell him to jump, he jumps. We also be doing more to win the hearts and minds of the populace so that they won't switch over to the Taliban or Al Qaeda the first minute that things look bad. This will take many, many more years.

Or, we could just walk out and leave a few nukes.
 
How would we even define what victory would be? Who would we even negotiate with to reach a settlement?

In the mean time more American lives are lost.
 
Boom_70 said:
How would we even define what victory would be? Who would we even negotiate with to reach a settlement?

In the mean time more American lives are lost.

There is no one to negotiate with.

You can't negotiate with people who only want to kill you.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top