1876 replies to this topic

[Nee-sama]

I know why he did so, but I still cannot understand, from a strategic or pratical perspective, why you would actually announce your withdrawl date before seeing if this actually worked or why you would openly announce your enemy when you plan to get the hell out of dodge.

Even if has a time-table personally, it makes no sense to announce one unless you're trying to appease someone else. In this case, his base.

Ideally, you stay until the job is done, but Obama hasn't been clear on defining what that means either.

Your rational and logical way of thinking is a refreshing slap to the face. Thank you, sir, may I have another?

[Cloud]

Obama orders 30,000 more troops for Afghanistan.

I like that we actually have an exit plan, and that we seem to be pulling out a little more out of Iraq and going into Afghanistan, the war we should have been fully concentrated on in the first place.

Or we could stop fighting wars that only cost American lives. These soldiers have lives, and they're fighting somebody else's war.

How many have to die on both sides before people listen? I'm not preaching here, but I'm sick of seeing Canadian and American soldiers dead everytime in the newspaper.

I don't see American governors and senators shipping their kids out to fight. But when it's another family's kid, they send them out gladly.

Stay until the job is done is an old cliche that should have died a few decades ago.

/rant

Just my 2 cents.

[dl316bh]

Stay until the job is done is an old cliche that should have died a few decades ago.

Except that's the only thing that keeps things from going back. If you don't stay until the job is done, things slide right back into the mess they were before. This is true for everything from war to a half-finished batch of dishes you left in the sink.

Edited by dl316bh, 03 December 2009 - 01:01 AM.

[Dreamer]

I found several key elements that should of been addressed:

He didn't point out that Pakistan is the real stronghold were Ben Laden and Taliban leaders are.

PTSD and other mental illness increase as more troops increase and the fact that Sonjay Goupta pointed out their just isn't good enough medical facilities in Afghanistan for our troops or civilians to be treated.

Obama giving a time table means the terrorist in Afghanistan will wait low until the time comes and come back strong as our troops start to pull out. (Big mistake Prez)

Were's the 30 bill gonna come from (probably from increased taxes ) and our economy will be stretched out even more.

Russia infiltrated Afghanistan a long time ago and fought a war with the Taliban for years just like we have and they had no choice to pull out due to the casualties and their countries economy going downhill just like America is currently facing. (It's just hard to beat someone who believes in doing those things as part as their religion "extremists ones" and disguises themselves as normal everyday citizens walking down the streets or anywhere else in Afghan.

The best thing I think we can do is send our troops back home, strengthen America and the other countries boarders and security like the X-Ray screen in "Total Recall" used at the airports and other new technologies that the Japanese/Americans/British/Canadians/Chinese can come up with for better protection on our own soils.

Edited by Uzumakikage, 03 December 2009 - 06:37 AM.

[Strangelove]

i wonder, if one day the liberals will realize, that most wars are fought to help special interest. I also wonder if conservatives will realize that war serves as the number one excuse to expand the government...when that day comes...then maybe America will wake up, and realize the path that the Demopublicans have led them towards...no disrespect Nate, or Rye.

[dl316bh]

Does no one remember what happened when we fled Vietnam? The South Vietnamese were invaded, conquered, and sent to reeducation camps were thousands upon thousands died.

I had actually made mention of this in my earlier post before I edited it because it was long and rambling. I may not have been alive during that time, but I know all too well. We left and the North steamrolled the South like a runaway train. I think it ended in victory for the North within a year of us leaving.

Not only was every American death in the war then truly wasted, but we left the South Vietnamese behind and told them to go screw themselves, basically. The results showed. The better trained North destroyed them and we merely washed our hands of the whole thing. But that's alright; no more Americans were dying, so who cares, right?

Edited by dl316bh, 04 December 2009 - 02:26 AM.

[Nate River]

I had actually made mention of this in my earlier post before I edited it because it was long and rambling. I may not have been alive during that time, but I know all too well. We left and the North steamrolled the South like a runaway train. I think it ended in victory for the North within a year of us leaving.

Not only was every American death in the war then truly wasted, but we left the South Vietnamese behind and told them to go screw themselves, basically. The results showed. The better trained North destroyed them and we merely washed our hands of the whole thing. But that's alright; no more Americans were dying, so who cares, right?

My understanding is that we technically made a treaty with the North not to invade, but as you said, they simple went back in after we left and Vietnam's been a communist dictatorship ever since.

The message I here is that: It's too hard for us, it's too expensive for, so let's go home. Consequences, Afghans, and Iraqi's be damned.

[dl316bh]

My understanding is that we technically made a treaty with the North not to invade, but as you said, they simple went back in after we left and Vietnam's been a communist dictatorship ever since.

The message I here is that: It's too hard for us, it's too expensive for, so let's go home. Consequences, Afghans, and Iraqi's be damned.

Have we actually even won a war since 'Nam? I can't think of any offhand. But we've been in... about three, I think.

Edited by dl316bh, 04 December 2009 - 02:31 AM.

[Yakatsu]

A soldier is trained to fight.

Not to die.

Keep that in mind, because when an army is sent to fight, it's never a suicidal mission, because that goes against the codes of humanity itself. I find it slightly odd how you guys are defending the stay of soldiers in harsh territories with no victory at sight.

Sure, that's what we're paid to do, we train for occasions like that but is a death of a soldier 'less' then a death of a civilian? Vietnam is a fine example, USA left due to excessive waste of financial amounts and death of many of their soldiers, with the leaving of USA, South of Vietnam was conquered, correct? Can we set our minds on USA itself back in the time? We had people asking for the soldiers to come back, there was a social movement. Not to mention the fatalities were huge. It sparked a social movement, similar to riots but without violence. At least from the hippies part.

I'm sorry if my post is confusing, kinda frogish at the moment, but it just gives me the impression that you're just counting the deaths of the civilians and seeing everything one way. Maybe I'm just influenced? Maybe. Maybeeeee.

[RyrineaHaruno]

i wonder, if one day the liberals will realize, that most wars are fought to help special interest.

We actually do realize that, of course people stereotype us.


I think, we should at least train the afghan army to be ready for anything. I think we should stay until that is done of course.

Have we actually even won a war since 'Nam? I can't think of any offhand. But we've been in... about three, I think.

You actually, think that Nam was a win? From my understanding, it was a complete utter fail.

Edited by RyrineaHaruno, 05 December 2009 - 05:10 AM.

[Cloud]

You actually, that Nam was a win?

YES BLOLOLOL 'NAM WAS SUCH A WIN. OMG YOU GUYS WON SO MUCH.

No, he asked if the US have won any wars after 'Nam was lost.

[dl316bh]

Sure, that's what we're paid to do, we train for occasions like that but is a death of a soldier 'less' then a death of a civilian? Vietnam is a fine example, USA left due to excessive waste of financial amounts and death of many of their soldiers, with the leaving of USA, South of Vietnam was conquered, correct? Can we set our minds on USA itself back in the time? We had people asking for the soldiers to come back, there was a social movement. Not to mention the fatalities were huge. It sparked a social movement, similar to riots but without violence. At least from the hippies part.

No, the death of a soldier is not less than the death of a civilian.

In fact, the part that bothers me most is that we wasted those soldiers lives. When 'Nam comes up, I often can't help BUT think of the people that died fighting that war and how in the end they were truly wasted. Nothing was accomplished. If anything, the same thing that would likely have happened had we not gotten involved happened anyways. So then what was the point? This comes down, again, to my own feelings that you shouldn't leave a job half finished. All that life lost... for nothing.

Perhaps it could be because I have a grandfather - well, kind of; he's my step-father's father, so he's not a blood related grandfather - who was a 'Nam veteran and came back mentally scarred. Spit on by the people he came home to. Had nightmares and episodes and literally abused his family to a point I dare not go into detail about. And it happened for no real cause; we left, a lot of people died and every sacrifice was worthless. To me, that's even worse.

Also, I didn't think your post was confusing.

You actually, that Nam was a win? From my understanding, it was a complete utter fail.

I never said that. Of course 'Nam was a failure. We left and the South collapsed. I don't think you can fail much harder than that.

Edited by dl316bh, 04 December 2009 - 02:49 AM.

[RyrineaHaruno]

YES BLOLOLOL 'NAM WAS SUCH A WIN. OMG YOU GUYS WON SO MUCH.

No, he asked if the US have won any wars after 'Nam was lost.

Um that wasn't my thought of it. He said Have we won a war since "Nam". so I assumed he thought we won Nam.


You don't have to be, so cocky cloud.

[Cloud]

You don't have to be, so cocky cloud.

Not cocky. Just educated. Kthx.

And dude, I know what you mean about the mentally scarred thing.

My dad's dad still has nightmares about his deceased friends from WW2. It's not a pretty thing to hear at night when you sleep.

Edited by Cloud, 04 December 2009 - 02:53 AM.

[RyrineaHaruno]

Not cocky. Just educated. Kthx.

I never said that. Of course 'Nam was a failure. We left and the South collapsed. I don't think you can fail much harder than that.

Thanks for clarifying.

[Yakatsu]

No, the death of a soldier is not less than the death of a civilian.

In fact, the part that bothers me most is that we wasted those soldiers lives. When 'Nam comes up, I often can't help BUT think of the people that died fighting that war and how in the end they were truly wasted. Nothing was accomplished. If anything, the same thing that would likely have happened had we not gotten involved happened anyways. So then what was the point? This comes down, again, to my own feelings that you shouldn't leave a job half finished. All that life lost... for nothing.

Perhaps it could be because I have a grandfather - well, kind of; he's my step-father's father, so he's not a blood related grandfather - who was a 'Nam veteran and came back mentally scarred. Spit on by the people he came home to. Had nightmares and episodes and literally abused his family to a point I dare not go into detail about. And it happened for no real cause; we left, a lot of people died and every sacrifice was worthless. To me, that's even worse.

Also, I didn't think your post was confusing.

I'll admit forwardly that I don't know a lot about US history and I don't know in depth the Vietnam War, but your right, worthless sacrifice is worse.

I stand silent for now, thank you for clearing my doubts and hopefully I brought a new breeze to this discussion (kinda like a gentlemen manne chit-chat mm'yes). Also. YES CONFUSING POST IS NOT CONFUSING.

[RyrineaHaruno]

Senator Baucus recommended girlfriend for key job: aide

[Dark]

No, the death of a soldier is not less than the death of a civilian.

In fact, the part that bothers me most is that we wasted those soldiers lives. When 'Nam comes up, I often can't help BUT think of the people that died fighting that war and how in the end they were truly wasted. Nothing was accomplished. If anything, the same thing that would likely have happened had we not gotten involved happened anyways. So then what was the point? This comes down, again, to my own feelings that you shouldn't leave a job half finished. All that life lost... for nothing.

Well, no death of any soldier is ever a waste. The simple fact that they died for a cause, regardless of it's outcome, is still an honorable thing. I'm not saying this to you, but I wanted to add that. I understand what you mean though...it's like, building a house from scratch just to move again because the plumbing took too long to finish. I know it's a bad example but...yeah. XD

I guess what I mean to say is that although Vietnam wasn't what we'd hoped for...it wasn't for nothing. In war death is inevitable, but always worth something.

[socermania2]

No.
The soldiers who died in Vietnam died for no reason, since we eventually backed out, and the North screwed them over. The soldiers came back and were spat upon.

Succeeding in Afghanistan is the best way to honor those that died.

[RyrineaHaruno]

Blessed are the conservative in Bible translation


I guess that Jesus was to liberal now, as a Christian I find this stupid.

Edited by RyrineaHaruno, 07 December 2009 - 01:24 PM.