Do you believe we can win in Afghanistan?

fordy · #21 06/13/10, 08:57 AM

.................As has already been pointed out there will never be a victory in Afghan. ! While I was watching the evening news the onsite reporter was showing American troops patrolling through a growing field of Poppy's ! So , we kill the Islamists and supply the drug dealers !?
.................My favorite example too illustrate the Futility of thinking we can defeat the Islamists by simply "Killing" them is akin too watching a boy sitting on the ground in front of a Red ant bed with an Ice pick in each hand , he thinks he's going too stab every ant coming out of that hole until there are , None left ! Islamists aren't limited too speaking Arabic , as I'm quite positive that there are quite a few hiding in plain sight , here in the USA speaking spanish . , fordy

Beeman · #22 06/13/10, 10:09 AM

It's funny to read the posts that believe that our military becoming more aggressive will "win" a war. Our military can only advance and secure ground, then what? We can't run what we've already got so we surely can't run a country over there. Tremendous differences from the "Great War" and today. We keep wearing those Star Spangles glasses of yeaterday while trying to apply them to a completely different situation. We haven't learned a thing since Korea, time to get an eye exam and get new glasses.

JuliaAnn · #23 06/13/10, 10:58 AM

Because, as Obama points out, "No one country should dominate another'. "American has been guilty of being arrogant", and 'we have made a lot of mistakes'.

Nope, never going to win anything as long as this dolt is in office.

seedspreader · #24 06/13/10, 11:13 AM

What do you think PrimRoseLane? Do YOU think we can?

seedspreader · #25 06/13/10, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beeman

It's funny to read the posts that believe that our military becoming more aggressive will "win" a war. Our military can only advance and secure ground, then what? We can't run what we've already got so we surely can't run a country over there. Tremendous differences from the "Great War" and today. We keep wearing those Star Spangles glasses of yeaterday while trying to apply them to a completely different situation. We haven't learned a thing since Korea, time to get an eye exam and get new glasses.

Who should we see for the exam?

primroselane · #26 06/13/10, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seedspreader

What do you think PrimRoseLane? Do YOU think we can?

Certainly we can, but as others say, we probably won't. Between the Taliban, the Afghan government, and NATO, the Taliban seem to have the strongest committment to win.

US wars since 1950 seem more like crusades. Instead of Christianity, we now bring freedom and democracy. Fighting and killing always seems to subtract a lot of virture from noble ideas.

Most Muslims didn't want our Christianity in the Middle Ages, and most Muslims don't want freedom and democracy now. Those who earn their freedom, as oppose to those who have it given to them, seem to take better care of it.

Beeman · #27 06/13/10, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seedspreader

Who should we see for the exam?

Ask Jackson Browne.

dezingg · #28 06/13/10, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 53convert

not the fault of the boots on the ground,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,just the fault of the idiots on the potomac

Full agreement there!

I don't like what we're asking our military to do, but I have tons of respect for the individuals who serve.

seedspreader · #29 06/13/10, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beeman

Ask Jackson Browne.

Uh, talk about glasses from yesteryear.

watcher · #30 06/14/10, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by georger

No. The culture in Afghanistan seems to be too deeply rooted in it's own ways.

Unless fellow Afghanistan citizens wish change to occur, you will never succeed in bringing any change by force.

Hum. . .seems we did a fair job of changing the Japanese culture after WWII.

NoClue · #31 06/14/10, 07:25 AM

We've already won. Victory just doesn't look like you thought it was going to - no parades, flowers, flags, and passionate kisses, but the people who decided on the war have everything they wanted: a reason to maintain, grow, and equip a military, lots of fat government contracts, and no-bid contracts awarded by a puppet government to 'develop' a country with what little infrastructure it had blasted to smithereens, and now, wouldn't you know it? vital, lucrative mineral deposits have been found, and who better to develop them than the companies already there?

ETA: (Almost forgot about this)

The most popular conspiracy in the cities and villages of Afghanistan these days, is that the CIA bought out the Taliban, transports them around by helicopter, and organizes the battles to justify the continued American presence there. How else, they reason, could the most powerful army in the world not have won already?

watcher · #32 06/14/10, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beeman

It's funny to read the posts that believe that our military becoming more aggressive will "win" a war. Our military can only advance and secure ground, then what? We can't run what we've already got so we surely can't run a country over there. Tremendous differences from the "Great War" and today. We keep wearing those Star Spangles glasses of yeaterday while trying to apply them to a completely different situation. We haven't learned a thing since Korea, time to get an eye exam and get new glasses.

You win a war by making people realize if they keep fighting their entire way of life will be destroyed. An example is the way we are planning on attacking "the birth place of the Taliban". We are sending in troops to talk nice and protect the people. That's fine as long as the troops are there but what happens when they move to the next village? The Taliban comes back and slits the throats of anyone who helped the troops. Now the next time the troops return to that village how much help do you think they are going to get?

The only way to win is to make it so the local people know if they don't help us something very, very bad will happen. Much worse than a few people having their throats slit. Something like having their village 'carpet bombed' by a B52 strike.

One thing you must remember, the fighters there do not have a supply line. They get their food and water from the locals. Remove the locals and you put a major kink in the fighter's ability to carry on the fight. If we really wanted to win we'd move all the locals to temporary camps and go to a scorched earth policy. We'd burn every field we came across, blow up all the wells and poison any water supply we could not destroy. After we won, we'd go back and rebuild what we destroyed. But you can't do that today because some bunch of weenies would wet their pants and protest.

"War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is controlled violence, for a purpose. The purpose of war is to support your government's decisions by force. The purpose is never to kill the enemy just to be killing him. But to make him do what you want him to do."

"That's how war is fought, in case any of you have foolish ideas to the contrary. You don't fight with minimum force, you fight with maximum force at endurable cost. You don't just prick your enemy, you don't even bloody him, you destroy his capability to fight back."

palani · #33 06/14/10, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Some Obscure Nazi General

War exists for the benefit of the defender. The invader comes in only desiring peace at the least cost to him.

To legalize a war it must be declared by that branch of the government entrusted by the constitution with this power. Afghanistan is a private war rather than a public war as a result of failure to declare it.

watcher · #34 06/14/10, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by palani

To legalize a war it must be declared by that branch of the government entrusted by the constitution with this power. Afghanistan is a private war rather than a public war as a result of failure to declare it.

There is nothing in the USC about the wording necessary to be a declaration of war. Its quite arguable that congress did declare war when it gave Bush its blessing and power to "use all necessary and appropriate force against nations," which had a hand in terrorism.

jefferson · #35 06/14/10, 11:42 AM

WIN? What is win? I am getting on in years but don't remember that word. Should be removed from our dictionaries. No mater what happens over there.......we lose!!!!

Klapton · #36 06/14/10, 11:50 AM

If "we win" means that some really rich white guys will end up owning a pipeline and/or the recently discovered mineral wealth of the country, then yes... "we" will "win" in Afghanistan.

This will most likely require that the US military remain there, however. So "we" will most defnintely NOT "win" in Afghanistan.

Two groups of people will definietley LOSE:

The typical Afghan peasant, and the American Taxpayer (peasants with nicer toys.)

palani · #37 06/14/10, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by watcher

There is nothing in the USC about the wording necessary to be a declaration of war. Its quite arguable that congress did declare war when it gave Bush its blessing and power to "use all necessary and appropriate force against nations," which had a hand in terrorism.

The principles of war have been established since Roman times. The rules are set down in the Law of Nations

Quote:

§ 51. Declaration of war.(142)

THE right of making war belongs to nations only as a remedy against injustice: it is the offspring of unhappy necessity. This remedy is so dreadful in its effects, so destructive to mankind, so grievous even to the party who has recourse to it, that unquestionably the law of nature allows of it only in the last extremity, — that is to say, when every other expedient proves ineffectual for the maintenance of justice. It is demonstrated in the foregoing chapter, that, in order to be justifiable in taking up arms it is necessary — 1. That we have a just cause of complaint. 2. That a reasonable satisfaction have been denied us. 3. The ruler of the nation, as we have observed, ought maturely to

consider whether it be for the advantage of the state to prosecute his right by force of arms. But all this is not sufficient. As it is possible that the present fear of our arms may make an impression on the mind of our adversary, and induce him to do us justice, — we owe this further regard to humanity, and especially to the lives and peace of the subjects, to declare to that unjust nation, or its chief, that we are at length going to have recourse to the last remedy, and make use of open force, for the purpose of bringing him to reason. This is called declaring war. All this is included in the Roman manner of proceeding, regulated in their fecial law. They first sent the chief of the feciales, or heralds, called pater patratus, to demand satisfaction of the nation who had offended them; and if, within the space of thirty-three days, that nation did not return a satisfactory answer, the herald called the gods to be witnesses of the injustice, and came away, saying that the Romans would consider what measures they should adopt. The king, and in after times the consul, hereupon asked the senate's opinion: and when war was resolved on, the herald was sent back to the frontier, where he declared it.1 It is surprising to find among the Romans such justice, such moderation and prudence, at a time too when, apparently, nothing but courage and ferocity was to be expected from them. By such scrupulous delicacy in the conduct of her wars, Rome laid a most solid foundation for her subsequent greatness.

Without a declaration of war there can be no treaty of peace. The two documents co-exist together. As the U.S. is incapable of public acts (being a bankrupt) then I expect this "war on terror" is entirely private in nature and has something to do with liquidating assets.

watcher · #38 06/28/10, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by palani

The principles of war have been established since Roman times. The rules are set down in the Law of Nations.

As I have pointed out there is nothing in the United States Constitution which says just what a declaration of war from congress. IOW, there is no Constitutional requirement for Congress to vote on a bill nor resolution which states; "The United States of America is now at war." Therefore the Congressional vote to give Bush the power to do whatever he felt necessary against any nation could easily be view as a declaration of war.

tarbe · #39 06/28/10, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WindowOrMirror

I believe that we can, but not that we will.

Tell me, what does "win" look like?

R

I think in this case, win looks like a butt load of lithium.

DJ in WA · #40 06/28/10, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by watcher

As I have pointed out there is nothing in the United States Constitution which says just what a declaration of war from congress. IOW, there is no Constitutional requirement for Congress to vote on a bill nor resolution which states; "The United States of America is now at war." Therefore the Congressional vote to give Bush the power to do whatever he felt necessary against any nation could easily be view as a declaration of war.

When liberals stretch the meaning of the Constitution to get welfare programs, conservatives scream and cry. But when the Constitution gets circumvented to justify endless war - no problem!

If the Constitution was not meant to put limits on anything, what is it for?

The president can do whatever he wants to any nation he wants for as long as he wants?

That's a declaration of war???? If we don't know who the war is against, then when will it end?

Why even mention in the Constitution that the congress shall declare war? Why not just say the president can wage war whenever he wants? Write it so he can wage war as long as a single person on earth is an enemy of the United States. That would make the whole thing meaningless.

Unlimited, unrestrained, unending war.

The intent of the founders was otherwise. The one man in Washington who understands the original intent, Ron Paul, said the following in his speech before the Iraq war.

Quote:

I must oppose this resolution, which regardless of what many have tried to claim, will lead us into war with Iraq. This resolution is not a declaration of war, however, and that is an important point: this resolution transfers the Constitutionally-mandated Congressional authority to declare wars to the executive branch. This resolution tells the president that he alone has the authority to determine when, where, why, and how war will be declared. It merely asks the president to pay us a courtesy call a couple of days after the bombing starts to let us know what is going on. This is exactly what our Founding Fathers cautioned against when crafting our form of government: most had just left behind a monarchy where the power to declare war rested in one individual. It is this they most wished to avoid.

As James Madison wrote in 1798, "The Constitution supposes what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has, accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war in the legislature."

Some - even some in this body - have claimed that this Constitutional requirement is an anachronism, and that those who insist on following the founding legal document of this country are just being frivolous. I could not disagree more.