Karzai condemns airstrikes
11-29-2013, 03:46 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Position: B737
Posts: 1,204
If we want to stem the budgetary bleeding at the DoD, it starts with GTFO of Afghanistan. I'd also like to see a major realigning of our forces in NATO (ie bring 'em home save the Herks at ETAR, perhaps an Army logistics sustainment brigade, and keep a Navy facility on the Med open, but close the other facilities and bring those personnel home)...ditto for most other "nation building" operations. Those are nice to have deals that we can't afford anymore.
I think the key the solving our nations spending problems lie in the social entitlement reform, but be honest, DoD can do things different, smarter and save money. Get out of Afghanistan, and close up all ME bases except Bahrain and OTBH.
I think the key the solving our nations spending problems lie in the social entitlement reform, but be honest, DoD can do things different, smarter and save money. Get out of Afghanistan, and close up all ME bases except Bahrain and OTBH.
11-29-2013, 09:55 PM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 4,024
The way I see it, sure we go in and eradicate a few terrorists, but everyone else in that country watches and see us going in and blowing stuff up. So we go in and try to wipe out all the "bad" in one of those countries, then the surrounding countries see us just coming to the region and systematically blowing up each country, one by one. This is a self perpetuating cycle and every time we go there and blow more stuff up, we give many times the original amount of people we went to kill a reason to want to kill us. Somehow it's got to stop. I think in some cases we do have to proactively go after "terrorists", but this has to be thought about long and hard and going after "any threat" is precisely what keeps perpetuating the threat IMO.
11-29-2013, 10:18 PM
#13
Banned
Joined APC: Sep 2013
Posts: 248
The day after 9/11 the world saw our president sternly remind us that "Islam is a religion of peace." The world heard Captain Corpseman tell us with a straight face that Fort Hood was "workplace violence" and that Benghazi will be an ontological mystery until Inspector Clouseau renders judgement.
And the world sees us saying that we're caught up in a "global war on terror."
Where would we be if FDR in 1942 had declared a "war on Blitzkrieg?"
We are truly living in Orwellian times, caught up in a war that dare not speak its name. The mohammedans are fond of reminding us that "You have all the watches, but we have all the time."
If we don't disabuse ourselves of the foolish wish for Islam to be a "religion of peace," we will in the fullness of time and to our eternal regret learn that Islam means Submission.
By the time we learn to name our enemy, it will be too late.
And the world sees us saying that we're caught up in a "global war on terror."
Where would we be if FDR in 1942 had declared a "war on Blitzkrieg?"
We are truly living in Orwellian times, caught up in a war that dare not speak its name. The mohammedans are fond of reminding us that "You have all the watches, but we have all the time."
If we don't disabuse ourselves of the foolish wish for Islam to be a "religion of peace," we will in the fullness of time and to our eternal regret learn that Islam means Submission.
By the time we learn to name our enemy, it will be too late.
11-29-2013, 11:01 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 4,024
The day after 9/11 the world saw our president sternly remind us that "Islam is a religion of peace." The world heard Captain Corpseman tell us with a straight face that Fort Hood was "workplace violence" and that Benghazi will be an ontological mystery until Inspector Clouseau renders judgement.
And the world sees us saying that we're caught up in a "global war on terror."
Where would we be if FDR in 1942 had declared a "war on Blitzkrieg?"
We are truly living in Orwellian times, caught up in a war that dare not speak its name. The mohammedans are fond of reminding us that "You have all the watches, but we have all the time."
If we don't disabuse ourselves of the foolish wish for Islam to be a "religion of peace," we will in the fullness of time and to our eternal regret learn that Islam means Submission.
By the time we learn to name our enemy, it will be too late.
And the world sees us saying that we're caught up in a "global war on terror."
Where would we be if FDR in 1942 had declared a "war on Blitzkrieg?"
We are truly living in Orwellian times, caught up in a war that dare not speak its name. The mohammedans are fond of reminding us that "You have all the watches, but we have all the time."
If we don't disabuse ourselves of the foolish wish for Islam to be a "religion of peace," we will in the fullness of time and to our eternal regret learn that Islam means Submission.
By the time we learn to name our enemy, it will be too late.
11-29-2013, 11:38 PM
#15
Banned
Joined APC: Sep 2013
Posts: 248
We are told that even imprisoning terrorists creates outrage and causes more terrorists to join up..
There is no logic to the idea that by fighting them "we are damning ourselves many times over,". They were already at war with us, so pretending that they hate us for doing exactly the same thing they do to us, is utterly stupid.
There is no logic to the idea that by fighting them "we are damning ourselves many times over,". They were already at war with us, so pretending that they hate us for doing exactly the same thing they do to us, is utterly stupid.
11-30-2013, 04:18 AM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,839
"but we are creating the entire reasons they attack us, because we constantly attack them. How does it stop?"
At military school - one method I was taught to win a war was to constantly attack my enemy.
"They may not have known they were terrorists or whatever, but you've just spread it from a few people to a bunch more. How do you stop this cycle?"
11-30-2013, 07:31 AM
#18
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,992
According to open source press reports, Karzai wants: (my comments in blue)
1. All afghan prisoners at GitMo released back to Afghan. Uh, I think even Eric Holder won't sign off on that. Unlikely this will occur. Not after our leaders saying that this prisoners are witnesses and critical for intelligence debriefings and future criminal court proceedings ? Now we are just gonna "cut them loose" to Afghan control ? Negative Ghostrider
2. Karzai wants to sign deal in 2014. His term expires April 2014. USA wants "by end of 2013" aka 30 days. Basic disagreement exists on timeline. Karzai holds the cards, it is his signature that we want. We want it signed sealed and delivered by end of year due to logistics and planning and clearly we want it done before he leaves office. I doubt this happens in the next 30 days
3. He wants all raids on Afghan homes to stop by US troops. The exception if a "direct threat against troops exists" or similar language. I have images of a sniper hiding in a home, popping rounds at troops. However as we all know, many of these homes are hiding places for terrorists, enemy forces, etc. Locations of potential intelligence and evidentiary documents, etc. We also all know that child-bombers and women are used to attack troops. aka "civilians" however with malicious intentions. Not uniformed enemy soldiers. Karzai is calling for "the killing of civilians" to stop. Good Luck with these wishes.
My crystal-ball says chance of security agreement even happening is minimal and chance prior to Jan-1 is almost nonexistent.
1. All afghan prisoners at GitMo released back to Afghan. Uh, I think even Eric Holder won't sign off on that. Unlikely this will occur. Not after our leaders saying that this prisoners are witnesses and critical for intelligence debriefings and future criminal court proceedings ? Now we are just gonna "cut them loose" to Afghan control ? Negative Ghostrider
2. Karzai wants to sign deal in 2014. His term expires April 2014. USA wants "by end of 2013" aka 30 days. Basic disagreement exists on timeline. Karzai holds the cards, it is his signature that we want. We want it signed sealed and delivered by end of year due to logistics and planning and clearly we want it done before he leaves office. I doubt this happens in the next 30 days
3. He wants all raids on Afghan homes to stop by US troops. The exception if a "direct threat against troops exists" or similar language. I have images of a sniper hiding in a home, popping rounds at troops. However as we all know, many of these homes are hiding places for terrorists, enemy forces, etc. Locations of potential intelligence and evidentiary documents, etc. We also all know that child-bombers and women are used to attack troops. aka "civilians" however with malicious intentions. Not uniformed enemy soldiers. Karzai is calling for "the killing of civilians" to stop. Good Luck with these wishes.
My crystal-ball says chance of security agreement even happening is minimal and chance prior to Jan-1 is almost nonexistent.
11-30-2013, 09:10 AM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 4,024
At military school - one method I was taught to win a war was to constantly attack my enemy.
I'm not excusing for a minute their behavior, I'm just trying to understand the behavior of someone that may not be directly involved with "terrorists" that observes one constant/repeating force that is blowing stuff up. What happens over time?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
