|
|
President Karzai said he was pleased with the American military review of strategy, which focused on militant activity in the area. President Obama is planning on sending 4,000 troops to train Afghan security forces. Do you think this is wise? Is it a preliminary to declaring war? Or is it just what it is, a training mission? Is this a plan to the best way to reach bin Laden, as he is known to be hiding in the Afghan mountainous region?
|
Posts:
20,814
Registered:
4/11/05
|
|
(851 of 896)
Re: Afghan Military Review
Nov 19, 2009 8:49 PM
|
> I always assumed it meant ethnic Arabs associated
> with al-Qaida but if it turned out that they were
> once associated and not so much interested in
> getting to us anymore than maybe we might be
> able to wind this down ahead of the General's
> schedules who seem most enthusiastic about
> leaving with much grayer hair when interviewed
> on it.
There is always a problem with this blur of definitions of terrorists. That is why a US District Attorney came up with the name al-Qaida. It worked for bin Laden who needed someone to follow him, but that franchise has dried up. Now there are pockets of terrorists, some Arab some not, which are just as capable of instilling havoc. But, I shouldn't think we are exempt. The bombings in Mumbai were a good example. The Lashkar-i-Taibar were the perpetrators, who actually attacked from multiple countries. Afghanistan is about the Taliban now and its about Pakistan. Its a real puzzle.
|
|
|
Posts:
7,632
Registered:
5/18/07
|
|
(850 of 896)
Re: Afghan Military Review
Nov 19, 2009 8:37 PM
|
>
> Rounding up a few terrorists should never have been
> justification for invading and occupying sovereign
> nations.
I suppose so and ex CIA spooks such as Michael Scheuer
always blamed the turning Afghanistan over to
Rumsfeld and the military for whatever al-Qaida
operatives escaped into Pakistan's NW territories
at that time.
I just think that any pipeline that might be conceived
to go from the Caspian region across any Pashtun
enclave to the Arabian Sea wouldn't be worth it to
anyone in the oil business strictly due to a sabotage
vulnerability risk.
But that would explain NATO's willingness to go
along with this particular coalition of the willing
without the free F-16s in return I suppose.
Us taxpayers could always pitch in and bribe any
would be oil pipeline saboteurs as in Iraq.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,149
Registered:
9/16/09
|
|
(849 of 896)
Re: Afghan Military Review
Nov 19, 2009 8:33 PM
|
> Agreed, RC.
>
> The whole GWOT is a huge hoax that could've been
> solved by a few smart people. We used to solve this
> problem rationally with little fanfare in federal
> court, just as other countries have done.
We used to solve this problem with a bullet.
>
> Rounding up a few terrorists should never have been
> justification for invading and occupying sovereign
> nations.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,017
Registered:
3/21/08
|
|
(848 of 896)
Re: Afghan Military Review
Nov 19, 2009 8:18 PM
|
Agreed, RC.
The whole GWOT is a huge hoax that could've been solved by a few smart people. We used to solve this problem rationally with little fanfare in federal court, just as other countries have done.
Rounding up a few terrorists should never have been justification for invading and occupying sovereign nations.
|
|
|
Posts:
7,632
Registered:
5/18/07
|
|
(847 of 896)
Re: Afghan Military Review
Nov 19, 2009 8:08 PM
|
>
>
> al-Qaida is a term originated by us, and should not
> be considered as some organized group like the
> Rotary. Its become a brand name, like McDonalds, and
> most of the franchises have dried up. I only mention
> this by way of explaining that you could circle spots
> on a map and still not see that franchise if you got
> there, but that has little to do with terrorists --
> they probably will be there.
I always assumed it meant ethnic Arabs associated
with al-Qaida but if it turned out that they were
once associated and not so much interested in
getting to us anymore than maybe we might be
able to wind this down ahead of the General's
schedules who seem most enthusiastic about
leaving with much grayer hair when interviewed
on it.
|
|
|
Posts:
20,814
Registered:
4/11/05
|
|
(846 of 896)
Re: Afghan Military Review
Nov 19, 2009 7:12 PM
|
> > Information extrapolated from December
> 'Harper's
> > Index", according to the U.S. national
> security
> > advisor, there are an estimated 100 Al Qaeda
> members
> > in Afghanistan.
> >
>
> I didn't think there were that many even in the
> Northwest Territories of Pakistan which is their
> refuge.
>
> And if they intermarry with Pashtuns (which they do)
> Then I doubt that we'll ever see the day that a
> neo-Taliban government won't harbor al-Qaida
> or would serve them up to us under any
> circumstances.
>
> That's a grim forecast for us leaving Afghanistan
> soon, btw.
al-Qaida is a term originated by us, and should not be considered as some organized group like the Rotary. Its become a brand name, like McDonalds, and most of the franchises have dried up. I only mention this by way of explaining that you could circle spots on a map and still not see that franchise if you got there, but that has little to do with terrorists -- they probably will be there.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,017
Registered:
3/21/08
|
|
(845 of 896)
Re: Afghan Military Review
Nov 19, 2009 7:05 PM
|
There's only one smart way to hunt down terrorists, and that's the way the late FBI counterterrorism expert John O'Neill did it, with Richard Clark, searching them out and arresting them one by one and bringing them to justice as he did with the first WTC bombers, and he was on the verge of rounding up in Yemen the USS Cole bombers, with Osama bin Laden, until U.S. ambassador Barbara Bodin's ego got in the way.
Invading sovereign nations to catch a few terrorists is the ultimate insult and waste of human life, theirs and ours, and it's drowning us by the trillion$$ in debt.
--
Edited by Gzndhyt at 11/19/2009 4:06 PM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
7,632
Registered:
5/18/07
|
|
(844 of 896)
Re: Afghan Military Review
Nov 19, 2009 5:49 PM
|
> Information extrapolated from December 'Harper's
> Index", according to the U.S. national security
> advisor, there are an estimated 100 Al Qaeda members
> in Afghanistan.
>
I didn't think there were that many even in the
Northwest Territories of Pakistan which is their refuge.
And if they intermarry with Pashtuns (which they do)
Then I doubt that we'll ever see the day that a
neo-Taliban government won't harbor al-Qaida
or would serve them up to us under any circumstances.
That's a grim forecast for us leaving Afghanistan soon, btw.
--
Edited by JimEarl at 11/19/2009 2:49 PM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
3,017
Registered:
3/21/08
|
|
(843 of 896)
Re: Afghan Military Review
Nov 19, 2009 5:38 PM
|
Information extrapolated from December 'Harper's Index", according to the U.S. national security advisor, there are an estimated 100 Al Qaeda members in Afghanistan.
If McChrystal's leaked request were granted, there would be 108,000 U.S. soldiers stationed there.
The ratio would be 1,080 U.S. soldiers to 1 Al Qaeda member.
Estimated number of Soviet troops in Afghanistan at the height of the failed invasion in 1986: 120,000
One of the featured articles is, "The Master of Spin Boldak", by Matthieu Atkins who went undercover with the drug-trafficking border police. (Spin Boldak is an Afghan border town.)
|
|
|
Posts:
7,632
Registered:
5/18/07
|
|
(842 of 896)
Re: Afghan Military Review
Nov 19, 2009 4:21 PM
|
Obama sees leaks on Afghanistan as firing offense
Leaks by McChrystal being the exception I presume.
US Army suicides headed to set a new record
No Afghan Decision Until After Thanksgiving
I would imagine that stock market re-regulation
would be the easier decision to make than what
to do in Afghanistan.
Perhaps if we're there for a lot more years it might
prime an interest in the American public as to how
we wage foreign policy, who for, and how chickenshit
we really are for having allowed ourselves to have
gotten into a situation whereby we ever had to go
into Afghanistan in the first place.
Or perhaps not. Perhaps if we leave early, get
attacked from an al-Qaida free to operate from
that country in another way that gets our attention
and our inspires our nuttiest conspiracy aficionados,
that might cause people to study the way that
we come to make our foreign policy in the Middle
East. It's all there to be seen by anyone interested.
Everyone else knows but we are like cuckolds....We
are the last ones to know or face it.
--
Edited by JimEarl at 11/19/2009 4:59 PM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
7,632
Registered:
5/18/07
|
|
(841 of 896)
Re: Afghan Military Review
Nov 18, 2009 9:48 AM
|
> China shares a border with Iran.
>
> Iran doesn't share a border with Iraq.
>
But that's according to McCain who is an
esteemed Annapolis Naval Academy graduate
after all. They probably have a globe there
still standing after every fourth of July. They
are a highly disciplined bunch.....Are you trying
to say that our top military experts are lost in
the woods ?
>
>
> OK, I lied. Think about what our MSM is telling us
> then you'll realize just how stupid our government
> thinks we are.
Ahmed Chalabi doesn't sell improbable and all too
convenient tales by not knowing the market. He is
a more learned product of our higher educational
system as well but perhaps a quicker study than
McCain and probably correctly gauges that anything
that sells at the University of Chicago should be a
cakewalk to sell in French Lick Idaho. The fact
that it doesn't sell anywhere in the Middle East
is really irrelevant to congress which is the easiest
sell of them all.
--
Edited by JimEarl at 11/18/2009 7:29 AM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
13,116
Registered:
2/5/06
|
|
(840 of 896)
Re: Afghan Military Review
Nov 18, 2009 12:31 AM
|
China shares a border with Iran.
Iran doesn't share a border with Iraq.
---
OK, I lied. Think about what our MSM is telling us then you'll realize just how stupid our government thinks we are.
|
|
|
Posts:
8,362
Registered:
8/24/06
|
|
(839 of 896)
Re: Afghan Military Review
Nov 17, 2009 9:25 PM
|
If you want to see some more shenanigans between the Legislative and the Executive, and I don't blame you if you DO NOT want to see any more, check out 50USC1601, the National Emergency Act.
In short, when the President invokes that Act, the law requires that Congress review his declaration of a National Emergency every so often, maybe 90 days or 180.
Whatever it is, Congress has NEVER reviewed the declaration by Dubya.
Demonstrating that Congress does not even obey its own laws.
Government today is utterly dysfunctional.
|
|
|
Posts:
7,632
Registered:
5/18/07
|
|
(838 of 896)
Re: Afghan Military Review
Nov 17, 2009 7:46 PM
|
> Jim
>
> Naivete on our part, and manipulation of the public
> perception 24/7 on THEIR part.
>
> That you accept the legitimacy of 107-243 is an
> insight into our naivete. The Executive Branch
> ALREADY has lawful authority to do as he pleases with
> our military.
After 60 days, any military action which he initiates
without congressional approval becomes congress's
call by virtue of the '73 War Powers Act which actually
further defines the limits of executive branch power
and not congress's......that's why presidents are the
ones who question the constitutionality of the Act
and not congress.
> As FDR said, I can WAGE war, but I
> cannot declare war. Quite simple, really, and true.
>
> 107-243 basically says "we are going to give the
> president authority that he already has"
>
> You fall for that bullshit Jim, but I don't. It's a
> scam, and some people do not know the Constitution
> well enough to understand that.
>
It said, in effect, that congress gave a green light
for Bush to use at his discretion.....It made him the
"decider" so that Junior could crow about it and rub
the fact of it in the face of any antiwar democrats
that don't want the "decider" to decide so much
at his discretion.
So I agree that it is a chickenshit dereliction of duty
on congress's part (not to mention a pack of bald
faced lies that no astute observer ever believed in
the first place) and held my districts "yeh" voters of
PL 107-243 responsible for their votes......which
still require the 2/3rds majority mandate to pass, btw.
Problem is that very few other voters actually did so.
In fact they nominated Iraq war hawks in both of their
presidential primaries in 2004.
And the only reason that some special interests
often have a clear playing field in making their foreign
policy happen is simply because the apathetic American
citizen willingly gives it to them rather than take
an interest themselves.
--
Edited by JimEarl at 11/17/2009 5:47 PM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
13,116
Registered:
2/5/06
|
|
(837 of 896)
Re: Afghan Military Review
Nov 17, 2009 7:40 PM
|
Pakistan shares a border with China.
China does not share a border with India.
---It was the other way around, but lets switch it now.---
I don't think anyone gets it. Forget it.
|
|
|
|
|
