AsburySkinsFan Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Ok, I saw a poll on this that was kinda surprising this morning, and since I don't want the results of that poll nor its source to influence the voting here I won't list them. I just want to see where the ES community is on this. And if you don't care, please give an explanation of your reasoning. Please select the party that best represents your current position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Indy: NO Former GOP: NO small L libertarian: NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 We don't have any Republicans on this message board. I said yes, but this war can't go on forever. Need to find a good stopping point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Need to be fighting China so we don't ever have to payback all that loot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Yes - AQ and Taliban would think they defeated us, and that should never happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Yes. Because if we don't finish this, they'll just do it again. One 9-11 is enough. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Oops, duplicate ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Time to get out of there. Dealing with the poorest, most ignorant population on earth, who even if we did "win" would not care Harshest terrain on earth, this thing will end up costing twice as much as Iraq if the President continues his Afghan surge. Let the generals in Pakistan deal with their ****, they are smart enough not to allow the Taliban to actually take over the country (the Taliban couldn't in general and won't) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Yes. Because if we don't finish this, they'll just do it again.~Bang The question becomes, what is the definition of "finishing this" in the context of Afghanistan The Taliban completely defeated and gives up? (will that even happen?) AQ gone from the face of the earth? (again, will that happen?) Afghanistan a somewhat modern society (could happen in about 2 generations) I am just curios as to what you define finishing this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 We don't have any Republicans on this message board. I said yes, but this war can't go on forever. Need to find a good stopping point. And what would that "stopping point" be? PS...all polls should be public Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wantarace17 Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 I am still shocked at how low the troop numbers there are in Afghanistan. You need to have at least ten times the troops per insurgents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 And what would that "stopping point" be? Good question. Perhaps if there can be increased stability after the surge, like Iraq. Maybe there are alternative stopping points like right after an election, ahem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Good question. Perhaps if there can be increased stability after the surge, like Iraq. Maybe there are alternative stopping points like right after an election, ahem. I think part of the issue is people make the mistake of thinking the Iraqi and Afghan populations are similar. They aren't which is why "stability' in Afghanistan won't be stability in Iraq One is a population which was educated, where women went to college and had careers, where Sunnis and Shias married and had experience with modern society and infrastructure and a functioning government (even if it was an evil gov't) The other has had no education in over 150 years, women were treated as property, the terrain they live on is extremely harsh and for 30 years has been in a constant state of war Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Yes, I think it's worth giving a little more attention there. Without opening that can of worms, we know that resources have been denied to Afghanistan because of committing something close to $700 billion to Iraq in the last six years. I think the new focus on Afghanistan can bring results and deserves a chance. A greater stability in Afghanistan will help hold Pakistan's feet to the fire and finish what they started in Swat and elsewhere. Another argument is to hold the rest of the west's feet to the fire. If we want to have a functioning multilateral military, then getting results in Afghanisatan is important too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Dealing with the poorest, most ignorant population on earth, I dunno, they seem pretty sophisticated when it comes to poppy production. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 If you'd asked me a year ago, my response would have been "Hell, yeah. We should have focused there instead of ever going into Iraq, and maybe we'd be done by now." But I have to admit that my opinion's changed, lately. My opinion right now is "I don't think I know enough to have an opinion." (Observing that, as I learn more, I've changed from having an opinion to being ignorant.) I was planning, while I ate breakfast, on starting a thread on this subject when I got back home. I've been seeing, in the last few weeks, several sources (OK, Doonesbury and George Will) asserting that Afghanistan is Viet Nam. And I think the arguments make at least some sense. (Not that they're necessarily equal. But tha there certainly are some parallels.) OTOH, I think Bang has a point as well. If we quit, it will be hailed as a victory by the Taliban. Who, lest we forget, actually did attack us on 9/11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 I think part of the issue is people make the mistake of thinking the Iraqi and Afghan populations are similar.They aren't which is why "stability' in Afghanistan won't be stability in Iraq One is a population which was educated, where women went to college and had careers, where Sunnis and Shias married and had experience with modern society and infrastructure and a functioning government (even if it was an evil gov't) The other has had no education in over 150 years, women were treated as property, the terrain they live on is extremely harsh and for 30 years has been in a constant state of war The problem most Americans have in discussing this is that on the rare occasions look at a map, they see the entire territory from the Western African coast to Afghanistan as one big mess where everyone is the same. The truth is that all these countries have different cultures, somewhat different religions, different levels of development, and different chances of entering the "modern world." If you put a gun to my head, I would say that 10 years from now, Iran has the best chance of looking like a Muslim version of, say, Utah. Iraq has a decent chance. Afghanistan has a .0005 percent chance. I don't know what our long-term goal in Afghanistan should be. Part of me thinks that we simply need a large, fortified base near Kabul where we can make sure that the central government remains friendly. And we use that base to launch occasional attacks on hot spots where Al Qaeda or the Taliban has gotten a little too comfortable. Outside of that, I have no idea what the long-term objective could possibly be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herrmag Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Yes. We leave, Taliban and Paki become friendly (or at least tolerable of one another), and Al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups have a backyard to set up their Super-man themed terrorist camps. And why do some people feel there has to be an end? When a country is so ****ed up and is a constant threat to both its neighbors and us, I say keep a presence there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 I dunno, they seem pretty sophisticated when it comes to poppy production. I never said they won't figure out a way to put food on the table But thats about all they want/desire. Put food on the table and be left alone. I tell people this quite a bit, when you go over there and speak to the ethnic Pahtans, they have no clue what global game they are in. None. They just know if they get to eat, have shelter and if someone or Amrika killed a member of their family. "Stability" would take 50+ years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Always interesting to hear your perspective on this SHF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Always interesting to hear your perspective on this SHF It was funny beause 2 years ago my answer would have been the exact opposite. I know I have flip flopped on the war issues quite a bit, but the big reason was actually traveling over there Its almost impossible to describe the ignorance over there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 You have to be a bit more precise in your terms. What is fighting? Should we mount specific attacks against specific targets using missles, bombs, and possibly special forces if there are terrorist training camps and/or possibly high value targets that have been or likely will become involved in attacks in the US? ABSOLUTELY. Should we be involved in a civil war between forces that want an Islamic empire to rule Afghanistan vs. those that want a more moderate government? I don't think so because the side we'd want to win that war isn't likely to win the war (at least not any time soon) (in my opinion). This is another case where people only see two extremes. I don't see any reason to think that we couldn't prevent terrorist training camps with little to no foot print in the country and with a foot print that didn't interact with the populace of the country really at all. The fact that we didn't before 9-11 I think is more of an indication of the public/political interest/importance given to the topic (i.e. very little to none). I'm a Republican and I voted yes, but mean yes and a much different manner than is currently being carried out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 So, you think a better question would be "should be be nation building in Afghanistan?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 I am still shocked at how low the troop numbers there are in Afghanistan. You need to have at least ten times the troops per insurgents. Naw we just need to blast the Taliban on sight when they attempt to intimidate school girls by tossing acid at them on thier way to school or when they beat women or try to rip off fingernails that are painted and exposed as well as do PSAs showing them positive alternatives as in Turkey than the oppressiveness the taliban is trying to push. And we need more anonymous involved citizens identifying the taliban and bomb factories among the people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 The question becomes, what is the definition of "finishing this" in the context of AfghanistanThe Taliban completely defeated and gives up? (will that even happen?) AQ gone from the face of the earth? (again, will that happen?) Afghanistan a somewhat modern society (could happen in about 2 generations) I am just curios as to what you define finishing this Well, the first two are a good start. As usual, I'd defer to your superior knowledge of the people and the situation, and on whether or not it's actually possible. In many of the articles you've provided I've gleaned hope that these organizations have lost a lot of steam in terms of their support networks, and once that crumbles, I do believe they can be eradicated or neutralized. There's much to be done afterward to make sure the anti-American sentiment doesn't just grow again. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.