It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


White House says no Afghanistan pullout

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 10:32 PM
reply to post by stander

I just read thru your posts. Great grasp of history you have.
Now, tell me, when did the Germans attack Pearl Harbor?

posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 12:42 AM
You can't blame Obama for Afghanistan. He inherited it from Bush.

Obama can't just up and leave now, or so the thinking goes. We've lost too many soldiers to just pull out and admit defeat (or declare "victory" like Bush did). Obama is stuck. No matter what he does, he's going to look bad. Pull out, means our soldiers died in vain. "Stay the course", and we'll keep losing soldiers without any hope of "winning". Increase our troops there, and wind up getting more of our soldiers killed.

This war can't be won decisively. It's not a war against Afghanistan. It's a war against tribes in Afghanistan. There is no government or "Afghanistan" to surrender to us. All that's there are warring tribes, that have been warring for millennia. They form and break alliances with one another, try to slaughter their rival tribes, try to use us to help them slaughter other tribes.

The best we can hope for is to stop these tribes from training terrorists to attack the US, which isn't likely since we keep killing people. People tend to get a bit cranky when you start killing them. We've created more terrorists than Al Quaida, by driving once moderate Muslims into extremism. We're doing their recruiting for them. Americans killed your uncle/brother/wife/child? You can get revenge.

Vietnam was different. It was basically the US, China, and the USSR fighting a war by proxy. It would have been too dangerous to have a real, all-out war between these powers, so we had a kind of fake war. Lots of soldiers and civilians were killed, and ultimately we all lost. The South Vietnamese weren't our friends. They may not have liked Communism, but they also didn't much care for our behavior there. They wanted us out of there almost as much as the North did.

But there was no way to win that war, either. The people themselves were fighting us. You can't win when that happens. We weren't just facing an army, we were facing militias and armed civilians. We couldn't tell friend from foe. In the final analysis, they drove us out of there, though I admit that politics and public sentiment also did their damage.

In Afghanistan, as well, we're fighting the people, and not armies.

posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 12:58 AM

Originally posted by chiron613
Vietnam was different. It was basically the US, China, and the USSR fighting a war by proxy. It would have been too dangerous to have a real, all-out war between these powers, so we had a kind of fake war.

I see your point but I disagree with this part here...

As far as "proxy wars" maybe for those cowardly Soviets who fought theirs through proxies in Angola, Nicaragua, Honduras, Korea, and Vietnam etc. I recall the US having boots on the ground in Korea and Vietnam. Win, Lose or Draw.

I have more respect for the communist Chinese, Koreans and Vietnamese than for the Soviets. At least the US and those who we fought against were willing to put their rears on the line while taking heavy casualties.

It wasn't until the Soviets decided to join in the fun in Afghanistan where they took a beating something to the tune of 18000+ casualties, that they finally realized just how much these little wars cost. Apparently that was just enough of a Nosebleed that it helped contribute to their downfall.

War is hell and should be avoided at all costs but if the Government is going to start one then they should allow the soldiers to finish it.

[edit on 7-10-2009 by SLAYER69]

posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 02:55 AM
We won't be leaving Afghanistan anytime soon since Big Oil is still determined to get their pipeline also,the CIA is making money by allowing the heroin to continue to flow out of that region it funds the black ops.

posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 03:39 AM
I wonder for how long the US intervention in Afghanistan will last . . .

"The president is going to make a decision — popular or unpopular — based on what he thinks is in the best interests of the country," press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters.

Obama wouldn't tackle the problem the way the presidents of the past might have. He is a blow of a fresh breeze in the White House: young, intelligent, charismatic . . .

General Atkins! The President is on the line. Yes, line 7.

General Atkins speaking . . . . Good morning, Mr. President.

General, as Commander in Chief, I believe it's my duty to contribute to the military solution of the Afghan conflict.

I'm more than open to you suggestions, Mr. President.

General, there is a way to smoke the Taliban out for good.

I'm listening, Mr. President.

We just raise the tobacco taxes in Afghanistan.

new topics

top topics
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in