Every foreign invader that has ever invaded Afghanistan has had their ass handed to them. Alexander the great. Great Briton, the Russians. Why should the US be any different.
You morons that still support the big lie are from here on out personally responsible for all of the death that follows, and the coming destruction to the US it self.
There is a God, and he/she hates do nothing fence walkers more than the actual sin. By your own ignorant submission to the great evil "The New World Order" you make yourself guilty.
Get educated, do the research. Stop being a fence walker. Take a side. Good or evil. There is no middle ground.

Yes, master. Anything the mighty "JEFF" says.

What a pathetic little douche you are.

"There is a God, and he/she hates do nothing fence walkers more than the actual sin. By your own ignorant submission to the great evil "The New World Order" you make yourself guilty."

Careful, that eye atop the pyramid on the $1 bill is reaching out as we speak, ready to grab you by the throat and suck your life's blood into a safety deposit box buried inside a cheese mine in Switzerland.

Careful, that eye atop the pyramid on the $1 bill is reaching out as we speak, ready to grab you by the throat and suck your life's blood into a safety deposit box buried inside a cheese mine in Switzerland.

Lol. Now here I go thinking it's just a transmitter that amplifies the signals from CIA mind control devices so that they can access the brain of anyone with a buck on them (why I'm all about the benjamins). Pick a freakin conspiracy theory and fnord stick with it! This eclecticism is too hard fnord to follow given my current state of fnord sobriety. fnord fnord fnord fnord FNORD!

If you don't see the fnords, they can't eat you.

"Now here I go thinking it's just a transmitter that amplifies the signals from CIA mind control devices so that they can access the brain of anyone with a buck on them (why I'm all about the benjamins)."

Oh, yeah, well, that too.

"If you don't see the fnords, they can't eat you."

Thanks, I needed that. Now I can probably sleep---what's sleep?---with just one eye open.

The top brass are usualy one wat behind. How did they catch on so soon?

Hopefully we will make the adjustment quickly. Most of the guys in my unit deployed to Iraq, and it has taken awhile to break old habits and accept the way things are in Afghanistan. The guys in Iraq got really wedded to fighting from thier vehicles. In Afghanistan that does not always work. A couple of unit leaders are having a really hard time with the idea that they will have to dismount to fight.

Yeah, in Afghanistan you have to protect the poppy fields.

President Obama should meet with Greg Mortenson to get better ideas about how to succeed in Afghanistan. Change won't happen overnight, and we should apply rational, humane long-term thinking.

I wrongly supported the invasion of Afghanistan after 9-11, I now realize that the only strategy which will work there is to leave. This is one area I disagree with Obama but hopefully he will realize it too and have the courage to tell America we were all wrong about invading that toilet that sucks down empires.

U.S. forces Afghanistan fear they are undermanned, despite the Pentagon's plan to double the U.S. troops in Afghanistan to 60,000.

When this kicked off the big thing was to learn from the Russians mistakes of having too large of a footprint. Now it appears that lesson is being forgotten?

One thing I've continually read and heard is that the 5.56 isn't an adequate round for fighting in Afghanistan.

Defeating the terrorists is tough any way that you cut it. If you are going to be pro-active and go after them where they live (and not just handle it through homeland security) you need guys on the ground. That means some tough slogging and things are not always going to go well.

"War means fighting and fighting means killing (and dying)". Lots of folks that were all for chasing down the bad guys after 9/11, and were all for defeating the Taliban and AQ that treated women like cattle and killed teen age girls after they had been raped (since it was obviously their fault) got real sqeemish when folks actually got hurt in the process.

We really tried not to have a big foot print in the first place, but then realized that we went too small (remember Tora Bora when Bin Laden got away?). I think the lesson learned was that it was not the number of troops, but what the troops were doing. The Russians tried to take a tribal, religious society and turn it into centralized, communist, atheistic one. They did not try to help anything or anyone and engaged in routine mass punishments. We have been working with the tribal leadership and local governments and don't interfere in too many religious or cultural issues. The locals for the most part have been pretty supportive, but like in Iraq they also know that when our patrol leaves the village the Taliban will still be in the neighborhood, and they take off heads.

"Defeating the terrorists is tough any way that you cut it."

maybe they will leave the White House 1/20/09?

I wrongly supported the invasion of Afghanistan after 9-11, I now realize that the only strategy which will work there is to leave.

#10 | Posted by danni

No interrorgations
No going after the terrorist cells
No overseas wire taps
No guarding the border

What would you do about the terrorist threat?

Use Spit wads!

Danni wrongly supported the war in Afghanistan. So, what would you suggest we have done, Danni? Should we have just continued on like Clinton and act like nothing happened? I honestly can't believe that 3,000 Americans died and you now think it was wrong to avenge those deaths and go after the people who did it, and who would do it again.

And just what is your reasoning for saying you wrongly supported it?

you can't win a war in afghanistan

you can isolate them however.
make sure their sphere of influence goes away.

Get your facts straight and quit relying on the internet for your history.

Every foreign invader to Afghanistan has NOT had their asses handed to them. That's an silly adage that's popular today and that doesn't match up to the historical record.

The Persians and Mongols ruled Afghanistan for hundreds of years. Even the Brits, who won and lost in that land, held a large amount of power over the region for almost a century.

One thing I've continually read and heard is that the 5.56 isn't an adequate round for fighting in Afghanistan.

308 anyone?

If you don't see the fnords, they can't eat you.

#4 | Posted by ZombieHunter

I was gonna say something about this but i was suddenly overcome by a warm contented feeling so i dropped it.

I wonder why no one asked the question, 'why the fuck do we need to escalate war in afganistan'?

I agree that what the taliban is doing is anti-human, but what about that fuck in zimbabwe or sudan? they are much worse than the taliban.

I have to agree!!! Ask the Russians about the Afghanistan war. They finally pulled out and left because they could not win.

We have two foriegn policy tools, bribery and WMDs. Bribery is effective. Not to say our foriegn policy takes us where we need to be. The CIA fucked everything up everywhere until Charlie Wilson took over Afghanistan. That guy got things done, quickly and cheaply. But once done, the place was abandoned, all promises renigged on, so greedfucking idiots can have a turn.

There is a huge difference between waging military operations and rebuilding a country. We've been pretty successful at the former. Aside from Japan, pretty lousy at the latter.

An interesting comparison is the effectiveness of "private armies" aka "mercenaries". Specifically those who operate as "special forces", i.e., a small force taking on a much larger enemy and winning thru better use of tactics and weaponry. Much success has been achieved by them. Of course, the same tactics can't be used to hold a government or rebuild a government. So they fail there (or would if they tried). This can be a fairly accurate overview of our activity in Afghanistan.

I say again, 'Why do we need to escalate the situation in afganistan'? what goal do we hope to achieve. How do we know when we are finished?

your sons and daughters will be killed in action in afganistan and you don't want to ask that question?

"No interrorgations
No going after the terrorist cells
No overseas wire taps
No guarding the border

So, what would you suggest we have done, Danni?"

We probably would have been smarter to have taken the Taliban's offer of Osama and Al Quaeda handed over to a third party, neutral country for trial.
As it worked out we got neither Osama nor Al Quaeda and it looks as though eventually the Taliban will rule Afghanistan because we can't stay there forever and they know it.
As far as all those "no's", I don't oppose any of those things. I have said in many posts that the border needs more protection and that the CIA might be a more effective way to deal with terrorist cells than military invasion. I doubt that we can afford occupation of any other nation much longer and so we had better develop a cheaper, more effective strategy for dealing with terrorism long term.