Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The war in Iraq was obviously about more than Iraq. Once Saddam was gone, we should have pulled out of the country completely.
I am in complete agreement. The mission was to overthrow the Iraqi government, not to rebuild the country. If WW II taught us anything it should have been - first you win the damn war, THEN you rebuild.
We still not have won the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, but Iraq has a new government, new infrastructure, and a new economy, at US taxpayer expense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn
As for Afghanastan and Al Qaeda, unless we are going to make a 100% effort, we should pull the troops home.
It is beginning to look like no matter how successful we are at defeating the Taliban in battle, the Pakistani ISI will continue to support, finance, and train Taliban to replace them, while providing safe harbor to al Qaeda's leadership.
Say all you will about Musharraf, he may have been a ruthless dictator, but he truly hated international terrorism. That is why he took control of the government in the first place. The Pakistani ISI created the Taliban, and Musharraf purged many of the ISI for their creation. Now that he is gone, the Pakistanis democratically reelected the former terrorist sponsoring government that Musharraf once overthrew.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn
The troops on the ground give 110% - and their lives. The politicians, meanwhile, play games.
I could not agree more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn
We could end the war with one click of the pickle button, as long as the right ordnance was loaded in the bomb bay.
No need to go nuclear, that just creates whole new problems. As you said, we need to stop playing politics, coordinating with the Afghani Northern Alliance and NATO forces is preventing us from getting the job done. Tell them to take cover as we go in force and either kick ass, regardless of which country the Taliban and al Qaeda happen to be in, or get the hell out of dodge.
Allowing Pakistani, Iranian, and Syrian troops kill our soldiers with impunity is unconscionable. That is an act of war, and we should respond accordingly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn
Since we are not prepared to take the actions needed, the entire conflict is a charade and waste of lives and resources.
We are trying to do in Afghanistan what we did in Iraq, and it simply is not going to work. It is the stereotypical "one size fits all" mentality the federal government has over everything.
Enough of these medals for "Courageous Restraint" political BS, either fight the Taliban and al Qaeda with the intent to win and come home victorious, or get the hell out. If we want to help Afghanistan into the 16th century, Congress can enact something similar to the Marshall Plan after WW II. The military should not be in the business of rebuilding nations. Their job is to destroy nations.
Yes, really. Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party in Iraq actively sponsored, financed, trained, and sheltered the Palestinian Liberation Front since 1977. The PLF, with Muhammad Zaidan (a.k.a., Abu Abbas) as their leader, were responsible for the hijacking of the Italian cruise ship the MS Achille Lauro. As a result of our overthrowing the Iraqi government, the PLF and Muhammad Zaidan have ceased to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn
The war in Iraq was obviously about more than Iraq. Once Saddam was gone, we should have pulled out of the country completely.
Then why wasn't our stupid a$$ government capable of stating there true intentions? They made it seem like there was an AQ-Saddam connection when in fact the connection lies with KSM (Saudi Arabia).
Looks to me that a backroom deal was made whereby, in exchange for "support" in Afghanistan, the US would remove Saddam and make KSM the dominant Islamic nation in the M.E.
As for Afghanistan and Al Qaeda, unless we are going to make a 100% effort, we should pull the troops home.
The troops on the ground give 110% - and their lives. The politicians, meanwhile, play games.
We could end the war with one click of the pickle button, as long as the right ordnance was loaded in the bomb bay.
Since we are not prepared to take the actions needed, the entire conflict is a charade and waste of lives and resources.
As for the bold, so basically a repeat of what we did in the 1980s. Country with no stable government and lots of warlords with American cash and arms and big egos. Doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
...but never really seemed all that interested in actually going after al Qaeda.
After 9.11 everybody was calling for the head of al Qaeda, and rightfully so, but then something strange happened, getting al Qaeda gave way to getting Saddam 24/7. And while I was definitely not a fan of the late Mr. Hussein I found myself in incessant arguments with conservatives asking... "but, but what about Afghanistan. You know over there the place where al Qaeda trained and operated" But my questions were always answered by a stream of invective about Iraq, in general and Saddam Hussein in particular. "We have to fight then there so we don't have to fight them overhere.. "or something like that.
Today, you never here read a thread about going after al-Qaeda, in fact the conversation always seems to going the other way - I exclude many "left, left wing liberals" because they never seemed interested in either al Qaeda or Hussein - why are we sending troops here, why are we sending troops there. Why are we using this tactic, blase, blase, blase...
So what happened in 2008, or 2003, that folks loose interest in actually going after the folks who actually had something to do with 9.11?
Because people, regardless of their political orientation, apprehend reality primarily through narratives, not facts. The dominant conservative narrative in the wake of 9/11 said the problem was Iraq, so that is what conservatives accepted. The facts were secondary.
It also doesn't help that today, being conservative is more about identity than ideas. I am old enough to remember the days when William F. Buckley, in many ways the founder of the modern conservative movement, hosted a debate show called Firing Line. The show followed a classic moderated debate format, with people on different sides of an issue hashing out and defending their positions with data and logic.
That kind of measured, intelligent debate is almost completely alien to today's conservatives. Today, conservative heroes are people like Glenn Beck, Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh. These people don't defend their positions with logic and reason. They just rant and rave, make things up, and shout down opponents. Many within the conservative movement mistake this kind of ignorant, loudmouthed bullying for strength and honesty. The conservative movement has been so dumbed down by people like this that many conservatives can't discuss anything intelligently anymore. They have no models for how to do it. They discourse is basically the discourse of right-wing talk radio. It's all noise and attitude and no substance.
Because people, regardless of their political orientation, apprehend reality primarily through narratives, not facts. The dominant conservative narrative in the wake of 9/11 said the problem was Iraq, so that is what conservatives accepted. The facts were secondary.
It also doesn't help that today, being conservative is more about identity than ideas. I am old enough to remember the days when William F. Buckley, in many ways the founder of the modern conservative movement, hosted a debate show called Firing Line. The show followed a classic moderated debate format, with people on different sides of an issue hashing out and defending their positions with data and logic.
That kind of measured, intelligent debate is almost completely alien to today's conservatives. Today, conservative heroes are people like Glenn Beck, Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh. These people don't defend their positions with logic and reason. They just rant and rave, make things up, and shout down opponents. Many within the conservative movement mistake this kind of ignorant, loudmouthed bullying for strength and honesty. The conservative movement has been so dumbed down by people like this that many conservatives can't discuss anything intelligently anymore. They have no models for how to do it. They discourse is basically the discourse of right-wing talk radio. It's all noise and attitude and no substance.
The problem with government sponsorship of international terrorism was not limited to just Iraq, it also included Afghanistan, Iran, and Syria. One we have dealt with, the other we are continuing to deal with until next year when we will cut our losses and run away, like we did in Vietnam, and two others we have yet to deal with because we have become a spineless nation.
Why buster is a loaded question dontcha' know. I'm trying to figure out a response to that WHY question, and have almost worked it out, but if I told you WHY directly and openly, it might be termed as a personal attack upon other members. I'll give you a hint though, it's got something to do with how some people are dissatisfied with our current president, a liberal mindset, and how some people want to overthrow our government. It would be a harsh critique and I would be lambasting conservatives at large.
I love it when people who use this forum and say Bush got it right on Iraq, and that America should have done more when it comes to other countries, e.g, Syria, Iran, and that old cliche of "mission accomplished" thingy.
One good thing that came about in 2012, Obama was re-elected. Had Romney been elected, America would be mired in two more wars/conflicts.
...but never really seemed all that interested in actually going after al Qaeda.
After 9.11 everybody was calling for the head of al Qaeda, and rightfully so, but then something strange happened, getting al Qaeda gave way to getting Saddam 24/7. And while I was definitely not a fan of the late Mr. Hussein I found myself in incessant arguments with conservatives asking... "but, but what about Afghanistan. You know over there the place where al Qaeda trained and operated" But my questions were always answered by a stream of invective about Iraq, in general and Saddam Hussein in particular. "We have to fight then there so we don't have to fight them overhere.. "or something like that.
Today, you never here read a thread about going after al-Qaeda, in fact the conversation always seems to going the other way - I exclude many "left, left wing liberals" because they never seemed interested in either al Qaeda or Hussein - why are we sending troops here, why are we sending troops there. Why are we using this tactic, blase, blase, blase...
So what happened in 2008, or 2003, that folks loose interest in actually going after the folks who actually had something to do with 9.11?
The Bush administration worked very hard to move the focus away from "our friends" the Saudis.
I knew the fix was in the moment Colin Powell went on TV to proclaim that "Islam" means peace. It doesn't.
No one denies that Hussein financed "terrorist" organizations, the problem is he didn't finance THE terrorist organization that orchestrated 9.11!
So the original question remains unanswered.
Why have conservative Republicans lose interest in fighting al Qaeda after the invasion of Iraq?
Last time I checked we were fighting al Qaeda, the Taliban, and until two years ago Iraqis, we are also providing assistance with Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines. In case you had not noticed, the US military is quite capable of dealing with multiple threats from multiple locations around the planet simultaneously.
...but never really seemed all that interested in actually going after al Qaeda.
After 9.11 everybody was calling for the head of al Qaeda, and rightfully so, but then something strange happened, getting al Qaeda gave way to getting Saddam 24/7. And while I was definitely not a fan of the late Mr. Hussein I found myself in incessant arguments with conservatives asking... "but, but what about Afghanistan. You know over there the place where al Qaeda trained and operated" But my questions were always answered by a stream of invective about Iraq, in general and Saddam Hussein in particular. "We have to fight then there so we don't have to fight them overhere.. "or something like that.
Today, you never here read a thread about going after al-Qaeda, in fact the conversation always seems to going the other way - I exclude many "left, left wing liberals" because they never seemed interested in either al Qaeda or Hussein - why are we sending troops here, why are we sending troops there. Why are we using this tactic, blase, blase, blase...
So what happened in 2008, or 2003, that folks loose interest in actually going after the folks who actually had something to do with 9.11?
I wasn't.
I thought we should have left Iraq alone and played them off Iran.
I thought we should not have committed ground troops to Afghanistan, but should have used fuel air bombs to neutralize their cities, then employed special forces and drones for any additional work.
If we are going to go into nations, it should be to acquire their natural resources or for the explicit protection of the US itself. Anything else is a waste of money and human lives.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
