Question

[]LoL[Harm]

What's everyones feel/take on the latest upping of the number of retired generals to six, that are calling for the resignation of Rumsfield?

Below is my take, you may want to post your opinion prior to reading it.




I for one am fucking estatic. From day one of the Iraq war I've been yelling about the concept of 'completing your objective', all the while other people who even served in the military, on these forums, had no problem with fighting the Iraq war while Afghanistan sat there unfinished and Osama was uncaptured, floating around in the Pakistani/Afghanistani border.

The sad thing is, Osama can probably easily hide within Iraq now.

A few of these Generals don't even know why we even went in to Iraq to begin with, or why when we did, we were short about 200,000 troops. Which, I believe, is what any intelligent, sane person would think. Because I know we have to go to war from time to time. And I support our troops in the efforts they put forward. But I do not support a dumbass administration that seems to run a war worse off than what I, a 29 year old guy on a gamer forum, could do. Because the first thing I would have decided was, to not go to war with Iraq, and to take half the money that was put into the Iraq war, into Afghanistan's infrastructure, create jobs, eliminate the heroin trade (using subsidies for say, soy, might be useful), and completely shore up the border to Pakistan. Then take the other half and fucking do what a republican should be doing, lowering Federal spending. But eh, I'm just a independant whacknut.

[PoxTheSmall]

I find it funny that Bush is saying now, the same things he said about Brown prior to using Brown as a scapegoat for Katrina.

[Sayj]

same blah blah blah, different scape goat?

[Aelfwine]

Scape goat for what? Rummy is in charge of iraq right? Most people think it is not going well. You may disagree, but your in the minority. The buck has got to stop somewhere.

And its not like people, including some conservatives, have not been calling for Rummy to resign for years. This is whats disturbing about Bush. They never change their position. Never admit they were wrong, even when they clearly are. And they never fire anyone, even when they are incompetent. These are men of faith and they believe they are on the side of god. I don't want my world being steered by someone working off of some misplaced faith.

[Rooster]

Way to misconnect the dots on that one Aelf. Wow.

[Aelfwine]

Not sure what dots you are thinking about. I was making a point. I don't expect you to understand.

[Rooster]

I let someone else explain it to ya.

[Inez]

Harm has a good point about not finishing what we set out to do. Osama is as big as a threat as Sadaam was...and wasn't Osama the one supposedly behind 9/11? But as we've seem to have forgotten about Osama, he's prolly having the time of his life hopping from place to place never getting caught by the people who aren't bothering looking.

I'm not going to restate what Harm said...just read his post and I feel the same. :D

[Rooster]

Harm has a good point about not finishing what we set out to do. Osama is as big as a threat as Sadaam was...and wasn't Osama the one supposedly behind 9/11? But as we've seem to have forgotten about Osama, he's prolly having the time of his life hopping from place to place never getting caught by the people who aren't bothering looking.

I'm not going to restate what Harm said...just read his post and I feel the same. :DTell that to the thousands of troops we have in Afganistan. That's the problem - some peope have no spine for long term issues.

Should we put more effort into Afghanistan? Sure we could.
Have we forgotten? Hell no, and its insulting to imply our military has forgotten.

[Inez]

That's the freaking problem Roo! We don't hear anything about the troops in Afghanistan! Most of this country probably thinks that we don't troops over there anymore, with all that goes on in Iraq. I wasn't trying to insult the military at all, because I know how they fight for us. Heck I just look at my father in law who fought in Vietnam and I can see how brave and wonderful all those troops are over there. I suppose I'm just mad at journalists who just want the scoop but don't pay attention to the bigger picture (aka Afghanistan). But I'm not going to turn this into a anti-evil-journalists-from-hell post....so I'll stop there.

[Tammarion]

Finding someone who doesn't wanna be found just plain isn't easy - especially if people are willing to hide him.

Consider the keystone kops search for Ratko Mladic. 10 years and counting...
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/jurist_search.php?q=ratko%20mladic
http://www.guardian.co.uk/serbia/article/0,,1715526,00.html

Or the guy who hid out in the boonies in the US for 5 years until they caught him rooting through garbage.

I'm not found of rummy myself simply because the guy just hasn't brought home a lot of bacon, but sowing the pakistani tribal zone with salt isn't one of them.

[Rooster]

We could easily lose Pakistan as a tentative ally (probably a better ally than Saudi Arabia, but not by much) by pushing that border too hard.

Yeah, I know - what's it worth to us... but slow & steady is going to have to be the way we go there. We need them to want to turn him over - like Sicily with that mafia guy (recently).

[Aelfwine]

I let someone else explain it to ya.

You're alot like the so called "liberal" media Roo. You drop in, snipe at some people, and then flee without backing yourself up.

[Hammer]

Inez, you don't hear about it because it doesn't make for good news. No smoking car wrecks, or dead children. Can't sell ad time based on afgan news most of the time. Fear not, if enough people die there you will hear about it. Or if there's an election of some sort, that seems to garner 10 minutes or so of coverage. Otherwise, it's like covering military operations in the Bosnia or South Korea.

As for the general's, I think Rummy's answer to that question was perfect. He's had hundreds of generals under him during this war and there are bound to be more than a few that think he sucks as a boss. I'm guessing about half us think our managment stinks and they aren't leading anything nearly as controversial.

[]LoL[Harm]

Finding Osama is only one objective in Afghanistan. The implementation of a stable, in-control government was one (and they are not in control right now, large portions of the country are still ruled by warlords), the government was to be one of democracy (notice the recent issues with the Muslim turned Christian). We were also there to curb the heroin trade, which is now far larger than it ever was under Taliban rule, and is expected to be bigger this year than it has ever been in history. All of these areas are failures. And a sign of incompetent leadership. The funds and soldiers in Iraq could have easily helped implement these changes 3 years ago. We could have built our permanent bases in Afghanistan, a more hospitable country, 3 years ago.

[Hammer]

I hate to say it, but laws about killing muslim's who convert to christian's is not at odds with democracy. It's totally screwed up, but hey it's clearly what the people want. As for locking down all of Afganistan that's just not feasible regardless the size of the force. How locked down is South Central L.A.? As far as herion trade goes, I can't see how replacing the Taliban has made that worse?

[Rooster]

You're alot like the so called "liberal" media Roo. You drop in, snipe at some people, and then flee without backing yourself up.No - I'm just not going to bother taking the time to educate you.

Your connection between faith and what's going on is so far out in left field - it's laughable. It's beyond reason - so no amount of reasoning will convince you otherwise.

[Rooster]

Harm, we have no magic wand to make people accept new ways and a new government - it just doesn't happen that quickly.

I don't know where some of you get your benchmark of "revolution" from - but it aint a fast thing.

[Sayj]

The most needed change usually doesn't come fast enough. And here we are with a generation used to instant gratification and videogames that get you to game over quickly so you'll move on to another game....

[Rooster]

Doesn't come fast enough for who? The "instant-gratification" public? Yeah. It will never be fast enough. They are not like us - they live in fear and fear does things to people.

To expect miracles and quick resolution to this stuff is not fair to anyone.

[Aelfwine]

No - I'm just not going to bother taking the time to educate you.


How fucking arrogant.

I have nothing to learn from you. I've heard everything you could possibly say before. What I say is not so far out there if you actually pay attention to what evangelicals are saying and believe. I understand that you don't have the time to listen when your too busy cheerleading.

[Aelfwine]

The most needed change usually doesn't come fast enough. And here we are with a generation used to instant gratification and videogames that get you to game over quickly so you'll move on to another game....

If thats how you explain what is happening now how do you explain what happened in america in the 60's furing the vietnam war. Wait let me guess. Drugs.

The fact is that change has to come from within. It cannot be forced or given to people.

[Inez]

Originally Posted by Aelfwine
The fact is that change has to come from within. It cannot be forced or given to people.

Good point there Aelf.

[Sayj]

well I agree... the real truth is usually change comes from being so uncomfortable that something must be altered.

However, this only works when the majority of those impacted truly experience the discomfort.

[Aelfwine]

well I agree... the real truth is usually change comes from being so uncomfortable that something must be altered.

However, this only works when the majority of those impacted truly experience the discomfort.

That has also been used to fortify power. If we make people of a country uncomfortable its easy for a leader to go, look at what those evil westerners are doing to you. Iran, Iraq(Saddam era), and Cuba are good examples of this.

[Tammarion]

Well, take a look at venezuela - imitation western threat - same great paranoia, less killing!

[Sayj]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060414/us_nm/rumsfeld_dc_1

[]LoL[Harm]

I hate to say it, but laws about killing muslim's who convert to christian's is not at odds with democracy. It's totally screwed up, but hey it's clearly what the people want. As for locking down all of Afganistan that's just not feasible regardless the size of the force. How locked down is South Central L.A.? As far as herion trade goes, I can't see how replacing the Taliban has made that worse?For our version of Democracy, it is. We went there to "better" their lives by giving them freedoms, freedom of religion would be one of those. This may have been an assumption, but it was an assumption that the public in the USA had.

No where in my statement did I say lock down Afghanistan. I agree you can't lock down a border or a country, odd how so many people in the US think we can do it to the US/Mexico one, with a wall no less. Maybe they'd vote for a wall to be built in Afghanistan ;).

Farmers openly grow poppy. It is their number 1, export. During the Taliban's rule it was hardly anything. Here are some articles on the subject:

From 2006: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10000-2004Oct5.html
From 2005: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4493596.stm
From 2006: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4764490.stm

As for how replacing the Taliban made it worse. The Taliban executed anyone caught growing/transporting or touching drugs. And it wasn't idle threats. Hence why the heroin production under the Taliban was very minimal compared to what it is now. Here is an article with some details:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/04/terror/main320038.shtml

Also, what has already developed in Iraq, the no-go zones, where Law is very arbitrary and not safe for any outsiders, are starting to develop in Afghanistan. The government is slowly losing sections of its country to warlords (if they ever really had control in the first place).

[]LoL[Harm]

Here, just incase you don't want to here it from the media, here's a government issued report. http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/39906.pdf

Here's a snippit:
The failure of U.S. and international counternarcotics efforts to significantly disrupt the Afghan opium trade or sever its links to warlordism and corruption since the fall of the Taliban has led some observers to warn that without redoubled multilateral action, Afghanistan may succumb to a state of lawlessness and reemerge as a sanctuary for terrorists.


Now ask yourself some questions, is our mission accomplished in Afghanistan? Have we done all that we can do? Is splitting our attention between Iraq and Afghanistan (weighed heavily in favor of Iraq) causing us to not put forward enough resources to meet the goals of our mission? And then it comes down to this, was it intelligent or well thought out, to start another war, when the aftermath of another was not complete, especially knowing that the war was one in which we controlled the timeline, 100%?