Looks like wikileaks has done it again. They have publicly released 90,000 documents that the government tried to keep secret.

Similar to the "Pentagon Papers", a leak that exposed what a fraud Vietnam was, these leaks will educate Americans on what our kids are actually doing over there.

My guess is that these leaks will barely make a blip on the mainstream media screens. Both the pro Obama media and the hawk like neocons will want these brutally gruesome details of war off the news channels.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/series/afghanistan-the-war-logs

This didn't prove to me anything other than that war is fucking ugly. Of course they want it out of the press.

Does putting "neo" in front of stuff make them evil or something?

sjmvsfscs08;432449 wrote:Does putting "neo" in front of stuff make them evil or something?

I've always wondered about that too. Glad I'm not the only one haha!

Quick thought ..is this the type of confidentiality We the People can expect for Socialist Healthcare?

After reading the article the content of the documentation may reveal aspect of the military operation, undesirable contact and a mode of operation that for some of you weak knee individuals will find appalling. The bottom line is simple war is not pretty and one dead American soldier is too much. You do what you have to do to prevent that from happening. What happening in the background if the result is the saving of American troops and the reasoning is for the protection of Soldiers them that is justified military op.

This Administration is again in the blame game accusing some low ranking Specialist for the mishandling of the documents. Sorry that does not fly.
The documents released are from 2004 / 2009 …on Obama and his Administration watch. This to me seems to be another Obama method of bring Bush to the forefront and hiding under a smoke and mirror of an Administration of incompetency.
The head of political officials, military and other top security departments should have the asses handed to them. Obama is to be held responsible over 20 months of this incompetent Public Servant Administration time to start to own up to the failures.

So we're weak kneed if we don't like unnecessary wars and the terrible things that happen in them?

Not a surprise how bad its been. Anyone who was listening in 2007-2008 could tell you that.
I still do not think a purely counter-terrorism strategy will work there. It is going to take 7-10 years and cost lives. But, it is worth it as the flip side is a Taliban that has links to the tribes in Pakistan that want to overthrow the government. Also, add in India. As, if Afghanistan starts to go, India will do whatever they can do secure the region.

The region needs U.S. boots on the ground for the long haul.

^^Sounds amazingly like the thinking that went into why the US entered Vietnam. They did not want communism to keep creeping in SE Asia. Guess what? It was the right strategy then, just as this is the right strategy now.

Look what happened when the US pulled out of Vietnam: tens of millions were slaughtered in that region as the communist takeover was solidified. Fact is, if the war had been reported on accurately (the Tet Offensive in particular, which was a very strong military success and had actually weakened the Viet Cong quite a bit) the US might have gone on to win the war, if not at least hold the line as was done in Korea. But the leftist media and liberals at home didn't want the US involved, so the will to win was eroded on the homefront to the point the US had no choice but to flee.

People get disturbed by images or war (as they should) but just because it's hard to look at, doesn't mean it's not worth the sacrifice that these men and women are making.

Writerbuckeye;432535 wrote:^^Sounds amazingly like the thinking that went into why the US entered Vietnam. They did not want communism to keep creeping in SE Asia. Guess what? It was the right strategy then, just as this is the right strategy now.

Look what happened when the US pulled out of Vietnam: tens of millions were slaughtered in that region as the communist takeover was solidified. Fact is, if the war had been reported on accurately (the Tet Offensive in particular, which was a very strong military success and had actually weakened the Viet Cong quite a bit) the US might have gone on to win the war, if not at least hold the line as was done in Korea. But the leftist media and liberals at home didn't want the US involved, so the will to win was eroded on the homefront to the point the US had no choice but to flee.

People get disturbed by images or war (as they should) but just because it's hard to look at, doesn't mean it's not worth the sacrifice that these men and women are making.

Containment theory proved false though. The rest of the region did not fall into communism, sure the surrounding states did, but it did not have the effect that the U.S. thought it would.

What makes this period different is the known links between Afghanistan and Pakistani tribes/ Taliban groups and their distrust for the Pakistani government. The unknowns of what would happen if that region was left to Pakistani and Afghan forces is huge. The Pakistanis are not willing to fully engage them for fear of pulling forces out of Kashmir. If the U.S. leaves, there will be a vacuum where not just the Taliban, but other groups can take old, rebuild and threaten Pakistan itself.

Pakistan falling apart or under assault from radicals should scare every single one of us, as while their nuclear weapons are under the military (many think members of ISI), it is unknown what would happen to those warheads in a coup/ civil war like state.

I'm not willing to go down that road. Keep the forces there as a buffer to diminish and disrupt the growth of the Taliban from advancing that war, and slowly over the long term transition the society to not rely on the Taliban as much. It's tough, and will cost lives, but the alternative is simply too risky right now.

The war logs also detail:

• How a secret "black" unit of special forces hunts down Taliban leaders for "kill or capture" without trial.
• How the coalition is increasingly using deadly Reaper drones to hunt and kill Taliban targets by remote control from a base in Nevada.

The first thing that came to mind here was....and SO?

^^^^^
an excellent use of our taxes, killing terrorist scum.

Glory Days;432822 wrote:The first thing that came to mind here was....and SO?

Gotta remember one of the primary "couriers" of this story was the NY Times. They want all terrorists to be treated like common criminals, including trials. I'm sure that information doesn't play with the media and liberal elites.

sjmvsfscs08;432449 wrote:This didn't prove to me anything other than that war is fucking ugly. Of course they want it out of the press.

Does putting "neo" in front of stuff make them evil or something?

Neo is a prefix meaning new. Con is a shortened term for conservative. What's funny.. neocons are neither new nor conservative. As such, I find the term a double oxymoron. To me, neocons are 90% chickenhawks, that led America into this nightmare foreign policy. People like Doug Feith, Dick Cheney, William Crystal, Joe Lieberman, Carl Rove, Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, Andrew Card, Tom Delay, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Richard Pearle, Charles Krauthammer and the rest of them....pure unadulterated pond scum. All war drum bangers....but ones that never donned the US military uniform themselves...many of whom were actual draft dodgers. Hopefully that clears up what neocons are.

ptown_trojans_1;432529 wrote:Not a surprise how bad its been. Anyone who was listening in 2007-2008 could tell you that.
I still do not think a purely counter-terrorism strategy will work there. It is going to take 7-10 years and cost lives. But, it is worth it as the flip side is a Taliban that has links to the tribes in Pakistan that want to overthrow the government. Also, add in India. As, if Afghanistan starts to go, India will do whatever they can do secure the region.

The region needs U.S. boots on the ground for the long haul.

For what? Is Afghanistan a threat to us? No. Now Admiral Gates, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has come right out and laid claim today that the Afghan War will become bloodier and bloodier...with an escalation of US casualties. In the meantime, all the neocons on this thread keep blathering away about how neat these wars are....as they get up each and every day and go to work...not really giving even a thought at how ridiculous the whole thing is. Must not know anyone in the theatre would be my guess.

What part of THEY ATTACKED US AND KILLED 3,000 INNOCENT PEOPLE don't you understand? Then there are other considerations that ptown has already outlined.

People like you are clueless. If your kind had been in charge in the late 1930s, we'd all be speaking German (I'm assuming Germany would have beaten Japan).

Writerbuckeye;433017 wrote:What part of THEY ATTACKED US AND KILLED 3,000 INNOCENT PEOPLE don't you understand? Then there are other considerations that ptown has already outlined.

People like you are clueless. If your kind had been in charge in the late 1930s, we'd all be speaking German (I'm assuming Germany would have beaten Japan).

Yeah...show me a link where the Taliban has a massive army just waiting to over run the US. Let me guess...you never served...probably got a student deferment during the Vietnam war.

You have 100,000 American troops that are trained to kill the enemy...yet the enemy has no uniform on, no differentiating markers, and yet they hide in wait. What a great job eh? Patrol the streets....looking at every Afghani with a hairy eyeball, and hope that you don't step on an IED.

What the fuck is wrong with you Obama? Get your ass up in front of the nation on national TV, and then tell me what the fuck is the mission. The end game. Define victory for me before my son's best friend gets his legs blown off. Tell me to my face that doubling the American dead in Afghanistan since you took office has made us safer. And who gives a flying fuck if the Taliban regains power? The Taliban did not attack us on 9-11. Al Quada did. The Taliban has no army....no navy...no weapons...nothing.

The US has increased the national spending of homeland security from 25 billion to more than 70 billion per year. As much as I hate the overkill and the wasted overlap, the improved HS has thwarted attacks. You want to eliminate the motives too? Then get the fuck out of the middle east. Jesus, this is not rocket science.

It's absolutely ridiculous that we keep doing this. How many dead American soldiers is enough? I really hope it's not as many as it was in Vietnam. Been extremely disappointed in Obama on the war front. We need out now.

There is nothing to be gained from staying there. Spare us the "THEY ATTACKED US!!". Yes, Al-Queda attacked us but they aren't really relevant anymore. We wrecked their shit. How long do we have to be there for it to be enough? Even if the Taliban would retake the state they have no means of attacking us or doing really much of anything.

ccrunner, isn't that one of the reasons that the region dislikes us? They don't want our lifestyle. What is this obsession with thinking that we have to bring the American way to the world. They don't want or need it. Not everywhere can or should be just like here.

Haha. Well put. Maybe we should send them a Rita's or a Handels?

Okay, pants, how about if they take over Pakistan? As was pointed out by ptown, THIS is the main reason to keep boots on the ground in the region. If Pakistan becomes a government run by the Taliban, then they present a huge threat to the region, and India is unlikely to just sit idly by and do nothing, waiting to see if the Taliban also have access to Pakistan's nukes.

There are reasons for drawing lines in the dirt and making a stand. What we attempted to do in Vietnam was not wrong -- despite how many view it today (through the lens of a media that wanted us out...and continues to call the war unnecessary).

What was wrong about Vietnam was how we started out resolved to be successful in our mission to keep communism from creeping south and spreading in the region, and we lost our nerve along the way and simply gave up -- even at a time when we were winning the war on the ground.

A bloodbath ensued, by the way, and I'm certain if the US left Afghanistan abruptly like we did Vietnam, you'd see a similar result -- or worse.

Fareed Zakaria last night said that 850,000 people have access to 'secret' documents on the Daily Show?!? If that is true well then what the hell are they thinking.

There are no rules in war and combat only survival skills and guardian mentality. One stipulation is to survive and protect your own at all cost. They (enemy) dies or someone you know dies simple fact. To survive you have to become more cunning, violent, aggressive, deadly than your enemy with a controlled balance of humanity. Difficult task to achieve in a firefight or daily reminder of terrorist actions. They don’t have uniforms nor do they have rules and citizens are their shields. America where murder on 9/11 with no rules ….. Within combat / war there will be collateral damage unavoidable at times to prevent. That is part of the price of war …
American Soil is unacceptable 3000 innocent Men, Women and Children ………. There is only one solution that is the elimination of those who even think of terrorist as justified behavior.
You can’t strap the hands of American soldiers and combat mission and expect to win quickly….. or win at all.
Military Rules of Engagement
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/100-23/fm100_10.htm

I Wear Pants;434321 wrote:It's absolutely ridiculous that we keep doing this. How many dead American soldiers is enough? I really hope it's not as many as it was in Vietnam. Been extremely disappointed in Obama on the war front. We need out now.

There is nothing to be gained from staying there. Spare us the "THEY ATTACKED US!!". Yes, Al-Queda attacked us but they aren't really relevant anymore. We wrecked their shit. How long do we have to be there for it to be enough? Even if the Taliban would retake the state they have no means of attacking us or doing really much of anything.

Al Qaeda didnt seem really revelant on 9/10/01 either did they? i mean, how was some group of thugs riding donkeys thousands of miles away supposed to attack us here in the US? did you even hear that name before then? and they are revelant now, they still have an influence in the region and like mentioned earlier, in Pakistan. we leave Afghanistan, the ones in Pakistan hiding from us and Pakistan will just flee back into Afghanistan. and the Taliban has no means of attacking us? really, then how are they, along with Al Qaeda still attacking our Soldiers? and unlike Vietnam, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban have been around for what, almost 30 years now or something? Communism in Vietnam was still young when we started there. Now we are fighting something that had a solid base and probably wont collapse like Communism did in SE Asia.

Writerbuckeye;434421 wrote:
What was wrong about Vietnam was how we started out resolved to be successful in our mission to keep communism from creeping south and spreading in the region, and we lost our nerve along the way and simply gave up -- even at a time when we were winning the war on the ground.

OMG!.. We just gave up in Vietnam? SMH and LOL.

bloodbath ensued, by the way, and I'm certain if the US left Afghanistan abruptly like we did Vietnam, you'd see a similar result -- or worse.

Yeah I see North Afghanistan overtaking South Afghanistan and then possibly conquering the world...or worse.

There will be a bloodbath with the return of the taliban
http://www.rawa.org/mazar6.htm
On the non sunni and non pashtun groups
the repression of women will be an atrocity
and al queda and taliban will accelerate their efforts to spread the world wide caliphate

Writerbuckeye;434421 wrote:Okay, pants, how about if they take over Pakistan? As was pointed out by ptown, THIS is the main reason to keep boots on the ground in the region. If Pakistan becomes a government run by the Taliban, then they present a huge threat to the region, and India is unlikely to just sit idly by and do nothing, waiting to see if the Taliban also have access to Pakistan's nukes.

There are reasons for drawing lines in the dirt and making a stand. What we attempted to do in Vietnam was not wrong -- despite how many view it today (through the lens of a media that wanted us out...and continues to call the war unnecessary).

What was wrong about Vietnam was how we started out resolved to be successful in our mission to keep communism from creeping south and spreading in the region, and we lost our nerve along the way and simply gave up -- even at a time when we were winning the war on the ground.

A bloodbath ensued, by the way, and I'm certain if the US left Afghanistan abruptly like we did Vietnam, you'd see a similar result -- or worse.

You keep trying to justify those 55,000 dead Americans from Vietnam.

^^^^^
and you justify the people who kill them

I wear pants wrote:So we have the right to just run roughshod over anyone and they are automatically the bad guys for using gorilla/brutal tactics that are their only real way to fight. We are too large an enemy for almost any single country to fight. Is everyone just supposed to bow to our will then?"