dwccrew;1114445 wrote: The people of Afghanistan and their president do not like us and do not want us there, they have said this. They stated they would support Pakistan if the US were to invade Pakistan. GTFOOT now!!!!.

you really believe that is a measure of how much they like or dont like us? If Canada invaded Mexico would you support Canada or Mexico?

Madison is one of my favorite founders. While reading some James Madison quotes I happend along this one. Not one often quoted by conservatives. The dude knows his shit.

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
"Political Observations" ; also in Letters and Other Writings of James Madison (1865), Vol. IV, p. 491

majorspark;1137811 wrote:Madison is one of my favorite founders. While reading some James Madison quotes I happend along this one. Not one often quoted by conservatives. The dude knows his ****.

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
"Political Observations" ; also in Letters and Other Writings of James Madison (1865), Vol. IV, p. 491

I would argue that Afghanistan has become "continual warfare" because we're too PC about how we go about wars, i.e. we're too timid. What we're actually continually doing is trying to rebuild a nation that largely hates us before we've defeated the enemies that brought us there in the first place.

jhay78;1137826 wrote:I would argue that Afghanistan has become "continual warfare" because we're too PC about how we go about wars, i.e. we're too timid. What we're actually continually doing is trying to rebuild a nation that largely hates us before we've defeated the enemies that brought us there in the first place.

I agree.

Glory Days;1116874 wrote:you really believe that is a measure of how much they like or dont like us? If Canada invaded Mexico would you support Canada or Mexico?

It's not remotely even the same scenario. #1 it depends on why Mexico was invaded by Canada. #2 both countries border the US, whereas only one country borders Afghanistan. #3, we are supporting Afghanistan financially and have put Karzai in power; how could he say he would support another country when the US is the one keeping him in power and financing his government? They genuinely don't like us and want us to leave. When they say it publically, I am inclined to believe them.

jhay78;1137826 wrote:I would argue that Afghanistan has become "continual warfare" because we're too PC about how we go about wars, i.e. we're too timid. What we're actually continually doing is trying to rebuild a nation that largely hates us before we've defeated the enemies that brought us there in the first place.

Ridiculous argument. We are not at war against a country. We are at war against a tiny group of people called terrorists. As such, there is no such thing as "PC". What exactly do you mean by PC anyway? Are you suggesting a nuke job...just to get it over with quickly?

All of these things should have been analized back in post 9-11 days. But they weren't. Just a whole pile of ready, shoot, aim.

But thank the Lord that we elected a peace prize winner. In Obama's bizzaro world...it is far more important to appease the warmongers in order to perversely prove that he's really not a Muslim. Yet....he continues to sign the body bag death certificates of our kids.

Now...the OP percentage has changed. It is up to 69% of Americans against the entire fiasco. For those remainig 31%, you are truly sick and demented individuals.

Footwedge;1138110 wrote:Ridiculous argument. We are not at war against a country. We are at war against a tiny group of people called terrorists. As such, there is no such thing as "PC". What exactly do you mean by PC anyway? Are you suggesting a nuke job...just to get it over with quickly?

A) I'm saying we should've punished the Taliban until they surrendered or were eliminated.

B) By "PC" I mean we care too much about our image and being nice. The rules of engagement under the current commander-in-chief are beyond ridiculous and unnecessarily put our troops at greater risk. Same with trying to rebuild a nation before A) above.

Footwedge;1138110 wrote:Ridiculous argument. We are not at war against a country. We are at war against a tiny group of people called terrorists. As such, there is no such thing as "PC".

We are currently at war against the former rulers of a nation state that we failed to break their will to fight. That is how you achieve victory in war. You break your enemy's will to carry on the fight.

Evidence clearly proved who this tiny group of terrorist were that perpetrated the 9/11 attacks and that they were operating within the nation of Afghanistan. Our nation demanded that the governing authorities of that nation arrest and turn over the guilty parties. They refused. Thus making them compliant in the act of war purportrated against our nation by powers existing within their borders and protected by their authority as a nation state. Cause belli for our nation to make war upon the nation of Afghanistan and the civilian elements who supported the ruling Taliban government.

Footwedge;1138110 wrote:What exactly do you mean by PC anyway? Are you suggesting a nuke job...just to get it over with quickly?

The war started out PC as soon as we lacked the political will to formally declare it. No one is talking a nuke job. That is your over reaction. If we had the full constitutional backing of our government by the people to wage war with goals spelled out in the declaration of war, we unleash hell. Unleash our troops to do what they are trained to do. Kill and destroy until the enemy submits. No nation or group of guerrilla fighters can wage war without the support of the civilian population. Civilians supporting the fighters will to continue to support them until their will is broken as well. That is the reality of war. Terrible war is.

PC manifested itself in the ROE. I have read utterly ridiculous accounts. I gave this war up as a lost cause over a year ago after reading them. If your enemy is not willing to observe the same ROE as you, you will lose. Grant was labeled a butcher by some of his own troops for sustaining high causualty rates to meet his objectives during the war between the states. Sherman a war criminal by his adversaries. Their non "PC" actions finished the job and brought the Northern states and the federal government the victory. Like I said terrible is war.

majorspark;1138355 wrote:The war started out PC as soon as we lacked the political will to formally declare it. No one is talking a nuke job. That is your over reaction. If we had the full constitutional backing of our government by the people to wage war with goals spelled out in the declaration of war, we unleash hell. Unleash our troops to do what they are trained to do. Kill and destroy until the enemy submits. No nation or group of guerrilla fighters can wage war without the support of the civilian population. Civilians supporting the fighters will to continue to support them until their will is broken as well. That is the reality of war. Terrible war is.

PC manifested itself in the ROE. I have read utterly ridiculous accounts. I gave this war up as a lost cause over a year ago after reading them. If your enemy is not willing to observe the same ROE as you, you will lose. Grant was labeled a butcher by some of his own troops for sustaining high causualty rates to meet his objectives during the war between the states. Sherman a war criminal by his adversaries. Their non "PC" actions finished the job and brought the Northern states and the federal government the victory. Like I said terrible is war.

Terrible is war, indeed.

Yet it's an unfortunate reality in a world full of cultural misunderstandings, limited economic resources, and corrupt leadership. It's the way it is and the way it will always be.

So when a nation commits to sending troops to war, it needs to have the testicular fortitude to defeat the enemy at all costs...even if it means unfortunate initial collateral damage, negative world opinion, and pissing off folks like Footwedge.

Korea, Viet Nam, and the "war on terror" were all infected by the pussified whims of politicians and the opinions of the leftist mainstream media.

Our military leaders are almost always hamstrung out of the chute. If they were permitted to use the full force of our military might (Dare I say it? Yes to include up to the strategic use of small surgical tactical nukes if necessary) without having to worry about "public opinion", I have no doubt these would not have been "continual wars".

Bottom-line: If we as a nation decide war is necessary, then we need to be willing to do it and do it right. But as usual we're too farking afraid of "looking bad". I have news for you....War is bad.

I don't think there is any doubt that we should have gone into AFGH in the wake of 9/11....and to a lesser extent even Iraq. What is clear is that Post-Saddam Iraq was badly mismanaged, and that has led to less than desirable results on both fronts. What might have been GWB's biggest mistake, was putting Colin Powell in charge of State, rather than Defense, because the good sense policiesof the Powell Doctrine were thrown out the window...especially in Iraq.

1. Are vital national security interests threatened?
2. Is there a clear and obtainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully evaluated?
4. Has all other non-violent policy been exhausted?
5. Is there an exit strategy?
6. Have the consequences been fully considered?
7. Is involvement supported by the American people?
8. Is there genuine broad support for intervention?

Of course, the majority of Americans do not support the action in AFGH NOW.