Veterans Watching Our Government > Comments on Presidential Math - Or how to lie truthfully

Go to Veterans Watching Our GovernmentAdd a commentGo to Presidential Math - Or how to lie truthfully

Re: Re: Let me state this right now.

I ascribe to the meaning of "peacemaker" in the Beatitudes.

meaning, "pacifistic", or taking and looking for every peaceful means possible to reach a resolution to a problem.  This doesn't rule out violence as a necessary means to would stop violence.

That being said, I don't feel our government has explored all the alternatives to military action.  This, in Vietnam, or with Iraq -- and very possibly in Afghanistan.

But in this matter, the ball is clearly in the court of conservatives, who criticise Obama for his policy toward Afghanistan, but would certainly praise McCain or Bush for the same thing.

Do we increase military there?  Or do we leave it the same as it is?  Or do we leave altogether?

Before anyone criticizes, maybe they should consider what course of action they endorse in Afghanistan.

posted by Xeno-x on July 16, 2009 at 3:56 PM | link to this | reply

Unfortunately so it goes ***
 Aah as the Bible and Phil Caputo once wrote: There will be wars and rumors of war. BCA, BILLJROOSTY

 

posted by BC-A on July 14, 2009 at 4:04 PM | link to this | reply

Re: Let me state this right now.
Being a pacifist, does that mean you just let yourself be killed?

posted by calmcantey75 on July 14, 2009 at 9:18 AM | link to this | reply

Re: Hmmm???
so you are against our being in Afghanistan, Corbin?

posted by Xeno-x on July 14, 2009 at 9:09 AM | link to this | reply

Hmmm???
Why don't we see an Obama "Body Count"????

posted by Corbin_Dallas on July 14, 2009 at 6:12 AM | link to this | reply

Let me state this right now. (correction from previous)
 I am a pacifist.  I served civilian service in liew of the military mid-60's as a Conscientious Objector.

I would prefer no war.

And yet, with all that, I see the necessity of some.  The Iraq military action was the biggest mistake the U.S. ever made.

We went into Afghanistan, though, in response to 9/11, and the Taliban sheltering Osama Bin Laden.  But our excursion into Afghanistan has been bordering on failure since the start.  "Shock and Awe" fizzled.

U.S. allied forces do not have control of much of the countryside.  Even Kabul is under threat constantly.

The question of course is, do we remain there.  The basic rationale for staying there is to defeat the Taliban (I guess) and finally capture Osama Bin Laden.  8 years and we have done neither.  The basic story is that the present level of troops there is insufficient to ensure control of what is controlled, let alone meet those goals.

So what do we do?

We entered as if we were fighting a WWII type war -- but that changed quickly and Afghanis turned to guerrilla tactics.  I remember the one mud walled building where around 14 - 20 --a small number of Afghanis held off I think a whole American division, and jet fighters were called to level the place.  When the dust cleared, there was still someone still alive who lobbed a grenade out and killed more American soldiers.  I think that was the 14 yr old who presently is being prosecuted for war crimes or something like that.

A big factor here is that the indigent people who are fighting feel they are fighting to defend their country, while we call them insurgents and war criminals.  This, among other factors, needs to be considered, and a different approach taken.  Probably from the first, a different approach should have been taken.

Re: Pres Geo. W. Bush:  it doesn't take much to order the military to invade and bomb.  There was nothing special about that action.  I think they just needed to use up a lot of equipment and weapons that had been lying around unused and untested for decades.

What would have been special?  Better airport security that would have avoided 9/11 in the first place.  Important and wealthy passengers that were inconvenienced by security measures pressured the airlines to relax such so that the passengers could board quickly.  As a result we had 3,000 + dead, a disaster of immense proportions, and even stricter security than before.


posted by Xeno-x on July 14, 2009 at 5:55 AM | link to this | reply

Let me state this right now.
 I am a pacifist.  I served civilian service in liew of the military mid-60's as a Conscientious Objector.

I would prefer no war.

And yet, with all that, I see the necessity of some.  The Iraq military action was the biggest mistake the U.S. ever made.

We went into Afghanistan, though, in response to 9/11, and the Taliban sheltering Osama Bin Laden.  But our excursion into Afghanistan has been bordering on failure since the start.  "Shock and Awe" fizzled.

U.S. allied forces do not have control of much of the countryside.  Even Kabul is under threat constantly.

The question of course is, do we remain there.  The basic rationale for staying there is to defeat the Taliban (I guess) and finally capture Osama Bin Laden.  8 years and we have done neither.  The basic story is that the present level of troops there is insufficient to ensure control of what is controlled, let alone meet those goals.

So what do we do?

We entered as if we were fighting a WWII type war -- but that changed quickly and Afghanis turned to guerrilla tactics.  I remember the one mud walled biulding where around 14 - 20 --a small number of Afghanis held off I think a whole American division, and fighters were called to level the place.  When the dust cleared, there was still someone still alive who lobbed a grenade out and killed more American soldiers.  I think that was the 14 yr old who presently is being prosecuted for war crimes or something like that.

A big factor here is that the indigent people who are fighting feel they are fighting to defend their country, while we call them insurgents and war criminals.  This, among other factors, needs to be considered, and a different approach taken.  Probably from the first, a different approach should have been taken.

Re: Pres Geo. W. Bush:  it doesn't take much to order the military to invade and bomb.  There was nothing special about that action.  I think they just needed to use up a lot of equipment and weapons that had been lying around unused and untested for decades.

What would have been special?  Better airport security that would have avoided 9/11 in the first place.  Important and wealthy passengers that were inconvenienced by security measures pressured the airlines to relax such so that the passengers could board quickly.  As a result we had 3,000 + dead, a disaster of immense proportions, and even stricter security than before.


posted by Xeno-x on July 14, 2009 at 5:53 AM | link to this | reply

I know! It is so scary! Afghanistan is my son's next deployment! UGH! sam

posted by sam444 on July 12, 2009 at 3:15 PM | link to this | reply

Referrals - About Us - Press - Terms of Use - Privacy Policy - Conduct Policy
Copyright © 2017 Shaycom Corporation. All rights reserved.