PDA

View Full Version : American troops = new Taliban poll shows.



imported_WILDJOKER5
12-05-2013, 08:13 PM
Well, not totally. LINK REMOVED But 3 out of 4 Afghans fear US troops[/URL]. Well, I would fear if they werent there, because that means Obama could be coming to drop a bomb "of freedom and peace" on your house from a drone strike. Seriously, this is why we were attacked by OBL. The citizens didnt want us in Saudi but we still made deals to stay there through their oppressive regieme. Now we are doing the exact same thing in Afghan because "we know whats best".

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-06-2013, 01:13 PM
So no one has a problem with the fact that we are despised more than the Taliban in Afghanistan now?

efmbman
12-06-2013, 01:38 PM
So no one has a problem with the fact that we are despised more than the Taliban in Afghanistan now?

This comes as no surprise to me. Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what the people of Afghanistan think of US troops or the US in general.

AJBIGJ
12-06-2013, 01:39 PM
So no one has a problem with the fact that we are despised more than the Taliban in Afghanistan now?

I don't think that's all that controversial. I think most of us here knows this to be the case. It's also why Lindsey Graham and John McCain need to retire.

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-06-2013, 02:30 PM
This comes as no surprise to me. Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what the people of Afghanistan think of US troops or the US in general.
Why not? They are the ones that will most likely turn violent against us. Its because of our sheer arogance that it shouldnt matter what they think of us. If they dont like us, then they dont like why we are there, and right now that means a failure for our mission and a risk to the troops.

I don't think that's all that controversial. I think most of us here knows this to be the case. It's also why Lindsey Graham and John McCain need to retire.
And yet all our leaders want is for us to stay there. We are complaining about Obamacare being shoved down our throats, but we are doing the exact same thing with trying to force something down their throats.

AJBIGJ
12-06-2013, 02:37 PM
Why not? They are the ones that will most likely turn violent against us. Its because of our sheer arogance that it shouldnt matter what they think of us. If they dont like us, then they dont like why we are there, and right now that means a failure for our mission and a risk to the troops.

And yet all our leaders want is for us to stay there. We are complaining about Obamacare being shoved down our throats, but we are doing the exact same thing with trying to force something down their throats.

Most of those "leaders" want to do whatever actions will keep them employed, whether it serve as a distraction for other lapses in judgment or because a certain lobby is subsidizing their campaigns. Their positions make logical sense, if viewed through a very cynical lense.

Bunch
12-06-2013, 02:39 PM
So no one has a problem with the fact that we are despised more than the Taliban in Afghanistan now?

Fear:an unpleasant emotion caused by the belief that someone or something is dangerous, likely to cause pain, or a threat.
"drivers are threatening to quit their jobs in fear after a cabby's murder"
synonyms: terror, fright, fearfulness, horror, alarm, panic, agitation, trepidation, dread, consternation, dismay, distress;

Despise:feel contempt or a deep repugnance for. "he despised himself for being selfish" synonyms: detest, hate, loathe, abhor, execrate, deplore, dislike;

Just pointing out that I read an article of the story and couldn't find anything that included the word despised and/or the phrase "despised more than the taliban".

AJBIGJ
12-06-2013, 02:45 PM
Fear:an unpleasant emotion caused by the belief that someone or something is dangerous, likely to cause pain, or a threat.
"drivers are threatening to quit their jobs in fear after a cabby's murder"
synonyms: terror, fright, fearfulness, horror, alarm, panic, agitation, trepidation, dread, consternation, dismay, distress;

Despise:feel contempt or a deep repugnance for. "he despised himself for being selfish" synonyms: detest, hate, loathe, abhor, execrate, deplore, dislike;

Just pointing out that I read an article of the story and couldn't find anything that included the word despised and/or the phrase "despised more than the taliban".

That gives you one up on me here, all I have to respond to right now is LINK REMOVED.

efmbman
12-06-2013, 02:47 PM
Why not? They are the ones that will most likely turn violent against us. Its because of our sheer arogance that it shouldnt matter what they think of us. If they dont like us, then they dont like why we are there, and right now that means a failure for our mission and a risk to the troops.

"They" have been turning against us for quite some time. Our arrogance was evident when we thought we could go into another country and try to transform it into a democracy despite the thousands of years of religious, cultural and politial tradition. I am not knocking their religion or traditions - the each their own. They have the right to self-determination just like every other nation on the planet. Our goal upon ousting the Taliban should have been to provide a secure environment in which the people could set up the government they wanted. Then leave. I am sure we do appear quite arrogant to the people of Afghanistan and to those in the neighboring region. In many ways, our actions mirror 1800s-style colonialism which probably brings back a lot of bad memories in that part of the world.

In regards to the mission - what was the mission? I remember what I was told when I deployed in a damn hurry in October 2001. Over time, that has morphed into something almost unrecognizable and unachievable. I agree with you on the risk to the troops - when weighed against any possible result, the risk is too high. I feel no US troops should still be in Aghanistan at this point.

Bunch
12-06-2013, 02:47 PM
That gives you one up on me here, all I have to respond to right now is LINK REMOVED.


KABUL, Afghanistan – More than three out of four Afghans live in fear of the U.S. troops sent to liberate their country from the Taliban, according to a survey released Thursday.

The annual poll was conducted by the Asia Foundation, a non-profit international development group. It also found that while an increasing number of Afghan citizens feel that their country is heading in the right direction, more than half of those questioned said they were afraid to exercise basic democratic rights such as voting and attending peaceful protests.

Link to article: http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/05/21755468-a-country-gripped-by-fear-survey-finds-majority-of-afghans-afraid-of-us-troops-voting

Bunch
12-06-2013, 02:54 PM
"They" have been turning against us for quite some time. Our arrogance was evident when we thought we could go into another country and try to transform it into a democracy despite the thousands of years of religious, cultural and politial tradition. I am not knocking their religion or traditions - the each their own. They have the right to self-determination just like every other nation on the planet. Our goal upon ousting the Taliban should have been to provide a secure environment in which the people could set up the government they wanted. Then leave. I am sure we do appear quite arrogant to the people of Afghanistan and to those in the neighboring region. In many ways, our actions mirror 1800s-style colonialism which probably brings back a lot of bad memories in that part of the world.

In regards to the mission - what was the mission? I remember what I was told when I deployed in a damn hurry in October 2001. Over time, that has morphed into something almost unrecognizable and unachievable. I agree with you on the risk to the troops - when weighed against any possible result, the risk is too high. I feel no US troops should still be in Aghanistan at this point.

I think that another thought that is born out of arrogance is the belief that american troops will be received with open arms anywhere in the world and would be welcomed as an occupying force. Hopefully after these last two wars we have learned our lesson on that regard.

AJBIGJ
12-06-2013, 02:58 PM
I think that another thought that is born out of arrogance is the belief that american troops will be received with open arms anywhere in the world and would be welcomed as an occupying force. Hopefully after these last two wars we have learned our lesson on that regard.

I wish I could be so optimistic about that. War and Fear make for excellent tools for politicians to push individual agendas that increase their own power base. The one thing they've successfully learned if anything throughout the years is we (as a comprehensive voting populace) are fairly easy to manipulate by that emotion.

Bunch
12-06-2013, 03:10 PM
I wish I could be so optimistic about that. War and Fear make for excellent tools for politicians to push individual agendas that increase their own power base. The one thing they've successfully learned if anything throughout the years is we (as a comprehensive voting populace) are fairly easy to manipulate by that emotion.

I will tend to agree with you but the developments in Syria and Iran have me very optimistic that we have turn the page away from that. The US has been beating the drums of war on Iran for almost a decade now and the public support has never been there, they try to rally public opinion to attack Syria mounting a public affairs campaign on all the MSM showing dead women and children and not even that could get move the needle of public opinion.

In addition, the other countries and its citizens are growing weary of the US "shoot first as questions later" foreign policy approach. A stonger China and Russia are also big factors. I really think that the time of the US as the only superpower in the world that could dictate like they had for the last two decades taking advantage of the vacuum left when the USSR disappeared and China was in the ups has come to an end.

efmbman
12-06-2013, 03:16 PM
I think that another thought that is born out of arrogance is the belief that american troops will be received with open arms anywhere in the world and would be welcomed as an occupying force. Hopefully after these last two wars we have learned our lesson on that regard.

For now perhaps. But a similar situation occured with our involvement in Vietnam. Then along came a "good war" - Desert Storm! A war that we could have parades after it was over! Suddenly, off we go again to plant the flag. I have three sons, all under 9 years old. I don't want them to die in some far away shit-hole in 20 years because our political leaders are beholden to defense contractors.

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-06-2013, 03:36 PM
That gives you one up on me here, all I have to respond to right now is LINK REMOVED.

Yeah, I didnt know using the MTFs hyperlink function was an infraction now. Sorry.

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-06-2013, 03:43 PM
I wish I could be so optimistic about that. War and Fear make for excellent tools for politicians to push individual agendas that increase their own power base. The one thing they've successfully learned if anything throughout the years is we (as a comprehensive voting populace) are fairly easy to manipulate by that emotion.

And those that believe in the war and fear mongering usually belong to the party making the claim. Other than Afghan, there is very little bi-partisan support for most wars. But the dems and GOP have a very waivering view on war, depending if they are the ones calling for it or not. I am just glad the shut down in Oct "shut down" the talks about going into Syria. But that really hasnt stopped the Administration from countinuing the fast and furious part Syria program of sending guns to the Al Queda rebels.

AJBIGJ
12-06-2013, 04:02 PM
On a similar note, interesting with recent events, is everyone aware that both Reagan and Dick Cheney once referred to Nelson Mandella as a terrorist?

Bunch
12-06-2013, 04:14 PM
On a similar note, interesting with recent events, is everyone aware that both Reagan and Dick Cheney once referred to Nelson Mandella as a terrorist?

The first time I read about Nelson Mandela being considered a terrorist was while lurking on white supremacist websites, I learned yesterday that Reagan and Cheney were the main ones pushing that bandwagon.

AJBIGJ
12-06-2013, 04:17 PM
The first time I read about Nelson Mandela being considered a terrorist was while lurking on white supremacist websites, I learned yesterday that Reagan and Cheney were the main ones pushing that bandwagon.

To be fair, his organization was being funded by the USSR, which doesn't necessarily make it justified but does add to the context, it is under the same mentality that we resourced Al Quaeda's precursors in that decade.

Sergeant eNYgma
12-06-2013, 04:24 PM
This comes as no surprise to me. Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what the people of Afghanistan think of US troops or the US in general.

Pretty much this.......

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-06-2013, 04:39 PM
The first time I read about Nelson Mandela being considered a terrorist was while lurking on white supremacist websites, I learned yesterday that Reagan and Cheney were the main ones pushing that bandwagon.

Well, he was the founder of the socialist party in south Africa. Now nelson was a great peaceful person who associated with the most violent and murderous political party the world has ever seen. Reagan was in the "cold war" and needed to use the propaganda machiene to further his need to build the military industrial complex. I really hope you arent suggesting Reagan was part of the WP websites just because they are the only ones still covering that story.

Bunch
12-06-2013, 04:56 PM
Well, he was the founder of the socialist party in south Africa. Now nelson was a great peaceful person who associated with the most violent and murderous political party the world has ever seen. Reagan was in the "cold war" and needed to use the propaganda machiene to further his need to build the military industrial complex. I really hope you arent suggesting Reagan was part of the WP websites just because they are the only ones still covering that story.

Do you forgot that Reagan veto the Anti-Apartheid Act?

A bill that had so much support in Congress that the veto ended up being overriden and it become like the first time something like that happended in Congress.

There is no denying that Ronald Reagan was very pro apartheid.

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-06-2013, 05:10 PM
Do you forgot that Reagan veto the Anti-Apartheid Act?

A bill that had so much support in Congress that the veto ended up being overriden and it become like the first time something like that happended in Congress.

There is no denying that Ronald Reagan was very pro apartheid.

Are you saying Reagan was FOR the aparthied? Or are you just giving half the story to further your position? How about you give us a reason that Reagan vetoed the act?

efmbman
12-06-2013, 05:12 PM
And thus... another thread dies.

AJBIGJ
12-06-2013, 05:15 PM
And thus... another thread dies.

It doesn't have to necessarily, if certain elements can move outside of their rhetorical comfort zone.

Bunch
12-06-2013, 05:19 PM
Are you saying Reagan was FOR the aparthied? Or are you just giving half the story to further your position? How about you give us a reason that Reagan vetoed the act?

Well at least for me this is a case in which actions speak louder than words. The Carter administration had sanctions and restrictions in place and was no friends of the SA government. When Reagan came to power he lifted the sanctions and restrictions and become very close with the PM at the time. When all other countries were moving toward stiff sanctions against South Africa the US was basically the last holdout and that why Congress decided to act.

He could have said 1,000 times that apartheid was wrong but his actions during the presidency leave a lot of room to doubt his true beliefs.

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-06-2013, 05:30 PM
Well at least for me this is a case in which actions speak louder than words. The Carter administration had sanctions and restrictions in place and was no friends of the SA government. When Reagan came to power he lifted the sanctions and restrictions and become very close with the PM at the time. When all other countries were moving toward stiff sanctions against South Africa the US was basically the last holdout and that why Congress decided to act.

He could have said 1,000 times that apartheid was wrong but his actions during the presidency leave a lot of room to doubt his true beliefs.

His actions where that he put his own sactions into place because his belief was that sanctions hurt those that are at the bottom the most. This was seen many times over throughout the world with sanctions against cuba, USSR and east Germany, veitnam, North Korea, and so on. Reagan believed that the best way to solve the problem of a struggling poor citizen was through work. Putting sanctions on a country will always hurt those that are already hurting. Its why libs here look to pass handouts before sanctioning the rich from making more than a cartain amount yearly.

Bunch
12-06-2013, 05:42 PM
His actions where that he put his own sactions into place because his belief was that sanctions hurt those that are at the bottom the most. This was seen many times over throughout the world with sanctions against cuba, USSR and east Germany, veitnam, North Korea, and so on. Reagan believed that the best way to solve the problem of a struggling poor citizen was through work. Putting sanctions on a country will always hurt those that are already hurting. Its why libs here look to pass handouts before sanctioning the rich from making more than a cartain amount yearly.

Well you can choose to believe what you wish. If you are trying to sell me that Reagan cared about the poor, well, lets just not go there.

History has been written on this and it was shown that political and economic pressure was what ultimately brought down apartheid. Who knows if without Reagan "constructive engagement" policies it would had happened sooner.

DocBones
12-06-2013, 05:48 PM
Back during WW2, many of the French did not like the Army arriving in their country, upsetting the status quo. A whole lot more liked us being there, but that does bring up the point that no matter where we went, we were sometimes viewed as the bad boys.

Viet Nam? Yeah, our 'Hearts and Minds' thing was a big bust.

As to the first Gulf War, we couldn't even chase down Hussein back then, because the coalition would have falllen apart, because the President said that we were freeing Kuwait, not ending Saddam's rule in Iraq.

That was a short war, and we pulled out when it was over. We didn't stick around, other than to lean on Iraq's flights of aircaft, which, I believe, had flown to Iran, a supposed enemy.

Did Iraq get those planes back? That is a real question, not a rhetorical question.

Are we there still to support the gov't of Afghanistan, or more to aid in us hunting down terrorists?

Have we gained millions of barrels of oil from Iraq, as part of our being in there for the 2nd gulf war?

No matter where we insert our troops, there is always going to be an outcry by some, that we are just big bullies.

By our POTUS having put down so many terrorists using drones, can we claim that collateral damage is nil?

I don't think so.

Will we go into the status of having our troops pull back and them being in the USA only, for defensive use, only?

That would be a reprise of pre WW2.

Should we throw our weight around, on the world stage, seeing as of right now, we ARE the worlds preeminent military power?

All of the above has been and is the flexing of the muscle that is the military of the USA. The president, in each case, has had the power to either go in, or stand back and let the world settle it's own differences.

And we will NEVER have 100% agreement on the end results, from the various foriegn powers that be.

That is my own opinion.

If we withdraw all of our troops from every country and become USA centric only, then look at a drastic downsizing of the military, worse than has been done in the past few years. A lot of the remaining armed forces would be cashiered.

Do the drones balance out that equation? Since the nukes we dropped on Japan, the AF ended a war that was fought to their doorsteps almost, by Army and Marine ground forces, to allow the AF to get close enough first to fire bomb, than to nuke out the 2 cities. Now, the drones can pick out a car bearing terrorists, but they can't kill them all.

So, what do we do? Pack up and go home, and tell them that it has been a great joyride, but that we are tired of eradicating threats to the USA, and that they should take that over?

Do we put ships that can lauch drones close in, and say adios?

Does everyone in the USA have love ins, with free doobage, after we pull out?

Does the POTUS say, "My bad! Have a great day!"?

I am not suggesting any one way out. I am just posing a few questions as to the future of the USA, and the military.

What do we do? I'd like to find a way out. However, there are hidden traps in whatever we do, any which way we go.

AND! The American people will be polarized also. It seems that none of us can agree on our military might's right to exist in it's present form. Once we leave Afghanistan, look for more cutbacks. That is always the scenario of shifting from a war time America to a peace time America.

Again, those are my thoughts, only.

Juggs
12-06-2013, 05:53 PM
I don't know why we bother with those people. We should've gone in destroyed the Taliban, chased OBL and killed him instead of constantly pulling back because the warlords were pussies and the suits in DC didn't want to hurt feelings. Should've gone in, fuck up what we came to fuck up and leave.

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-06-2013, 06:14 PM
Well you can choose to believe what you wish. If you are trying to sell me that Reagan cared about the poor, well, lets just not go there. So, why not go there? Is there something about providing jobs over welfare that says it isnt so?


History has been written on this and it was shown that political and economic pressure was what ultimately brought down apartheid. Who knows if without Reagan "constructive engagement" policies it would had happened sooner.
Yep, the story was written and from ESPN's side of the story, it was sports that brought down the apartheid.

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-06-2013, 06:29 PM
No matter where we insert our troops, there is always going to be an outcry by some, that we are just big bullies.75% is "some?


By our POTUS having put down so many terrorists using drones, can we claim that collateral damage is nil?

I don't think so.?Not even close. And how do we know those who he targeted were terrorists with only his word to go off of? And I dont know why anyone would trust his word right now.


Will we go into the status of having our troops pull back and them being in the USA only, for defensive use, only?

That would be a reprise of pre WW2.I dont see why we shouldnt.


Should we throw our weight around, on the world stage, seeing as of right now, we ARE the worlds preeminent military power?This is a fallacy. China can destroy us with superior numbers in a heartbeat. Russia is right along side them providing the fuel. What happens when Russia stops Iraq and Iran oil production for us? Think we can start replacing the lost fuel for ourselves the next day?


All of the above has been and is the flexing of the muscle that is the military of the USA. The president, in each case, has had the power to either go in, or stand back and let the world settle it's own differences.

And we will NEVER have 100% agreement on the end results, from the various foriegn powers that be.

That is my own opinion.Good opinion.


If we withdraw all of our troops from every country and become USA centric only, then look at a drastic downsizing of the military, worse than has been done in the past few years. A lot of the remaining armed forces would be cashiered.We hsve a southern boarder that needs protecting.


Do the drones balance out that equation? Since the nukes we dropped on Japan, the AF ended a war that was fought to their doorsteps almost, by Army and Marine ground forces, to allow the AF to get close enough first to fire bomb, than to nuke out the 2 cities. Now, the drones can pick out a car bearing terrorists, but they can't kill them all.

So, what do we do? Pack up and go home, and tell them that it has been a great joyride, but that we are tired of eradicating threats to the USA, and that they should take that over?Are terrorist in cars 3000 miles away a threat to the US?


Do we put ships that can lauch drones close in, and say adios?

Does everyone in the USA have love ins, with free doobage, after we pull out?

Does the POTUS say, "My bad! Have a great day!"?

I am not suggesting any one way out. I am just posing a few questions as to the future of the USA, and the military.I say we pack up and leave in the dead of night like a drunk frat boy leaving the bed after "taking one for the team" the night before.


What do we do? I'd like to find a way out. However, there are hidden traps in whatever we do, any which way we go.

AND! The American people will be polarized also. It seems that none of us can agree on our military might's right to exist in it's present form. Once we leave Afghanistan, look for more cutbacks. That is always the scenario of shifting from a war time America to a peace time America.

Again, those are my thoughts, only.
Bringing troops from around the world back to the US will boost the economy by allowing them to spend their paychecks in the states. There are also 3 million job openings in the states that people with the hard work ethic of service members could provide to close the openings.

Bunch
12-06-2013, 06:31 PM
So, why not go there? Is there something about providing jobs over welfare that says it isnt so?

Common now...