| Hi, if you're reading this, it means you are not logged in. For all visitors.... please feel free to look at the threads. Since we are so slow at the moment the board has been condensed. If you would like to add your own 2 cents, please register.. or log in. Trouble in registering, please send an email to: xray62@gmail.com Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Ron pauls straight talk | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Oct 14 2009, 11:37 AM (39 Views) | |
| Sweets | Oct 14 2009, 11:37 AM Post #1 |
|
Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk 10/13/09: Saving Face in Afghanistan This past week there has been a lot of discussion and debate on the continuing war in Afghanistan. Lasting twice as long as World War II and with no end in sight, the war in Afghanistan has been one of the longest conflicts in which our country has ever been involved. The situation has only gotten worse with recent escalations. The current debate is focused entirely on the question of troop levels. How many more troops should be sent over in order to pursue the war? The administration has already approved an additional 21,000 American service men and women to be deployed by November, which will increase our troop levels to 68,000. Will another 40,000 do the job? Or should we eventually build up the levels to 100,000 in addition to that? Why not 500,000 – just to be “safe”? And how will public support be brought back around to supporting this war again when 58 percent are now against it? I get quite annoyed at this very narrow line of questioning. I have other questions. We overthrew the Taliban government in 2001 with less than 10,000 American troops. Why does it now seem that the more troops we send, the worse things get? If the Soviets bankrupted themselves in Afghanistan with troop levels of 100,000 and were eventually forced to leave in humiliating defeat, why are we determined to follow their example? Most importantly, what is there to be gained from all this? We’ve invested billions of dollars and thousands of precious lives – for what? The truth is it is no coincidence that the more troops we send the worse things get. Things are getting worse precisely because we are sending more troops and escalating the violence. We are hoping that good leadership wins out in Afghanistan, but the pool of potential honest leaders from which to draw have been fleeing the violence, leaving a tremendous power vacuum behind. War does not quell bad leaders. It creates them. And the more war we visit on this country, the more bad leaders we will inadvertently create. Another thing that war does is create anger with its indiscriminate violence and injustice. How many innocent civilians have been harmed from clumsy bombings and mistakes that end up costing lives? People die from simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time in a war zone, but the killers never face consequences. Imagine the resentment and anger survivors must feel when a family member is killed and nothing is done about it. When there are no other jobs available because all the businesses have fled, what else is there to do, but join ranks with the resistance where there is a paycheck and also an opportunity for revenge? This is no justification for our enemies over there, but we have to accept that when we push people, they will push back. The real question is why are we there at all? What do our efforts now have to do with the original authorization of the use of force? We are no longer dealing with anything or anyone involved in the attacks of 9/11. At this point we are only strengthening the resolve and the ranks of our enemies. We have nothing left to win. We are only there to save face, and in the end we will not even be able to do that. |
 |
 
|
| xray | Oct 14 2009, 11:48 AM Post #2 |
Administrator
|
I pretty well agree with this article. What else is there to say? Should we (Canadian/U.S.A.) stay in Afghanistan?  It's just not worth one more of our lives. Sad... but true. |
|
|
| Beancounter | Oct 16 2009, 01:16 AM Post #3 |
|
I must admit that I am getting confused too, but: 1. I stand 100% behind the NATO (American, Canadian and European) troops. 2. I know it can be confusing to determine who is friend or foe, they all dress alike. So mistakes are bound to be made. 3. The Taliban (scum!) supported Al Qaeda. 4. Now the NDP is asking questions again about Taliban prisoners. 5. Canada (or any NATO troops) have no facilities for Taliban prisoners. 6. It is AFGHAN country, let THEM deal with that problem. 7. I don't give a s..t about Taliban. 8. My (unwritten) command to NATO troops would be: "Take NO Taliban prisoners, exterminate them for the scum they are." End of story. |
|
|
|
| Sweets | Oct 16 2009, 05:04 AM Post #4 |
|
Kosher Bean --- what could one expect from a palestinian oppressor --- stay true to form Beanstine -- your as transparent and obvious as a cluster of bluetops in a swine farm shit house. No offence meant -- aye er eh? |
|
|
|
| xray | Oct 16 2009, 09:42 AM Post #5 |
|
Administrator
|
I don't believe you mean that anyone that thinks the western troops should leave Afghanistan is not supporting the troops. It's just that those rabid types that want us to stay in Afghanistan always trot out the old standby 'You don't support our troops' as a way to try and support their position. I'm fully behind all of Nato troops that are there. It's just that any more of them that die there will be in vain as 6 months after they finally leave, things will be right back to where they were before. It's a no win situation as I see it and our troops have been there far too long. Edited by xray, Oct 19 2009, 04:41 PM.
|
|
|
|
| ReallyOrnery | Oct 18 2009, 02:02 AM Post #6 |
|
Hi, Y'all ~ As usual, Dr. Ron Paul is on target. However, I also would have pointed out the parallels between the war in Afghainistan and the failed war in Vietnam. In fact, the same catch phrases and justifications use to continue the US presence in Afghanistan were used to justify the extention of the Vietman war. 'If one does not learn the lessons of history, one will be doomed to repeat them' (with my apology to the original author, whose name I forgot a long time ago). RO |
|
|
|
| ReallyOrnery | Oct 18 2009, 02:06 AM Post #7 |
|
xray: The US and Canada should be bringing home their troops from Afghanistan and radically reducing the size of their respective militaries, thus reducing tax-payer costs during hard economic times. We never should have gone to Afghanistan in the first place. RO |
|
|
|
| ReallyOrnery | Oct 18 2009, 02:44 AM Post #8 |
|
Beancounter: You: I stand 100% behind the NATO (American, Canadian and European) troops. I: Bring home the baby butchers and put them on trial for War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. You: I know it can be confusing to determine who is friend or foe, they all dress alike. So mistakes are bound to be made. I: In Iraq we made more than 1.5-million such mistakes; I imagin that number in Afghanistan probably numbers around one-hundred thousand. At what point do we stop calling them mistakes and start calling them War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. You: The Taliban (scum!) supported Al Qaeda. I: The Taliban did not support Al Qaeda or Ossama bin Ladin. When the US blamed bin Ladin and demanded that the Taliban 'surrender' him, the Taliban demanded an International Arrest Warrant and supporting evidence of bin Ladin's guilt. Rather than obey International Law, the US invaded Afghanistan thus, again, committing a War Crime. You: 4. . Now the NDP is asking questions again about Taliban prisoners. 5. Canada (or any NATO troops) have no facilities for Taliban prisoners. 6. It is AFGHAN country, let THEM deal with that problem. 7. I don't give a s..t about Taliban. I: You should have thought about all this before you took up a militaristic cause that was none of your business. You support the troops and their cause? Now you get to deal with its consequences. You: My (unwritten) command to NATO troops would be: "Take NO Taliban prisoners, exterminate them for the scum they are." End of story. I: I suppose, then, that, in retaliation, it would be acceptable to you for the Taliban also to take no invaders prisoner, exterminate them for the scum they are; end of story; humm? How many millions of people must yet be murdered to quench your lust for blood -- one which was never the business of Canada in the first place? RO Edited by ReallyOrnery, Oct 18 2009, 02:49 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Beancounter | Oct 19 2009, 08:08 AM Post #9 |
|
Quote: "Kosher Bean --- what could one expect from a palestinian oppressor" I don't even know any Palestinians! How can I be suppressor? Sweets logic I suppose. |
|
|
|
| Beancounter | Oct 19 2009, 08:10 AM Post #10 |
|
Quote:"I suppose, then, that, in retaliation, it would be acceptable to you for the Taliban also to take no invaders prisoner." The Taliban even take innocents, take them hostage, and behead them on TV. All that Taliban scum should be exterminated like the cockroaches they are. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · The Coliseum · Next Topic » |
2:20 PM Dec 5
