This is Not A Charlie Brown Christmas

willardhaven

willardhaven

CAGiversary!
Feedback
12 (100%)
I turn on ABC for A Charlie Brown Christmas and I get the President talking about another war to a bunch of Piett lookalikes... I guess discuss, this is getting kind of boring.
 
Dang, forgot about the speech--kind of wanted to watch it. But still in the office trying to finish up some work.

As for the decision to send more troops--I support it as long as they are used properly (more nation building, counter-insurgency etc. as has worked in Iraq).

It sucks, but I don't think we can afford to just leave and have it fall apart again and be a haven for terrorist groups. Need to get the Afghan government and military/police force built up--along with working with the tribal groups--to keep the Taliban from coming back, or regions tolerating terrorist bases, training camps etc.
 
I'm 110% against doing anything except removing the vast majority of our soldiers from Afghanistan. I support maintaining a small force to handle terrorism suspects.
It sucks, but I don't think we can afford to just leave and have it fall apart again and be a haven for terrorist groups.
Click to expand...
For the price of $30-50 billion ON TOP of what we're already paying for the force that's there, in addition to the cost of American service member lives that will be lost, in addition to those who will be permanently crippled physically and mentally, in addition to the families that will endure this sacrifice required to meet the Afghan mission need, we will get:

BEST CASE SCENARIO
==============
1. An Afghan government exactly as corrupt and puppet-like as it is today.
2. A country *slightly* less tolerating of terrorists than Pakistan.

And that's it.
I don't think we can afford to just leave and have it fall apart again
Click to expand...
Again? What facet of Afghanistan could we point to as a definitively positive trend that would be bucked should we leave? The only difference I see is that Bin Laden and his homies are inconvenienced enough to hang out in the mountains rather than in the capital. After 8 years. Children in the 3rd grade have never known an America not at "war" with Afghanistan.
 
[quote name='speedracer']I'm 110% against doing anything except removing the vast majority of our soldiers from Afghanistan. I support maintaining a small force to handle terrorism suspects.

For the price of $30-50 billion ON TOP of what we're already paying for the force that's there, in addition to the cost of American service member lives that will be lost, in addition to those who will be permanently crippled physically and mentally, in addition to the families that will endure this sacrifice required to meet the Afghan mission need, we will get:

BEST CASE SCENARIO
==============
1. An Afghan government exactly as corrupt and puppet-like as it is today.
2. A country *slightly* less tolerating of terrorists than Pakistan.

And that's it.

Again? What facet of Afghanistan could we point to as a definitively positive trend that would be bucked should we leave? The only difference I see is that Bin Laden and his homies are inconvenienced enough to hang out in the mountains rather than in the capital. After 8 years. Children in the 3rd grade have never known an America not at "war" with Afghanistan.[/QUOTE]

I do feel you, as I do wonder if it's possible to even get it to the point Iraq is now. But if we don't, then Al Qaeda and other groups will have an easier time setting up camps and coordinating major attacks.

Now if you could tell me there was some way the US would start staying the fuck out of the middle east, reducing our oil consumption as quickly as possible, and letting that region (including Israel) sort out their issues themselves--which would lessen anti US sentiment and make us less of a target--then I'd have little problem with saying fuck it and leaving.

Go back to the "walk softly and carry a big stick" foreign policy. Stop policing the globe. Stop pre-emptive military action. Use diplomacy and aid and try to build up these failed states. And respond with overwhelming force in response to any attacks launched by terrorist groups that are being allowed to operate in them.

But I just don't see any of that happening. The country is too wed to oil (and getting it as cheaply as possible) and too committed to Israel for that to happen. So I view are best course as using the troops for nation building--including working with the tribal groups. Most there hate the Taliban--but they're starting to hate the US more. We need to do less bombing and fighting and more improving quality of life for Afghans so they'll reject the Taliban.
 
The problem with Afghanistan is there's no nation to rebuild. It never was really a country that was unified. So we're trying to create a modern state out of nothing, a much more difficult prospect than Iraq (even with all its divisions).

I'm willing to give the president and our military leaders some leeway on this one. They've seen the intelligence reports and we haven't. Obama was elected to look at this situation and make the correct decision for our country. I hope he makes the right one, but 30,000 is either too many or too few. I think we should either put in overwhelming force to pacify the country (at a large cost in blood and treasure more than likely) or get the hell out of there. The determining factor is if it's really worth it to expend what needs to be expended to pacify the country.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']The problem with Afghanistan is there's no nation to rebuild. It never was really a country that was unified. So we're trying to create a modern state out of nothing, a much more difficult prospect than Iraq (even with all its divisions).[/QUOTE]

Excellent point. I don't know how we're going to get dozens of tribal chieftains to sit down and share power. We should've asked the U.N. to allow them to break up Yugoslavia style. It would've made it harder for the Taliban to take over two days after we leave.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Excellent point. I don't know how we're going to get dozens of tribal chieftains to sit down and share power. We should've asked the U.N. to allow them to break up Yugoslavia style. It would've made it harder for the Taliban to take over two days after we leave.[/QUOTE]

I don't know that we need to get them to share power.

We just need to work with each and give them incentives to not allow the Taliban or Al Qaeda (or other terrorist groups) to operate in their territory. And to provide intelligence when groups try to set up their against their wishes etc.
 
i see two problems for the war in Afghanistan. For one, their government is not stable, we're trying to build a nation on a weak foundation. Second of all, we're basically trying to fight an ideology with physical force, something that is basically impossible.I mean, how do you kill an idea?
 
[quote name='JolietJake']i see two problems for the war in Afghanistan. For one, their government is not stable, we're trying to build a nation on a weak foundation. Second of all, we're basically trying to fight an ideology with physical force, something that is basically impossible.I mean, how do you kill an idea?[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that's why it has to focus more on security, and building schools and infrastructure.

Give the locals a reason to not want the Taliban to come back etc. Using too much force (and hitting civilian targets by accident, through collateral damage etc.) only raises resentment and defeats the purpose.

If the troops are used more for counter-insurgency and building up the country it might work. If they just try to use more force, it's doomed to fail and just make matters worse.
 
I'm just starting to see that things really don't change. I know that the death toll from the Vietnam war was much high than the combined deaths from the two current wars will ever be, but the similarities are too big to ignore.

I just can't understand why people don't learn. How many times do we have to get involved in some big cluster fuck before people realize it's a bad idea?
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I'm just starting to see that things really don't change. I know that the death toll from the Vietnam war was much high than the combined deaths from the two current wars will ever be, but the similarities are too big to ignore.

I just can't understand why people don't learn. How many times do we have to get involved in some big cluster fuck before people realize it's a bad idea?[/QUOTE]

To be fair, the people voted in the party that promised to get us out.

Granted, no one should be shocked at all (heh) that, surprise, Obama lied.

And what's with all the hooplah over this new timetable? Obama hasn't achieved a single one of his timetables he's set forth and really doesn't appear to be on path to doing so anytime soon. Closing GitMo, withdrawing from Iraq, Health Care reform, Employee Free Choice Act... Great ambitions, low follow through.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Great ambitions, low follow through.[/QUOTE]

I really don't think they were ambitions so much as false promises. I didn't vote for him, but I hoped for the best.
 
I am not a fan of the escalation but Obama never came close to saying he would leave Afghanistan ASAP.

It is entirely reckless to focus on it as a kind of "Good War" but it is in no way dishonest or even contradictory.
 
I voted for Obama as a lesser of two evils basically. I believe he wants to end the wars, just that he may not be able to. I don't think McCain would have had any real interest in ending it any time soon.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I just can't understand why people don't learn. How many times do we have to get involved in some big cluster fuck before people realize it's a bad idea?[/QUOTE]

For some, all that death and destruction isn't a bad idea. It's how they make a living. You can't sell the latest weapons if there are no wars to test them out in.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I voted for Obama as a lesser of two evils basically. I believe he wants to end the wars, just that he may not be able to. I don't think McCain would have had any real interest in ending it any time soon.[/QUOTE]

A.) Voting for evil is still voting for evil.
B.) 2? There was quite a bit more than two candidates running in 2008. Granted, not all of them were probably evil...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']To be fair, the people voted in the party that promised to get us out.

Granted, no one should be shocked at all (heh) that, surprise, Obama lied.[/QUOTE]

I don't think you paid close enough attention during the campaign. Obama promised to get us out of Iraq and to escalate in Afghanistan, which is exactly what he's doing (of course, the success of the surge strategy in Iraq, something he opposed, is ironically the key to Obama being able to keep his promise in Iraq).
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I don't think you paid close enough attention during the campaign. Obama promised to get us out of Iraq and to escalate in Afghanistan, which is exactly what he's doing (of course, the success of the surge strategy in Iraq, something he opposed, is ironically the key to Obama being able to keep his promise in Iraq).[/QUOTE]

JolietJake made reference to the "two wars" - Obama made campaign promises to get us out of Iraq. Several Democratic Representatives ran on the platform of getting us out of Iraq and some ran on the platform of getting us out of Afghanistan.

Should be interesting to see how the debates go on this newest effort.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']JolietJake made reference to the "two wars" - Obama made campaign promises to get us out of Iraq. Several Democratic Representatives ran on the platform of getting us out of Iraq and some ran on the platform of getting us out of Afghanistan.

Should be interesting to see how the debates go on this newest effort.[/QUOTE]

It's pretty easy to predict how the debate will go.

About half of Democrats will not support the extra troops. They either have opposed the war in Afghanistan for a long time or are coming around to that as its political popularity has tanked/casualties have increased. These are not all obscure congressmen either -- people like Russell Feingold and Carl Levin (chair of the Armed Services committee). Maybe even Nancy Pelosi, although it's hard for her to go against the president.

The president's strategy will be saved by, ironically, most of the Republican members of Congress. Due to past statements and fervent support for the military, GOP members are loathe to be seen as not "supporting the troops." Even though they may want even more troops per McChrystal's request, they'll vote for the funding for 30,000 additional forces, most likely overwhelmingly.

In the end, you'll have a dynamic much like when Clinton was able to pass NAFTA with more Republican support than Democratic. Obama will get just enough Democrats out of party loyalty, or centrists who are hawkish or remember their campaign rhetoric of contrasting Iraq and Afghanistan (i.e. criticizing Bush on Iraq by pointing out he "took his eye off the ball" -- i.e. Afghanistan).
 
[quote name='elprincipe']It's pretty easy to predict how the debate will go.

About half of Democrats will not support the extra troops. They either have opposed the war in Afghanistan for a long time or are coming around to that as its political popularity has tanked/casualties have increased. These are not all obscure congressmen either -- people like Russell Feingold and Carl Levin (chair of the Armed Services committee). Maybe even Nancy Pelosi, although it's hard for her to go against the president.

The president's strategy will be saved by, ironically, most of the Republican members of Congress. Due to past statements and fervent support for the military, GOP members are loathe to be seen as not "supporting the troops." Even though they may want even more troops per McChrystal's request, they'll vote for the funding for 30,000 additional forces, most likely overwhelmingly.[/QUOTE]

The two bold parts are what interest me the most.

I'm interested in seeing how many Democrats who spoke out against the on-going efforts in Afghanistan vote with the President now because he's a Democrat.

I'm also interested in seeing if the Republicans try to spin their support for this as proof that they aren't just interested in party politics. I mean, the fact that they're so heartily supporting the President on something goes directly against the claims that they're against something just because the President is a Democrat - right? ;)
 
[quote name='UncleBob']The two bold parts are what interest me the most.

I'm interested in seeing how many Democrats who spoke out against the on-going efforts in Afghanistan vote with the President now because he's a Democrat.

I'm also interested in seeing if the Republicans try to spin their support for this as proof that they aren't just interested in party politics. I mean, the fact that they're so heartily supporting the President on something goes directly against the claims that they're against something just because the President is a Democrat - right? ;)[/QUOTE]

Yes, there are always party loyalist types who will vote for the party just about all of the time, even when they look like flaming hypocrites. As we all know, there is no shortage of those in Congress.

Republicans will of course spin their vote for war funding as proof they don't reflexively oppose anything proposed by the administration, you're absolutely right. And Obama will attempt to use the issue to shore up support among independents by claiming he is standing up to the leftist element in his party and doing something bipartisan (for once).
 
[quote name='willardhaven']We're going to look like such jerks in the history books.[/QUOTE]

It's a good thing you said history books, otherwise I'd question your choice of verb tense... ;)
 
[quote name='willardhaven']We're going to look like such jerks in the history books.[/QUOTE]

Depends on who writes the history books. But probably, yes. Especially if it's advantageous to future politicians for it to be written that way. ;)
 
[quote name='UncleBob']A.) Voting for evil is still voting for evil.
B.) 2? There was quite a bit more than two candidates running in 2008. Granted, not all of them were probably evil...[/QUOTE]
I'm not wasting a vote, either.;)

Besides, there are no saints in politics.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']For some, all that death and destruction isn't a bad idea. It's how they make a living. You can't sell the latest weapons if there are no wars to test them out in.[/QUOTE]

It's not even about testing the latest gadgets and guns. I'm pretty sure the manufacturers for M-16s and 5.56mm ammo are sitting on beaches somewhere ordering around their "servants" while they gets blowjobs from a Thai ladyboys.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I'm not wasting a vote, either.;)

Besides, there are no saints in politics.[/QUOTE]

You've only wasted your vote if you voted in someone you didn't believe in.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I'm not wasting a vote, either.;)[/QUOTE]

I'd say a vote to prop up the two corrupt and power-hungry parties we have currently is quite a bit worse than a wasted vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top