We can win if we stay in Afghanistan for a DECADE!

[Matt Collins]

http://politics.nashvillepost.com/2009/09/29/roe-we-cant-win-afghanistan-without-staying-a-decade/

U.S. Rep. Phil Roe said it is time to have a serious discussion about what the nation’s goals are in Afghanistan.

“I believe unless we’re willing to make a commitment to stay there for decades, I’m not sure how you can be successful,” he said. “And why do I say that? Well, the whole (gross domestic product) of the country is 20 percent of what it’s taking us to put into the military right now. They need basic infrastructure — roads, water, sewer, schools, education. Those take a long time to build.”

[muh_roads]

what the hell are we winning? it is all so pointless. more debt for the people is losing.

[brandon]

facepalm.

I listened to 10 minutes of Rush (not the band, although maybe I should be listening to the band instead) today on my lunch break. A caller asked Rush "What would you do in Afghanistan if you were president?" Rush said like five times "I'd tell you what I would do, I would win. I would listen to the generals and I would win." That was all the explanation he could give. I guess it's nothing new but it just reminded me of how much I hate these neocons. lol

[Austin]

... make it a hundred!

:mad:

[Matt Collins]

... make it a hundred!

:mad:



http://eagleandthebear.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/john-mccain1.jpg


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_6TBTFMYd0xI/SDuqR8FQbrI/AAAAAAAAAOc/zRnZNwaipmo/s400/arrrrrghh.jpg

[Original_Intent]

... make it a hundred!

:mad:

my thought exactly.

[JoshLowry]

Scheuer sums up the perfect response to shut down policies like this:


Quite simply, there is no moral dimension to our Afghan War other than to protect the United States and the American people. That moral obligation was ignored by Bush and is detested by Obama, being Harvard educated and the good student of Rev. Wright, Saul Alinsky, and Bill Ayers. Those who believe we should, in Afghanistan, be creating a democracy, rebuilding the economy, providing women's rights, and protecting human rights are, I am sure, good people in their own way and minds. But they are, to a monstrous extent, selfish, unrealistic, and patently unconcerned with America's security. If they really want to ensure that all of the things just listed come to pass, they ought to join an NGO, become a religious missionary, or join the Afghan army. Such people are at all times entitled to waste their lives in any manner they choose.

They are not ever, however, entitled to spend the lives of America's soldier-children in anything other than America's defense. No U.S. soldier or Marine should ever be called on to be maimed or killed to make sure Mrs. Muhammad can vote or little Ibrahim can go to a secular school; they should be called on to make such sacrifices only in an effort to decisively defeat America's enemies on the battlefield or to defend its borders.

In other words, if Mrs. Clinton wants to install women's rights in Afghanistan; and if Senator McCain wants to become involved in the civil war in Darfur; and if most members of the Congress want to do everything possible to defend Israel, let them all resign their official positions and go and take up their "sacred" causes as private citizens following their personal beliefs. They would all be likely to get their butts shot off, and America would be no poorer for their loss. Indeed, all Americans would be better off because we would stop intervening in other peoples' wars and we would preserve the lives of our soldier-children for the few occasions where the application of overwhelming military power is necessary to defend America. Our moral obligation in Afghanistan is framed solely by the requirement laid down by the Founders: America first.

I think I'm going to email this to Congressman Roe and ask him to resign so that he can go build bridges and roads in Afghanistan with his own money.

[Dreamofunity]

“I believe unless we’re willing to make a commitment to stay there for decades, I’m not sure how you can be successful,” he said. “And why do I say that? Well, the whole (gross domestic product) of the country is 20 percent of what it’s taking us to put into the military right now. They need basic infrastructure — roads, water, sewer, schools, education. Those take a long time to build.”


And why do we have to provide those for them? besides the fact that we blew up a lot of what they originally had.

[sevin]

10 more years of war? woot! America . . . Fuck Yeah!

/sarcasm

[rpfan2008]

http://i408.photobucket.com/albums/pp166/bonitatortuga/return-coffins-from-iraq.jpg

you ain't seen nothing yet.

[Sandman33]

10 more years of war? woot! America . . . Fuck Yeah!

/sarcasm

Comin along to save the motherfuckin day YEAH!

We cant AFFORD ten more years of war and EVERYONE knows it.

This country absolutely will go through completely catastrophic changes and 95% chances of complete civil war. Within the next 2 years.

[specsaregood]

I don't know why our govt hasn't just asked the russians how they managed to win over there......

[amonasro]

bump for endless war

[squarepusher]

http://politics.nashvillepost.com/2009/09/29/roe-we-cant-win-afghanistan-without-staying-a-decade/

U.S. Rep. Phil Roe said it is time to have a serious discussion about what the nation’s goals are in Afghanistan.

“I believe unless we’re willing to make a commitment to stay there for decades, I’m not sure how you can be successful,” he said. “And why do I say that? Well, the whole (gross domestic product) of the country is 20 percent of what it’s taking us to put into the military right now. They need basic infrastructure — roads, water, sewer, schools, education. Those take a long time to build.”



hell. no.

[tangent4ronpaul]

I don't know why our govt hasn't just asked the russians how they managed to win over there......

nice sarcasm...

The Soviets were in Afghanistan for 10 years and got their asses handed to them. We are there with half as many troops and expect a different outcome?

Remember that recent speech by Obama where he said we were there because Al Queda was planning more attacks and still a threat to us? Contrast that to OBL stating in his open letter to the American people (that the media largely suppressed or quoted from very selectively - as usual) that they attack us because we are over there occupying their holy land and killing their citizens.

As to building up their infrastructure, a reporter a few months ago mentioned that in Iraq they still only had about 6 hours of electricity a day, and you never knew which 6 hours. It was usually piecemeal. And how many years have we been repairing that countries infrastructure?

Total brainfart!

It's obvious we are being lied to.

-t

[Matt Collins]

Read Ron's Book "Revolution: A Manifesto" and it talks about how OBL is playing the American government like a fiddle, same way he played the Russian government. The idea is to get us into a desert "Vietnam" where we would be bogged down, spending money, draining resources, and lowering morale and our will to fight.