Bush: Iran 'Single Biggest Threat' to Middle East Peace

[Sarah L]

Originally Posted by Pexster

And we left a big chunk of al-Qaeda in those mountains. They are still there. And the Taliban is regaining strength in Afghanistan. I call that a huge strategic blunder on our part, any way you choose to paint it.

A big chunk of Al-Qaeda are in graves and the Taliban are dying in Afghanistan.

Anymore blatant lies you wish to tell? Or have you been missing the end results of Taliban battles? Wiped out.

[Pexster]

Blatant lies? Please research a little bit about the Afghanistan situation before being so needlessly insulting.

Here is a recent article.

Last autumn, groups of Taliban fighters swarmed into every village in this district in southern Afghanistan. American forces arrived to sweep them out in January, people here say. By April, the Taliban were back, surrounding the district center in a show of force that froze villagers in their tracks. Then the insurgents melted away again.

Khakrez, two hours north of the city of Kandahar, is just one corner of a complex war in Afghanistan. But the seesaw nature of the fight here speaks to the larger problems facing NATO and American forces seven years into a conflict that shows few signs of winding down.

Here's another.

The Taliban in Afghanistan are getting weaker, the U.S. ambassador tells local councillors in the eastern city of Ghazni, but he is met by a wall of shaking heads and tutting noises; 'no, no', some reply.

While Afghan government and international forces point to some success in restricting Taliban guerrilla attacks across the south and east, suicide bombs -- 140 last year -- roadside bombs, kidnappings and threats have created an atmosphere of fear.

"We don't want food, we don't want schools, we want security!" said one woman council member.

"Ok, let me ask you," replied U.S. ambassador William Wood. "Are the Taliban weaker now?"

"No," the councillors said, shaking their heads.

"But are these Taliban or criminals?" Wood asked.

"Taliban," they replied.

On the back of military operations, NATO-led forces in Afghanistan aim to "drain the swamp" of the insurgency by promoting development, constructing roads, schools and hospitals and extending the reach of Afghan authorities to remote areas.

But the process is slow and even Western leaders admit reconstruction and development in Afghanistan has been patchy, poorly coordinated and under-funded.

[Sarah L]

Originally Posted by Pexster

Blatant lies? Please research a little bit about the Afghanistan situation before being so needlessly insulting.

Here is a recent article. Here's another.

You are lying about the United States Army

You are lying about the United States Marine Corp

You are lying about the United States of America

This one you do not get. You sound no different than Al-Qaeda

[sharder8]

Let me clarify a couple things that I see are causing this heated discussion . . .

Pex -- You are relying on media reporting, that may or may not be hyped to fit someones agenda. That's the only thing you have to back your arguments.

Sarah_L -- You are relying on information directly from service members that were or are there. Or from offical reports including intelligence reports.

From experience, I can tell you both that what you see in the media is usually not the truth or facts.

Pex -- I, Sarah_L, and everyone in the military in combat situations, have put our lives and the lives of our troops on the line, based on the information Sarah_L is basing her information . . . rarely is it totally wrong, usually it's not complete enough. On the other hand, we wouldn't and don't trust or rely on the media's information, as it can cause un-necessary casualties.

Harder

[Sarah L]

Originally Posted by sharder8

Let me clarify a couple things that I see are causing this heated discussion . . .

Pex -- You are relying on media reporting, that may or may not be hyped to fit someones agenda. That's the only thing you have to back your arguments.

Sarah_L -- You are relying on information directly from service members that were or are there. Or from offical reports including intelligence reports.

From experience, I can tell you both that what you see in the media is usually not the truth or facts.

Pex -- I, Sarah_L, and everyone in the military in combat situations, have put our lives and the lives of our troops on the line, based on the information Sarah_L is basing her information . . . rarely is it totally wrong, usually it's not complete enough. On the other hand, we wouldn't and don't trust or rely on the media's information, as it can cause un-necessary casualties.

Harder

He gives me 2 links to news agencies with an anti-war slant. He most likely failed to see the results of an action between the Taliban and the Marine Corp just last week.

All contacts with the Taliban end in their defeat. We are sick seeing complete news distortions of events that also leave out the end result of the combat action. Rueters has been caught in several frauds. Mainly photos, so why give them a second glance.

Any report put out by DOD is dismissed as completely biased.

[Pexster]

You can pick from dozens, if not hundreds of articles about what is going on in Afghanistan. You can read quotes from people there on the ground.

He most likely failed to see the results of an action between the Taliban and the Marine Corp just last week.

No, I saw that and read that. It has nothing to do with the point of contention here. Harder, if you've been following the situation, you know that NATO commnaders have been asking for more troops. You also know that there was disagreement within our own military command about whether to send more Marines to Afghanistan. Recently, we have done so.

Sarah, both you and you husband have BIG chips on your shoulders. You immediately attack anything posted by non-military types as biased, slanted, and inaccurate. You personally insult the poster. The reason I questioned your husband's intelligence is that he did so with a post that didn't even disagree with mine. He just had a knee-jerk reaction. You routinely do the same.

You are lying about the United States Army

You are lying about the United States Marine Corp

You are lying about the United States of America

This one you do not get. You sound no different than Al-Qaeda

Oh, really? In what way? Have you even read any of those articles? They do not say anything that any semi-literate person could possibly construe as an insult to our military. They do not parrot anything al-qaeda would say. I notice you don't refute anything substantive here. Just hurl insults.

[MTAtech]

What we are getting into is credibility.

While some argue that news reports are slanted, we know that officials certainly have an agenda and soldiers' experiences may not represent a totality of what's going on. We know that the official's agenda is to paint the picture as rosy as can be. Officers have a disincentive, for their careers and their budgets, to admit failure. We know what happened to generals that disagreed with the Bush party line -- they were forced to retire.

Historically, we know that we have to take official statements with a grain of salt. During Vietnam, I remember the generals saying every six months, "another 100,000 troops and they'll be home by Christmas" and "there is light at the end of the tunnel." In Iraq, the DoD had rosy assessments of progress, assumed a quick entry and exit but here we are six-years later bogged done. Thus, the credibility of officials and official reports must be assessed critically.

Conversely, while the military folks claim that they know more because "they were there," those new reports are quoting villagers who were there too. Unless, someone is saying that the entire story is fabricated and the reporter didn't interview anyone, we have to accept the credibility of interviews with locals just the same as soldier "who were there." To get a good view of the puzzle, one needs to look at all the pieces.

Then there is the critical-thinking "own eyes" test. When someone tells you that all is going as expected, there is progress and there is no problem with troop numbers but, you see with your own eyes that involvement is far longer than anyone predicted, there is still plenty of violence, and there are extended tours and a stop-loss program, you can make up your own mind as to what's credible. When the President says the Taliban no longer exists in Afghanistan but we know that they do, we have to be on crap detection duty.

As for progress, I wrote this two years ago. Tell me what's changed.

As an aside, I note the breakdown of civility recently. Because someone disagrees with one's personal opinion, that doesn't make them a liar. Such charges are offensive to intelligent discourse.

[cyphen]

Originally Posted by MTAtech

Oh cyphen, the Saudis are complicit with terrorists and we call them allies.

But we've been down this road before. The bottom line is that when Bush, et al, were loosely making allegations against Hussein, 75% of the American people were behind invasion. Once the dust settled and the claims were scrutinized, it's turned the other way. Apart from that, it's impossible for any objective person to conclude otherwise that the so-called war on terror has been completely botched by the Bushies and McCain plans to continue what has proven to be a failure.

Some here can make the hard-to-swallow claim that it was a logical strategy but I can't see any rational person believing it.

What you're "arguing" isn't a valid argument regarding the Saudis. You are essentially saying that we must immediately and fully wage consecutive wars against all terrorist supporting nations regardless of circumstances in which they can help us, or none at all. Well, if that's not a spurious argument, i don't know what is.

Perhaps this: Linking to a 2004 Press release which was correct, and claiming it's false because time has elapsed and the situation has changed. That seems pretty spurious as well.

Now as to the "loose" claims that were made against Hussein - ohhhh is that incorrect! As to the claims being "scrutinized" - you're assuming that the intent of the scrutiny was to reach the truth. Ohhh, is that not the case! From the eve of war - and even before, journalists and liberal democrats have acted to downplay, dismiss, ignore, and eradicate any argument against Hussein. Anything they couldn't argue down, they buried. Anything that happened which could be construed as a setback was trumpeted endlessly, while anything that was a success or victory was ignored entirely. All that's happened is that liberals and journalists - through cooked polls, endless whining, unethical distortion, and downright lies have convoluted the situation, and based on the study i mentioned, extended the war by emboldening the enemies.

There aren't very many actual investigative reporters out there. Ask journalists why they got into journalism... most will tell you that they wanted to make a difference. To change the world. Ohhh, is that NOT journalism! You get into journalism to REPORT on the world. However, they want to change the world, and they are trying to do that through reporting.

They've also weakened alliances. Liberals in other countries decided they didn't wanto to work with us because they would never work with a conservative. Even if it meant letting terrorists have free reign, or losing chances to eradicate them. It's been nothing but a political effort to keep us from victory. From day one, liberals have stabbed this country in the back on this war effort. Through provable lies, half-truths, trumpeting of failures (however minor) and the hiding of success. All for political gain.

Only someone truly ignorant of the truth would claim that what we have done has proven to be a failure. Every military confrontation has been a resounding success. Only a liberal could call that failure. Oh, they promised to be unified just after 9/11... but it didn't take long at all for them to turn an eye to politics and undermine our effort to win. Everything they have done has been aimed at preventing our success, and ending our campaign against Islamo-fascists.

But then, i didn't expect any less, i suppose. It's what liberals are best at. Anything is permissible as long as it can be construed to be working toward the implementation of the socialist utopian dream... aka their complete political dominance over every living thing.

[MTAtech]

Originally Posted by cyphen

What you're "arguing" isn't a valid argument regarding the Saudis. You are essentially saying that we must immediately and fully wage consecutive wars against all terrorist supporting nations regardless of circumstances in which they can help us, or none at all.

No, that's what you're saying:

Originally Posted by cyphen

The mission was unequivocally NOT to get bin Laden. It was much LARGER than that. It was to decimate Al Qaeda. It was to topple the Taliban for their support. It was to confront rogue nations that support international terrorism.

What I see is that your logic is mushy. When it helps your case to argue "A," you argue "A" at the expense of "B". When it helps your case to argue "B," you argue "B" at the expense of "A".

First, you argue that the mission is to eliminate all terrorists and their supporters. Then you argue that it's OK to support some nations that support terrorists trying to kills us. You outline precisely the problem at hand, we have no coherent policy.

[Sarah L]

Originally Posted by Pexster

You can pick from dozens, if not hundreds of articles about what is going on in Afghanistan. You can read quotes from people there on the ground. No, I saw that and read that. It has nothing to do with the point of contention here. Harder, if you've been following the situation, you know that NATO commnaders have been asking for more troops. You also know that there was disagreement within our own military command about whether to send more Marines to Afghanistan. Recently, we have done so.

Sarah, both you and you husband have BIG chips on your shoulders. You immediately attack anything posted by non-military types as biased, slanted, and inaccurate. You personally insult the poster. The reason I questioned your husband's intelligence is that he did so with a post that didn't even disagree with mine. He just had a knee-jerk reaction. You routinely do the same. Oh, really? In what way? Have you even read any of those articles? They do not say anything that any semi-literate person could possibly construe as an insult to our military. They do not parrot anything al-qaeda would say. I notice you don't refute anything substantive here. Just hurl insults.

Yeah we and many others have a big problem with guys like you distorting what is going on over there. I seen enough of your posts. So we are a bunch of losers based on what you read from one direction. From what you read you amplify the hell out of incidents to conclude everything is being lost. You totally ignore the very fact that at the start of Afghanistan and then Iraq we had these incidents in the hundreds all over the Countries. YOU HAVE TOTALLY FAILED TO NOTICE A TRUTH. That as these 2 fights have gone on the incidents are no longer country wide and no where near the volume they used to be. You have ignored THE AFGHANISTAN ARMY and THE IRAQI ARMY combat actions. Little detail that slipped your attention and that of the selected newspapers you hold as the truth.

No sir we are sick of the damn lying and distortions.

Taliban attacks end in Taliban death. A general increase in these attacks and you call it their growing in strength. Try impatience on their part. You completely ignore the fact the Afghani people do not want these bastards back. Then you completely ignore all the different countries involved. Thats a problem in itself.

Do you ever bother reading what the Military has to say about whats going on? NO, HELL NO YOU DO NOT.

I can flood this forum with stories on Afghanistan and Iraq you have never seen and you will simply say they are biased. Some of you on this forum seem to have a vested interest in the defeat of our country.

I have searched your prior post on the subject. Need I bring up that a group of you here some in Congress made all kinds of bold statements about Iraq. So I will use just one Question to show how you do not know a damn thing for all your reading.

Where is your civil war? You experts said there is a civil war in Iraq, WHERE IS IT?

So much for your vaunted press.


WHERE IS THE CIVIL WAR IN IRAQ?


You all were dead wrong about that one, dead wrong about every single prediction you have made. The sky is falling the sky is falling.