Will we be in Pakistan soon?

[vurbano]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/08599189337000


The move by Taliban-backed militants into the Buna district of northwestern Pakistan, closer than ever to Pakistan's capital of Islamabad, have prompted concerns both within the country and abroad that the nuclear-armed nation of 165 million is on the verge of inexorable collapse.

[fallout2600]

That's Pak's fault for signing a truce with the Taliban last year.

[vurbano]

With Pakistan being a nuke power this is the most troubling situtation yet.

[fallout2600]

No doubt, but, if the Taliban makes a run on the captial, Pak's army should be able to hold them back.

[vurbano]

Waiting to see if HD_MM understands the question mark in the title.

[stevenl]

We libs were telling you guys years ago about Focusing on Pakistan/Afghanastain.. You laughed at us..

[fallout2600]

We libs were telling you guys years ago about Focusing on Pakistan/Afghanastain.. You laughed at us..

Whatever, we let NATO handle Pak/Afg. Its not like no one was there trying to contain the Taliban. Problem is/was, NATO has no balls.

[stevenl]

The problem was WE dropped the ball. WE gave up and let NATO handle it.

[fallout2600]

More like delegated to someone who was suppose to finish the job. You libs just wanted OBL's head.

[froggigger]

More like delegated to someone who was suppose to finish the job. You libs just wanted OBL's head.

Don't let Steven fool you. He calls himself a liberal but the top rail of the fence is dead center the crack of his butt. :05:

[vurbano]

I just hope Pakistan asks for help.

[stevenl]

More like delegated to someone who was suppose to finish the job. You libs just wanted OBL's head.

I want all their heads. I want people to fear attacking us. I dont want them to think we will only respond half-hearted and then give the job over to someone else when were done playing with our toys.. We spend more money on our military then the next 5 countries combined.. I expect us to be able to focus on the enemy and DESTROY them without regret. Why have a big stick if your not going to use it. Its like my nephew. He is out of control. His mom acts big but the kid knows shell never use the stick so she walks all over her. When hes at my house though hes an angel because he knows ill use the stick...(speaking hypothetical of course)

[fallout2600]

I want all their heads. I want people to fear attacking us. I dont want them to think we will only respond half-hearted and then give the job over to someone else when were done playing with our toys.. We spend more money on our military then the next 5 countries combined.. I expect us to be able to focus on the enemy and DESTROY them without regret. Why have a big stick if your not going to use it. Its like my nephew. He is out of control. His mom acts big but the kid knows shell never use the stick so she walks all over her. When hes at my house though hes an angel because he knows ill use the stick...(speaking hypothetical of course)

You're a hypocrite, back in the Pit days at SatGuys, all you did was jump all over Repubs when they wanted to escalate and get the job done. Now that your boy is in office you feel compelled to swing the big stick. Hilarious. :free-happy-smileys-

[stevenl]

You're a hypocrite, back in the Pit days at SatGuys, all you did was jump all over Repubs when they wanted to escalate and get the job done. Now that your boy is in office you feel compelled to swing the big stick. Hilarious. :free-happy-smileys-

You are mistaken. back in the pit at 'lie'guys Everyone here can vouch for me I have allways been gung-ho for the war in Afghanastain. I have always said we need more troops and we shouldn of never given it away to NATO. I have also said we should ove into pakistan if need be. I was accused several times of wanting to "start a war with pakistan"

Iraq war on the other hand is a different story.

Thanks.

[fallout2600]

You are mistaken. back in the pit at 'lie'guys Everyone here can vouch for me I have allways been gung-ho for the war in Afghanastain. I have always said we need more troops and we shouldn of never given it away to NATO. I have also said we should ove into pakistan if need be. I was accused several times of wanting to "start a war with pakistan"

Iraq war on the other hand is a different story.

Thanks.

I was talking about the surge in Iraq.

[stevenl]

I was talking about the surge in Iraq.

I was talking about Afghanastain and Pakistan..

Of course I was against the war in Iraq. I was against the tatics to. We went into Iraq half ass. We should of sent 500k troops and ended the war quickly. Instead we sent a little over 100k to take over and secure a country of that size. I was against the war from the start, but If we HAD to do the war, I wanted it done right. Dropping That idiot Rumsfeld saved this war. Gates has been great thus far. Had he been in charge from jump street the war probably would be over by now. I dont like us doing war half ass. ITS WAR. If your going to do it. and it should be the LAST RESORT then go big or go home.

[fallout2600]

I can agree with that, no doubt.

BTW: You may just get the Pak war you wanted.

[vurbano]

I was talking about Afghanastain and Pakistan..

Of course I was against the war in Iraq. I was against the tatics to. We went into Iraq half ass. Wrong, We had the proper amount of troops and correct tactics going into Iraq and over ran the country quickly. You must be "trying" to address the amount of troops required to maintain our victory in Iraq. Obviously we did not have them. But that was a result of other countries such as Iran supporting terrorists to come into Iraq and fight with us. It was a second war altogether, against Al Queada and insurgents that no one wants to admit that it was.

[fallout2600]

Taliban pulls back after threat from Pak govt:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090424/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan

[fallout2600]

Interesting illustration of the Taliban's control:

[stevenl]

Wrong, We had the proper amount of troops and correct tactics going into Iraq and over ran the country quickly. You must be "trying" to address the amount of troops required to maintain our victory in Iraq. Obviously we did not have them. But that was a result of other countries such as Iran supporting terrorists to come into Iraq and fight with us. It was a second war altogether, against Al Queada and insurgents that no one wants to admit that it was.

Exactly like I said the planning sucked. We knew there was going to be an insurgency back in 1991.... Which was a big reason we didnt invade then. The fact was Rumsfeld and Bush ran this war poorly and planned it poorly. Until Rumsfeld left it was still going bad.

[fallout2600]

It is no secret that the military wanted 500,000 troops on the ground to get the job done the way Bush wanted it pulled off. Rumsfeld refused to supply that type of force on the ground. This is why we need to let the military do there job and REMOVE the politician from the mix when it comes to the actual war itself. The administration should define the rules of engagement, then get out of the way.

It is also a known fact that the Marines and their commanders did NOT want to take Fallujah after the private contractors got killed. They were forced to take the city by either Rumsfeld or Bremer. Once we invaded Fallujah, the country went NUTS!!!

[HD MM]

It is no secret that the military wanted 500,000 troops on the ground to get the job done the way Bush wanted it pulled off. Rumsfeld refused to supply that type of force on the ground. This is why we need to let the military do there job and REMOVE the politician from the mix when it comes to the actual war itself. The administration should define the rules of engagement, then get out of the way.

I wholeheartedly agree. :thumbup:

[vurbano]

Exactly like I said the planning sucked. We knew there was going to be an insurgency back in 1991.... Which was a big reason we didnt invade then. The fact was Rumsfeld and Bush ran this war poorly and planned it poorly. Until Rumsfeld left it was still going bad.exactly not what you said Oh king of the ever changing arguement. The initial force required to take Saddam's army out was fine. It was the occupying force that was insufficient to maintain the territory.

[vurbano]

AS I thought, we may have no choice but to go into Pakistan http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090424/wl_time/08599189368500

[stevenl]

exactly not what you said Oh king of the ever changing arguement. The initial force required to take Saddam's army out was fine. It was the occupying force that was insufficient to maintain the territory.

Someone cant read here is my quote


We should of sent 500k troops and ended the war quickly. Instead we sent a little over 100k to take over and secure a country of that size. I was against the war from the start, but If we HAD to do the war, I wanted it done right. Dropping That idiot Rumsfeld saved this war. Gates has been great thus far. Had he been in charge from jump street the war probably would be over by now. I dont like us doing war half ass. ITS WAR. If your going to do it. and it should be the LAST RESORT then go big or go home.

Meaning we sent in way to few troops to achieve all the goals. Which was A kick saddams ass and B secure the country.
Thanks.

[vurbano]

Someone cant read here is my quote



Meaning we sent in way to few troops to achieve all the goals. Which was A kick saddams ass and B secure the country.
Thanks.
Initially the correct amount of troops were sent in to defeat the country that was the goal at that time. We did not respond in a timely manner with an adequate number of troops as insurgency backed by Al Queada grew. Your Goal B and how it was common knowledge that we wouldnt have enough troops forces required is arm chair quaterbacking. I think Bush would have sent a million men if he had been advised too. Rumsfeld had other plans and other reasons I am not privy too. Perhaps your comrades in the democratic congress were on his back.

[stevenl]

No one thought it would happen? Where were you during all this..

[fallout2600]

stevenl, Its called the Fog of War...no plan ever goes as planned. You can be the Monday morning quarterback all you want, doesn't mean you changed what happened.

[stevenl]

Its not monday morning QB.. I was saying these things and so were many others before we went. Hell DICK CHENEY said the same thing after the first gulf war as to why they didnt invade then. Saying something along the lines of "We did not want to get bogged down in an insurgancy" and im paraphrasing but that is what he was saying. So the VP Knew in 1991 they would have to deal with an insurgency why didnt he know in 2003?

There was no doubt we would walk all over Saddams Army. We could of sent even less troops to do that. The problem was we did not plan for the long term, and that my friend is a lesson we have learned throughout history is the most important thing to do. Look what we did to Germany after WW1... We learned from the mistakes and didnt repeat them with Japan or Germany after WW2..

[fallout2600]

Its not monday morning QB.. I was saying these things and so were many others before we went. Hell DICK CHENEY said the same thing after the first gulf war as to why they didnt invade then. Saying something along the lines of "We did not want to get bogged down in an insurgancy" and im paraphrasing but that is what he was saying. So the VP Knew in 1991 they would have to deal with an insurgency why didnt he know in 2003?

There was no doubt we would walk all over Saddams Army. We could of sent even less troops to do that. The problem was we did not plan for the long term, and that my friend is a lesson we have learned throughout history is the most important thing to do. Look what we did to Germany after WW1... We learned from the mistakes and didnt repeat them with Japan or Germany after WW2..

Then why are you so bent on invading Pakistan and escalating Afg? It will only create an insurgency and bog us down even more b/c we will NEVER use our full military might there either.

[stevenl]

Because the insurgency is already there. We need to escalate it to destroy them!
The point is not that Iraq had an insurgency its that we were not prepared for it and our leaders were a bunch of morons for not doing so.

[fallout2600]

Because the insurgency is already there.

where? afg or pak?

[stevenl]

Both

[fallout2600]

So, by your logic, we should have learned a lesson about engaging/creating insurgencies and should avoid them, but this time we should engage once again. That makes no sense.

Quite honestly, I don't think our soldiers could take another 6-20 year engagement after Iraq without a draft.

[vurbano]

Its not monday morning QB.. I was saying these things and so were many others before we went. Hell DICK CHENEY said the same thing after the first gulf war as to why they didnt invade then. Saying something along the lines of "We did not want to get bogged down in an insurgancy" and im paraphrasing but that is what he was saying. So the VP Knew in 1991 they would have to deal with an insurgency why didnt he know in 2003?

There was no doubt we would walk all over Saddams Army. We could of sent even less troops to do that. The problem was we did not plan for the long term, and that my friend is a lesson we have learned throughout history is the most important thing to do. Look what we did to Germany after WW1... We learned from the mistakes and didnt repeat them with Japan or Germany after WW2..
Get over it. We sent the surge later than we should have. And yes you are Monday morning quarterbacking something you, I nor anyone else except those thre on the scene really know nothing about. Mistakes happen in war, infact its believed that a mustake we made was the reason the Normandy invasion worked. Nothing goes as planned in war. :augentreher:

[stevenl]

So, by your logic, we should have learned a lesson about engaging/creating insurgencies and should avoid them, but this time we should engage once again. That makes no sense.

Quite honestly, I don't think our soldiers could take another 6-20 year engagement after Iraq without a draft.

We should avoid the insurgency by sending enough troops in from he start to stop it. And to have enough troops their to crush it when it starts.. I have no idea how you came to the conclusion you did. What you are saying makes no sense to what I said..

I said do it right from the start. Then you want have this problem. We messed up from the start because of poor leaders.. Those poor leaders would of looked a lot worse if we didnt have the best military in the world who was able to withstand their idiot leaders mistakes..

[stevenl]

Get over it. We sent the surge later than we should have. And yes you are Monday morning quarterbacking something you, I nor anyone else except those thre on the scene really know nothing about. Mistakes happen in war, infact its believed that a mustake we made was the reason the Normandy invasion worked. Nothing goes as planned in war. :augentreher:

At least your admitting it finnally. And yes the surge was WAY to late.. and frankly I think a few troops to little.

[vurbano]

Then why are you so bent on invading Pakistan and escalating Afg? It will only create an insurgency and bog us down even more b/c we will NEVER use our full military might there either.

He's a war monger.

[fallout2600]

Those poor leaders would of looked a lot worse if we didnt have the best military in the world who was able to withstand their idiot leaders mistakes..

This we can agree on, our soldiers are the best of the best and have proven they can adapt to any environment.