Afghanistan: Viet Nam, redux?
 

[URL="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6860616.ece"]Worst losses for a year as Taleban storm Nato outpost[/URL]

Ineffective leadership + determined enemy = needless deaths?

[URL="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6259582/White-House-angry-at-General-Stanley-McChrystal-speech-on-Afghanistan.html#"]White House angry at General Stanley McChrystal speech on Afghanistan [/URL]

Now, the general should have used his chain of command, but seeing that President Barry has only spoke to McChrystal once since coming to office, I can understand his frustration.

Sounds about right..
It was high level buffoonery that lost Vietnam for us.
My guess is; it will be the same if we loose Afghanistan.

i thought US military was suppose to be all that :/

it is, unless hands are tied, which its starting to sound like what is happening.

War can't be effectively fought with compassion.

Take the gloves off and we could have 'won' 5x over already.

[QUOTE=Spoolin415;2733740]War can't be effectively fought with compassion.

Take the gloves off and we could have 'won' 5x over already.[/QUOTE]

True story. :nod:

We've been doing some sort of politically correct war with horrible results. It's very sad.

Here's a look at what's really going on every day out there.

[url]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=10d_1254876553[/url]

[QUOTE=Spoolin415;2733740]War can't be effectively fought with compassion.

Take the gloves off and we could have 'won' 5x over already.[/QUOTE]

depends on your definition of victory. a safe, stable, reasonably democratic government in Afghanistan cannot be created with through combat alone.

[QUOTE=irrational x;2734282]depends on your definition of victory. a safe, stable, reasonably democratic government in Afghanistan cannot be created with through combat alone.[/QUOTE]

What exactly is America's criteria for victory this time? I would like to know this.

No point in carrying on a mission if there are no set goals in place.

History repeats itself... this has been tried in a good handful of times in the past, the most recent in Vietnam. Either we slam the hammer down, or we don't go in at all. We never slammed the hammer down, so I don't think easing more troops in there is going to change the war.

It's either a slam dunk or we don't go in, that's the bottom line. When someone said we go in, WE GO IN with everything. Make sure the other side and the world knows we don't **** around.

This loofing **** and then "ooo we need more troops" with Obama worried about his politics rather than being a commander n' chief (IMO this should be separated as jobs) pretty much is killing our troops for nothing.

Go in and set an example, don't go in, 40 years later, and fail at the same ****ing thing. Trying to instill democracy.

[ATTACH]140441[/ATTACH]

[QUOTE=Superglue WRX;2734537]What exactly is America's criteria for victory this time? [/QUOTE]

This.

What constitutes a victory? Killing Bin laden? Dismantling the Taliban? Establishing a self sufficient Democracy?

I don't think democracy will ever reign in that corner of the world, at least not anytime soon. We're dealing with religious fanatics who only know god and war. Reason and change is not in their vocabulary, good luck winning hearts and minds.

We either need to eschew the PC 'war' we have been fighting, or get the hell out and stop bleeding our economy dry on an un-winnable war.

[QUOTE=Spoolin415;2734889][U]I don't think democracy will ever reign in that corner of the world[/U], at least not anytime soon. [U]We're dealing with [B]religious fanatics who only know god and war.[/B][/U] [U]Reason and change is not in their vocabulary[/U], good luck winning hearts and minds.[/QUOTE]

Um, are we talking about the 8 years in the US... or Afghanistan?

teeheeehee

[QUOTE=irrational x;2735028]Um, are we talking about the 8 years in the US... or Afghanistan?[/QUOTE]

That line is becoming slightly blurred, isn't it.