Awesome videos. I cant believe that Obama didnt learn the lesson that the soviets learned in the 1980's. Half a million soviet troops couldnt do it back then. Why does Obama think he can do it with 30 to 40,000 troops?????????????? I know, I know, some of the pro war people for that campaign will say that they had cia help and training, but do you guys really believe that the russians want a pro american setup right on their borders???? Dont you guys also think that the russians have forgotten and wont also provide intelligence to the different militant groups there?
Anyone else have a problem with moving the problem East to Afghanistan? It took over four years for the public to wake up to Iraq being a mistake, now we're going to step up this fruitless attempt to contain a movement which only grows by persecution? I have a very big issue with this. Obama was elected, especially in the primaries, largely on the strength of his early Iraq opposition. Of course he offered Afghanistan as an alternative, but I thought that was a clever sop to the hawks and one promise I earnestly wish he'd back off on. He had an image problem with seeming soft on terror, but now that the campaign is over, can we please just have peace already? That is what we put our hope in. That is what we wanted to change. Bring the troops home. Don't send any more. We have no business sending soldiers into the Middle East. Let UN peacekeeping forces do this job, and let's stop the gunboat diplomacy. This is a new millennium. Will we always have to fight these bloody wars?
NO foreign power was able to control Afghanistan in history, but many came thinking they will be an exception, just like the 125,000+ Soviet Union soldiers and their 20 years of tries to control Afghanistan, US and its allies will not be able to control Afghanistan, their staying there is like the gambler staying on table in a hope to make up for his previous losses, the more he plays, the more he is going to lose.
The US can win as long as we understand that it will take time. It's better to keep troop levels lower and hunt the Taliban. It will also be necesary to harass them in the tribal areas of Pakistain.
We kept hearing this about Iraq. What does it mean to "win" in Afghanistan? Do you really think that putting troops in a volatile region is going to reduce terrorism? Sure, the Taliban might be defeated. How many other groups will prosper in their vacuum, made up of young people alienated by foreign soldiers in their homeland? This is a losing battle. I don't think "winning" is any better defined than in the Iraq conflict. There's no way to measure it. The whole approach is backwards. We're pulling a foot out of one tar pit and sticking it in the another.
Actualy the situation is very diffrent in afghanistan at the moment. A lot of afghans are pro American and anti taliban otherwise you wouldnt see any US troops walkin in Kabul right now. Troops, Education and investment required for Afghanistan in order to defeat taliban. Also cut the tree ( Pakistan ) instead of keep cutting the branches. Pakistan ISI train, feed and help taliban in every way possible .
Winning is that we fight them over there rather than over here. Pakistan is the root of the problem. We need to stop the taliban but at the same time we need to be careful not to turn Pakistan into a failed state.
Where Taliban train? inside Pakistan! Where Those Madrasas located where most of talibs study? inside Pakistan! Where most of Taliban run after doing their ambush? To pakistan! Who train them? Pakistani generals and loyal ISI agents!
More important than the Taliban is control of the Pakistani nuclear arsenal. http://www.metimes.com/International/2009/02/27/us_retains_hidden_grip_on_pakistans_nukes/9552/