I agree that an all-out pullout of the troops is a bad idea at this point. We destroyed their country for no apparent reason (yes, I know...Saddam was a bad guy. So then why don't we just go bomb every leader we don't like?). Again, 1 month's numbers to not show me progress, especially when that month contains Islam's most holy time. It's not like I was saying the troops need to be pulled out by November. I was just saying that I'd be willing to bet that the numbers of deaths go back up when Ramadan doesn't come into play. Please stop twisting my words.
With all due respect, ymc, and I'm not trying to pick on you, but have you been reading about the war in Afghanistan, the practically non-existent border between Pakistan and Afghanistan along the Tribal Regions of the former, and the fact that there has been more violence in the latter over the past year than at any time since the invasion? That despite around 100,000 troops in Northwest Pakistan attempting to control the border regions and to stamp out Taliban and AQ influence in that country, it has largely been a failure, and that area has never been under the control of anyone since time out of mind? The main reason we have had a resurgence of Taliban, AQ activity in Afghanistan is the movement of troops, equipment, and intel resources to Iraq and the surrounding area, once George decided he wanted to invade Iraq, come hell, high water, and regardless of what the vast majority of the US military staff said would be needed should that invasion take place, and what would be needed post-invasion and occupation. Pulling out of Afghanistan would be an act of madness on par with Bush's act of madness in invading Iraq without a clue as to what he was getting us into, despite clues being all around him, given to him by top military people that were sacked when they didn't tell him what he wanted to hear. Try reading the host of news sources available on the internet. Don't depend on your news from Fox or CNN. Fox is a joke, and CNN is a shadow of what it once was, a "People Magazine" on cable, Fox being "The National Enquirer." D&D. Impeach Barbara and George H. W. for Having Baby George.
But are you for withdrawing troops then during this period, or taking a wait and see approach? I guess if you bet that it will go up, you would say that we just start taking out troops now anyway right?
I do keep up. The study has several of it's own threads so I don't think we need to rehash it here, but there are a large number of criticisms of the study and to claim the conclusion is 'confirmed' is a huge overstatement. If you know where Osama is then you really should be letting someone know: You can email the CIA here This is a great example of where your 'Hitler' comparison fails miserably. Afghanistan was a near universally supported intervention. The action was taken after much deliberation and well thought out. It is a multinational force. It was an intervention in self defense. How exactly does that equate to Hitler? And we're still waiting on your Sudan and Haiti points.
If the situation is so dire, how come there is no big offensive to weed out the Taliban and Al Qaeda? Why do we expect a force of about 20k can pacify Afghanistan when it has similar population and size as Iraq? What is our intention in Afghanistan if we are only less than half-hearted about our effort? I don't even see a sliver of possible end game in Afghanistan. Can you?
I supported the initial invasion but I oppose to how it goes right now. We are simply not trying hard enough to achieve our stated objectives. Oops. It should be Somalia and Haiti. But what do you want to know about them? You can find some info at wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Enduring_Freedom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Haiti_coup
Where does 'not trying hard enough to achieve our stated objectives' become Bush = Hitler? What does Somalia have to do with Dubya? As for Haiti, everyone but Aristide says he asked for help getting out. There wouldn't be any point to 'kidnapping him,' we could have just left him and let him be taken out of office. BTW: the US also is the country that removed the last junta that resulted in Aristide getting into office, AND part of the multilateral force that reinstituted elections in Haiti post Aristide.
Why do you keep distorting what I said? I only said Bush is the closest thing to Hitler among the current world leaders.
'The closest thing to Hitler' makes a comparison between the two. How is your discription of Afghanistan 'Hitler-like?' How are the actions in Haiti or Somalia (not even sure what actions you're talking about) 'Hitler like?' For that matter, how are the actions in Iraq 'Hitler like?' They aren't.
I never said it is Hitler like. I even said it is nowhere close. Don't you understand "closest" is a comparison term that is relative in nature?
When you compare two things, even if you say "closest" it's bad form to compare things that you don't think are similar. I could compare you to a rock and say you are the closest poster in this forum to a rock. That doesn't mean it makes sense. Unless you think he and Hitler have something in common then it was a weak comparison.
I understand now. Sorry about that. I didn't realize you were making a comparison that was so 'relative' as to be absolutely meaningless. But aside from that - you still haven't explained how not achieving our objectives in Afghanistan make Bush closest (relatively of course) to Hitler. Hitler actually achieved quite a few of his objectives, whereas one could argue that Bush (relatively of course) has achieved few of his (maybe ONLY tax cuts for the rich). That would make them (relatively, of course) NOT close, right? Better that you just retract your silly comparison than to try to make distinctions that make no sense.
How can you compare Bush to Hitler though when you have the Chinese still practicing genocide on Tibetans?
