AliEnvy
Refugee
McChrystal needs to go.
The honourable thing to do would be to resign.
Hopefully Obama has the cohones to fire his ass.
iraq is vastly worse off today than it was in march 2003. how anyone can possibly argue otherwise is beyond me.
Read the article again.
No one said they were Israeli citizens.
Israel has not annexed the West Bank and Gaza?
Let us know when you find a place called the real world.
Sting, Powell was against the invasion, he said so many times in private conversations, resigned in 2005 and then publicly endorsed Obama, an Iraq war opponent.
He opposed the war: Powell tried to talk Bush out of war - Times Online
He opposed the surge:
Powell: We Are Losing In Iraq - Face The Nation - CBS News
And Bush had nowhere near enough focus and priority on Afghanistan during his Presidency:
War in Afghanistan: US Redirection of Forces to Iraq
The resolution said Iraq had WMD, and we would forcibly remove said WMD should he fail to let the inspectors verify everything.
So anyone who voted for the resolution shouldn't even apologize, it was Bush who lied about the weapons and pulled out the inspectors that he promised to let do their work.
Eithe way, Biden admits a small mistake in trusting Bush, Bush can't bring himself to admit a COLOSSAL MISTAKE
Don't come back with your Clinton video, that was 1998, before inspectors gave Iraq a clean bill of health in 1999. Clinton wanted to make sure they were verifiably done with the WMD program, and he did. Things changed, the situation was not the same in 1998 as it was in 2003. 1999-2003, Saddam had no weapons and guess what, Sting? The FACTS have proven this to be the case.
Saddam never had a nuclear weapon, and had chemical and biological weapons that were comprehensively destroyed starting in 1991. He never posed an imminent threat, or any kind of threat, to the United States. Also a fact.
chemical and biological weapons that were comprehensively destroyed starting in 1991
or any kind of threat, to the United States. Also a fact.
if someone decides to reply they'll be writing a novel that i won't bother to read.
McChrystal needs to go.
The honourable thing to do would be to resign.
Hopefully Obama has the cohones to fire his ass.
We did not have that little thing called 9/11 when Clinton was in office. Even the airstrikes and drones and other actions aimed at AQ were ridiculed by the GOP when Clinton employed them.
There would have been no public or political support for an invasion before 9.11.
!
He tripled counterterrorism funding over the objection of the GOP congress, stopped many plots in their tracks(millenium, bojinka) and put 2 loaded naval aircraft carriers in the Indian Ocean aimed at Afghanistan. He then called up the Taliban and told them who would be held responsible for an attack. Then Bush recalled said carriers.
Clinton told the Bush team AQ was threat #1, Condi had never heard of them and Wolfowitz laughed in his face.
DO YOU SERIOUSLY THINK ANYONE IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WOULD HAVE INVADED AFGHANISTAN BEFORE 9/11?
He ignored numerous warnings specific to 9/11 and ignored AQ in general for 8 months.
if someone decides to reply they'll be writing a novel that i won't bother to read.
:chuckle: Ah, so you DO know.
I happened to glance at a TV in the bar of a restuarant I just had lunch at, and I thought the it said that Petraeus would be replacing McChrystal.
During same lunch I read Joe Klein's analysis in Time magazine of the situation in Afghanistan and to be honest it sounds pretty damn near impossible to resolve. I think the most we should be seeking to accomplish there is to make sure that Al-Quaeda won't be able to comfortably organize and train there. I think we're going to have to let the nation-building go, as sad as that is for Afghanistan.
Joe Klein, LOL, certainly not an unbiased source.
The only way to make sure that Al Quada cannot ever again organize and train in Afghanistan the way they did prior to 2001 is to develop an Afghan government and security forces to a level where they can protect the country and help prevent such a situation without the need of help from large numbers of foreign ground troops.
Abandoning Afghanistan and relying on air-power and other forms of counterterrorism is a return to the policies of the 1990s that got the world into this situation in the first place.
McChrystal needs to go.
The honourable thing to do would be to resign.
Hopefully Obama has the cohones to fire his ass.
No, no, no. You must never say that! Don't you know what will happen? And if "someone" decides to argue otherwise with you--trust me, just let it go! Quickest way to derail a thread I'm telling you!
I think we're going to have to let the nation-building go, as sad as that is for Afghanistan.
Well, no one is ever completely unbiased are they? But I've found him to be more or less pretty evenhanded most of the time.
How do you address the blatant corruption of the Karzai's government? This is as much as anything is making it nearly impossible to "develop an Afghan government and security to forces to a level where they can protect the country etc."
of course, we could expect that "someone" to actually be mature and do the same we ask of of others -- you know, use the Ignore feature, maybe not derail the thread -- but that would be expecting too much apparently.
really? what kind of non-utopian fabulist world do you live in where the US doesn't have endless amounts of blood-and-treasure to spend fixing all the bad places in the world?
)
Joe Klein is one of the most biased journalist out there.
You don't address corruption in the Karzai government by pulling out coalition troops from Afghanistan.
McChrystal needs to go.
The honourable thing to do would be to resign.
Hopefully Obama has the cohones to fire his ass.
What's the fuss, Afghans ask about McChrystal controversy
Kabul, Afghanistan (CNN) -- Washington may be up in arms over General Stanley McChrystal's comments to Rolling Stone magazine about the U.S. mission in Afghanistan and how some of his colleagues are handling it -- but some in Afghanistan are asking what the fuss is all about.
McChrystal arrived in Afghanistan last summer as the top NATO commander -- but if Washington is mad at the general, his friends in Afghanistan seem to be unaffected.
Many among the local population in Kabul say that McChrystal revamped the forgotten war, putting it on a different path and instilling a counter-insurgency strategy (COIN) in an attempt to regain the trust of the Afghan people.
He instilled a new hope, they argue, for those Afghans who actually backed the war effort, also angering the Taliban -- which ramped up their PR -- in the battle for hearts and minds.
President Hamid Karzai has vocally expressed his support for General McChrystal and called him the "best" commander for the war in Afghanistan, according to his spokesman Waheed Omar.
He added that McChrystal is a man of great integrity who understands the Afghan people and their culture and that Karzai hopes president Barack Obama will not replace the commanding general with someone else.
McChrystal and Karzai have built a strong relationship in the year he has been in Afghanistan, flying to districts and provinces in order to gain the support of villagers while showing a united front.
He hasn't just been sitting around NATO headquarters barking orders say local officials - he's been going out in the field, meeting with soldiers and most importantly meeting with Afghans. General Mohammad Zahir Azimi, the spokesman for the Afghan defense ministry, explained that McChrystal's knowledge of Afghanistan stems from his discussions with Afghans.
He stated that McChrystal is a frequent attendee at village council meetings -- known as "shuras" -- throughout the country, where he listens to their problems, concerns and needs.
But McChrystal's tactical directive that restricts NATO forces on the ground from attacking enemy forces without having proof that they are militants has angered many soldiers.
Many feel that their own lives are put in greater danger because of it. While for Afghans, it means less of a chance of civilian casualties - a sore issue that has caused friction in the Afghan - NATO relationship.
"For Afghans it was very important that after a civilian was killed he would apologize on behalf of his people and his military," said Abdul Ghani, a 65-year-old businessman who was a former government official during the Taliban regime from 1996 through 2001.
"This showed that he was supporting the locals and he was trying to avoid a long-term fight and avoid civilians being killed." Speaking through his salt and pepper beard, Ghani credits NATO's involvement, and particularly McChrystal, for bringing security and allowing him to run his business and make a living.
"He made a mistake and he used poor judgment in criticizing US officials," Ghani said "but it is normal and everyone makes mistakes."
But Ghani's optimism about McChrystal stems mostly from his pessimism at past international leaders. He believes McChrystal has been the best one so far.
"We are satisfied with Mr. McChrystal and we hope he will not repeat the bitter experiences of the past," Ghani said.
The Ministry of Defense, which is being pushed by the U.S. and NATO to add more troops to their arsenal, is also standing behind McChrystal.
"Since the arrival of General McChrystal to Afghanistan many of our problems have been solved," ministry spokesman Azimi told CNN, "including problems with civilian casualties, unlawful detentions. He has also improved the coordination between Afghan and international forces on and off the battlefield."
By focusing on building infrastructure and civilian issues, Azimi adds, McChrystal has been able to win back some Afghan support.
But with the firestorm in the United States, the Afghan voices are being muffled again.
I'm not necessarily suggesting we should pull out coalition troops, my previous statement notwithstanding. And neither was. .(let me check). . yup, neither was The Most Biased Journalist in America.
In other words, my musings on whether we can nation build is NOT a cloak for what you seem to perceive as my "true liberal" desire to just leave Aghanistan as soon as posible.
What's the fuss, Afghans ask about McChrystal controversy - CNN.com
In a society like Afghanistan, personal relationships are important and difficult to build. The sudden replacement of McChrystal and his staff will indeed cause some disruption and confusion at a very important time in the conflict.
Well, then please clearly state your plan for Afganistan that apparently does not involve any sort of nation building(if thats correct) and explain why it would work? How many US troops on the ground would it involve? What would be their objectives? What is Joe Klein's plan by the way?
really
are you suggesting that he should not have resigned or that you think he is a jackass for his behavior?
don't you think Petreaus, is a great pick, and capable of the task?
Obama didn't fire him, he more took himself out.
I don't think someone who has played a vital role in protecting the lives of United States citizens should be dismissed from his job because a liberal magazine was able to qoute him saying a couple of words that were disrespectful to the VP.
.
Torrents of uninteresting mail inundate members of Congress, but occasionally there are riveting communications, such as a recent e-mail from a noncommissioned officer (NCO) serving in Afghanistan. He explains why the rules of engagement for U.S. troops are "too prohibitive for coalition forces to achieve sustained tactical successes."
Receiving mortar fire during an overnight mission, his unit called for a 155mm howitzer illumination round to be fired to reveal the enemy's location. The request was rejected "on the grounds that it may cause collateral damage." The NCO says that the only thing that comes down from an illumination round is a canister, and the likelihood of it hitting someone or something was akin to that of being struck by lightning.
Returning from a mission, his unit took casualties from an improvised explosive device that the unit knew had been placed no more than an hour earlier. "There were villagers laughing at the U.S. casualties" and "two suspicious individuals were seen fleeing the scene and entering a home." U.S. forces "are no longer allowed to search homes without Afghan National Security Forces personnel present." But when his unit asked Afghan police to search the house, the police refused on the grounds that the people in the house "are good people."
On another mission, some Afghan adults ran off with their children immediately before the NCO's unit came under heavy small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), and the unit asked for artillery fire on the enemy position. The response was a question: Where is the nearest civilian structure? "Judging distances," the NCO writes dryly, "can be difficult when bullets and RPGs are flying over your head." When the artillery support was denied because of fear of collateral damage, the unit asked for a "smoke mission" -- like an illumination round; only the canister falls to earth -- "to conceal our movement as we planned to flank and destroy the enemy." This request was granted -- but because of fear of collateral damage, the round was deliberately fired one kilometer off the requested site, making "the smoke mission useless and leaving us to fend for ourselves."
There is far more at stake here than simply the appearance of disrespect or insubordination. Truman fired McAuthor because he specifically and openly challenged the Presidents policy. Mycrystal did not do that. Mycrystal supports and is implementing the Presidents policy and a mistake of a couple of words should not remove him from a job where his leadership and experience are very important.
don't you think Petreaus, is a great pick, and capable of the task?
In the hearing last week, Petraeus told Congress he would recommend delaying Obama's prescribed pullout of U.S. forces from Afghanistan beginning in July 2011. He said security and political conditions in Afghanistan must be ready to handle a U.S. drawdown.