As you try to explain to those of us strongly against these wars why we need to fight them .....

[Stinky The Clown]

..... don't insult us by saying that if we leave, the taliban and al aqueda will take over Afghanistan and Pakistan and plot against us.

See, here's the thing. They are not the governments of those countries. And if we even go to the ridiculous and make those places the 51st and 52nd states (NO ... I am NOT advocating that), Taliquada will just move someplace else. How do these wars help that?

The key is stop wagging our dick at the world by starting and fighting endless wars.

[KG]

1. fuck the pro-war jerk-offs.

[AllentownJake]

2. Yesterday someone on here said that

The soldiers were protecting our rights to slam the war on the internet. I didn't know Al Quaeda was planning an attack on the internet.

[TornadoTN]

3. I actually heard a Freeper woman in my area say that very thing

At a town-hall meeting about health care, of all places.

She looked at our right-wing crazy Congressman and started talked about terrorism and blasting everyone opposed to the wars. She said that "the terrorist are plotting to take over our country and take over our internet!". She was serious.

[AllentownJake]

5. Meanwhile

Net Neutrality is being opposed by the same right wing politicians who want to all corporations to take over the internet.

[baldguy]

4. Terrorism is a law enforcement issue, not a military one.

[rurallib]

6. IF we were to sit at a table to negotiate a peace

who would be sitting on the other side? I ask that to war supporters I know. I get all sorts of different answers. Simply said we don't know who we are fighting and why we are fighting AND dying.
When I kept hearing Obama last year saying that Afghanistan was a war we must fight, I wanted to just scream.

[NoSheep]

7. I am not hawkish on Afghanistan, however...the fact that there is no strong government in that

country is exactly the problem there. Things are very fractured as far as the people's allegiance to any body that attempts to gain control. Even in Pakistan, the recognized legitimate authorities basically threw Swat Valley under a the Taliban bus although they have since tried to reverse this. I guess I just don't understand your point when you say "Taliquada...are not the governments of those countries." Fact is in large part, especially in Afghanistan, they are. They are systematically gaining control over certain areas by offering protection, jobs and services to the people. This is why we keep giving gazillions to Pakistan. This is why the CIA has Karzai's brother on the payroll. I am no expert but this is the way I understand it based on listening to the news, including interviews with people who have lived and worked there since the war started. Recently there was a reporter on Fresh Air, I believe, who explained the lack of a strong centralized government as being THE biggest problem in the region. That is why Taliquada continues to haunt it.

While I don't think they are responsible for certain terrorist attacks in our country (sorry, I'm MIHOP)...I think it is possible they might want to be. The hypocritical foreign policies that got us into this mess are done deals now. How are we to deal with the hatred this has caused against us?

You are right in that Taliquada might TRY to move elsewhere were we to manage to defeat them in the Afgani-Pakistani area but their existence depends upon exactly the type place they are in. I'm not sure they COULD exist anywhere else.

Please understand, I do not feel I have the answer, I just think the facts are the opposite of what your OP seems to suggest.

[TwilightGardener]

8. How is that an insult? Just because you don't agree that it will happen,

doesn't mean others can't have an opposing view or are just "wagging dicks" and enjoying war for war's sake. While I support a gradual withdrawal from Afghanistan, I don't think the threat of terror and destabilization from that region is being necessarily overstated. This isn't Iraq, where it was clear that we weren't "fighting them over there so they don't fight us over here" blah blah blah. That was absurd. But unless you believe LIHOP/MIHOP, you would have to concede that some AQ sheltered in Afghanistan DID "fight us over here", and have made more attempts to do so recently (witness the recent FBI breakup of domestic terror plots). Pakistan is now fighting the Taliban and terror elements in the border regions--they're not just shadow boxing to play along with the charade.

[Stinky The Clown]

14. Your points were valid five .... six ..... seven .... eight years ago.

Is a massive army occupation the answer? Or is better **intelligence** the answer? As someone said upthread, non-state terrorism is a police matter. Infiltration/intelligence is exactly why I do not favor "shutting down the CIA". I favor using them to do what they were supposed to be doing ..... gathering intelligence.

[TwilightGardener]

16. Unfortunately, it would be difficult to improve our intelligence-gathering

without at least some of our personnel present--and remember, the UN now frowns upon drone warfare, so what could we do about any terrorists we identify thru intel if we don't have at least some boots and equipment on the ground to conduct raids? I don't think we need a massive occupation at this point. The prime moment for doing a massive buildup (and permanently hobbling the Taliban and rooting out AQ) has come and gone at least 6 or 7 years ago. The more troops we've put in recently, the more get killed, without significant gains. I don't believe in nation building, or promoting democracy-n-freedom, or even eliminating the Taliban. But that doesn't mean Obama can snap his fingers and order everyone out. You can call terrorism a crime all you want, but for all practical purposes, the only functional "police force" to fight that crime right now is military.

Our leaving has to be done in a smart way, that exposes the country to as little risk from an extremist power grab and destabilization as possible--and there IS a chance that terror camps could again spring up there, despite your assertions that that is all in the past, because the government there is weak and has yet to prove truly legitimate and capable of any sort of defense, services, functioning economy, etc. It's still very disparate and tribal--that's why AQ was able to be hosted in that country to begin with. Pakistan doesn't want AQ and its Taliban enablers--so where will they go when we're suddenly gone? Will the government and police forces be able to prevent terror groups from taking up shop again, or prevent the Taliban from overthrowing the "democratic" government and steering the country towards ever-nuttier extremism? Nothing there is black and white, nothing is simple, as much as the Troops-Out-NOW group insists it is. Even Code Pink is conflicted. National and global security concerns do not suddenly evaporate because we have a new President who, by virtue of being a Democrat, should automatically do what liberals want, and they don't go away simply because we're tired of thinking about it, tired of hearing about it, tired of worrying about it. You, Stinky, can declare the war's purpose now pointless and so totally 2004, but unless you are privy to some intel that our leaders don't have, that's still just your estimation and nothing more, no better than mine. The insulting assumptions and accusations made on DU toward those of us who don't view Afghanistan in such simple terms is becoming very tiresome.

[Iggo]

9. I'm with Stinky on this one. K&R.

:thumbsup:

[BrklynLiberal]

10. Me too.

I am hoping that seeing the dead soldiers arrive at Dover will convince President Obama that we cannot afford to lose any more of our troops over there, and we should leave, as soon as possible.

[Deep13]

11. If dick-wagging is outlawed, only outlaws will wag dicks.

On a serious note, I appreciate the point you are making.

[ThomCat]

12. There wasn't even an al queda until the CIA manufactured it

in order to justify all the security shit after 9/11. We are now seeing reports in the UK that Bin Laden only had a couple of men, and had to rent soldiers whenever he made a video so that it would look like he had soldiers following him. They even brought their own weapons because he had none to provide.

So the CIA manufactured this idea that he had a huge terrorist organization, knowing he didn't, and fabricated the idea that they had cells infiltrating everywhere, knowing they didn't.

IF al queda really exists today as any kind of threat it is because the CIA created them, branded them, marketed them, and gave Bin Laden time to recruit them.

We waved our dick, as you say, and this is the result. An imaginary enemy that was a useful boogieman for pushing through neocon domestic changes became real.

[BrklynLiberal]

13. Glenn Greenwald appears to be of the same mind....as was the Russian soldier who wrote this article

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6881013&mesg_id=6881013

[SIMPLYB1980]

15. That should go both ways.

But it doesn't so I think everyone should say whatever they want to.