This is No Way to Win a War

Yet another example of the colossal failure that is the so-called "War on Terror" (TM), the Taliban (those folks who are actually responsible for 9/11) has re-siezed control of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

A power vacuum opened the door for militant Muslim clerics, dubbed Pakistani Taliban by the media.

Musharraf says they have no single leader, although they may have ties with the Afghan Taliban chief, Mullah Mohammad Omar.

But Haji Mohammad Omar, a burly, heavily bearded 45-year-old is one of the new forces in South Waziristan.

Residents say his men roam around Wana with rocket launchers mounted on the back of their pick-up trucks.

"We have brought peace in Waziristan. We have eliminated excesses, oppression, robberies and drugs from Waziristan," he told Reuters by telephone from Wana.

The militants have opened offices and set up checkposts in Wana's main market, collecting fees from vehicles entering.

They have even set up a court to conduct summary trials.

Most times the mullahs increase the fine for murders, and executions are rare, although a man convicted of killing his son was shot dead in front of a crowd of 150 tribesmen in late March.

A veteran of the mujahideen guerrilla war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, Omar later fought with the Taliban and met al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden.

Now, after being granted an amnesty and being paid to stop making trouble in 2004, Omar openly admits recruiting fighters to send them across the border to fight U.S. and Afghan forces.

He accuses Musharraf of "allying with infidels."

Worse still, the vast majority of the deeply conservative and largely illiterate people support this self-styled Taliban of Waziristan, according to intelligence and government officials.

Waziristan's Taliban advise men to grow beards and veil their women, cameras are banned, and the militant mullahs are trying to stop people watching television or listening to music.

What's the point of having a pet dictator when he can't even secure his own country's borders? Apart from proving to the world that we're complete hypocrites who can't find good help?

Advertisements

6 Responses to This is No Way to Win a War

  1. Brent says:

    The Taliban wasn’t responsible for 9/11. Al-Qaida is, but I thank you for your blatant display of idiocy.

    Thanks for siding with the enemy.

  2. trueblueblog says:

    Forgive me Brent. I forgot that giving aid, shelter, and training camps to Al-Qaida and then harboring its leader after 9-11 absolved them of guilt. Thank you for your stunning display of legal hair-splitting.

    Given the obvious bredth and depth of your genius, I’d appreciate it if you’d come back and do a posting explaining what the definition of “is” is.

    Seriously.

    As for siding with the enemy. Would that be the Taliban I’m calling for a crack-down on, or the nuclear proliferation profiteer we’re backing in Pakistan despite his inability to secure his own borders?

  3. Brent says:

    I forgot that giving aid, shelter, and training camps to Al-Qaida and then harboring its leader after 9-11 absolved them of guilt.

    Everybody knows that the Taliban has hiding bin Laden and others. My point was that the Taliban was not responsible for 9/11. Al-Qaeda is. We have removed the Taliban from most of Afghanistan. The only parts where it really remains is in parts that few even access, therefore they [the Taliban] really don’t have much of a reach against anyone do they? We have weakened them to a point of weakness, that they aren’t as much of a threat as you would suggest.

    As far as my comment about siding with the enemy, it has to do with the foolishness of your statement that we’re actually losing the War on Terror. Could it be perhaps that you want us to lose the war, because it will then justify your absolute hatred and rage against a president who refuses to take no for an answer? In other words, you could be siding with America’s determination to fight evil and destroy it –by supporting our doing so. Instead you scrutinize and ridicule the effort, thus giving aid to the enemy -which is in fact, treason, according to Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution of the United States of America.

    I am a very educated and open minded person, willing to discuss and debate issues. Debate is what makes our country great. Dissent is perfectly alright, within the bounds of ‘what is best for America‘. However, this does not include giving aid to the enemy (treason), which I do not ever tolerate. This, I am firm in.

    Publicly stating that the enemy is winning the war, even if they were, which is absolutely ridiculous because they certainly are not, I must ask you, how could this possibly be good for America?

    You have questioned my integrity and intelligence. I have looked at your blog, and have concluded that you are no more intelligent than I. All it really is, is scoffing at a man (who has protected your rear for five years), of which whom you have absolute hatred for. Why? Is it because you are a liberal? Does the phrase ‘divide and conquer‘ mean anything to you? I would be just as Patriotic, if Kerry had won the election (God forbid). In other words, my allegiance does not change, due to politics. This, it appears, is where you and I differ greatly.

    If you were to ask me about traits which make people intelligent, I would not include the type of blind rage that you display.

    Are you an American?

    I have no problem with your being a liberal (other than your liberalism). Seriously though, there is a striking difference between liberalism, and kooksville hatred –and actually spreading propaganda for the enemy.

    These are words to consider from a man who loves his country, despite of who is in charge of it. The way I see it, is that governments are temporary. Americans will always be Americans, until they betray Her. Then they are the enemies of America. Those who do not oppose those who wish harm upon America, also themselves, wish harm upon America.

    Yes, the Taliban was a problem, which has, for the most part, died out. Al-Qaeda is something different. The Taliban was a government (or lack thereof), which harbored terrorists, much like that under other governments, including Saddam Hussein’s. Or at least they knew about them, and yet made no attempts to stop them.

    Pakistan is a different issue, when it comes to nuclear arms. For one thing, they don’t have an intended wish or desire to use them against the West. Their existence is as a deterrent to India, which has nukes pointed at them. They have their own little cold war (MAD), which does not involve us. Since you are a liberal, I can only assume that you understand the word “containment“.

    Your rage and anger is very ugly. Personally, I don’t hate liberals. I really have a lot of fun with them (laughing, mocking, etc)! You too, should learn to have a sense of humor, lest you should die young, due to stress-induced heart problems.

    Lastly, you probably want to ask you pal, Bubba (the first black president) ‘what the definition of “is”, is’.

    Once again, thanks for insulting my intelligence. May I ask, from which institution did you earn your Master’s Degree?

  4. trueblueblog says:

    Brent:

    Let's take this from the top.

    1) Al-Queda and the Taliban are virtually synonomous. To the extent that the latter provided shelter and aid to the former with full knowledge of 9-11, I believe the two can be used interchangeably. After all, Iraq under Saddam and 9-11 are used that way by the current administration despite the fact that there were absolutely no verifiable links between the two.  Moreover, the Taliban is actually in control of large swaths of Afghanistan – arguably the majority of the country. They are a viable threat, despite the desire of the right-wing spin machine to portray the opposite.

    2) We are losing the "War on Terror" to the extent that we don't have the political support of most of the rest of the world, to say nothing of the billion-plus Arabs and/or Muslims who view us as a group of war-mongering, oil-hungry hypocrites. But please don't take my word for it; the Pentagon report says it all. Foolishness is believing otherwise despite the facts.

    3) Not that it matters on my blog, but Who defines "what's best for America", exactly? What is your definition of "giving aid to the enemy?" Given the frequency with which you indulge in editorial privalege on your blog, and your use of name-calling and unsubstantiated allegations on mine, I suspect that these are highly arbitrary standards. I make the rules here; calling the current administration on the hypocrisy of its actions vs. its public line does not treason make. You're free to beat a dead horse here, however, so knock yourself out.

    4) See #2 and #3, above. The enemy is winning the hearts and minds of the Arab/Muslim world because of our actions, not despite them (see links in #2). If we're to win the "War on Terror," then we have to be able support our position and the actions that stem from it. According to the Pentagon we haven't done so; we've done the exact opposite. To the extent that a change in policy will save American lives and convince the Arab/Muslim world of the righteousness of our cause, calling the administration on its failures is not merely good for America, it is the patriotic duty of all Americans.

    5) I never once called into question your intelligence, unlike you who resorted to name-calling in lieu of making a point with your very first post. Frankly, I couldn't care less whether or not you think you're smarter, dumber, or on par with me; my posts are fully referenced and always include supporting information. If you want to call that "blind rage," you're entitled, but I'm not to dignify that sort of cop-out; I don't call people who post on my blog names or alter their posts, unlike you. I encourage anyone reading this thread to compare our two sites  and draw their own conclusions.

    6) I am an American, not that that's particularly relevant.

    7) Again, I don't believe in allowing conservatives to exclusively frame the terms of the debate, much less allowing you to do so on my blog. I am a liberal and the expression of my views constitute the kind of political expression and personal freedom that the current administration would have us believe our soldiers are dying in Iraq for. You can call that "enemy propoganda" if you like; I call it exercising my First Amendment Rights, thank you very much.

    8) Again, what you consider to be someone harming the country is your business, but it doesn't carry a whole lot of weight with me or the majority of the American people who now realize the unprovoked invasion of Iraq was a mistake at best, or treasonous deceit, at worst. If you think everyone who disagrees with your politics wishes harm on America, I recommend you consider some serious therapy and anti-psychotic drugs.

    9) Thank you for conceding my initial point.

    10) Pakistan is not a different issue; they have a proven track record of being willing and able to sell nuclear technology to whomever can pay regardless of their affinity (or lack thereof) for the West. I would also remind you that Pakistan is the birthplace of the Taliban and is currently ruled by a dictator who overthrew an elected government; India (the country they're "deterring") is the world's largest democratic republic with the largest Islamic population on Earth. I invite you and anyone else reading this repsonse to draw their own conclusions viz-a-viz your last sentence which is completely lacking in substance.

    11) See #5, above.

    12) I see that in addition to being someone who really can't make an argument without resorting to name-calling that you're also a racist. Lovely. Your statement speaks for itself.

    13) You're very welcome, and please come back anytime. Unlike you, I don't alter or delete the posts people make here. As for your boasting about your Master's Degree; given your inability to present a coherent, referenced argument, I'm not impressed enough to even ask where yours came from, much less tell you about my post-graduate studies.

  5. Brent says:

    How am I a racist? From where do you draw this conclusion? What have I said that is in any way, shape, or form, racist? What exactly would your definition of racism be?

    I am mortified at your baseless accusation. You would be dead wrong in this. As such, I will dismiss this silliness, since you don’t know me and have no clue what you’re talking about.

    I happen to be a very tolerant and open-minded person. I do also happen to be outspoken, and when I see something that bothers me, I am not afraid to say why. However, your accusation is completely baseless. You claim that my “statement speaks for itself”. What statement would this be?

    As for Pakistan, what is your answer? Should we invade it?

    As for an edit on my blog: this was due to terribly vulgar language. This type of language is not allowed. I am speaking of swearing and such. Everything else was left in tact. None of the words that were actually meaningful to the point were taken out. I reserve every right to do this. How would you feel if I came to your blog to cuss you out? I admit that I censor obscenities, but never content (other than spelling errors, which I am anal about). This is no different than any other respectable publication on the Internet, Television, or in Print.

    Were you the one who cussed on my blog, and forced me to do this? Actually, I’ll have you know, that any vulgarities such as these, are automatically considered spam by Akismet, without my intervention. In fact, it would have remained there, had I not edited out the vulgarities, to allow it to be seen. I felt that I was actually being pretty darned fair to allow this moron who cussed me out, to have his opinion be seen on my blog. I was being very fair, since I am in no way obligated to do this.

    Many people view my blog, including those who I would not want to see this type of vulgar language. It is highly unprofessional, childish, and a downright unintelligent form of civility (or lack thereof). I mean, what do you think I run, the Daily KO(OK)S? Some of the [children] there talk as if they have a bag of manure in their mouths. Perhaps those people don’t care about foul language. Perhaps neither do you. I can’t speak for you. I do care, and in this public arena, I will remain clean. I have also edited spelling errors and markup foul-ups. Sue me. It isn’t my fault if your browser has no spellchecker. I recommend the Google toolbar. This one, I have found to be the best, and trust me, I have tried them all. I use it religiously, although, I will admit, I have forgotten to on occasion. I think I might have even here.

    I’m not resorting to calling you names to prove a point. That describes the point itself. I said that I thought your view is asinine, treasonous, idiotic, and wacky. If this offended you, then as a man, I apologize. However, I still stand by my argument. As I have said, there is a vast difference between dissent and aiding the enemy. Again, the Constitution describes this (Article III, Section 3). Your disagreement with the interpretation of this is meaningless to me, since this document isn’t up to interpretation by you, that is unless you are an appointed or elected judge.

    As far as India, I’m not sure I follow what you’re saying. As I understand it, you are accusing me of somehow having a vendetta against them? Is this correct? Well, I don’t. In fact, I have no true allegiance to any other country than the United States of America. I am a nationalist. This does not mean that I hate any other nation. In fact, I am willing to protect them from tyranny and help them establish their own democracy. However, as far as I’m concerned, America is priority #1.

    The cold war of India vs. Pakistan is one where we don’t have much business meddling in, other than to help establish a dialog of peace. It is improper of us to choose sides, since neither nation is an enemy to us, and both are in fact helping to track down terrorists.

    I agree that proliferation from Pakistan was a problem. I acknowledge that, but it must be addressed that the official government of Pakistan was not the leaker of nuclear information. It was instead, extremists within Pakistan, whom which, the Pakistani government have been prosecuting since the beginning of the War on Terror.

    I do not measure our success on the war, by what other nations, especially non-participants, think. We haven’t been attacked since 9/11 –that is the bottom-line. We took the war to the terrorists themselves.

    I will concede that mistakes have been made. As a lifelong student of history, I know that there have been many mistakes in every war. Prolonged wars have always seen high casualties. This particular war, has a substantially low amount of casualties, in comparison to other American wars. In fact, we have never fought a war for this long, on this scale, and had such a minimal amount of casualties. While every single casualty is terrible, these do not come even close to the scale that we have seen in the past. This is largely due to the efficiency of our modern military and weapons.

    I do argue that we are in fact winning the war. Most importantly, the people of Iraq, and their official new government believe this.

    The Degree comment was rhetorical. I do not judge one’s intelligence by this. I do feel that perhaps you need to take a chill pill, man. You have gotten yourself all worked up over a blog debate, for crying out loud. It’s not that big of a deal. For one thing, it is highly irrelevant in terms of anyone outside of you and I giving a hoot. I promise to at least try to be more polite. I have had many debates with others, whom I would consider to be opposite my perspective, politically. Many have become nasty. Many of those nasty debates, in the long run, have actually turned out friendly. I offer this truce to you to accept. I do not wish you bad, and I certainly hope you do not feel the same toward me.

    As far as what I mean by treason: it has absolutely nothing to do with what I think. It has to do with what the Constitution says about it. I’m speaking in regard to propaganda which aids the enemy. Regardless of whether or not you agree with how and why we went to war, you and I both have a responsibility, As American citizens –which includes obeying the laws of the Constitution, to support the troops. This support includes supporting victory. Anything less is void of support.

    You claim that victory is not possible. I think you are wrong about that. We are the greatest nation that the world has ever known. Al-Qaeda is indeed, a tough enemy, but they lack what America has. Al-Qaeda is a force driven by evil and tyranny. America is driven by good and freedom. The latter has always been proven to win, when given the chance.

    So I say, regardless of your political affiliation, you should be supporting the troops –which includes supporting victory. I mean, for crying out loud, you give me the impression that you actually want America to lose the war! I sincerely hope that this isn’t the case. If so, that would fall into the definition of treason, as written in Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution of The United States of America. I wholeheartedly hope that I am wrong about your desire.

    I hope that in the future we can have discussions on a level that is free from insult. I promise to do my part, and keep it friendly. Debate does not have to be hostile, necessarily. As for my words, which may have offended you, while I apologize, I hope you may keep in mind, that it isn’t really personal, because I don’t know you on that level. All I know is your words on the Internet. So if I say that your perspective is wacko and/or asinine, I do not mean it personally. How could I really? I only mean to say that I feel that your opinion on this particular issue is wrong, and I have provided why I feel this way.

    I also invite you back to my blog, as I love debates. Sorry I made the comments about irrelevance on the Kennedy issue. It was mainly to prove the point of silliness and satire.

    There is really no reason to hate one another. We probably will despise each other’s politics, but as people, it does not need to be this way.

    America has had this type of political division for over two centuries. So nothing is different nowadays. Also, history usually repeats itself.

    Please stand with me, in the name of victory for America. This doesn’t mean that you have to agree with my politics. It only means that you, along with me, put America first for the future of our nation. I believe this to be of dire importance. Also, you don’t even have to support why we went to war, but you should support the fact that we are already there, and there should be no other solution besides victory. We can, and will win this war. Much of it depends on our support for the troops. The troops are fighting the war, not the politicians.

    Wars do involve diplomacy, but only when the enemy is ready to surrender. We are far from that. We will win because we can. It is that simple. This war will not be won overnight. I believe that it will probably be prolonged much like the Cold War, over decades. We have a determined enemy which attacked us. They are brutal and barbaric in nature. They are willing to kill themselves to kill us. They do not differentiate between military and civilian targets. They have made it clear that they intend to hurt the innocent, and the defenseless. They are determined to kill our children, because of their evil hatred. They will attack us again, if we cower in the corner and do nothing about it.

    Regardless of our reasons for removing Saddam, I feel that his evil justifies our removing him. He is a terribly evil man, who deserves to be hung from his toenails by his own people, whom which he routinely tortured, raped, and killed. Now these people are free thanks to us. This also is a message to the rest of the world. Civilized society will not tolerate evil and tyranny. If civilized society is forced to remove these evil entities by force, then so be it.

    What is worse: to forcefully remove evil, or to turn a blind eye?

  6. college consolidation loan private

    Search results for ‘college consolidation loan private’.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: