The Shotgun Blog
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Will Barack Obama pull the US out of Afghanistan?
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Will Barack Obama pull the US out of Afghanistan?:
He'll be a disaster!
Posted by: winston | 2008-06-19 10:59:23 AM
There's no way the US will withdraw from Afghanistan anytime soon. Congress wouldn't let him do it until OBL was either confirmed killed or in custory. Iraq, perhaps, but not Afghanistan.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-06-19 11:03:08 AM
Yeah, pulling out is a terrible idea. We should still be in Vietnam fighting for whatever the neo-cons want. We know from this blog that it isn't about freedom, so what was Vietnam about? What is Afghanistan about?
Posted by: alpha | 2008-06-19 11:04:33 AM
I got the impression this guy would pull out of everything-except his wife. Like all Democrats, he's living in a fantasy land instead of facing the real problems of today's world. Maybe his grandmother read him "The Little Engine that Could" too many times.
Posted by: atric | 2008-06-19 11:24:44 AM
>" We should still be in Vietnam fighting for whatever the neo-cons want. We know from this blog that it isn't about freedom, so what was Vietnam about? What is Afghanistan about?"
alpha | 19-Jun-08 11:04:33 AM
So President Lyndon Baines Johnson, who put 75,000 Marines into Vietnam at the request of the South Vietnamese government, was a neo-con.
LBJ said Vietnam was about the Domino Theory.
We're in Afghanistan to deny it as a basing area to train terrorists.
The way the effort there has been going since 2001 it's a War of Attrition which we'll never win, because of sanctuaries in Pakistan's North Western Frontier where there are terrorist training bases.
If they don't change their focus in Afghanistan and fight to win it'd be a mercy if Obama does "pull the plug".
(not that I'd like to see Obama become POTUS)
Posted by: Speller | 2008-06-19 11:33:54 AM
Otherwise it's sort of like posting proof that GM will never ship the Volt before 2010 and in the related article list there's a link to a Road & Track test drive review of the 2009 Chevy Volt.
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-06-19 11:34:18 AM
As far as LBJ being a neo-con, I'd say the actions define the man. Who knew? Those who watched those actions.
Because he got a stooge (Diem) to invite him in is just a matter of power brokering and a pay off or two. You know, install Karzai, pay him and prop him up, then have him speak for a pro-US Afghanistan. Easy peezy.
I know about the silly domino theory. So, what happened when Vietnam fell? Did the VC show up in Montana? The value of the war and the repercussions of losing was all a bunch of BS. When we lose Afghanistan, we'll see the same repercussions - none. It will be another huge waste of lives and, as you say, it'll be mercy when the US pulls the plug, just like vietnam.
We could have slammed specific targets in Afghanistan without going in.
Posted by: alpha | 2008-06-19 12:00:26 PM
Clinton tried attacking specific targets in Afghanistan and the Sudan in 1998 after the African Embassies attack. It didn't work.
Neither did placing UN sanctions on the Taliban.
Occupying the country and forming a new government was the best thing not only for Afghanistan and its people, but for the ongoing military mission. It ensures that the efforts being made have a degree of permanency. Air power, with or without special forces help, can't do that.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-06-19 12:15:41 PM
>"I know about the silly domino theory. So, what happened when Vietnam fell? Did the VC show up in Montana?
alpha | 19-Jun-08 12:00:26 PM
The domino theory was a foreign policy theory, promoted by the government of the United States, that speculated that if one land in a region came under the influence of communism, then the surrounding countries would follow in a domino effect.
No alpha, the VC didn't show up in Montana, but in 1975 the Khmer Rouge Communists did show up in Cambodia where they famously killed 2 million people(mostly everyone who could read and write) and took the country back to the year Zero and also neighbouring Laos had the Communist Pathet Lao take over that country in 1975 too.
The Burma Socialist Programme Party, Marxists, took over what is now called the Union of Myanmar in 1974, the U.S had been withdrawing from Vietnam since 1973.
Of course the fact that all these countries border with Vietnam and the American presence in Vietnam ended completely in 1975 is just a big coincidence and in no way validates the silly Domino Theory.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-06-19 12:37:17 PM
My son-in-law is Laos but was too young to really
appreciate the carnage that went on. His father, on the other hand, had first-hand experience with the Pathet Lao as well as the Khymer Rouge.
His stories about it are not in the least pretty.
He thanks his god every day for the US troops that got them to Thailand so they could survive and eventually come to Canada.
These people value freedom and have integrated well into Canadian society. They continue to appreciate the efforts of the US military and the Canadian government for basically allowing them to survive and prosper.
Those assholes that belittle and attack the US for their involvement in foreign affairs should
meet and speak with this family. They wouldn't be the same after. Well, physically, anyways.
Posted by: atric | 2008-06-19 3:16:53 PM
Zeb: I'm familiar with Clinton's actions. He almost got Osama once. Intelligence combined with a little SpecOps and surgical strikes would have worked eventually. The upside is that you can miss 100 times with only $$$ at stake. One hit and you achieved your goal. In the end, we will lose this war. Then what? We still don't have Osama and we have something like 8,500 coalition (counting Iraq) forces dead. Clinton was smarter.
For another angle look at the Osirak nuclear facility attack by Israel in 1981. The cost was some gas in 4 F-15s, 4 F-16s and no more nucs for Saddam. The next year, Israel got bogged down with boots on the ground in Lebanon.
Speller: "They took Cambodia back to the year zeor." Exactly, big government (welfare/warfare states) kills and goes backward. It's a case for a strong military that can protect us. Not an excuse for globe trotting and imitating the very thing we despise under another name.
The domino theory was silly because the aggressive welfare/warfare states implode like the Soviets/Cambodians etc etc. We don't need to destroy them. And we certainly don't need to become a welfare/warfare state. Then we implode.
Posted by: alpha | 2008-06-19 3:42:06 PM
The Soviets didn't implode.
They simply downsized and restructured.
Putin is/was a KGB Colonel.
The Communists still run Russia and still have the same goals.
The Cambodian Khmer Rouge didn't implode either, the Khmer Rouge regime was removed from power in 1979 as a result of an invasion by the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and was replaced by moderate, pro-Vietnamese Communists.
Everything else you said is nonsense as well.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-06-19 5:06:37 PM
"You might want to disable the related posts segment for this post on your own blog."
You must have this blog mistaken for those other blogs that have an agenda and must posts only stories that reinforce their talking points.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-06-19 6:46:02 PM
"We should still be in Vietnam fighting for whatever the neo-cons want. "
Please stop dropping strawberry adorned tablets of acid. Neo-con is a modern term and Vietnam is an ancient talking point.
You'll need your wits about you if you plan to defend communists and Elmer Fudd cartoons.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-06-19 6:48:45 PM
Try not to be funny or smart H2, neither areyour strong suit. Neo-con may be a modern term, but it could apply to the Romans and Hitler and of course...you.
Woohoo, we have another Spellerism: Has everyone heard? The soviet union didn't collapse!!! The ruble is fine. Hey Speller when my bank account is dry and I have hi expenses and clain bankruptcy, is that a financial implosion or is it downsizing and restructuring. You should stay away from economics. Your head would be more productive in a brothel.
"Everything else you said is nonsense as well."
Well Speller, you got me on that one. Everything you say is a real gem...a real fucking gem. It's like watching a retard do the books.
Posted by: alpha | 2008-06-19 7:35:11 PM
"Neo-con may be a modern term, but it could apply to the Romans and Hitler and of course...you. "
Is that the best you can do? Have you heard of Godwin's Law?
Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states:
"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Additionally, you've no idea my current nor past political preferences. So, to conclude that I must be a "neo-con" means that either you have no clue as to the true definition or you just throw around that word as a bogey-man (like Hitler or Nazi) in the belief that you have something relevant to say.
Is it the acid you are dropping or booze you are drinking that gives you the liquid courage to spout such nonsense.
I want you to come back tomorrow morning and read this. You'll never do drugs again once you realize how foolish you read.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-06-19 7:57:55 PM
So you respond to my assumptions by assuming I'm a drugged out boozer? Oh, the irony. Yoy didn't even see that did you? Hmmm must have dropped acid.
Posted by: alpha | 2008-06-19 8:03:45 PM
The Soviet Union didn't collapse, alpha.
I watched, on television, the Soviet Politburo stand up and soberly coldly, raising their hands one vote at a time, unanimously vote the Politburo(themselves) out of existence.
(you were probably watching Sesame Street)
That was not a collapse or implosion.
That was planned like everything else they did.
It was both startling and puzzling to watch at the time.
The Soviet power structure was a three legged stool; Politburo, Red Army, KGB.
The balance of power existed because each leg of the stool played the other two off against each other.
Only the Politburo ceased to exist, and it existed to manage the other 12 Soviet Republics that Russia had accumulated as an empire.
That meant the Red Army and the KGB had reached an agreement to dissolve the Politburo, nothing more.
Like many Global Corporations in the '90s, the Soviet Union(which was always really Russia)simply cut loose it's money losing subsidiaries, downsized, and restructured.
People say Ronald Reagan won the Cold War.
Strangely, it was Mikhail Gorbachev who got the Nobel Peace Prize.
There were no riots, there was an orderly transition to the new state of being.
Was there a collapse?
Was there and implosion?
There was neither a bang nor a whimper.
Is the ruble worth more today than it was in 1991?
Does NATO still exist?
Did Russia keep her hand in the game?
Last year Russia tried to rig the Ukrainian elections and tried to assassinate the Ukrainian President elect.
In the last year Russia has succeeded or attempted 3 major reported political assassinations and has a small brigade of Spetsnaz troops in Southern Lebanon.
(and they aren't wearing blue helmets)
The downsizing allowed Russia to limit her financial liabilities, achieve rapprochement with Communist China, and retain all of her major arms export clients.
Dissolving the Politburo put the Strategic Defense Initiative on hold for 10 years until it was revived by President George Bush in 2001.
It was the first controversial thing that President Bush did.
"The Russian Government is refusing to comment on reports that one of its diplomats in Washington has returned home suddenly because he was a spy.
"The anonymous FBI sources raised links between Mr Frolov's sudden departure and the recent arrest of Robert Hanssen, an FBI agent accused of spying for Moscow who was arrested last month."
"American intelligence officials have reported that Russian President Vladimir Putin, himself a former intelligence officer, is reviving Russia's secret services.
Officials at the FBI say that they have evidence that there are currently almost as many Russian spies operating in America as there were during the Cold War."
The Cold War never ended.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-06-20 6:43:49 AM
"So you respond to my assumptions by assuming I'm a drugged out boozer?"
It is the most reasonable explanation for such random acts of stupidity over a keyboard.
Posted by: deepblue | 2008-06-20 8:09:31 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.