Afghanistan death count: we're losing 466:1

[Indy Coug]

In Iraq, I actually think they have a chance to do something with thier country. I am not convinced they will but there is a far greater chance the sacrifice there might at least accomplish something for the majority of the people. In Afghanastan we have improved our homeland's security position by disrupting AQ and the Taliban, but I don't think we can improve the average Yak herder's prospects for a better life. They need to come out of the dark ages themselves.

[Goatnapper'96]

Almost as amusing as Obama supporters who skewered Bush for being in Afghanistan and Iraq, but now don't have as much of a problem with keeping our troops there.

Making the war in Afghanastan the "war of neccessity" was sort of stupid. The left wanted to bash Bush without being doves. In their efforts, IMO, they picked the wrong war, or they should have taken the angle that the wars be damned but that is hard to do when so many voted for both. But it worked as Bush's popularity precipitously dropped.

[Uncle Ted]

We never should have gone into Afghanastan other than on raids to disrupt the operations of Al Queada or the Taliban. Once we did that after the first 12 months we could have sent the preponderance of the ground troops out and just hit AQ or Taliban with violent mixtures of spec ops/attack Army air and Air Force close air support anytime they were getting organized enough to make us nervous. True this means that the region would have stayed an unorganized anarchic wasteland indefinitely and human suffering would have continued indefinitely, but the probability of some semblence of national political stability crystalizing was to low to justify the sacrifice we have made and are making. The only reason Afghanastan has borders is because the countries surrounding it needed to have geographical endings to their territory - that is all that region, as an independent nation-state, has ever had in common. From an ideological perspective it would be nice to build a lovey-dovey nation-state in Afghanastan, but it just doesn't appear to be happening.

In Iraq, I actually think they have a chance to do something with thier country. I am not convinced they will but there is a far greater chance the sacrifice there might at least accomplish something for the majority of the people. In Afghanastan we have improved our homeland's security position by disrupting AQ and the Taliban, but I don't think we can improve the average Yak herder's prospects for a better life. They need to come out of the dark ages themselves.

[YOUTUBE]u7zCWAmO9OM[/YOUTUBE]

[Eddie]

[YOUTUBE]u7zCWAmO9OM[/YOUTUBE]

I bet the actual speech would've been more effective in convincing his peers if he had taken his Ipod up with him and played that background music while giving it.

The speech isn't nearly as dramatic without the music.

[SoCalCoug]

Ignorant/irrelevant posting, not amusing. First, Obama escalated the war in Afghanistan and Bush hasn't commanded anyone in Aghanistan since January 2009. You have no idea whether I supported Bush or what my position on Aghanistan/Iraq over the past 4 years or so is. Second, you don't know to what extent I supported Bush's foreign entanglements or to what extent I have supported Obama's policies. Here's a sample:

http://cougaruteforum.com/showthread...ht=afghanistan

My point is, both sides have taken varying positions on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, depending on who is in office. And I think most of the criticism of the wars, from the start, stems from what side of the aisle you happen to be on.