Taliban Gaining Ground In Afghanistan

[tecumseh]

Things are not going well in Afghanistan, the original front in the war on terrorism.

American and NATO casualties are rising in some of the deadliest fighting since 2001. The Taliban are enjoying a resurgence in presence and power, especially in their traditional southern and eastern strongholds. And with civilian casualties mounting and economic reconstruction in many areas stalled by inadequate security, the American-backed government is in danger of losing the battle for Afghan hearts and minds. If this battle is lost, there can be no lasting military success against the Taliban and their Qaeda allies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/23/opinion/23sun1.html

[General Patton]

According to some d*ckhead's opinion. As you are using an Op-ed piece to make your case.

I don't think we are in danger of losing Afghanistan. The New York Times wants us to lose, just as you do, Tecumseh. Therefore, it is necessary to treat anything coming out of that rag as suspect. You can be sure that if the Taliban is making a supposed resurgence in the region, we aren't going to leave anytime soon. We'll just have to work harder to mop up the rest of those women-beaters. It may take a couple more bunker busters to do the job, but we'll get it done irregardless of the stupidity from the left.

[LSD]

According to some d*ckhead's opinion. I don't think we are in danger of losing Afghanistan.

:lol:

Was "d*ckhead" meant to be the antecedent of "I" or was that just unintentional hillarity?


The New York Times wants us to lose

No, the New York Times wants to sell papers. They're just as capitalist as anyone else and their audience is just as "American" as anyone else.

The liberal line is a "patriotic" one; myabe not the batshit crazy "nuke the towel heads" right-wing kind of "patriotism", but patriotism nonetheless.

That means that they want the US to win in Afghanistan. It's the "good" war remember? Liberals love Afghanistan, it fits in perfectly with their whole "internationalist" "benevolent" imperialism and it doesn't seem to be as much of a trainwreck as Iraq.

If anything the New York Times has an interest in making Afghanistan look good, if only to make Iraq look worse by comparison. That's why they haven't been focusing on it much lately.

The fact that they've started mentioning it agagin now can only mean that the situation has degraded beyond their ability to ignore it.

Which really doesn't look good for you! :o


You can be sure that if the Taliban is making a supposed resurgence in the region, we aren't going to leave anytime soon.

Yeah, 'cause the "smoke 'em out" strategy's working so well in Iraq.

You've got a powerful army, but your country really can't afford to fight a losing guerilla war in two countries indefinitely. Eventually, you're going to have to cut your losses and get out.

This shit is just bleeding to much money, you already have a 8 trillion dollar debt. How much more do you think you can afford?


but we'll get it done irregardless of the stupidity from the left.

"irregardless", eh? :rolleyes:

I've got to say, that's one of the more ironic sentences I've read in my time on RevLeft.

Maybe the next time you accuse others of "stupidity" you might want to try not using nonexistant words.