Just venting having read a story on Afghanistan

[noonereal]

But if anyone had told me that in my lifetime America would appoint a president worse than Carter I would not have believed it.
But Bush certainly proved me wrong.


The economy, the wars, the lost liberties, the lies..........

The saddest time to be an American for sure.

[Charles]

But if anyone had told me that in my lifetime America would appoint a president worse than Carter I would not have believed it.
But Bush certainly proved me wrong.


The economy, the wars, the lost liberties, the lies..........

The saddest time to be an American for sure.

Bush appointed Obama???

Chas

[Grumpy]

There are many who would argue that Bush inherited some the items that you mentioned. I would be one who would agree with the lies part but point me to other past presidents who did not do the same thing. Integrity and politicians are two words you never hear from anyone to describe politicians except themselves.

[noonereal]

Bush appointed Obama???

Chas

No the supreme court appointed Bush.

[noonereal]

Integrity and politicians are two words you never hear from anyone to describe politicians except themselves.

Yep, even McCain who seemed to be an exception abandoned his integrity during his run for the ultimate power.

I was very disappointed and let down by him.
Obama did not earn my vote, McCain lost mine.

[Charles]

No the supreme court appointed Bush.

Whadda expect...they ain't nothin' but a bunch of damn lawyers.

Chas

[noonereal]

Whadda expect...they ain't nothin' but a bunch of damn lawyers.

Chas

lol, good post.

Thanks, I needed that after reading the intolerance of the deceased in another thread.

[Twodogs]

I guess this war Barry's doubling down on was inherited.:rolleyes: Hey! Newsflash, Bush ain't the prez anymore.:p

[noonereal]

I guess this war Barry's doubling down on was inherited.:rolleyes: Hey! Newsflash, Bush ain't the prez anymore.:p

Thanks Twodogs but I read about the change at the top.
Yes it seems Obie is stepping up to the real war and responsibly unwinding the unethical one.

See we agree. ;)

[noonereal]

nuke what place?

what would be the repercussions?

how would that serve our interests?

[stereocuuple]

nuke what place?

what would be the repercussions?

how would that serve our interests?

i deleated my orginal msg which read

"pull out our troops and nuke the place from orbit."

your answers as folows


1...afganistan

2...lots of troops lives saved

3...huge financial savings, heroin trade destroyed,it would make milions of russians happy and the FOX NEWS COVERAGE WOULD BE AWSOME

[soundhound]

nuke what place?

what would be the repercussions?

how would that serve our interests?

1) afghanistan?

2) thousands of innocent civilians killed, another reason for the muslims to hate us, proof to the world that we are bullies

3) it wouldn't

[noonereal]

i deleated my orginal msg which read

"pull out our troops and nuke the place from orbit."

your answers as folows


1...afganistan

2...lots of troops lives saved

3...huge financial savings, heroin trade destroyed,it would make milions of russians happy and the FOX NEWS COVERAGE WOULD BE AWSOME

Although I have never given much thought to your suggestion I would think that nuking Afghanistan would cost more American lives than it would save long term. As to the financial savings, I disagree. I am sure the best scenario would bring the world body in line against us and drastically alter our lifestyle. A worse case scenario could end civilization.

We had a cowboy in the white house and that attitude failed, why would you suggest running with it again?

[noonereal]

FOX NEWS COVERAGE WOULD BE AWSOME

Fox does not do news. It does right wing editorializing. Similar to MSNBC but less truthful, more hateful and activist.

[Charles]

The Pentagon calls this "The Long War". We are dealing with the Middle East as a whole, not separate parts.

Personally, I don't see this ending anytime soon. And trying to blame it all on Shrub is narrow minded thinking...this has been going on since the Crusades.

Ain't religion great?

Chas

[stereocuuple]

Although I have never given much thought to your suggestion I would think that nuking Afghanistan would cost more American lives than it would save long term. As to the financial savings, I disagree. I am sure the best scenario would bring the world body in line against us and drastically alter our lifestyle. A worse case scenario could end civilization.

We had a cowboy in the white house and that attitude failed, why would you suggest running with it again?[/QUOTE

the taliban have it comming to them and i doubt that any other nation would have the balls to say boo to us about it or we could just ashtray their ass too.

unless mexicans become bigger consumers china or europe arent going to do anything to upset the flow of good ol $$$ into thier pockets

one american life is too high a price to pay for that sandbox i wish reagan was in office when 911 went down





[QUOTE=noonereal;4670]Fox does not do news. It does right wing editorializing. Similar to MSNBC but less truthful, more hateful and activist.

ill bet thy already have a graphic ready to go for this Bill O"reilly could host

[Sandy G]

I think we oughta build a bigazz fence around ALL of "Greater Araby" throw 'em over said fence all the guns, knives, bombs, whatever they want, tell 'em to Go For It, & in about 6-8 months or so, go in, & clean up all what's left...

[Charles]

I think we oughta build a bigazz fence around ALL of "Greater Araby" throw 'em over said fence all the guns, knives, bombs, whatever they want, tell 'em to Go For It, & in about 6-8 months or so, go in, & clean up all what's left...

They jest ain't no easy answers, is they, Sandy?

Meybee if the politicker's was to quit lookin' folks in th' eyes, an' then tellin' 'em a big assed lie, an' not jest our Usa politickers, but the Limey politickers, the Frog politickers..right on down th' line...meybee we wouldn't have these shootin' wars one after 'nother.

Of course, Hegel thought that war was the natural state, peace was just a time in which you rested up in order to go back to war.

Shit, Merrylander's at war with his neighbor over a hand full of feral cats.

The history of mankind is one long pissing contest with everyone being armed. And with a bad attitude.

Chas

[stereocuuple]

I think we oughta build a bigazz fence around ALL of "Greater Araby" throw 'em over said fence all the guns, knives, bombs, whatever they want, tell 'em to Go For It, & in about 6-8 months or so, go in, & clean up all what's left...

while your at it throw in the north koreans

[hillbilly]

[QUOTE=stereocuuple;4674]

i wish reagan was in office when 911 went down


I'm with you there.

If Regan had been in office, I think 911 would not have happened. I was young when he was headed into the White House, I was only about 9 years old. But, I'll never forget how chicken shit Iran become in such a hurry when Regan told them we may lose those 50 Americans they were holding hostage by blowing Iran off the map, but Iran would no longer be there to fuck with anyone else. They lettem go soon as Carter was walking out the door didn't they ;)

Xcuse my french, but thats what he meant and Iran know'd it. :)

[merrylander]

The problem with Afghanistan is the dumb ass idea of forcing in a central government. Those people have been tribal since the beginning of time so they are not about to listen to Karzai. We send in money to build roads, the contractor pays bribes to local warlords (or the taliban) so they won't blow up his equipment. So we are buying the explosives that kill our own troops. When we wake up to the fact that the whole world does not run by the same rules we do we just might get somewhere. In the meantime the Cordon Sanitaire as the French call it might not be a bad idea, no one gets out, no one gets in.

[spasmo55]

"2) thousands of innocent civilians killed, another reason for the muslims to hate us, proof to the world that we are bullies"

When a nation is at war, be it declared or not, the Nation is at war, civilians are not innocent.

The Germans were not innocent, the Japanese were not innocent in WWII, WE were not innocent in Viet Nam.

Citizens are responsible for the actions of their government no matter what type of government they may have.

According to Muslim doctrine, we are to be hated merely because we exist. Religions have caused more wars than any political doctrine.

[noonereal]

"2) thousands of innocent civilians killed, another reason for the muslims to hate us, proof to the world that we are bullies"

When a nation is at war, be it declared or not, the Nation is at war, civilians are not innocent.

The Germans were not innocent, the Japanese were not innocent in WWII, WE were not innocent in Viet Nam.

Citizens are responsible for the actions of their government no matter what type of government they may have.

According to Muslim doctrine, we are to be hated merely because we exist. Religions have caused more wars than any political doctrine.

Religion is the most used excuse for war but wars are fought over economics.

As to civilians are not innocent I understand your point but many civilians do not support the government and want no part of it nor the war they find themselves surrounded by.

[stereocuuple]

Religion is the most used excuse for war but wars are fought over economics.

As to civilians are not innocent I understand your point but many civilians do not support the government and want no part of it nor the war they find themselves surrounded by.

then they should fight to overthrow the bastards anything else is just talk

[noonereal]

then they should fight to overthrow the bastards anything else is just talk

Philosophically I agree, in practicality it is generally fruitless and would simply make one a fool.

[stereocuuple]

the muslims hate us i suppose we should abandon or nation to them to prove that we have become a more tollerant nation

[noonereal]

the muslims hate us i suppose we should abandon or nation to them to prove that we have become a more tollerant nation

This approach is as backward as "nuke them."

IMHO of course. :D


Maybe there is a reasonable approach somewhere between ending their existence and giving them ours? ;)

[Fast_Eddie]

the muslims hate us i suppose we should abandon or nation to them to prove that we have become a more tollerant nation

The muslims? All of them? All the Muslims and all the blacks? I can't decide if you're serious or if you're having us on. And who is this "us" you're talking about?

[noonereal]

The muslims? All of them? All the Muslims and all the blacks? I can't decide if you're serious or if you're having us on.

He is very serious, believe it or not.


And who is this "us" you're talking about?

I think "us" refers to the "real Americans."

It's OK though by the definitions he has given in the past we are not among them. And he was serious about that as well.

[soundhound]

Citizens are responsible for the actions of their government no matter what type of government they may have.

BS!!!!!!!!!

sorry, no smilie for this.

[soundhound]

the muslims hate us i suppose we should abandon or nation to them to prove that we have become a more tollerant nation

of course not, but it wouldn't be a bad idea for us to stay the fuck out of their business.

[soundhound]

"real Americans."

definition please.

[noonereal]

definition please.

I am not exactly sure but I know he seems to excludes progressives on social issues and anyone who has not lost a family member in war from qualifying.
I believe minorities are also excluded. (all minorities) Also I think you need to live in a "Red Sate".
I would suggest you ask him yourself as I do not want to misrepresent his definition.

[Fast_Eddie]

of course not, but it wouldn't be a bad idea for us to stay the fuck out of their business.

QFT...

[stereocuuple]

Noonereal hit the nail on the head. I damn well am from a red state.

As for my definition of a real american, a real american is a person who puts his country, its intrests and its servicemen and women above all else. This nation was built by hardworking men and women whose longstanding sacrifice is being forgotten by a new generation who refuses to accept that when our founders came here and formed this nation that they wanted a small, less powerful, central government. The states rights issue was one of the most difficult obstacles that our Nation ever faced. As it has been so often pointed out here, america is a melting pot society. However, pouring the ingredients into the melting pot really ended with WWII.

Give us your poor, your tired, your hungry, Etc. Well, since 1950 that's about all we've gotten. No more innovators, no more huddled masses yearning to be free. Our borders continue to be open to masses upon masses of refugees and criminals and those who would abandon their own homeland and seek a life as a parasite on our economy rather than remain in their own nation and contribute to its betterment. The principles under which America was blessed with the waves of immigrants who brought diversity in the Arts, Culture, Religion and Idealogy, are no more. What we are left with, huddled at our borders, are those who would seek to abandon the ideals of the founding fathers and replace this nation with a lesser version.

Eric

typed by erin

[Fast_Eddie]

Well, to each his own. I don't share your world view, nor do I share your vision of what America is all about. Not sure who decided the stew was done after the 1950s. Not sure you get to make that call. But I respect your opinion on those issues.

I do not respect your opinion on blacks or Muslims. You're just wrong. And your views are pretty offensive. You certainly have a right to hold them, but I don't respect them.

[hillbilly]

[QUOTE=stereocuuple;4757]Noonereal hit the nail on the head. I damn well am from a red state.


Me too. :)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZNGPRX_W88

[noonereal]

I do not respect your opinion on blacks or Muslims. You're just wrong. And your views are pretty offensive. You certainly have a right to hold them, but I don't respect them.

To say they are offensive is a gross understatement IMO.

Previous posts here about "real Americans" were arguably worse, much worse.

Then to beat all, when I finally responded semi bluntly the response was blind anger.

Point is, for politicians to lie to the radical side of either party should be criminal. Politicians should feel a responsibility to educating and not rally ignorance for personal gain.
I am sorry but if one feels they are more American than the next guy for any reason and that blacks, moslems...... are all inferior peoples that is nothing more than a display of ignorance and there is no amount of book learning that can be sited to change this fact.
I believe this needs to be stood up to, not just disagreed with, hence my further comments on this subject.

[noonereal]

[QUOTE=stereocuuple;4757]Noonereal hit the nail on the head. I damn well am from a red state.


Me too. :)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZNGPRX_W88



Now that right there is funny.


For the record weather a state is red or blue is of little consequence to me. I sited "red state" as one of the ridiculous indicators of a "real Americans" by some.

[Charles]

Well, I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm a "real" American...and have the tax receipts to prove it.

Chas

[merrylander]

Ask Newt Gingrich for a definition.:D

Not only tax receipts but a real fancy paper with my picture on it.

[spasmo55]

Red State, Blue State, not the problem.

The problem is you are not from a "Sovereign" state, as they no longer exist.

I'm an Anglo/Germanic/Franco/Greco/Native American, but I'm not sure if that counts as real, as I never see it as an option on any governmental paper work, and I refuse to be an "other".

[stereocuuple]

Well, I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm a "real" American...and have the tax receipts to prove it.

Chas

me too wish i didnt though

[painter]

IMHO...Belief in the Constitution and helping to keep those freedom's we enjoyed all these many years...defines us as American's. Simplistic...but sincere.

I heard the funniest today. A sweet elderly gent (must have been 90) came to the check out at the market and told the checker...he was thinking of going to Russia...because they don't have a recession. I love the humor of seasoned citizens. Glad I'm one of them.

[Charles]

Ask Newt Gingrich for a definition.:D

Not only tax receipts but a real fancy paper with my picture on it.

Whoa, you must really rate!!!

Gubbmitt never give me nuttin but a bill in the mail, and a hard way to go. 'course, I don't reckon they give you tha' "fancy" piece of paper, neither.

One of 'em that pisses me off is should I desire to pursue the "Kings" deer, or squirrel, or miserable fish, I have to pay "tribute" in the form of a permit which, once signed, allows the Sheriff of Nottinghan permission to enter my house and search my fridge.

Now when one of the "Kings" deer wanders out into the road and totals one of my vehicles...guess what? It don't belong to the King no more. All the Sheriff has to say is, "Wow, that's tough shit, buddy".

To tell the truth, I never asked to be a member of this exclusive club. Is it even possible to renounce your citizenship and be a self serving sovereign? Even if you find an uninhabitated, and unclaimed island somewhere?

Bet the tax man don't think so,

Chas

[Fast_Eddie]

To tell the truth, I never asked to be a member of this exclusive club. Is it even possible to renounce your citizenship and be a self serving sovereign? Even if you find an uninhabitated, and unclaimed island somewhere?

Bet the tax man don't think so,

Chas

I'm curious- it seems to me that I've heard a lot of people lately wanting to somehow or other distance them selves from being an American. Chas wants to renounce his citizenship. In other posts I've seen it advocated that we rise up and have a revolution against our freely elected government. Texas wants to leave the Union. Alaska too it seems.

This seems to be coming, generally speaking, from conservatives. Am I making this up, or is there a trend here? Are the people who were "real Americans" when we had a war happy lunitic in office now wanting to leave the country all together? Six months of not getting your way and you're done? Aren't you the same gang that called the rest of us "Un-American" a few years ago? We had Christian government dig us into a hole so deep we won't be out for decades, now we have that nut job "Preacher" praying for the President gets brain cancer?

Sheesh. And you guys said we were whiners.

[Charles]

I'm curious- it seems to me that I've heard a lot of people lately wanting to somehow or other distance them selves from being an American. Chas wants to renounce his citizenship. In other posts I've seen it advocated that we rise up and have a revolution against our freely elected government. Texas wants to leave the Union. Alaska too it seems.

This seems to be coming, generally speaking, from conservatives. Am I making this up, or is there a trend here? Are the people who were "real Americans" when we had a war happy lunitic in office now wanting to leave the country all together? Six months of not getting your way and you're done? Aren't you the same gang that called the rest of us "Un-American" a few years ago? We had Christian government dig us into a hole so deep we won't be out for decades, now we have that nut job "Preacher" praying for the President gets brain cancer?

Sheesh. And you guys said we were whiners.

Perhaps I didn't explain myself correctly.

Never asked to join, never had a choice, but I've been here long enough to be vested, and it's too late to go. I'm the status quo, don't matter whether you, or I, like it.

My poorly defined query addresses the issue as to whether it is possible to exist as myself, without pledging allegiance to any cause or country.

If you can't tell the whole world to shove it up their ass, then you aren't truly free.

I'm afraid you have misread me. I'd discussing theory, you're discussing partisan politics.

Chas

[Fast_Eddie]

I'm afraid you have misread me. I'd discussing theory, you're discussing partisan politics.

Chas

It is "political chat".

[Charles]

It is "political chat".

Right up to the point to where I feel as though I've been misrepresented, or misinterpeted.

But I'm a crank,

Have a good evening,

Chas

[Fast_Eddie]

Is it even possible to renounce your citizenship and be a self serving sovereign? Even if you find an uninhabitated, and unclaimed island somewhere?

Bet the tax man don't think so,

Chas

Right up to the point to where I feel as though I've been misrepresented, or misinterpeted.


Chas

Sorry if I misrepresented you. I thought you were pretty clear, but obviously I have a different understanding of "renounce your citizenship" than you do.

[Charles]

Sorry if I misrepresented you. I thought you were pretty clear, but obviously I have a different understanding of "renounce your citizenship" than you do.

I asked if it were possible, inferring that one could legally be a non citizen in today's world.

I suppose my question is: are you allowed to exist without a master?

Chas

[Fast_Eddie]

Well, I really am sorry if I misrepresented what you said.

I don't have a master. I love this country. Government by the people and for the people isn't perfect, but it's the best thing going. Yeah, a lot of things happen that I don't agree with. But I wouldn't want to live anywhere else.

To answer your question, yes, there are "lawless" areas of the world. Afghanistan was untill recently- not much different now really. Tribal areas of Pakistan. I suppose an island in international waters. Trouble with lawlessness is the lack of laws. It's not just you who is free to do whatever you want, it's everyone. Anarchy they call it.

Doesn't sound too good to me.

[Charles]

Well, I really am sorry if I misrepresented what you said.

I don't have a master. I love this country. Government by the people and for the people isn't perfect, but it's the best thing going. Yeah, a lot of things happen that I don't agree with. But I wouldn't want to live anywhere else.

To answer your question, yes, there are "lawless" areas of the world. Afghanistan was untill recently- not much different now really. Tribal areas of Pakistan. I suppose an island in international waters. Trouble with lawlessness is the lack of laws. It's not just you who is free to do whatever you want, it's everyone. Anarchy they call it.

Doesn't sound too good to me.

Get you toe over the line, you'll find out that you have more masters than you can shake a stick at.

How can you have "lawless" without laws in the 1st place. Can't have one without the other.

Anarchy? How is some poor SOB doing what he wants and not bothering anyone else an anarchist? Is there a law against minding your own business?

Well, kiss my ass, there are laws against this. And you are forced to pay tribute to fund the enforcers who force you to toe the line.

Perhaps you are comfortable being controlled by a bunch of tin gods who spend most of their time looking out for No. 1, but when I think about it, I start getting a real case of the ass.

I guess my point is, they ain't a rock nowhere that you kin hide under, without someone showin' up, pointin' out that yer tresspassin', an' pony up.

You're either a serf, or a master...ain't no place to hide.

Chas

[Fast_Eddie]

Well, again, the point I'm trying to make is that there is no perfect solution. You want no laws? That'll work great until some ass hole decides he wants your car.

Things aren't perfect because people aren't perfect. So we all get together and try to set up some rules of the road. The problem is people don't know where to stop with the rules. They say "ok, we shouldn't kill each other". That sounds good. We all agree? Good. Next thing you know they want to tell you who you can get married to and what you can do with your body and what plants you can smoke etc. etc. etc.

Do I like it? Well, all told, yeah. I guess I do. I get sick of it sometimes, but yeah, all in all, it's better than the alternative, which, by the way, is still anarchy. It's all how you chose to look at it.

[merrylander]

AFAIK you can renounce your citizenship any time you want, but any money you receive will still be taxed. I am no longer resident in Canada, I own no property their, but my Bell pension pays non-resident tax. One of the features of having police, fire, roads, bridges, etc.

[Fast_Eddie]

Why should *I* have to pay for your roads and bridges?!!??!??! You're the king of roads and bridges and I'm Robbin Hood and... oh never mind.

[Bigerik]

The was in Afghanistan is lost, and so is Americas integrity with it. The recent elections were a total joke. "Free" elections, with the majority of the citizens not allowed to take part, and the US deciding who could run. The Soviet elections in 86 or 87 were arguably more fair, with opposition parties taking part in them.
The Afghanistan war, like Iraq, is lost. Time to pack up the troops and let the Afghans go back to ruling the way they did in 1979.

[piece-itpete]

.
The Afghanistan war, like Iraq, is lost. Time to pack up the troops and let the Afghans go back to ruling the way they did in 1979.

Unfortunately the Taliban would just take over again. That sure put us in a nice spot about 8 years ago.

Afganistan is a world problem, all our 'friends' said they'd help, it was the good war?

I heard the english-speaking locals call the ISAF 'I Saw Americans Fight' :-)

Pete

[merrylander]

Unfortunately the Taliban would just take over again. That sure put us in a nice spot about 8 years ago.

Afganistan is a world problem, all our 'friends' said they'd help, it was the good war?

I heard the english-speaking locals call the ISAF 'I Saw Americans Fight' :-)

Pete


Maybe the Canadian troops got a little tired of being bombed by those fighter jockeys from the Air National Guard.:rolleyes:

[piece-itpete]

Lol I thought AFTER I POSTED that there's more than Europeans over there :)

Pete

[Bigerik]

Unfortunately the Taliban would just take over again. That sure put us in a nice spot about 8 years ago.

Afganistan is a world problem, all our 'friends' said they'd help, it was the good war?

I heard the english-speaking locals call the ISAF 'I Saw Americans Fight' :-)

Pete

So what is it now? Is Afghanistan a US protectorate? Did the US government not pour billions of dollars into Afghanistan to stop the USSR from doing something that was seemingly more free than what America is doing now?

This war is over. The best thing that can be done is sit down with the Taliban and try to work out some sort of peace. What is happening now is just a waste of lives of the soldiers who are owed much more than this. It will turn into another Vietnam, and this time, America is broke and CANNOT afford to fight it.

The only other option is to pour hundreds of thousands of troops into Afghanistan and from there invade Pakistan and dig them out of the mountains and caves they are in. This will likely cause the loss of tens of thousands of American lives, but the Taliban are hardened warriors and will not give up easily. This will also probably cause the destabilization and maybe civil war in Pakistan, which is also not a good thing, as they are unstable enough to begin with and they have plenty of nuclear weapons.

No, this war is lost. Time to bring the boys home, lick the wounds and mend relationships in the area. America, just like every other imperial power that has tried to hold Afghanistan, has failed.

[Fast_Eddie]

The only other option is to pour hundreds of thousands of troops into Afghanistan and from there invade Pakistan and dig them out of the mountains and caves they are in.

Not very likely. Lots of folks saying we can't afford health insurance for every American. This would cost many hundreds or thousands of times more. Shoot, we've probably already spent hundres of times more.

[Bigerik]

Not very likely. Lots of folks saying we can't afford health insurance for every American. This would cost many hundreds or thousands of times more. Shoot, we've probably already spent hundres of times more.

Sure have. Chasing a sickly man from one mountain to another, as he drags his dialysis machine behind him....

[Fast_Eddie]

Sure have. Chasing a sickly man from one mountain to another, as he drags his dialysis machine behind him....

I think we missed that part of the game.

[piece-itpete]

What happened to 'root causes'?

Pete

[Charles]

So what is it now? Is Afghanistan a US protectorate? Did the US government not pour billions of dollars into Afghanistan to stop the USSR from doing something that was seemingly more free than what America is doing now?

This war is over. The best thing that can be done is sit down with the Taliban and try to work out some sort of peace. What is happening now is just a waste of lives of the soldiers who are owed much more than this. It will turn into another Vietnam, and this time, America is broke and CANNOT afford to fight it.

The only other option is to pour hundreds of thousands of troops into Afghanistan and from there invade Pakistan and dig them out of the mountains and caves they are in. This will likely cause the loss of tens of thousands of American lives, but the Taliban are hardened warriors and will not give up easily. This will also probably cause the destabilization and maybe civil war in Pakistan, which is also not a good thing, as they are unstable enough to begin with and they have plenty of nuclear weapons.

No, this war is lost. Time to bring the boys home, lick the wounds and mend relationships in the area. America, just like every other imperial power that has tried to hold Afghanistan, has failed.

The Pentagon calls this "The Long War".

Perhaps instead of now focusing on the "good" war in Afghanistan, we should invest more on the "bad" war in Iraq, where we would be in a position to project power over the entire region.

What are our options in Afghanistan...bomb them back to the stone age? Other than the Kalashnikov, they're already there.

Erik, you may be right...pack up our bags and come home. I've said it before, and I'll say it again...the Middle East is the ultimate Tar Baby. No easy answers here.

The way I figure it, if I knew all of the answers, I'd be President...or someone would shoot me before I opened my mouth.

At this point in time, I would recommend buckling up and hanging on for the ride. I'm afraid that even the United States is at the point of being ineffectual at controlling the outcome, and no other country wants to step up...or has interests which are diametrically opposed to ours.

War's the natural state, an it's long overdue.

Chas

[painter]

The Pentagon calls this "The Long War".

Perhaps instead of now focusing on the "good" war in Afghanistan, we should invest more on the "bad" war in Iraq, where we would be in a position to project power over the entire region.

What are our options in Afghanistan...bomb them back to the stone age? Other than the Kalashnikov, they're already there.

Erik, you may be right...pack up our bags and come home. I've said it before, and I'll say it again...the Middle East is the ultimate Tar Baby. No easy answers here.

The way I figure it, if I knew all of the answers, I'd be President...or someone would shoot me before I opened my mouth.

At this point in time, I would recommend buckling up and hanging on for the ride. I'm afraid that even the United States is at the point of being ineffectual at controlling the outcome, and no other country wants to step up...or has interests which are diametrically opposed to ours.

War's the natural state, an it's long overdue.

Chas


Anything about bringing back the draft? Think of the past....

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/08/60minutes/rooney/main2547775.shtml

[Charles]

Anything about bringing back the draft? Think of the past....

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/08/60minutes/rooney/main2547775.shtml

Conscription, that's what they called it in the War Between the States. If you conscript one, you have to conscript them all.

If it were everyone, right on down the line, I would be in favor of it. Not so sure that it's a violation of one's Constitutional Rights, but I'm accepting of fair in time of need. FAIR, allow me to repeat myself.

Today's military is no longer in need of cannon fodder, at least at the moment. Watched a show the other night in which they explained that the military increasingly depends on private contractors...because they have the experience and techenial knowledge to do the job.

I have mixed feelings, as I've never accepted being told what to do at the point of a gun. Hell, I've got a bunch of them, two can play this game. But I'll play along if I consider it to be fair...and necessary.

Chas

[noonereal]

If you conscript one, you have to conscript them all.

If it were everyone, right on down the line, I would be in favor of it.


I have been an advocate of universal service for decades.

A draft as we had it and I send my kid to Canada.

[merrylander]

I always wondered about the way the draft worked. During the Vietnam war (I was still in Canada) a former co-worker had moved to California onn a visa. Ther were going to draft his son as soon as he was 18. So how does a foreign national swer to honour and defend the Constitution? In any meaningful way that is.

[noonereal]

I always wondered about the way the draft worked. During the Vietnam war .

I'll tell you how it worked. The unconnected middle class and poor served and the wealthy did not. Very similar to how it is today.

Universal draft is the only answer.

[Bigerik]

But why is a draft needed? America is not at war or threatened by anyone that requires millions of American troops to fight. Actually, the last time America was attacked it was by the nationals of a "friendly" nation - Saudi Arabia.

And when the Saudi's attacked, America invaded Iraq.

[Charles]

But why is a draft needed? America is not at war or threatened by anyone that requires millions of American troops to fight. Actually, the last time America was attacked it was by the nationals of a "friendly" nation - Saudi Arabia.

And when the Saudi's attacked, America invaded Iraq.

Correct. And the Sodomies wanted our troops out of their country.

Well, due to economics, we couldn't very well invade them. But we could damn well use International Law to invade Iraq and move in next door, thereby applying pressure not only on them, but Iran, and the whole damn Middle East.

Am I the only one here that can make the connection? Now I'm not saying it's gonna work, but it was the least shitty end of the stick to pick up. At least at the time it was, but the situation is fluid.

Get used to the fact that these SOB's have been at war with us for at least 20 yrs. And they ain't gonna quit. Someone is going to have to win this, and I prefer it's us.

Chas

[Fast_Eddie]

Correct. And the Sodomies wanted our troops out of their country.

Well, due to economics, we couldn't very well invade them. But we could damn well use International Law to invade Iraq and move in next door, thereby applying pressure not only on them, but Iran, and the whole damn Middle East.

Am I the only one here that can make the connection? Now I'm not saying it's gonna work, but it was the least shitty end of the stick to pick up. At least at the time it was, but the situation is fluid.

Get used to the fact that these SOB's have been at war with us for at least 20 yrs. And they ain't gonna quit. Someone is going to have to win this, and I prefer it's us.

Chas

I believe part of their plan to beat us is to bankrupt us. So far it's kind of working. I don't think we're going about it right. We're trying to fight a new war the way we've fought the old ones. And it's not working out so well.

I don't know, to say this is a complex issue is to well oversimplify things. It's beyond understanding. But the Iraq thing feels like a mistake. Maybe time will prove me wrong, and I hope it does. I don't pretend to know enough to say. But instilling more hatred of American over in that part of the world seems like a move in the wrong direction. An expensive move too.

It's probably a crazy idea, but I've often wondered what would have happened if we'd ignored them. Built the buildings back and gone on like nothing happened. Maybe hold a remembrance ceremony every year at the sites. But pretty much gone on about out business. I just think old Bin Laden would have been beside himself. Planning this thing for years and finally pulling it off. Then... nothing. Like his best shot couldn't even phase us. We just go on about our happy business. Meanwhile, hunt the bastard down and try him for the crime.

Dunno. But it seems like he got what he wanted. A bunch of Americans who are a lot easier to get at over in his back yard.

[Charles]

I believe part of their plan to beat us is to bankrupt us. So far it's kind of working. I don't think we're going about it right. We're trying to fight a new war the way we've fought the old ones. And it's not working out so well.

I don't know, to say this is a complex issue is to well oversimplify things. It's beyond understanding. But the Iraq thing feels like a mistake. Maybe time will prove me wrong, and I hope it does. I don't pretend to know enough to say. But instilling more hatred of American over in that part of the world seems like a move in the wrong direction. An expensive move too.

It's probably a crazy idea, but I've often wondered what would have happened if we'd ignored them. Built the buildings back and gone on like nothing happened. Maybe hold a remembrance ceremony every year at the sites. But pretty much gone on about out business. I just think old Bin Laden would have been beside himself. Planning this thing for years and finally pulling it off. Then... nothing. Like his best shot couldn't even phase us. We just go on about our happy business. Meanwhile, hunt the bastard down and try him for the crime.

Dunno. But it seems like he got what he wanted. A bunch of Americans who are a lot easier to get at over in his back yard.

I have to admit...ain't no easy answers here.

And as far as busting the USA out...that is their plan. A buddy of mine, stanuch Democrat, told me that the perps of 9-11 were shorting airline stocks just before 9-11. This I haven't tried to verify, simply because it makes his position as being against the Iraq War more difficult to justify. And I read something to the effect that the Arabs said that we would be forced to sell our aircraft carriers just to pay the national debt.

We are not dealing with dolts.

As far as ignoring them, we've been doing that for years. Beruit, Somalia (Bin Ladens work...check it out), Pan AM, the USS Cole, right on down the line. And they ain't done yet, not by a long shot.

The situation stinks. It's ugly. but we're playing for keeps. But it's always been like this...the nature of the beast.

have a good evening, Ed.

Chas

[Fast_Eddie]

A buddy of mine, staunch Democrat, told me that the perps of 9-11 were shorting airline stocks just before 9-11. This I haven't tried to verify, simply because it makes his position as being against the Iraq War more difficult to justify.

I don't understand this, but would be interesting in hearing your explanation.

Take care,

Ed

[merrylander]

Sorry, but if push comes to shove we could always tell the holders of the national debt to get lost.

[piece-itpete]

But why is a draft needed? America is not at war or threatened by anyone that requires millions of American troops to fight. Actually, the last time America was attacked it was by the nationals of a "friendly" nation - Saudi Arabia.

And when the Saudi's attacked, America invaded Iraq.

We don't need a draft. But we HAD to take out Saddam. Consider - Osama yo' Mamas original statements didn't even mention Palestine (he could care less) - but did hammer 'infidels in the Holy Land', which were US troops in Saudi Arabia, expressly forbidden by the Koran.

And they were there to protect Saudi Arabia from The Butcher.

Also Saddam firing on our planes daily made us look weak, as Osama claimed daily.

Root causes.

Pete

[Bigerik]

We don't need a draft. But we HAD to take out Saddam. Consider - Osama yo' Mamas original statements didn't even mention Palestine (he could care less) - but did hammer 'infidels in the Holy Land', which were US troops in Saudi Arabia, expressly forbidden by the Koran.

And they were there to protect Saudi Arabia from The Butcher.

Also Saddam firing on our planes daily made us look weak, as Osama claimed daily.

Root causes.

Pete

Hi Pete.
What on earth did Osama have to do with Saddam? Saddam hated Osama about as much as we did. And feared him, actually. Keep in mind, before the invasion, Iraq had a NON-Muslim government. The last thing that Saddam wanted was for Osama to play any part in the running of Iraq. Saddam was as much of an infidel in the eyes of Osama as was Bush.

Had we actually made peace with Saddam, he likely could have become Osama's worst enemy in the middle east.

We forget how small and weak Saddam really was. He was no threat to any other nation in the middle east. His two wars against the neighbouring Muslim countries were both started, or continued with what he perceived to be US support.

The famous quote from the movie Michael Clayton applies perfectly to Saddam as well:

"I'm not the guy you kill. I'm the guy you buy! Are you so fucking blind that you don't even see what I am? I'm your easiest problem and you're gonna kill me?"

This could have just as easily been Saddam talking to W.

[Bigerik]

Sorry, but if push comes to shove we could always tell the holders of the national debt to get lost.

I see something like that basically happening. And we would be lucky then to see the US Dollar index at a $.25 level.

[Bigerik]

As far as ignoring them, we've been doing that for years. Beruit, Somalia (Bin Ladens work...check it out), Pan AM, the USS Cole, right on down the line. And they ain't done yet, not by a long shot.



Actually, that is the problem. We have NOT been ignoring them. We have been right in the middle of the mess, stirring it up. Every one of those examples, except for Pan Am, shows what is perceived to be imperialist US forces in their backyard, posing a huge threat to them. Think of the Cuban Missile Crisis in reverse, but even worse. Imagine if Cuba were viewed as holy ground by the US?
Even worse, the US has been seen as propping up or putting into power the worst dictators in the area. The Shah of Iran, Muammar Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein have all been put into power by the US. The Saudi royal family. One of the nastiest governments in the area, and fully backed by the US. Then of course, is the Palestinian issue.
From the view of the average, man on the street in the middle east, the US is always on the wrong side of their problems.

[piece-itpete]

Hi Pete.
What on earth did Osama have to do with Saddam? Saddam hated Osama about as much as we did. And feared him, actually. Keep in mind, before the invasion, Iraq had a NON-Muslim government. The last thing that Saddam wanted was for Osama to play any part in the running of Iraq. Saddam was as much of an infidel in the eyes of Osama as was Bush.

Had we actually made peace with Saddam, he likely could have become Osama's worst enemy in the middle east.

We forget how small and weak Saddam really was. He was no threat to any other nation in the middle east. His two wars against the neighbouring Muslim countries were both started, or continued with what he perceived to be US support.

The famous quote from the movie Michael Clayton applies perfectly to Saddam as well:

"I'm not the guy you kill. I'm the guy you buy! Are you so fucking blind that you don't even see what I am? I'm your easiest problem and you're gonna kill me?"

This could have just as easily been Saddam talking to W.

You're talking about the guy who was paying stipeneds to the families of suicide bombers in Palistine?

He also had the 4th largest standing army in the world protected by the best defense systems available from Russia. Hindsight is 20/20.

And firing on our planes daily for years is OK?

Actually, that is the problem. We have NOT been ignoring them. We have been right in the middle of the mess, stirring it up. Every one of those examples, except for Pan Am, shows what is perceived to be imperialist US forces in their backyard, posing a huge threat to them. Think of the Cuban Missile Crisis in reverse, but even worse. Imagine if Cuba were viewed as holy ground by the US?
Even worse, the US has been seen as propping up or putting into power the worst dictators in the area. The Shah of Iran, Muammar Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein have all been put into power by the US. The Saudi royal family. One of the nastiest governments in the area, and fully backed by the US. Then of course, is the Palestinian issue.
From the view of the average, man on the street in the middle east, the US is always on the wrong side of their problems.

So we should've bought off Saddam?

Pete

[Fast_Eddie]

So we should've bought off Saddam?

Pete

Just a question, but didn't we do that for years? Seriously, I'm not trying a "zing" here, but I think we did at one point pay him off with weapons because we thought he would work with us. I could be wrong.

[Bigerik]

Just a question, but didn't we do that for years? Seriously, I'm not trying a "zing" here, but I think we did at one point pay him off with weapons because we thought he would work with us. I could be wrong.

Yup, we sure did. Who do you think paid for his war against Iran? he was our boy in the middle east!

[Fast_Eddie]

Yup, we sure did. Who do you think paid for his war against Iran? he was our boy in the middle east!

Didn't it work? At least at the time, didn't it work?

[piece-itpete]

Sure, if work is defined as a nasty war with Iran and gassing his own people!

Pete

[Bigerik]

You're talking about the guy who was paying stipeneds to the families of suicide bombers in Palistine?

He also had the 4th largest standing army in the world protected by the best defense systems available from Russia. Hindsight is 20/20.

And firing on our planes daily for years is OK?



So we should've bought off Saddam?

Pete

A lot of mixed up time lines here.

The 4th largest army was wiped out in 1991. Saddam did not have an issue with the US until the war started. Again, he checked with the US ambassador before he attacked Kuwait, and no one was more surprised then he was when the US actually made an issue of it. And propaganda aside, he never really had any intention of attacking Saudi Arabia. Kuwait was just an historical Iraqi province that he wanted to take back. Again, he checked with the US first, found there was no issue there, and then invaded.



Sadam was NOT anti- US until the Gulf war.

The whole "shooting at planes" thing would not have been an issue if the US had properly conducted the close of the war.

[Bigerik]

Sure, if work is defined as a nasty war with Iran and gassing his own people!

Pete

That is exactly what the US wanted. They really hoped that Iraq would cause the Iranian government to fall. Saddam, again, just bit off more than he could chew. But it was a really, ugly, nasty war that one. Any surprise that the Iranians keep hating us?

[piece-itpete]

Boy Eric, we're rollin' now!

And propaganda aside, he never really had any intention of attacking Saudi Arabia. Kuwait was just an historical Iraqi province that he wanted to take back. Again, he checked with the US first, found there was no issue there, and then invaded.

Sadam was NOT anti- US until the Gulf war.

The whole "shooting at planes" thing would not have been an issue if the US had properly conducted the close of the war.

No one knew what he'd do regarding SA, in hindsight it may be clear but we are talking about a guy who idolized Hitler, who did not stop with the Sudetenland.

How would we have properly conducted the close of that war?

That is exactly what the US wanted. They really hoped that Iraq would cause the Iranian government to fall. Saddam, again, just bit off more than he could chew. But it was a really, ugly, nasty war that one. Any surprise that the Iranians keep hating us?

Indeed we had a hand in many things. I seriously doubt though that we wanted the Butcher to gas the Kurds.

Pete

[Fast_Eddie]

Sure, if work is defined as a nasty war with Iran and gassing his own people!

Pete

As opposed to us bombing his people?

[Fast_Eddie]

Indeed we had a hand in many things. I seriously doubt though that we wanted the Butcher to gas the Kurds.

Pete

Who knows. But really, why so bothered by this group being killed. Is it worse than any of the people we've killed? Is it worse than if he had just killed Iranians? I agree that killing is bad. I just don't think I'm as selective about it as you are.

[piece-itpete]

Whoops, posted before reading all responses :)

Saddammit was firing on us every day. I suppose a cop is to blame for the killing the bad guy shooting at him?

Relativism is a very bad thing imho that leads to complete inaction. I think gassing your own citizens like a cowardly dog is far worse than casualties in open combat.

How many combatants have you heard of that dropped warnings and food on the civilian populace before commencing hostilities?

Pete

[Fast_Eddie]

Saddammit was firing on us every day. I suppose a cop is to blame for the killing the bad guy shooting at him?

Are we the Iraqi cops? He wasn't shooting them on the streets of Denver. If there were Iraqi planes flying over the U.S. would we shoot at them?

I know I'm twisting that, but it's to make a point. You're taking "he was shooting at us" out of context and oversimplifying it.

[piece-itpete]

We were enforcing the no fly zone (an attempt to help the Kurds, which is a darnsite more than we did for the Jews during the runup to ww2) that he agreed to.

Pete

[piece-itpete]

I'm off friday and out of here now. Pleasure talking the points of the day with you fellas. Cheers!

Pete

[Fast_Eddie]

Have a great weekend!

[Bigerik]

Boy Eric, we're rollin' now!

No one knew what he'd do regarding SA, in hindsight it may be clear but we are talking about a guy who idolized Hitler, who did not stop with the Sudetenland.


Doesn't Godwins law apply now? :)
Anyhow, the situations were actually quite different.
Saddam had issues with the Kuwaitis, but not really the Saudis. Had he really planned on invading Saudi Arabia, he could have struck anytime after invading Kuwait. His issues were financial and with the Kuwaitis. Regardless of what Cheney said to King Saud, apparently the troops were in no way dispersed in a way to allow for the invasion of Saudi Arabia.

Never actually seen anything close to "proof" that Saddam idolized Hitler. More of a Stalin fan, from what I understand.



How would we have properly conducted the close of that war?


Certainly not the half assed way it was done. Bush Sr was asked at least to allow the forces to go in and finish off the Republican Guard,which he did not allow, even if he was smart enough to realize that occupying Iraq was a bad idea. But then he called for the Kurds to rise up against Saddam, and they stood by and watched as Saddam slaughtered them.


Indeed we had a hand in many things. I seriously doubt though that we wanted the Butcher to gas the Kurds.


I am sure in that part of the world, it can easily be seen that way. Bush told the Iraqi people:

"There is another way for the bloodshed to stop: And that is, for the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside and then comply with the United Nations' resolutions and rejoin the family of peace-loving nations."

Then, when they did that, US forces stood by and watched as Saddams forces crushed the uprising that Bush himself asked for.

So we did not want him to gas them, but slaughtering them en masse by other means was totally ok.

[piece-itpete]

Doesn't Godwins law apply now? :)
Anyhow, the situations were actually quite different.
Saddam had issues with the Kuwaitis, but not really the Saudis. Had he really planned on invading Saudi Arabia, he could have struck anytime after invading Kuwait. His issues were financial and with the Kuwaitis. Regardless of what Cheney said to King Saud, apparently the troops were in no way dispersed in a way to allow for the invasion of Saudi Arabia.

Never actually seen anything close to "proof" that Saddam idolized Hitler. More of a Stalin fan, from what I understand.

I remember a report on iirc PBS talking about his admiration of Hitler, of course, iirc.

If he attacked SA he would've ran into us. Surely he knew that, it was no secret.


Certainly not the half assed way it was done. Bush Sr was asked at least to allow the forces to go in and finish off the Republican Guard,which he did not allow, even if he was smart enough to realize that occupying Iraq was a bad idea. But then he called for the Kurds to rise up against Saddam, and they stood by and watched as Saddam slaughtered them.



I am sure in that part of the world, it can easily be seen that way. Bush told the Iraqi people:

"There is another way for the bloodshed to stop: And that is, for the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside and then comply with the United Nations' resolutions and rejoin the family of peace-loving nations."

Then, when they did that, US forces stood by and watched as Saddams forces crushed the uprising that Bush himself asked for.

So we did not want him to gas them, but slaughtering them en masse by other means was totally ok.

Bush Sr stopped short in Iraq because of our allies opinions - they did not support taking out the Butcher. Isn't this exactly what many Libs (and some Reps too) want - let the international community do it, be multilateral, etc?

But then, no one believes us afterwards. This would be the same in Afganistan.

Pete