On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 17:58:43 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:46:21 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 21:49:23 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
om...
On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 11:18:44 -0500, hpeer wrote:

Stephen Trapani wrote:
Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 11:51:36 -0500, Marty wrote:

Jon, I think he must be really great, President for only 40 days
and
already decisions made by 10 years of Republican Congresses and 8
years of Republican Presidency are his fault! Now that's talent!

More interesting is how all of these guys got into financial
trouble
in only 40 days. That's talent also.

That said, this really isn't the right place.


In order to fervently believe what we want to believe we have to
desperately ignore what we have to ignore in order to think that the
Congress has been controlled by Republicans for the last four years.
Whatever you do, *don't* actually check this easily checked fact
anywhere, like, say, he

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgov...division_2.htm

Instead, use blinding strategies like maybe ridicule this **** out
of
this post so you can continue to blame who you've been blaming,
instead
of learning anything new. After all, we wouldn't all want to be
supporting a large increase in the same thing we've been doing for
the
last four years, would we? That would be insane!

Steph

The problem is that Congress has been ruled by POLITICIANS, whatever
their ilk. People whose only goal is to get reelected. No fish
monger
ever cried "Bad fish for sale!"

The problem is the people who perfumed over the stink figuring they
were
going to get a piece of the profit.

People vote for who tells them what they want to hear. Forget the
2000
election. Who voted for W in 2004? The People! Idiots.

So don't blame Bush now, and don't blame Obama in 2012. They are
merely
characters in a play - speaking their lines - written by "We The
People."

Rant off.

In fact, while I don't remember exactly what Obama said during the
primary and the campaign the overwhelming recollection I have is that
he intended to "bring the boys home" right now! Of course, once
elected "right now" isn't exactly "this instance" it is "sometime next
year", "the year after", "well, maybe in a while".

He was reported on the news, over here, as saying that he is going to
balance the budget by "cutting government expenditures and taxing rich
people" which seems a little misleading coming, as it did, just after
the reporting that it was "the biggest bail-out in history".

My impression is that Obama, to give him all the credit due was simply
the better "politician". and I suppose deserves to be President.

On the other hand, I have the sneaking suspicion that it may not make
much difference what party is in power as if the boat has a big hole
in it all you can do is bail.

Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


He said 16 mos. It's now going to be 19, plus longer for core troops. I
think he's following the advise he's being given by the generals and
following his campaign promise as best he can.

I don't think what he's attempting to do is misleading, although it may
not
be intuitive. The short term needs to be dealt with in the, um, short
term.
The longer term is next.


As I said, I really didn't pay much attention and it was only a
impression I was left with.

But good on him if he can get out of that mess. Of course, there is
another 70,000 tip-toeing off to Afghanistan but apparently we are
getting out of Iraq... well, except for some that will be left to
ensure peace, aid the locals, or whatever.

I do wonder about the Afghan thing though. It is my certain, sure,
recollection that a number of people have gone over there to teach 'em
"what is what". None successfully, but they went. the Brits even went
twice if my memory serves me.

There is that quote about "those who refuse to read history are doomed
to repeat it".


Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Afganistan is a different war for a different and most would argue for
legitimate reason. If we had started and stopped there, we'd be in a lot
better place IMHO, but in any case, we have to try. I think the best model
is to build up their infrastructure (as the Romans did) and that'll help
stablize the country.

Except that the Roman's didn't build up the infrastructure for the
benefit of the "locals" who couldn't, until very late in the empire
period even aspire to become a Citizen of Rome. The idea was to build
up the infrastructure for the benefit of ROME.

The problem seems to be the apparent "American" belief that everything
is fixable. I admit to being a cynic but I do believe that a great
percentage of the worlds population are not the warm fuzzy people that
the liberals seem to imagine.

If it served no other purpose the "Viet Nam War" should have served to
teach the U.S. not to involve themselves in places that they don't
understand. The famous "domino theory" that was the excuse for the
involvement in Viet Nam was a false as the great "WMD" theory.
Now, I understand, the U.S. is going to donate millions? billions? to
the Palestinians to "help them recover from the war".

My impression of Afghanistan is that it is an essentially feudal
country with a religion that can easily be interpreted to reinforce
that form of government. The people are fiercely independent and are
well aware that they have triumphed over every foreigner who has
invaded them, and don't think for a moment that because the majority
perhaps can't read that they don't know that they beat the British
(twice) and the Russians. These stories will be told "around the camp
fire" for few more centuries, at least.

It appears that the idea is to "help" these people by imposing a
foreign concept, a "Democratic Government", an idea that is
undoubtedly as strange and abhorrent to the average Afghan as the idea
of a hereditary royalty would be to the average American. In addition
these outsiders are going to "help us" by slaughtering the Fierce
Crusaders who have, with few if any assets, been resisting those
ungodly Devils who would destroy our faith. And not only that, but
these same Devils are intent on destroying the country's major source
of foreign currency, the fountain from which all blessings flow.

Yet another morass that the country will march blindly into without
the slightest idea of how to get out of.

I suggest that a return to the Powell Doctrine would not be a mistake.

Articulated by Gen. Powell when he was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff during the Gulf War, the Powell Doctrine was designed to avoid,
as Powell once put it, "halfhearted warfare for half-baked reasons
that the American people could not understand or support." The Powell
Doctrine held that military force should only be used if there was a
clear risk to national security; that the force used should be
overwhelming; and that the operation must have strong public support
and a clear exit strategy.

Note particularly the last five words.

Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Umm... it would be for our benefit.

Not sure what you mean by fixable. We can't allow bin laden and his group to
run free either in Afganistan or Pakistan. Especially in the case of
Pakistan, they have nukes. There is certainly a proven risk to our security
for those two countries... unlike Iraq which was a war of choice.


What, in God's world, do you care about what Bin Ladin does in
Afghanistan? What you want to do is keep them out of the U.S.'s hair
which, I agree may be impossible.

The solution, of course, since you can't seem to catch him, is to fall
back on what you do well and simply to obliterate any area where you
have any evidence that they might be.

Of course, this is going to raise a great cry about "non-combatants"
and collateral damage which will effectively force the Government out
of the eradication project and play right into the hands of the
terrorists.

Regarding "non-combatants" does anyone know, or remember, what the
local Afghan ladies did to captured Russian (or British, in their
time) soldiers? Probably rather difficult to consider someone sawing
away at your testicles, with a dull knife, to be really a
non-combatant - and you probably don't care much anyway.

I suggest that the only effective method of dealing with terrorists is
to shoot 'em.

Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)