| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#92
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 13:53:43 -0500, wrote:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 10:00:23 -0800, wrote: On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 01:19:07 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 16:37:52 -0800, wrote: Iraq and Iran have never been a danger to the US but neither was Afghanistan. We invaded and occupied a country to get one guy, who isn't there. Is that dumber than invading for WMD that wasn't there? ?? We invaded Afg. to 1) get Bin Laden (Bush gave up on that one) and 2) to stop the safe harbor the Taliban were giving him. When we invaded, Bin Laden was there. Bush let him get away. It is far from certain that there was any way to get Bin Laden and when it was clear he got away, why did we keep prosecuting the war? You're right. Bush lied about the effort, which was in a large measure how easy or difficult it was. We kept going to try and ensure the Taliban didn't return. Actually, Bush did little. We had to wait for Obama. Obams basically threw more troops into Afghanistan after saying he would wind down the war. I really do not see much progress tho. We are killing more people but I am not sure we are making a dent in the terrorists. We are making new ones faster than we can kill them. So, he shouldn't have listened to his generals? Generals always want more troops and a bigger war. It is what they do for a living, whether it is good foreign policy or not. That is why we have civilian oversight. So, which is it. Should Obama listen or not listen to military experts? Bush said he would, but he didn't. Right now, it makes sense to try and wind things down in Afg. According to you, we should just get on a plane and leave. That's shortsighted nonsense, and it makes no sense militarily or politically. You make it sound like Bin Laden is some kind of criminal genius who can't be replaced. The fact is he was not even the planner of 9-11. (that guy is in Gitmo) OBL just provided some of the money. As soon as we cut him off from the money he was "contained". He was certainly in the loop on it. There may be some revenge value to going after him but if that is a justification, then getting Saddam should have been OK. Revenge had nothing to do with it. Justice did. Saddam didn't attack us or make any plans to attack us. The revenge would be for putting a contract out on GHWB. And, this is a justification for 1000s of dead US soldiers? No but it is probably more accurate than any other explanation I have heard. It's a statement of fact for sure. Bush, of course, won't admit it, but I'm sure it played a hand. That and Cheney's Haliburton. In 50 years Iraq may be seen as the good war, if they actually come out of it with a democracy. I doubt there will be any good coming out of the Afghanistan war. There is absolutely ZERO chance that **** hole will ever be a democracy. Right. Because Iraq was Bush's war, but Afg. is Obamas? There is a decent chance that they won't devolve back into Taliban control... There is a fair to middling chance that Iraq might evolve into a somewhat democratic government that successfully participates in the global economy. Afghanistan will still be a **** hole that will remain a tribal culture and the only participation in the world economy will be the powerful will exploit the weak to produce a few natural resources and a lot of smack. According the you.... expert on all things, esp. those in the middle east. You don't have to be a middle east expert to predict that. You only have to look at history (recent and long term). Iraq is a lot more westernized than Afghanistan. Well, as you're fond of saying, we'll see. It won't be an American-style democracy, but it could be a relatively safe place, free (for the most part) of terrorism. |
|
#93
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
On 2/8/11 2:25 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 13:53:43 -0500, wrote: On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 10:00:23 -0800, wrote: On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 01:19:07 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 16:37:52 -0800, wrote: Iraq and Iran have never been a danger to the US but neither was Afghanistan. We invaded and occupied a country to get one guy, who isn't there. Is that dumber than invading for WMD that wasn't there? ?? We invaded Afg. to 1) get Bin Laden (Bush gave up on that one) and 2) to stop the safe harbor the Taliban were giving him. When we invaded, Bin Laden was there. Bush let him get away. It is far from certain that there was any way to get Bin Laden and when it was clear he got away, why did we keep prosecuting the war? You're right. Bush lied about the effort, which was in a large measure how easy or difficult it was. We kept going to try and ensure the Taliban didn't return. Actually, Bush did little. We had to wait for Obama. Obams basically threw more troops into Afghanistan after saying he would wind down the war. I really do not see much progress tho. We are killing more people but I am not sure we are making a dent in the terrorists. We are making new ones faster than we can kill them. So, he shouldn't have listened to his generals? Generals always want more troops and a bigger war. It is what they do for a living, whether it is good foreign policy or not. That is why we have civilian oversight. So, which is it. Should Obama listen or not listen to military experts? Bush said he would, but he didn't. Right now, it makes sense to try and wind things down in Afg. According to you, we should just get on a plane and leave. That's shortsighted nonsense, and it makes no sense militarily or politically. You make it sound like Bin Laden is some kind of criminal genius who can't be replaced. The fact is he was not even the planner of 9-11. (that guy is in Gitmo) OBL just provided some of the money. As soon as we cut him off from the money he was "contained". He was certainly in the loop on it. There may be some revenge value to going after him but if that is a justification, then getting Saddam should have been OK. Revenge had nothing to do with it. Justice did. Saddam didn't attack us or make any plans to attack us. The revenge would be for putting a contract out on GHWB. And, this is a justification for 1000s of dead US soldiers? No but it is probably more accurate than any other explanation I have heard. It's a statement of fact for sure. Bush, of course, won't admit it, but I'm sure it played a hand. That and Cheney's Haliburton. In 50 years Iraq may be seen as the good war, if they actually come out of it with a democracy. I doubt there will be any good coming out of the Afghanistan war. There is absolutely ZERO chance that **** hole will ever be a democracy. Right. Because Iraq was Bush's war, but Afg. is Obamas? There is a decent chance that they won't devolve back into Taliban control... There is a fair to middling chance that Iraq might evolve into a somewhat democratic government that successfully participates in the global economy. Afghanistan will still be a **** hole that will remain a tribal culture and the only participation in the world economy will be the powerful will exploit the weak to produce a few natural resources and a lot of smack. According the you.... expert on all things, esp. those in the middle east. You don't have to be a middle east expert to predict that. You only have to look at history (recent and long term). Iraq is a lot more westernized than Afghanistan. Well, as you're fond of saying, we'll see. It won't be an American-style democracy, but it could be a relatively safe place, free (for the most part) of terrorism. Afghanistan? Afghanistan isn't even a country. It's an outline on a map, with hundreds of independent villages and villagers who hate the villagers in the next village. Iraq will fall apart. Afghanistan will never be "together" enough to fall apart. |
|
#94
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
In article ,
says... On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 14:30:35 -0500, Harryk wrote: On 2/8/11 2:25 PM, wrote: According the you.... expert on all things, esp. those in the middle east. You don't have to be a middle east expert to predict that. You only have to look at history (recent and long term). Iraq is a lot more westernized than Afghanistan. Well, as you're fond of saying, we'll see. It won't be an American-style democracy, but it could be a relatively safe place, free (for the most part) of terrorism. Afghanistan? Afghanistan isn't even a country. It's an outline on a map, with hundreds of independent villages and villagers who hate the villagers in the next village. Good explanation Iraq will fall apart. Afghanistan will never be "together" enough to fall apart. It might survive as 2 countries. Then there would be Pakistan, North Pakistan and Outer Pakistan. East Iran and North Pakistan. |
|
#95
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
On 2/9/11 7:39 AM, BAR wrote:
In , says... On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 14:30:35 -0500, wrote: On 2/8/11 2:25 PM, wrote: According the you.... expert on all things, esp. those in the middle east. You don't have to be a middle east expert to predict that. You only have to look at history (recent and long term). Iraq is a lot more westernized than Afghanistan. Well, as you're fond of saying, we'll see. It won't be an American-style democracy, but it could be a relatively safe place, free (for the most part) of terrorism. Afghanistan? Afghanistan isn't even a country. It's an outline on a map, with hundreds of independent villages and villagers who hate the villagers in the next village. Good explanation Iraq will fall apart. Afghanistan will never be "together" enough to fall apart. It might survive as 2 countries. Then there would be Pakistan, North Pakistan and Outer Pakistan. East Iran and North Pakistan. I don't disagree with your analysis. I hope that causes you angst. |
|
#96
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says... On 2/9/11 7:39 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 14:30:35 -0500, wrote: On 2/8/11 2:25 PM, wrote: According the you.... expert on all things, esp. those in the middle east. You don't have to be a middle east expert to predict that. You only have to look at history (recent and long term). Iraq is a lot more westernized than Afghanistan. Well, as you're fond of saying, we'll see. It won't be an American-style democracy, but it could be a relatively safe place, free (for the most part) of terrorism. Afghanistan? Afghanistan isn't even a country. It's an outline on a map, with hundreds of independent villages and villagers who hate the villagers in the next village. Good explanation Iraq will fall apart. Afghanistan will never be "together" enough to fall apart. It might survive as 2 countries. Then there would be Pakistan, North Pakistan and Outer Pakistan. East Iran and North Pakistan. I don't disagree with your analysis. I hope that causes you angst. It does give you pause doesn't it. |
|
#97
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 18:57:52 -0500, wrote:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 11:25:22 -0800, wrote: On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 13:53:43 -0500, wrote: Generals always want more troops and a bigger war. It is what they do for a living, whether it is good foreign policy or not. That is why we have civilian oversight. So, which is it. Should Obama listen or not listen to military experts? Bush said he would, but he didn't. They both followed the same exact path. Obama is on the Bush schedule. Right now, it makes sense to try and wind things down in Afg. According to you, we should just get on a plane and leave. That's shortsighted nonsense, and it makes no sense militarily or politically. It is interesting that when this was Bush's plan you folks all said "get out now". Now that it is the Obama plan you have all the patience in the world. Really? Sounds to me like you're rewriting public opinion. Most people once they found out the facts of Iraq said we should get out asap. Most people thought that the Afg. war was justified. Feel free to keep your eyes closed if it makes you feel better. Harry is the only one who is consistent here. In 50 years Iraq may be seen as the good war, if they actually come out of it with a democracy. I doubt there will be any good coming out of the Afghanistan war. There is absolutely ZERO chance that **** hole will ever be a democracy. Right. Because Iraq was Bush's war, but Afg. is Obamas? There is a decent chance that they won't devolve back into Taliban control... There is a fair to middling chance that Iraq might evolve into a somewhat democratic government that successfully participates in the global economy. Afghanistan will still be a **** hole that will remain a tribal culture and the only participation in the world economy will be the powerful will exploit the weak to produce a few natural resources and a lot of smack. According the you.... expert on all things, esp. those in the middle east. You don't have to be a middle east expert to predict that. You only have to look at history (recent and long term). Iraq is a lot more westernized than Afghanistan. Well, as you're fond of saying, we'll see. It won't be an American-style democracy, but it could be a relatively safe place, free (for the most part) of terrorism. We are going to be lucky not to lose Pakistan to the Taliban right now. I think Afghanistan will go back to obscurity as soon as we leave but I doubt it will ever be a real democracy. Pakistan is making great strides in security. I hope you're not right. If it happens, it became a reality because of Bush's negligence in the region. |
|
#98
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
On 2/9/11 2:04 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 08:14:15 -0500, wrote: In , payer3389 @mypacks.net says... On 2/9/11 7:39 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 14:30:35 -0500, wrote: On 2/8/11 2:25 PM, wrote: According the you.... expert on all things, esp. those in the middle east. You don't have to be a middle east expert to predict that. You only have to look at history (recent and long term). Iraq is a lot more westernized than Afghanistan. Well, as you're fond of saying, we'll see. It won't be an American-style democracy, but it could be a relatively safe place, free (for the most part) of terrorism. Afghanistan? Afghanistan isn't even a country. It's an outline on a map, with hundreds of independent villages and villagers who hate the villagers in the next village. Good explanation Iraq will fall apart. Afghanistan will never be "together" enough to fall apart. It might survive as 2 countries. Then there would be Pakistan, North Pakistan and Outer Pakistan. East Iran and North Pakistan. I don't disagree with your analysis. I hope that causes you angst. It does give you pause doesn't it. I think it is encouraging that we are actually having a civilized conversation and actually agreeing on something ;-) Someone please explain to me in polite terms how the leaders of two administrations, the current one and the one in the immediate past, hoodwinked themselves into believing anything worth saving could be made from either Iraq or Afghanistan. I understand what Bush I did with his war with Iraq. It was rational. I understand what Clinton did in Bosnia. That was rational. Iraq? Afghanistan? Huh? |
|
#99
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
On 2/9/11 2:55 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 11:07:39 -0800, wrote: On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 18:57:52 -0500, wrote: On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 11:25:22 -0800, wrote: On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 13:53:43 -0500, wrote: Generals always want more troops and a bigger war. It is what they do for a living, whether it is good foreign policy or not. That is why we have civilian oversight. So, which is it. Should Obama listen or not listen to military experts? Bush said he would, but he didn't. They both followed the same exact path. Obama is on the Bush schedule. Right now, it makes sense to try and wind things down in Afg. According to you, we should just get on a plane and leave. That's shortsighted nonsense, and it makes no sense militarily or politically. It is interesting that when this was Bush's plan you folks all said "get out now". Now that it is the Obama plan you have all the patience in the world. Really? Sounds to me like you're rewriting public opinion. Most people once they found out the facts of Iraq said we should get out asap. Most people thought that the Afg. war was justified. Feel free to keep your eyes closed if it makes you feel better. There were polls saying the Vietnam was the right thing to do too. It all depends on what the talking heads on TV tell Americans to believe. When the networks have their "Cronkite" moment, we will demand an end to that war too. You still can't ignore history. Harry has this one right. Afghanistan is not a country, it is just a collection of tribes who hate each other. Like most of the countries in South West Asia, Afghanistan was the creation of colonial European powers, not any natural political division. Harry is the only one who is consistent here. In 50 years Iraq may be seen as the good war, if they actually come out of it with a democracy. I doubt there will be any good coming out of the Afghanistan war. There is absolutely ZERO chance that **** hole will ever be a democracy. Right. Because Iraq was Bush's war, but Afg. is Obamas? There is a decent chance that they won't devolve back into Taliban control... There is a fair to middling chance that Iraq might evolve into a somewhat democratic government that successfully participates in the global economy. Afghanistan will still be a **** hole that will remain a tribal culture and the only participation in the world economy will be the powerful will exploit the weak to produce a few natural resources and a lot of smack. According the you.... expert on all things, esp. those in the middle east. You don't have to be a middle east expert to predict that. You only have to look at history (recent and long term). Iraq is a lot more westernized than Afghanistan. Well, as you're fond of saying, we'll see. It won't be an American-style democracy, but it could be a relatively safe place, free (for the most part) of terrorism. We are going to be lucky not to lose Pakistan to the Taliban right now. I think Afghanistan will go back to obscurity as soon as we leave but I doubt it will ever be a real democracy. Pakistan is making great strides in security. I hope you're not right. If it happens, it became a reality because of Bush's negligence in the region. Yup the whole 1000 years or turmoil in the middle east is GWs fault. Actually I do not remember any Bush incursions into sovereign Pakistani territory. That is not true now. Each one of them is an act of war. The open question is how many acts of war does it take before you have a war. This is Obama's "Cambodia". Ignorant, simple-minded religious zealotry. |
|
#100
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 14:24:30 -0500, Harryk
wrote: On 2/9/11 2:04 PM, wrote: On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 08:14:15 -0500, wrote: In , payer3389 @mypacks.net says... On 2/9/11 7:39 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 14:30:35 -0500, wrote: On 2/8/11 2:25 PM, wrote: According the you.... expert on all things, esp. those in the middle east. You don't have to be a middle east expert to predict that. You only have to look at history (recent and long term). Iraq is a lot more westernized than Afghanistan. Well, as you're fond of saying, we'll see. It won't be an American-style democracy, but it could be a relatively safe place, free (for the most part) of terrorism. Afghanistan? Afghanistan isn't even a country. It's an outline on a map, with hundreds of independent villages and villagers who hate the villagers in the next village. Good explanation Iraq will fall apart. Afghanistan will never be "together" enough to fall apart. It might survive as 2 countries. Then there would be Pakistan, North Pakistan and Outer Pakistan. East Iran and North Pakistan. I don't disagree with your analysis. I hope that causes you angst. It does give you pause doesn't it. I think it is encouraging that we are actually having a civilized conversation and actually agreeing on something ;-) Someone please explain to me in polite terms how the leaders of two administrations, the current one and the one in the immediate past, hoodwinked themselves into believing anything worth saving could be made from either Iraq or Afghanistan. I understand what Bush I did with his war with Iraq. It was rational. I understand what Clinton did in Bosnia. That was rational. Iraq? Afghanistan? Huh? I can't explain Bush II's invasion in rational terms. I can explain his invasion of Afg., and there's no need for me to rehash it. Obama is trying to get us out of Iraq. Even Bush II agreed to the withdrawal and it's proceeding. Obama will have to extricate us from Afg., and I believe that's going to happen as planned. I don't think it would be responsible to just exit immediately. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Forced Back Into Sailing in Toronto | Cruising | |||
| When USA Forced Injections Regimes Comes, Run Away From Them | General | |||
| FDR: Internment Camps and Forced Labor | ASA | |||
| GM Forced to Lay Off Thousands | General | |||
Linear Mode
