Reply With Quote
I'm not sure if I heard the radio blurb correctly on my way home this morning from work.
Petreous taking his place?
Weren't the democrats calling him "betray-us?"
not important to read all of that.
clinton had it right when he kept saddam in a box.
the rest were swayed by "deliberately misleading evidence" provided by bush.
I'm not sure if I heard the radio blurb correctly on my way home this morning from work.
Petreous taking his place?
Weren't the democrats calling him "betray-us?"
way to keep up.
The majority of Americans are morons when it comes to knowing anything about the rest of the world, let alone the vastly complex problem that Afghanistan represents.
That is partly why Obama got some votes, because of his promises to end the war.
Lo' and behold Obama gets into the white house and gets some decent advice and briefings and then realizes that withdrawing is not really an option.
The next president will face the same problems and much of the same advice.
Some liberals were indeed saying that. They were/are idiots.
Pretty much every intelligence community believed that, despite the lack of evidence.
It was an interesting bluff, and you are right that it bit him in the ass. That miscalculation cost him one non-streched neck. Good riddance.
Who was president on February 15, 1989?
I am not entirely sure why the governor of Arkansas was responsible for abandoning the Afghans.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 06-24-2010 at 02:17 PM.
It is true that most world intelligence communities believed that Saddam had WMD's...but...
They did NOT believe that Saddam had any kind of positive relationship with Al Quaida, and THAT is what I could never forgive the Bush Administration for lying about. Cheny kept saying repeatedly on those Sunday morning talk shows that it was "clear" that they were connected to Al Quaida, and he knew all along that it was a lie, and his own intelligence agencies had assured him that Al Quaeda hated Saddam...and vice versa.
Long after the invasion was underway, Cheney kept talking about how Al Quaeda was in Iraq.
Total unmitigated bull .
They DID come in after we tore up the country...
Indeed.
Much was made of a couple of low-level contacts between Iraqi intelligence and Al Qaeda, but no one familiar with the particulars would say it was anything more than the equivalent of two mail-room clerks from GM and Ford getting together for lunch.
So our logic is: since we're there, let's finish the job. Let's not let our dead soldiers' lives be in vain since the country will once again fall into extremist hands and cause even more lives to be lost. And others.
What are some reasons why you think it will take as many as 40 years for the Afghans to become entirely autonomous?
"let's finish the job"
US finished the job of chasing AQ out of Afghanistan and destroying the Taleban in 2002.
The generals say, like in Iraq, there is no military solution in Afghanistan. The backward, corrupt, tribal, hole "country" is not worth dying for, now or ever.
The best defense of USA is here in the USA. Iraq and Afghanistan bull wars have not increased the US's security at all. A total waste lives and treasure (but the MIC and oilcos did well).
Suddenly, MoveOn.org removed "Betray-Us" ad from their website.
http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/23/mc...rg-scrambling/
Oddly enough, MoveOn.org still had this Sept. 2007 ad up as of June 18, according to their Google cache. But if you go to http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html now, it’s gone. They kept it there for almost 3 years before taking it down all of a sudden.
Wonder why?
Primary reason:
No infrastructure.
By any measure, human capital, physical capital, legal infrastructure, Afghanistan is roughly where the were pretty much at the level of the incas in the 1600's.
You just can't create a nation out of whole cloth in ten or even twenty years.
I would note the modern state of Germany didn't exist in 1860. It took more than a decade to form it, even with the forces of nationalism and common cultural elements to grease the wheels and force the two or three dozen principalities under one common flag.
Similar problems existed and were encountered for just about every modern nation created by colonial fiat, as Afghanistan was.
I think one good example is how Africa has developed post-colonial period. Contrary to many people's beleifs it has made massive strides, given where it was in 1950-1960.
Another 10-30 years given how things seem to go for the development of nations, is not outside the realm of what is necessary, IMO.
you shouldn't go to moveon.org.
i don't.
why are you so worried about how Obama's decision is impacting MoveOn?Suddenly, MoveOn.org removed "Betray-Us" ad from their website.
http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/23/mc...rg-scrambling/
Thanks for taking time away from your job to make this post.
Just wake up, ?
Last edited by CosmicCowboy; 06-24-2010 at 03:53 PM.
You had to edit that?
Shouldn't you be working?
I am working. I can multi-task.You had to edit that?
Shouldn't you be working?
Can't we all just get along?
Why? are they too far to the right for you?
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 06-25-2010 at 10:12 AM.
COIN is has been a standoff at best, a war of slow attrition at worst, in Afghanistan. [over hasty inference, retracted, with apologizes to z0sa. -Ed.]
Last edited by Winehole23; 06-25-2010 at 05:21 PM.
^ You mean concerning McChrystal, or concerning McChrystal's tactics, or..?
Our quelling of these 'rebels' will never be complete (i think we agree there). Even in 40 years, I doubt the terrorist threat will be gone. It may even increase exponentially as more of the country's vast natural resources are uncovered and extracted.
Perhaps I mistook you. You seemed to be emphasizing the importance of Karzai's approval, and alluded to a vague improvement in US-Afghan relations.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
