[Al_U_Card]

PassedOut, on Oct 11 2009, 07:01 PM, said:

I note that Nigel K thinks that Obama foreign policy advances the socialist agenda while Al U Card thinks it exists to create corporate profits. Hmmm.

Uhhhh, backed up by a few centuries of practical examples....somewhat more than just thoughts.....

[mike777]

Al_U_Card, on Oct 11 2009, 06:22 PM, said:

Strategy....... strategy?

What is the REASON for being there?  Better be a good one. They used up the domino theory.  Can't be promoting world peace. The war on terror? Puh-leeze! The more they kill arabs (Persians are next, apparently) the more the terror potential rises. So, other than making money, what could it be????

Obama, pulls out all of the troops and then you have to wonder, where will he send them next? No number of additional forces will make any positive difference to Afghanistan or the Afghanis, so why the hell stay?

BTW Your main point may be correct. Why should we stay?

My opinion and really more a hope and guess is give the General his 40-60k troops. Wait one year after all are in country. Is the situation much much better? If not send everyone home.


As with the Iraq surge I said I hope it works, I dont know if it will.

[Al_U_Card]

Winstonm, on Oct 11 2009, 07:08 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Oct 11 2009, 07:01 PM, said:

I note that Nigel K thinks that Obama foreign policy advances the socialist agenda while Al U Card thinks it exists to create corporate profits. Hmmm.

Oddly enough, these are not conflicting sentiments.

What is it with Americans believing that anything other than Attack! and Kill! are socialist behaviors......???

[Al_U_Card]

mike777, on Oct 11 2009, 07:12 PM, said:

"Strategy....... strategy?

What is the REASON for being there? Better be a good one."

Here is his reason. You may not like it but he does have a reason.



As President, my greatest responsibility is to protect the American people…We are in Afghanistan

BEING in Afghanistan is a threat to the American people. Who is he kidding? Islamic extremist rhetoric (like THAT never existed before....) is, in part, a response to the American insistance on Balkanizing the region and constantly attacking wherever oil etc. are to be found.

[Winstonm]

Josh,

I appreciate your quote, but I have to point out that that providing for the common defense is not enumerated as a primary responsibility of the executive branch. It says:

Quote

We the People of the United States

Maybe it is picking at straws a bit, but civil liberties are the basis of the foundation of this country, and when an excuse is made to embolden the executive with unwarranted powers (my primary responsibility is to protect the American people. [Might as well continue as Bush did, I am a war President]), I feel it needs to be pointed out and emphasized that no, that is not the primary job of the President. The primary job of the President is to protect my civil rights by adhering to the rule of law and making sure the country does, as well.

[Al_U_Card]

mike777, on Oct 11 2009, 07:30 PM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Oct 11 2009, 06:22 PM, said:

Strategy....... strategy?

What is the REASON for being there?  Better be a good one. They used up the domino theory.  Can't be promoting world peace. The war on terror? Puh-leeze! The more they kill arabs (Persians are next, apparently) the more the terror potential rises. So, other than making money, what could it be????

Obama, pulls out all of the troops and then you have to wonder, where will he send them next? No number of additional forces will make any positive difference to Afghanistan or the Afghanis, so why the hell stay?

BTW Your main point may be correct. Why should we stay?

My opinion and really more a hope and guess is give the General his 40-60k troops. Wait one year after all are in country. Is the situation much much better? If not send everyone home.


As with the Iran surge I said I hope it works, I dont know if it will.

Sorry Mike. DON'T give them any more weapons of war. DO provide infrastructural aid and training. NO combat troops.

Might actually make a positive difference although the hole that they have dug over the last 8 years is pretty deep.

[mike777]

Al_U_Card, on Oct 11 2009, 07:31 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Oct 11 2009, 07:08 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Oct 11 2009, 07:01 PM, said:

I note that Nigel K thinks that Obama foreign policy advances the socialist agenda while Al U Card thinks it exists to create corporate profits. Hmmm.

Oddly enough, these are not conflicting sentiments.

What is it with Americans believing that anything other than Attack! and Kill! are socialist behaviors......???

I wonder that also....perhaps appeasement, is a better term.

Keep in mind the USA has basically been in constant war since 1776 or earlier.

[mike777]

Al_U_Card, on Oct 11 2009, 07:36 PM, said:

mike777, on Oct 11 2009, 07:30 PM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Oct 11 2009, 06:22 PM, said:

Strategy....... strategy?

What is the REASON for being there?  Better be a good one. They used up the domino theory.  Can't be promoting world peace. The war on terror? Puh-leeze! The more they kill arabs (Persians are next, apparently) the more the terror potential rises. So, other than making money, what could it be????

Obama, pulls out all of the troops and then you have to wonder, where will he send them next? No number of additional forces will make any positive difference to Afghanistan or the Afghanis, so why the hell stay?

BTW Your main point may be correct. Why should we stay?

My opinion and really more a hope and guess is give the General his 40-60k troops. Wait one year after all are in country. Is the situation much much better? If not send everyone home.


As with the Iraq surge I said I hope it works, I dont know if it will.

Sorry Mike. DON'T give them any more weapons of war. DO provide infrastructural aid and training. NO combat troops.

Might actually make a positive difference although the hole that they have dug over the last 8 years is pretty deep.

Al If you or your children are in Afghanistan doing that who protects you from the Taliban? I mean would you really send your children to Afghanistan to do that with no combat troops, no weapons of war?

[Winstonm]

Fred Kagan helped craft the McChrystal surge plan - what other neocon holdouts are around to whisper sweet nothings in the President's ear about the need to fight the long, longer, and longest war?

Quote

On March 27, 2009, the President announced a comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan...

The strategy starts with a clear, concise, attainable goal: disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its safe havens.

What a complete and total load of crap. By McChrystal's own admission and by the maximum estimates possible there are fewer than 100 total al-Qaeda left in all of Afghanistan - and we need 60.000 more fighting troops to do what - make sure they don't buy Ipods to coordinate attacks against the U.S.?

Because, dear hearts, an Ipod is all the terrorists need to organize an attack. Safe haven? Are they nuts? 9-11 was organized from Hamburg. The next attack could be organized with a dozen IPods and one guy sitting in the bar at JFK.

Quote

A Regional Approach
Our strategy focuses more intensively on Pakistan than in the past.... linked to Pakistani performance against terror.

We like to label "terrorist" or "insurgent" anyone who opposes the Amercan will and doesn't "go along with the program". Much of the "terror" is being provided by those who oppose U.S. occupation forces being in their country - when they were used to fight the soviets, we called them patriots.

This long war is the wet dream of the Neocon, co-opting Trotsky's endless revolution into a never-ending war of aggression that has nothing to do with defense but much to do enriching the war contractors.

[Al_U_Card]

The Peace Corps went into a lot of places where they did a lot of good (until they were infiltrated by the CIA).
Foreign aid has it's perils but those that partake know them. (Doctors without borders, Amnesty Int'l etc.)
The US is better served by looking inward and fighting it's own demons rather than exporting them. Founding Father stuff.

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Oct 11 2009, 07:35 PM, said:

Josh,

I appreciate your quote, but I have to point out that that providing for the common defense is not enumerated as a primary responsibility of the executive branch.  It says:

Quote

We the People of the United States

Don't shortchange us. It says "We the People...in order to blah blah blah...do ordain and establish this Constitution". That is all "we the people" did in this context, create the constitution. So if you say the primary job of the president is "to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" then I believe what I quoted is part of that.

I mean, what is official anyway? The president is the commander in chief and as such has the right to use the military to defend us given that we were already there, that much is clear. As for his "primary responsiblity", if that's stated somewhere official please show me, if not then I really disagree with you strongly. I think safety should always be the primary concern of anyone in a position of authority or responsibility over others.

[mike777]

Al_U_Card, on Oct 11 2009, 08:03 PM, said:

The Peace Corps went into a lot of places where they did a lot of good (until they were infiltrated by the CIA).
Foreign aid has it's perils but those that partake know them. (Doctors without borders, Amnesty Int'l etc.)
The US is better served by looking inward and fighting it's own demons rather than exporting them.  Founding Father stuff.

AL being a non American you may not realize...the Peace Corp did not train foreign armies to fight and kill.

The peace corp was never ordered by the President into active War zones to rebuild. When they did go to a country at war, the results were very very poor.


"Sorry Mike. DON'T give them any more weapons of war. DO provide infrastructural aid and training. NO combat troops."


btw the CIA as I understand was involved with the Peace Corp from day one.

In any event if you have family or are about to send your family and friends there with no combat troops ... ok...

[Winstonm]

Quote

I think safety should always be the primary concern of anyone in a position of authority or responsibility over others.

Your position is fine and reasonable. I happen to disagree, but I think most of my personal disagreement stems for having been of age during the height of the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal - having witnessed close up Presidential power misued .

I understand the world has changed to a large degree, and some of the concepts of the Constitution seem outdated - but I would gladly trade safety (the illusion of safety, really, as after all, illusion is all that can really be guaranteed) for adherence to the rule of law every time.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Oct 11 2009, 08:10 PM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Oct 11 2009, 08:03 PM, said:

The Peace Corps went into a lot of places where they did a lot of good (until they were infiltrated by the CIA).
Foreign aid has it's perils but those that partake know them. (Doctors without borders, Amnesty Int'l etc.)
The US is better served by looking inward and fighting it's own demons rather than exporting them.  Founding Father stuff.

AL being a non American you may not realize...the Peace Corp did not train foreign armies to fight and kill.

The peace corp was never ordered by the President into active War zones to rebuild. When they did go to a country at war, the results were very very poor.


"Sorry Mike. DON'T give them any more weapons of war. DO provide infrastructural aid and training. NO combat troops."


btw the CIA as I understand was involved with the Peace Corp from day one.

In any event if you have family or are about to send your family and friends there with no combat troops ... ok...

It sure looks like everyone was terrified to go into Afghanistan when the Taliban ruled:

Quote

The new deal on the pipeline was signed on 27 December 2002 by the leaders of Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan.[1] In 2005, the Asian Development Bank submitted the final version of a feasibility study designed by British company Penspen. Since the United States military overthrew the Taliban government, the project has essentially stalled;

[Al_U_Card]

Seems that the US "left" Vietnam......and now they are killing US citizens? Nope. They are having an economic revival and are living in peace.

The US-centric view of the world is very.....Greek/Roman/French/British....ie typical of imperial, expansionist empires.

The world will NOT fall to pieces if you leave it to it's own devices.

Cheap oil enriched the US and keeps it's lifestyle fueled along with major deficit spending and debt creation. A day of reckoning is coming and like others in the past it will leave the US in the dust of history....sadly, to be replaced by the next in line.

[blackshoe]

Winstonm, on Oct 11 2009, 07:56 PM, said:

Nigel K wrote that,

Quote

2. Don't forget the people who vote for this thing are European socialists and Obama's view on foreign policy is a european socialist's wet dream.

At least you are consistent in your ideology - fascism good/socialism bad.

So Obama is a fascist? NigelK? Me? Anyone who disagrees with you?

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on Oct 11 2009, 09:09 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Oct 11 2009, 07:56 PM, said:

Nigel K wrote that,

Quote

2. Don't forget the people who vote for this thing are European socialists and Obama's view on foreign policy is a european socialist's wet dream.

At least you are consistent in your ideology - fascism good/socialism bad.

So Obama is a fascist? NigelK? Me? Anyone who disagrees with you?

Don't get your shorts in a knot - you missed the joke. With Nigel, it was socialism, socialism, socialism, so I elected to use a word that sounded contrary to socialism and elected to use fascism.

I guess I could have used Palinism - her beliefs seem to mirror those of Nigel. But the point was to show that anything Nigel objected to was labeled socialism.

[Winstonm]

Quote

The world will NOT fall to pieces if you leave it to it's own devices.

As a Christian nation it is crucial that we point out the errors of your ways - you may not fall to pieces but you will surely burn in hell unless you help us hold oil prices below $100 a barrel.

Quote

Cheap oil enriched the US and keeps it's lifestyle fueled along with major deficit spending and debt creation. A day of reckoning is coming and like others in the past it will leave the US in the dust of history....sadly, to be replaced by the next in line. dry.gif

Exceptional-ism justifies profligacy.

[blackshoe]

It is not the case that "socialism is bad" means "fascism is good". Nor, I think, are Nigel's comments about European socialists and Obama far off the mark.

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on Oct 11 2009, 09:34 PM, said:

It is not the case that "socialism is bad" means "fascism is good". Nor, I think, are Nigel's comments about European socialists and Obama far off the mark.

My remarks to Nigel encompass much more than this one post - I was commenting on his consistent ideological views throughout all of his comments in many different threads.

And it does not surprise me to find you in agreement with his semi-rant about Obama, non-right-wing viewpoints, and the evils of social isms.

Quote

It is not the case that "socialism is bad" means "fascism is good".

On further review, I agree I should not have used fascism to make this point. What I should have said was: Wing-nuttery good/Socialism bad.