NationStates Jolt Archive

Am I the only one amused by someone who's just posted that he's joined the military complaining of military spending?

Nope you're not. Based on TPE's current attitude about the U.S. military I predict that he will fail to complete basic.

And there are Germans who want the U.S. to remove its bases from Germany? A nation is not answerable to individuals of other nations. If the Iraqi government comes out and says we want U.S. troops out of the country by the end of the month, then I will be in favor of said proposal.

But Trve said "who cares"? There are some who do.

By the way, I have trouble seeing the point of our bases in Germany, other than the fact that I would not mind being posted there. :D

And? I don't think anyone is saying that it isn't expensive.

With the cost in mind, I do not want American troops to stay there forever.

Nope you're not. Based on TPE's current attitude about the U.S. military I predict that he will fail to complete basic.

One cannot be a soldier and be in favor of cutting military spending, or, at least, not increasing it?

Of course. I never denied that.

I am also certain you noted that I specified that there are varying degrees of guilt. From the barest of connections to the ones who pulled the trigger, so to speak.

Ignoring the fact that you failed to address my other arguments, I'll reiterate them here.

I'm still unclear as to how this relates in a real-world sense. How does one allocate punishment if everyone is guilty? How does one quantify levels of guilt if everyone is guilty? Who is qualified to deal punishments since everyone bears guilt? How can you, a guilty one, pass judgment on me, a guilty one? More importantly, what kind of punishment is dealt on humanity as a whole if humanity as a whole does not accept guilt?

On another level, perhaps more importantly, how can one be held guilty for an action that one not only opposed, but attempted in all one's power to prevent? An integral part of many crimes is intent - a lack of intent mitigates or removes blame entirely. In a case where the intent is opposite, how can one even be held guilty?

You provide no framework wherein one can even evaluate this insane standard of guilty, nor any framework wherein this guilt can even be punished. That alone should lead to this type of "universal guilt" being abandoned as the methodology of guilt.

Oh, and if everyone is guilty by association for everything, doesn't that mean we're all guilty for every act? Doesn't that make it impossible to have any kind of guilt at all, since in a world where everyone is guilty, the very concept of "guilt" becomes meaningless?

I'll respond to this. Those who gave the order, those who had a real choice in the matter. If a soldier refuses to go, he could be court-marshaled. If a man refuses to work, he can lose his job, and his livelihood. Those who made a profit are guilty only if they continued to influence the ones who continually refused to pull out of the war.

And those who had a real choice in the matter will never be punished, never make amends unless forced to, which cannot happen since that would fall under punishment.

The dissenting soldier, the man who refuses to work, they all have a choice. Some choices are less palatable than others. Some less practical. But the choice is always there. There is never no choice.

I have heard of victimless crimes. Is this supposed to be a perpetrator-less crime? Or simply yet another set of crimes that will never go punished because no one is willing?

Yes, it is the U.S.'s problem. The last time I looked Bush didn't charge into Iraq by himself.

Read my posts. Those who supported that decision (as a president cannot keep troops in a country for that long alone) are also guilty. Those who committed war crimes over there are also guilty. Others are innocent.

But we are not looking at that choice - it's not about snapping fingers. Democrats are arguing this means we're actually getting deeper:



More to the point, the Defense Secretary says it's either pay or pull-out:



..which does look like 'snapping fingers and the problems going away'.

Except the problem won't go away. The U.S. leaving Iraq and/or Afghanistan isn't going to make the respective nations stable. In Afghanistan you'll see the Taliban return to power and in Iraq you'll see the country fall into civil war between the shi'ites, the sunnis, and the Kurds.

Well he could have a vastly different ideal of what the military should do from what is going on now.

Admittedly it is rather odd.
Perhaps, but given that someone who's just joined has less than no power to determine the direction of the orders given... yes, odd is a good word for it.

One cannot be a soldier and be in favor of cutting military spending, or, at least, not increasing it?

Unreasonable expectations

One cannot be a soldier and be in favor of cutting military spending, or, at least, not increasing it?
I believe it's more "why join if you think everything it's currently doing is wrong, and it's a good bet you will be sent to one of the two warzones you think we currently should be out of?"

Read my posts. Those who supported that decision (as a president cannot keep troops in a country for that long alone) are also guilty. Those who committed war crimes over there are also guilty. Others are innocent.

And the nation as an entity is responsible, not the citizens, the nation.

And those who had a real choice in the matter will never be punished, never make amends unless forced to, which cannot happen since that would fall under punishment.

:confused:

Since when am I opposed to punishment to those who HAVE made such choices?


The dissenting soldier, the man who refuses to work, they all have a choice. Some choices are less palatable than others. Some less practical. But the choice is always there. There is never no choice.

There is always a choice, but if the man quits his job, how can he feed his family? How can he feed himself? If the soldier refuses to go, he is court-marshaled. Their examples will discourage others, possibly contributing to those who choose to continue to work, to follow orders. One might say, if they followed your line of thinking, that this would make them far more guilty than those who merely continue to work.

I have heard of victimless crimes. Is this supposed to be a perpetrator-less crime? Or simply yet another set of crimes that will never go punished because no one is willing?
Victimless crimes are crimes where no one has done anything wrong, where no one is the victim, where the government prosecutes them out of some misguided sense of morality. A set of crimes that goes unpunished because no one is willing is by no means victimless, unless the crime in question is vicimtless, as I have laid out above.

I believe it's more "why join if you think everything it's currently doing is wrong,

I do not, morally speaking.

and it's a good bet you will be sent to one of the two warzones you think we currently should be out of?"

I support the cause of stopping terrorism, I just think we are going about it wrong. If Americans are ordered to fight, I will be there to help, even if I against the order to fight. Do you doubt my opinions, or my actions?

And the nation as an entity is responsible, not the citizens, the nation.

But the citizens are part of the nation, without the citizens, there, literally, is no nation. The citizens are the nation, therefore, saying the nation is responsible is saying that it's citizens are responsible.

Unreasonable expectations

Unlikely, not unreasonable. I supported both Clinton's and Nixon's cuts (I obviously was not alive when Nixon was in office, but I am talking from the viewpoint of someone who studied his Presidency in detail).

But the citizens are part of the nation, without the citizens, there, literally, is no nation. The citizens are the nation, therefore, saying the nation is responsible is saying that it's citizens are responsible.

Yes and no. I see that I'm not managing to convey the message that I am trying to, and quite frankly I am at a loss as to how to explain it better... :(

I do not, morally speaking.



I support the cause of stopping terrorism, I just think we are going about it wrong. If Americans are ordered to fight, I will be there to help, even if I against the order to fight. Do you doubt my opinions, or my actions?
I'm just trying to understand why if you believe, as you have said, that we have no business being there and spending so much money there while figuring out a way to withdraw (which I believe is set for 2010), why you would choose to join the armed services.

It doesn't seem to make much sense. You will be drawing a salary; hence you will be part of the spending. You're quite likely to end up in Afghanistan or Iraq as they're recalling people repeatedly since they can't replace them without a draft; hence you'll be part of what you're criticizing now. I don't believe that I said that you wouldn't fight if you were told to; I'm just wondering why you're willingly placing yourself in a situation that you seem not to be happy about.

Yes and no. I see that I'm not managing to convey the message that I am trying to, and quite frankly I am at a loss as to how to explain it better... :(

Ah, happens to me all the time. :tongue:

I'm just trying to understand why if you believe, as you have said, that we have no business being there and spending so much money there while figuring out a way to withdraw (which I believe is set for 2010), why you would choose to join the armed services.

I am not in favor of cutting the soldiers wages.

It doesn't seem to make much sense. You will be drawing a salary; hence you will be part of the spending. You're quite likely to end up in Afghanistan or Iraq as they're recalling people repeatedly since they can't replace them; hence you'll be part of what you're criticizing now. I don't believe that I said that you wouldn't fight if you were told to; I'm just wondering why you're willingly placing yourself in a situation that you seem not to be happy about.

I am not happy about the war. While I am whining about it I will do my best to protect American troops being shot-at, and pitch-in to help win the war. I do not blame our soldiers, though many support the fighting, I blame our leaders.

As to your statements about DoD spending TPE

Obama:
Funding Highlights:
• Provides $533.7 billion for the Department of Defense base budget in 2010, a four-percent
increase over 2009.
• Includes $75.5 billion in supplemental appropriations for 2009 and $130.0 billion for 2010 to
support ongoing overseas contingency operations, while increasing efforts in Afghanistan and
drawing down troops from Iraq responsibly.
• Supports a transparent budget process, which simultaneously and separately requests
estimated base budget and overseas contingency operations costs.
• Expands concurrent receipt of military retired pay and Veterans Disability Compensation for
those disabled upon retirement from active duty.
• Improves efforts to care for wounded servicemembers and to treat mental health needs.
Linky (pdf) (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_new_era/Department_of_Defense.pdf)
Bush 2009:
• Supports military readiness. $515.4 billion for the Department of Defense’s (DOD’s) base
budget—a nearly 74-percent increase over 2001. This funding will ensure a high level of
military readiness by sustaining regular and irregular warfighting capabilities, responding to
evolving threats, and supporting our servicemembers and their families
Linky (pdf) (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/budget/defense.pdf)

So yes, the budgeted amount is greater (by app $18 Billion), now if someone else would like to do the legwork and the math for all the special allocations...

"Oh, we bombed your country, killed your people. That was wrong, so we're going to occupy your country with a continued military presence just long enough for us to discover the necromantic secrets which will allow us to make everything better for you.

Why does your argument sound like it was taken from Heikoku?


Why no, that's not what I was saying, that's what you're saying. I was saying that no matter how "nice" and "non oppressive" an occupier you are, you are still an occupier, and you will be hated, and righteously so.

Anyone can hate another, it's laughably easy to be hated. Look at Rush Limbaugh and who he hates.

The fundamental difference is how much people hate you. If sour grapes is all they have, then that is quite alright compared to the alternative.


Obvious strawman is obvious.


It seemed fitting based on what you were arguing.


That's not semantics, it's my whole fucking point. According to some estimates, over a million innocents have died. A country has been invaded and it is still occupied.

If you're going to call that a "mess" that we can "fix" by continued occupation, you might as well just out and out say it's a "minor issue of little importance."

So what would you have me call it? Disaster? Mass murder? Hell hole? As far as I can see, it is semantics.


In total war, carrying out a bombing campaign is not any kind of justice, nor is it your victims "making amends" to you. Nor, to my knowledge, has the strategic bombing campaign ever been described as intended to mete out justice.

Punishment is about restraining the guilty and deterrence through negative reinforcement. As a body politic, the nation of Germany was punished.


It's a lot fucking better than staying there, tossing gasoline onto the fire and then 'accidentally' making a 'mess' by lighting on fire the nearby elementary school.

Since you are continuing to use this example, you would then agree that it is the nation of America, with Bush and his associates as ringleaders, who are responsible for the crime then?

:confused:

Since when am I opposed to punishment to those who HAVE made such choices?

Didn't say you were. I was pointing out the reality.


There is always a choice, but if the man quits his job, how can he feed his family? How can he feed himself? If the soldier refuses to go, he is court-marshaled. Their examples will discourage others, possibly contributing to those who choose to continue to work, to follow orders. One might say, if they followed your line of thinking, that this would make them far more guilty than those who merely continue to work.

Only because those who follow fear the consequences or believe in the cause. The latter are more guilty than the former, but they still have contributed, if under duress.

I'm still unclear as to how this relates in a real-world sense. How does one allocate punishment if everyone is guilty? How does one quantify levels of guilt if everyone is guilty? Who is qualified to deal punishments since everyone bears guilt? How can you, a guilty one, pass judgment on me, a guilty one?


As it is? The less guilty over the overtly guilty usually. It's ironic and hypocritical I know, but it's the only thing available that humanity seems to accept.


More importantly, what kind of punishment is dealt on humanity as a whole if humanity as a whole does not accept guilt?


Insofar as I can tell? None that humanity isn't willing to inflict on itself. Any such grand scale justice would require a system of control and enforcement that just doesn't exist as of yet.


On another level, perhaps more importantly, how can one be held guilty for an action that one not only opposed, but attempted in all one's power to prevent? An integral part of many crimes is intent - a lack of intent mitigates or removes blame entirely. In a case where the intent is opposite, how can one even be held guilty?

Accidental guilt so long as that action is supported by alternate actions. One could also make the argument of ignorance or under duress. Punishable? Not really.


Oh, and if everyone is guilty by association for everything, doesn't that mean we're all guilty for every act? Doesn't that make it impossible to have any kind of guilt at all, since in a world where everyone is guilty, the very concept of "guilt" becomes meaningless?

Not if the majority realize the interconnected nature of things and actually work to oppose such crimes, rather than cheer them on most times. Idealistic and naive? Perhaps. But I am also short on sleep and it is late. I will reply if you wish much later.

Only because those who follow fear the consequences or believe in the cause. The latter are more guilty than the former, but they still have contributed, if under duress.
And once again, it comes to a point where our opinions differ on such a size and scale that they cannot be debated without a radical change in one of our mindsets.

Which I doubt will happen.

And once again, it comes to a point where our opinions differ on such a size and scale that they cannot be debated without a radical change in one of our mindsets.

Which I doubt will happen.

*Lobotomizes 900*
Change the mind, change the mindset, same thing, yes?

Victimless crimes are crimes where no one has done anything wrong, where no one is the victim, where the government prosecutes them out of some misguided sense of morality.

Sorry, I'm going to go off-topic a bit, but that's a really dangerous definition you laid out there.

First, victimless crimes include (http://www.iss.co.za/index.php?link_id=19&slink_id=1045&link_type=12&slink_type=12&tmpl_id=3) crimes such as driving under the influence (beyond simply drugs, prostitution, alcohol, and gun possession), so before you simply say "the state has a misguided sense of morality", remember all of the deaths that emerge from there.

Second, to say that "there's no victim" is to ignore the societal cost. Mark A. Cohen, a professor at Vanderbilt, explains (http://www.ncjrs.gov/criminal_justice2000/vol_4/04f.pdf) the societal cost of "victimless crimes", using the example of drug abuse:

Even the external cost notion of crime has pitfalls, however. Consider the victimless crime of drug abuse, which does not by itself create an external cost if the user voluntarily purchases drugs and reaps the full benefits and costs associated with its use. Nevertheless, drug abuse imposes many external costs: drug users[are] less productive in the workforce and commit crimes to support their drug habits, dealers forego socially productive work activities,and society [would] be burdened with additional medical costs in treating drug addicts.

The fact is that, by outlawing "victimless crimes", society is reaching to the root cause of other crimes, which is only a good thing (since you're reducing other crimes by going to the initial cause).

Third, "victimless" crimes aren't even victimless. The fact is that a crime like prostitution often acts as a crime against women, instead of a "victimless" crime. The "victim" in this case, the prostitute, is the perpetrator. That in itself makes the crime "victimless", but also encourages pimps and others to "sell" women. Moreover, according to a study (http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v3n2/monto.html) by Mark A. Monto, a Professor at the University of Portland (Oregon), "customers" who go to prostitutes often commit other crimes ("recidivism"), beyond simply prostitution. This particular study attempted to help council these men and was not very successful, thereby proving that "victimless" crimes can spawn other crimes.

Fourth, legalizing "victimless" crimes can lead to increases of crimes in other areas. A study (http://www.maine.com/editions/2006-05-15/images/20060531000107C.pdf) by Professor Earl L. Grinols of the University of Illinois (Champaign-Urbana) and Professor David B. Mustard of the University of Georgia found that casinos in face increase every crime but murder (the crime least logically connected to casinos) in the area. the crime which was most seen to increase was robbery. This just shows that it can be dangerous to legalize "victimless" crimes.

I'd encourage you to read this paper (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=310840) by Markus Dirk Dubber of the University of Buffalo about why society penalizes "victimless" crimes. It might help in terms of understanding them.

Sorry for the threadjack, btw. Don't want to get into a fight about this (and I'm not even saying that I support policing "victimless" crimes or anything). I just wanted correct what may have been a misunderstanding (or, in this case, an overgeneralization) and hope that everyone understands. :)

Sorry, I'm going to go off-topic a bit, but that's a really dangerous definition you laid out there.

First, victimless crimes include (http://www.iss.co.za/index.php?link_id=19&slink_id=1045&link_type=12&slink_type=12&tmpl_id=3) crimes such as driving under the influence (beyond simply drugs, prostitution, alcohol, and gun possession), so before you simply say "the state has a misguided sense of morality", remember all of the deaths that emerge from there.

Second, to say that "there's no victim" is to ignore the societal cost. Mark A. Cohen, a professor at Vanderbilt, explains (http://www.ncjrs.gov/criminal_justice2000/vol_4/04f.pdf) the societal cost of "victimless crimes", using the example of drug abuse:

Even the external cost notion of crime has pitfalls, however. Consider the victimless crime of drug abuse, which does not by itself create an external cost if the user voluntarily purchases drugs and reaps the full benefits and costs associated with its use. Nevertheless, drug abuse imposes many external costs: drug users[are] less productive in the workforce and commit crimes to support their drug habits, dealers forego socially productive work activities,and society [would] be burdened with additional medical costs in treating drug addicts.

The fact is that, by outlawing "victimless crimes", society is reaching to the root cause of other crimes, which is only a good thing (since you're reducing other crimes by going to the initial cause).

Third, "victimless" crimes aren't even victimless. The fact is that a crime like prostitution often acts as a crime against women, instead of a "victimless" crime. The "victim" in this case, the prostitute, is the perpetrator. That in itself makes the crime "victimless", but also encourages pimps and others to "sell" women. Moreover, according to a study (http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v3n2/monto.html) by Mark A. Monto, a Professor at the University of Portland (Oregon), "customers" who go to prostitutes often commit other crimes ("recidivism"), beyond simply prostitution. This particular study attempted to help council these men and was not very successful, thereby proving that "victimless" crimes can spawn other crimes.

Fourth, legalizing "victimless" crimes can lead to increases of crimes in other areas. A study (http://www.maine.com/editions/2006-05-15/images/20060531000107C.pdf) by Professor Earl L. Grinols of the University of Illinois (Champaign-Urbana) and Professor David B. Mustard of the University of Georgia found that casinos in face increase every crime but murder (the crime least logically connected to casinos) in the area. the crime which was most seen to increase was robbery. This just shows that it can be dangerous to legalize "victimless" crimes.

I'd encourage you to read this paper (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=310840) by Markus Dirk Dubber of the University of Buffalo about why society penalizes "victimless" crimes. It might help in terms of understanding them.

Sorry for the threadjack, btw. Don't want to get into a fight about this (and I'm not even saying that I support policing "victimless" crimes or anything). I just wanted correct what may have been a misunderstanding (or, in this case, an overgeneralization) and hope that everyone understands. :)
I overgeneralized because I didn't feel like going in something that everyone would post Tl;dr to.

As it is? The less guilty over the overtly guilty usually. It's ironic and hypocritical I know, but it's the only thing available that humanity seems to accept.

Ah, yes, humanity. ;) I was just pointing out how, at a purely moralistic level, your system doesn't seem to work.

Insofar as I can tell? None that humanity isn't willing to inflict on itself. Any such grand scale justice would require a system of control and enforcement that just doesn't exist as of yet.

Which is precisely the problem, of course. It's nice to attack everyone for being involved (which, for all either of us know, might just be true), but it's an impossibility to actually get them punished.

Accidental guilt so long as that action is supported by alternate actions. One could also make the argument of ignorance or under duress. Punishable? Not really.

Yeah, the last couple of sentences there are what I was getting at.

Not if the majority realize the interconnected nature of things and actually work to oppose such crimes, rather than cheer them on most times. Idealistic and naive? Perhaps. But I am also short on sleep and it is late. I will reply if you wish much later.

I think I'll file it into the "idealistic and naive" category. :tongue: As much as I wish the world was a nice place, it really isn't. Oh, and feel free to respond if you want - I think we've exhausted the possibilities of this discussion, though.

I overgeneralized because I didn't feel like going in something that everyone would post Tl;dr to.

Owch. Those that just ouched were my feelings. :tongue:

Sorry, I'm going to go off-topic a bit, but that's a really dangerous definition you laid out there.

First, victimless crimes include (http://www.iss.co.za/index.php?link_id=19&slink_id=1045&link_type=12&slink_type=12&tmpl_id=3) crimes such as driving under the influence (beyond simply drugs, prostitution, alcohol, and gun possession), so before you simply say "the state has a misguided sense of morality", remember all of the deaths that emerge from there.

Second, to say that "there's no victim" is to ignore the societal cost. Mark A. Cohen, a professor at Vanderbilt, explains (http://www.ncjrs.gov/criminal_justice2000/vol_4/04f.pdf) the societal cost of "victimless crimes", using the example of drug abuse:

Even the external cost notion of crime has pitfalls, however. Consider the victimless crime of drug abuse, which does not by itself create an external cost if the user voluntarily purchases drugs and reaps the full benefits and costs associated with its use. Nevertheless, drug abuse imposes many external costs: drug users[are] less productive in the workforce and commit crimes to support their drug habits, dealers forego socially productive work activities,and society [would] be burdened with additional medical costs in treating drug addicts.

The fact is that, by outlawing "victimless crimes", society is reaching to the root cause of other crimes, which is only a good thing (since you're reducing other crimes by going to the initial cause).

Third, "victimless" crimes aren't even victimless. The fact is that a crime like prostitution often acts as a crime against women, instead of a "victimless" crime. The "victim" in this case, the prostitute, is the perpetrator. That in itself makes the crime "victimless", but also encourages pimps and others to "sell" women. Moreover, according to a study (http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v3n2/monto.html) by Mark A. Monto, a Professor at the University of Portland (Oregon), "customers" who go to prostitutes often commit other crimes ("recidivism"), beyond simply prostitution. This particular study attempted to help council these men and was not very successful, thereby proving that "victimless" crimes can spawn other crimes.

Fourth, legalizing "victimless" crimes can lead to increases of crimes in other areas. A study (http://www.maine.com/editions/2006-05-15/images/20060531000107C.pdf) by Professor Earl L. Grinols of the University of Illinois (Champaign-Urbana) and Professor David B. Mustard of the University of Georgia found that casinos in face increase every crime but murder (the crime least logically connected to casinos) in the area. the crime which was most seen to increase was robbery. This just shows that it can be dangerous to legalize "victimless" crimes.

I'd encourage you to read this paper (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=310840) by Markus Dirk Dubber of the University of Buffalo about why society penalizes "victimless" crimes. It might help in terms of understanding them.

Sorry for the threadjack, btw. Don't want to get into a fight about this (and I'm not even saying that I support policing "victimless" crimes or anything). I just wanted correct what may have been a misunderstanding (or, in this case, an overgeneralization) and hope that everyone understands. :)
tl;dr
Owch. Those that just ouched were my feelings. :tongue:
now your feelings should be "ouched" :p

Owch. Those that just ouched were my feelings. :tongue:

*brutally beats SC's feelings. With a metal rod.* :p

now your feelings should be "ouched" :p

Somehow I doubt "to ouch" can be conjugated in the passive. ;)

Somehow I doubt "to ouch" can be conjugated in the passive. ;)

And somehow I doubt that owch is even a word...

Somehow I doubt "to ouch" can be conjugated in the passive. ;)

That's what she said.

Yeah, cause creating two New Somalias with all the entanglements to go with it, is TOTALLY a good Idea....

Yeah, cause creating two New Somalias with all the entanglements to go with it, is TOTALLY a good Idea....

Are you saying, that's what would happen if this 'supplemental' isn't passed?

That seems like a bit of heavy-handed ultimatum psychology.

Are you saying, that's what would happen if this 'supplemental' isn't passed?

That seems like a bit of heavy-handed ultimatum psychology.

I think he's saying that that s what will happen if we pull out immediately.

Are you saying, that's what would happen if this 'supplemental' isn't passed?

That seems like a bit of heavy-handed ultimatum psychology.

This:

I think he's saying that that s what will happen if we pull out immediately.

This:

What makes you think that?

What makes you think that?

Because, without our support, they will fall into the hands of squabbling warlords, creating a state of Lawlessness, very similar to whats seen in Somalia...

We have to stay until the two countries can police themselves...

And that's enough?

That's what you want? A President that has to be restrained?

I'm well aware of the system of checks and balances. I don't think the design was to make barely-constraining the actions of headstrong executives the norm. I think it was designed to limit the damage at the extremes.
Are you equally worried about Obama madly chewing and gnawing on all the furniture and drapes in the White House? Your descriptions of him as "unchecked", "headstrong", and other terms suggesting someone who is out of control of himself in some way are ridiculous.

Meanwhile, as you've gone on and on about how destructive and dishonest Obama is, I notice you've based your claims on virtually nothing in the way of facts.

Wow, you DO remind me of another poster.

Obama's Iraq plan is no different from Bush's.
False. Obama's Iraq plan is geared towards an end goal of withdrawal of occupying forces from Iraq and replacing them with an advisory/training force and a force that will support the US embassy in the then fully sovereign nation of Iraq, which it is hoped will be at least an nominal ally after withdrawal.

Bush's plan looked a hell of a lot like it was to continue the fighting forever and to use Iraq as a launching ground for incursions into other states, particularly Iran and possibly Syria.

And guess what? the withdrawal was arranged by Bush before Obama was elected! And guess what else? Obama has not arranged any withdrawal from Afghanistan, period!
Yeah, and with good reason. Try educating yourself on the situations over there. Such knowledge will come in handy once you get deployed.

Holy shit you mean our president is actually paying for war? Paying our troops salaries and equipment? :rolleyes:
That bastard!

Gee, too fucking bad. I still blame him for doing it. Bush did not run on decreasing military spending either; that does not pardon him. And Obama did lie about withdrawing from Iraq ASAP. Little sh*t.
Do you know what ASAP stands for?

Apperantly.

The biggest threat to Obama will be people with no fucking concept of the real world.
Quoted for truth. ^^


Some would argue that's the situation we're looking at, yes.
Some would argue that Obama is Kenyan Muslim and a communist infiltrator. What's your point?

Do you know what ASAP stands for?
depends on who's definition you're asking about.

some believe ASAP means right now and to hell with the consequences.

others believe ASAP means when the Iraqi forces can police the nation themselves (the Bush plan)

and still others believe ASAP is a set number of months baised on the campaign promises made by then-candidate Obama.

depends on who's definition you're asking about.

some believe ASAP means right now and to hell with the consequences.

others believe ASAP means when the Iraqi forces can police the nation themselves (the Bush plan)

and still others believe ASAP is a set number of months baised on the campaign promises made by then-candidate Obama.
What it actually stands for is As Soon As Possible.

Not now. Not later. Not by a date certain. As soon as possible.

So when someone say they will do something ASAP, and we find ourselves waiting longer than we would have liked, we should look at what he is doing and decide if he is working on the problem or lollygagging. If he is lollygagging, then we can yell at him. But if he is working on it, then the ASAP is still in force and valid and if what we want isn't happening now, it's because it's not possible now.

What it actually stands for is As Soon As Possible.

Not now. Not later. Not by a date certain. As soon as possible.

So when someone say they will do something ASAP, and we find ourselves waiting longer than we would have liked, we should look at what he is doing and decide if he is working on the problem or lollygagging. If he is lollygagging, then we can yell at him. But if he is working on it, then the ASAP is still in force and valid and if what we want isn't happening now, it's because it's not possible now.

But it's theoretically possible to lift most of the troops and equipment out in the hundred days Obama has been in office.

What it actually stands for is As Soon As Possible.

Not now. Not later. Not by a date certain. As soon as possible.

So when someone say they will do something ASAP, and we find ourselves waiting longer than we would have liked, we should look at what he is doing and decide if he is working on the problem or lollygagging. If he is lollygagging, then we can yell at him. But if he is working on it, then the ASAP is still in force and valid and if what we want isn't happening now, it's because it's not possible now.

and the key words are 'As Possible'. for some, that means right now and to hell with the consequences.

for others, the possible is when Iraqi forces can do their jobs adequately.

and as others also indicated. the number of months stated in President Obama's Campaign speeches.

it is possible to pull everyone out right NOW. of course that means Iraq will fall into chaos. but it's still possible to pull out our forces now. However, because President Obama is looking at a benchmark (say, when Iraqi forces can take over the US Military's job) as to when it will be possible to pull out, the ASAP is looking more and more like Former President Bush's plan... which was to wait till Iraqi forces can take over the jobs the US military are doing.

But it's theoretically possible to lift most of the troops and equipment out in the hundred days Obama has been in office.
I see. So you just want him to do as bad a job as his predecessor. Or maybe you would prefer he do an even worse job?

Or maybe you would prefer he do an even worse job?

YOU CAN DO THAT!?! :eek:

and the key words are 'As Possible'. for some, that means right now and to hell with the consequences.

for others, the possible is when Iraqi forces can do their jobs adequately.

and as others also indicated. the number of months stated in President Obama's Campaign speeches.

it is possible to pull everyone out right NOW. of course that means Iraq will fall into chaos. but it's still possible to pull out our forces now. However, because President Obama is looking at a benchmark (say, when Iraqi forces can take over the US Military's job) as to when it will be possible to pull out, the ASAP is looking more and more like Former President Bush's plan... which was to wait till Iraqi forces can take over the jobs the US military are doing.
Well, I don't know about you and Conservative Morality, but if someone told me he would do something ASAP, and 24 hours later he handed me a fucked-up mess and told me it was done, I'd fire his dumb ass. I don't want him to just finish it. I want him to finish it right. And I want him to do it as quickly as it is possible to do it right. If that takes a little longer, so be it. I just don't want him dragging his feet or dishonestly perpetuating the wars the way Bush did.

Also, there is nothing wrong in principle with the "as they stand up, we'll stand down" concept. What was wrong with Bush's plan was that it was dishonest. Every time deadlines for benchmarks came, Bush moved them. Every time a benchmark was reached, Bush invented another one.

I see. So you just want him to do as bad a job as his predecessor. Or maybe you would prefer he do an even worse job?

Wait a minute... Did you just accuse me of being an Obama hater because I pointed out that it is POSSIBLE to lift the troops out of there in the amount of time he's been in office? You seem to have formed the idea in your head that someone who points out facts wants Obama to fail, for some strange reason. I think you're overreacting.

Well, I don't know about you and Conservative Morality, but if someone told me he would do something ASAP, and 24 hours later he handed me a fucked-up mess and told me it was done, I'd fire his dumb ass. I don't want him to just finish it. I want him to finish it right. And I want him to do it as quickly as it is possible to do it right. If that takes a little longer, so be it. I just don't want him dragging his feet or dishonestly perpetuating the wars the way Bush did.
NO V! NO V!

That being said, Iraq is messed up beyond our ability to repair it, Afghanistan has never been stable, and most likely never will be, and his, what 79 days? In office, Obama could have pulled out the troops by now. It wouldn't have been more fucked up than it already is. Also, there's no way you can finish a war with no shifting goalposts.

Wait a minute... Did you just accuse me of being an Obama hater because I pointed out that it is POSSIBLE to lift the troops out of there in the amount of time he's been in office? You seem to have formed the idea in your head that someone who points out facts wants Obama to fail, for some strange reason. I think you're overreacting.
I think you should just stick to the standard meanings of the words and sentences that you see on the screen and try not to supply so many of your own custom-made meanings.

NO V! NO V!

That being said, Iraq is messed up beyond our ability to repair it, Afghanistan has never been stable, and most likely never will be, and his, what 79 days? In office, Obama could have pulled out the troops by now. It wouldn't have been more fucked up than it already is. Also, there's no way you can finish a war with no shifting goalposts.
Who said anything about repairing Iraq? Okay, I guess other people in this thread have done that, but I don't think I have, if I recall correctly. I am only interested in exiting Iraq in a way that does not open the way for hordes of our enemies to rush in behind us. But the emphasis has to be on exiting Iraq. I will not accept any plan that goes in any other direction.

TPE, you and others are arguing that Obama wants to just stay there, fucking up Bush-style, forever. I dispute that. That is NOT his plan. His plan is an exit plan. Now whether he can actually carry out his plan is a different question, and one we won't be able to answer for a while yet.

As for Afghanistan, that is an entirely different situation from Iraq. It has its own problems, its own dynamic, and an entirely different set of goals for what would constitute a good outcome. There is no Pakistan issue with Iraq. There is no connection to a dispute between nuclear powers with Iraq. There is with Afghanistan. No allies of ours have interests at stake in Iraq, except Turkey which does not actually face any threat from it. However, two allies, Pakistan and India, do have a stake in whether we fuck up Afghanistan, and both stand to be under threat if we leave Afghanistan full of a triumphant Taliban and al qaeda. It would be stupid to apply the same plan to both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Just as it would be stupid to just pull up stakes from either country, though it would be even stupider to cut and run from Afghanistan.

Now, that said, what would be even stupider would be to approach Afghanistan with the notion that we can "win" there. Nobody "wins" anything in Afghanistan, ever. All we need to do is define a kind of stability (which will likely not look anything like what an American would call "stable"), get as close to it as we possibly can, and then get the fuck out and never, never go there again.

Well, I don't know about you and Conservative Morality, but if someone told me he would do something ASAP, and 24 hours later he handed me a fucked-up mess and told me it was done, I'd fire his dumb ass. I don't want him to just finish it. I want him to finish it right. And I want him to do it as quickly as it is possible to do it right. If that takes a little longer, so be it. I just don't want him dragging his feet or dishonestly perpetuating the wars the way Bush did.

Also, there is nothing wrong in principle with the "as they stand up, we'll stand down" concept. What was wrong with Bush's plan was that it was dishonest. Every time deadlines for benchmarks came, Bush moved them. Every time a benchmark was reached, Bush invented another one.

really? how many "pull our/US troops out of IRAQ NOW" posts were submitted on this forum alone before President Obama was elected? think all those people were doing a "as soon as possible" line of thought? no. President Bush's plan was to scale back when the Iraqi forces could handle security on their own. the same goal it looks like President Obama is looking at.

Even President Bush laid a deadline. yet even that was pushed back when the Iraqis' showed that they were not ready.

right now, President Obama is monitoring the situation (a policy I never disagreed with.) and I know President Obama will not pull out until the same point in time President Bush was waiting for. yet for many who voted for Obama because they believed his promises, that is not good enough. which is why my stance has been and always will be, wait till the end of 2010 before making judgements. when Obama's 18 month deadline is up, I want to see what he's gonna do if the Iraqi's are NOT ready. will he pull US forces out? or will he do what President Bush did and keep US forces in there.

I think you should just stick to the standard meanings of the words and sentences that you see on the screen and try not to supply so many of your own custom-made meanings.


What in the world are you talking about? :confused:

Who said anything about repairing Iraq? Okay, I guess other people in this thread have done that, but I don't think I have, if I recall correctly. I am only interested in exiting Iraq in a way that does not open the way for hordes of our enemies to rush in behind us. But the emphasis has to be on exiting Iraq. I will not accept any plan that goes in any other direction.

Hordes of our enemies? You do realize that Iraq is as stable as it's going to get, right? At least as much as we can make it. Most normal people don't enjoy foreign occupation.

TPE, you and others are arguing that Obama wants to just stay there, fucking up Bush-style, forever. I dispute that. That is NOT his plan. His plan is an exit plan. Now whether he can actually carry out his plan is a different question, and one we won't be able to answer for a while yet.

Show me where I said that, please. Parkus might have been arguing that, but I have not. I have been, and will be, arguing that Obama's first priority is not getting the troops out of Iraq, nor will it happen soon. He'll do what he can to maximize his popularity and chance of being elected.

As for Afghanistan, that is an entirely different situation from Iraq. It has its own problems, its own dynamic, and an entirely different set of goals for what would constitute a good outcome. There is no Pakistan issue with Iraq. There is no connection to a dispute between nuclear powers with Iraq. There is with Afghanistan. No allies of ours have interests at stake in Iraq, except Turkey which does not actually face any threat from it. However, two allies, Pakistan and India, do have a stake in whether we fuck up Afghanistan, and both stand to be under threat if we leave Afghanistan full of a triumphant Taliban and al qaeda. It would be stupid to apply the same plan to both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Before we were there, Afghanistan was run by the Taliban. Somehow, our allies survived in those dark, US occupation-less times. And how is there a nuclear problem with Afghanistan?

Just as it would be stupid to just pull up stakes from either country, though it would be even stupider to cut and run from Afghanistan.

How so? It's what we'll end up doing anyway. We might make it dignified, but we won't be able to get out with a 'stable' Afghanistan.

Now, that said, what would be even stupider would be to approach Afghanistan with the notion that we can "win" there. Nobody "wins" anything in Afghanistan, ever. All we need to do is define a kind of stability (which will likely not look anything like what an American would call "stable"), get as close to it as we possibly can, and then get the fuck out and never, never go there again.
Stability is not to be had in Afghanistan. Best to get out now.

Because, without our support, they will fall into the hands of squabbling warlords, creating a state of Lawlessness, very similar to whats seen in Somalia...

We have to stay until the two countries can police themselves...

An interesting idea, but I'm not seeing how it's different to the idea that went before it.

The problem with our plan in Iraq, is that we've never fixed... no, we've never even addressed the factionalism. Instead - we've insisted on some kind of 'unity government' with a 'unity military'. Which holds fine as long as it's policed - by us.

What we've built is a monster - we've imposed a government, and tied it's success and failure to the military. Then we've helped train and arm that military until it's untouchable in it's sphere.

Which leaves us with two pretty dire possibilities - factions warring on each other, or an Islamic majority military junta.

And, in Afghanistan - we've done nothing. And we've taken most of a decade to do it.

You seem to be under the impression that Iraq and Afghanistan won't devolve, anyway, after we leave.

An interesting idea, but I'm not seeing how it's different to the idea that went before it.

The problem with our plan in Iraq, is that we've never fixed... no, we've never even addressed the factionalism. Instead - we've insisted on some kind of 'unity government' with a 'unity military'. Which holds fine as long as it's policed - by us.

What we've built is a monster - we've imposed a government, and tied it's success and failure to the military. Then we've helped train and arm that military until it's untouchable in it's sphere.

Which leaves us with two pretty dire possibilities - factions warring on each other, or an Islamic majority military junta.

And, in Afghanistan - we've done nothing. And we've taken most of a decade to do it.

You seem to be under the impression that Iraq and Afghanistan won't devolve, anyway, after we leave.

There is a thrid option. divide Iraq and let each faction govern itself.

really? how many "pull our/US troops out of IRAQ NOW" posts were submitted on this forum alone before President Obama was elected? think all those people were doing a "as soon as possible" line of thought? no. President Bush's plan was to scale back when the Iraqi forces could handle security on their own. the same goal it looks like President Obama is looking at.

Even President Bush laid a deadline. yet even that was pushed back when the Iraqis' showed that they were not ready.

right now, President Obama is monitoring the situation (a policy I never disagreed with.) and I know President Obama will not pull out until the same point in time President Bush was waiting for. yet for many who voted for Obama because they believed his promises, that is not good enough. which is why my stance has been and always will be, wait till the end of 2010 before making judgements. when Obama's 18 month deadline is up, I want to see what he's gonna do if the Iraqi's are NOT ready. will he pull US forces out? or will he do what President Bush did and keep US forces in there.
The points I disagree with you on are:

1) I don't think the people who said "Pull the troops out NOW!!" when Bush was president were being any more realistic than they are now.

2) I do not give Bush the credit for honestly adjusting his plans to match reality that you seem to give him. I believe his approach to the wars was to keep them going as a permanent political tool. I hope and am still confident that Obama is not doing the same.

What in the world are you talking about? :confused:
I am suggesting that you are reading something into my posts that is not there and accusing me of making accusations against you that I have not made.

Hordes of our enemies? You do realize that Iraq is as stable as it's going to get, right? At least as much as we can make it. Most normal people don't enjoy foreign occupation.
No, I do not realize that Iraq is as stable as it's ever going to get because I can't predict the future.

"Hordes" was just rhetoric. You can ignore that word. The point is that the more fucked up the countries we broke are when we leave, the more effectively our enemies will be able to use them against us.

Show me where I said that, please. Parkus might have been arguing that, but I have not. I have been, and will be, arguing that Obama's first priority is not getting the troops out of Iraq, nor will it happen soon.
It is how I interpreted your argument in the context of TPE's, since you both seemed to be making similar accusations against Obama. I stand corrected as to you. I let my point stand in regards to TPE.

He'll do what he can to maximize his popularity and chance of being elected.
Meh. That sounds like a prejudged opinion, not an analysis of facts.

Before we were there, Afghanistan was run by the Taliban. Somehow, our allies survived in those dark, US occupation-less times. And how is there a nuclear problem with Afghanistan?

How so? It's what we'll end up doing anyway. We might make it dignified, but we won't be able to get out with a 'stable' Afghanistan.

Stability is not to be had in Afghanistan. Best to get out now.
1) The nuclear part of the issue is not in Afghanistan but between Pakistan and India.

2) I was trying to suggest that extremists, fundamentalists and terrorists will likely be more motivated and have better resources with which to destabilize and attack Pakistan and to create instability within India if we leave Afghanistan in the condition it is now.

The kind of "stability" I personally envision in Afghanistan is similar to what they had before we showed up -- hell, before the Taliban showed up -- fuck it, before the British showed up back in the 1800s. In other words, warlords. Only this time, we should hope for warlords who don't necessarily hate the US and support international terrorism and/or militant fundamentalism that seeks to destabilize other governments.

I suppose I should replace "warlords" with "tribal leaders."

Oh, and no US presence at all, in the end. In Iraq, we should probably maintain an embassy and try to be helpful to Iraq becoming a real nation on the world stage someday. But Afghanistan? Nope, let the tribes have it, and try to split on good terms with at least the strongest of them. But leave, we definitely must.

Are you equally worried about Obama madly chewing and gnawing on all the furniture and drapes in the White House? Your descriptions of him as "unchecked", "headstrong", and other terms suggesting someone who is out of control of himself in some way are ridiculous.


I'm not sure if you remember how this particular narrative has progressed - it wasn't I that started this particular stream. You suggested obama's plans might yet be foiled by his own party - remember?


Meanwhile, as you've gone on and on about how destructive and dishonest Obama is, I notice you've based your claims on virtually nothing in the way of facts.


I'm pretty sure I started with sources, and have provided more.


Wow, you DO remind me of another poster.


O...kay. That's nice?

You seem to be under the impression that Iraq and Afghanistan won't devolve, anyway, after we leave.

True, and, actually, Im not, I find it to be highly likely, thats why they are leaving a contingency force there for just that occurrence...
There is a thrid option. divide Iraq and let each faction govern itself.

See, I was in support of that, I dont see them doing it for political reasons...

However, even if they did, there would immediately be problems soon as one faction says they want a "United Iraq" and goes on a conquering spree..

There is a thrid option. divide Iraq and let each faction govern itself.

It was suggested, and seemingly cast aside. It has the risk of what amounts to 'civil war', maybe. But you could make the same argument for the situation as a 'unity' state, after we leave.

True, and, actually, Im not, I find it to be highly likely, thats why they are leaving a contingency force there for just that occurrence...


...which makes our stated aims nonsensical, doesn't it?

I'm not sure if you remember how this particular narrative has progressed - it wasn't I that started this particular stream. You suggested obama's plans might yet be foiled by his own party - remember?
No, I don't remember that, and I'm too tired to skim through the thread right now. Do you happen to have a link. Even just an approximate page number I should start looking through would be appreciated.

I'm pretty sure I started with sources, and have provided more.
And I'm pretty sure your sources did not support what you are saying.

Stability is not to be had in Afghanistan. Best to get out now.

In thousands of years, the nearest thing Afghanistan has had to stability, was the Taliban.

Apparently, we don't actually like stability in Afghanistan.

There is a thrid option. divide Iraq and let each faction govern itself.
That was the option I favored, but since the government decided to go in a totally different direction, all I can do now is argue in favor of what I think would likely be the best course other than partition.

1) I don't think the people who said "Pull the troops out NOW!!" when Bush was president were being any more realistic than they are now. never said they were. only what their opinions were. ;)

2) I do not give Bush the credit for honestly adjusting his plans to match reality that you seem to give him. I believe his approach to the wars was to keep them going as a permanent political tool. I hope and am still confident that Obama is not doing the same.
but that is what he did. the reasoning behind his actions, we can only speculate. just as we can only speculate on President Obama's reasons for doing what he's doing.

I give President Obama the same respect I gave President Bush. as I said in another thread a long time ago, I will respect the Office of the President. So I am giving President Obama the same level of respect I gave President Bush, President Clinton, etc...

I give President Obama the same respect I gave President Bush.
What the hell are you doing in NSG then

Stability is not to be had in Afghanistan.

On (http://www.afghanconflictmonitor.org/USDoD_ProgressTowardSecurityStability_Afghanistan_Jan2009.pdf) what (http://sga.myweb.uga.edu/readings/Afgh%20unbound.pdf) is this opinion based, pray? How did you come to this conclusion?

...which makes our stated aims nonsensical, doesn't it?

Yeah, and it was relevant say, 6 or 7 years ago...

Now its just trying to leave the place better than what we found it...not very likely, but what'cha gonna do?

That was the option I favored, but since the government decided to go in a totally different direction, all I can do now is argue in favor of what I think would likely be the best course other than partition. new president, new policies. so perhaps President Obama might be more open minded... :tongue:

It was suggested, and seemingly cast aside. It has the risk of what amounts to 'civil war', maybe. But you could make the same argument for the situation as a 'unity' state, after we leave.

Depends on how it's done. say a 'Berlin wall' type with one section for each faction and one section where people are willing to live together in peace. you can even have a center of Government where representatives from each faction can get together (where security will be tightest) and do inter-faction diplomacy.

See, I was in support of that, I dont see them doing it for political reasons...

However, even if they did, there would immediately be problems soon as one faction says they want a "United Iraq" and goes on a conquering spree..there are two outcomes.

1) meh... as long as they keep it within the borders of Iraq...

or

2)if the faction attacked has ties to other countries...

I am suggesting that you are reading something into my posts that is not there and accusing me of making accusations against you that I have not made.

I'd like for you to point out where.

No, I do not realize that Iraq is as stable as it's ever going to get because I can't predict the future.

I can.:p

No, but with all seriousness, Iraq has taken over security in most provinces over there. It's about as stable as we'll be able to make it.

"Hordes" was just rhetoric. You can ignore that word. The point is that the more fucked up the countries we broke are when we leave, the more effectively our enemies will be able to use them against us.

As opposed to continued occupation, in which our enemies will say 'ZOMG! EVIL CAPITALIST AMERICAN IMPERIALISTS!' and have some degree of credibility?

It is how I interpreted your argument in the context of TPE's, since you both seemed to be making similar accusations against Obama. I stand corrected as to you. I let my point stand in regards to TPE.

Mmm. Can't speak for him.

Meh. That sounds like a prejudged opinion, not an analysis of facts.

Of course it is. I can't back up speculation on such matters with facts, not after less than a hundred days in office, one election that I've paid attention to, and no mind probe. But I believe it'll show through eventually.

1) The nuclear part of the issue is not in Afghanistan but between Pakistan and India.

I was under the impression that they were no longer at each other's throats.

2) I was trying to suggest that extremists, fundamentalists and terrorists will likely be more motivated and have better resources with which to destabilize and attack Pakistan and to create instability within India if we leave Afghanistan in the condition it is now.
Of course, there's the matter of the current little terrorist training ground we have set up over there right now, creating martyrs to inspire them further...

And whatever equipment they find on US soldiers...

The kind of "stability" I personally envision in Afghanistan is similar to what they had before we showed up -- hell, before the Taliban showed up -- fuck it, before the British showed up back in the 1800s. In other words, warlords. Only this time, we should hope for warlords who don't necessarily hate the US and support international terrorism and/or militant fundamentalism that seeks to destabilize other governments.

I suppose I should replace "warlords" with "tribal leaders."

Oh, and no US presence at all, in the end. In Iraq, we should probably maintain an embassy and try to be helpful to Iraq becoming a real nation on the world stage someday. But Afghanistan? Nope, let the tribes have it, and try to split on good terms with at least the strongest of them. But leave, we definitely must.
Yeah. With Afghanistan, the sooner the better. If we leave it now, the tribal leaders will most likely regain control faster than the Taliban. They've always been the real ones in power. The Taliban just came in at the right time, when the country was still in turmoil after the USSR. Took them just a few years too long to recover, and the Taliban managed to get in. However, barring further influence from larger and more powerful countries, the Tribal Leaders would be back in only a few years, if not immediately after we left, with maybe a few clashes between them and the Taliban between this.

With Iraq, let's withdraw slowly, make it look like a victory, make it nice and calm. That way, we won't inspire panic, and the current government will stay more or less in control. But let's start, shall we?

What the hell are you doing in NSG then

before? I hung out at the Paradise Beach Club.

after that closed down... I just wandered from thread to thread... aimlessly...

And I'm pretty sure your sources did not support what you are saying.

It's right there in the first post. President pushing for $80 billion supplemental.

On (http://www.afghanconflictmonitor.org/USDoD_ProgressTowardSecurityStability_Afghanistan_Jan2009.pdf) what (http://sga.myweb.uga.edu/readings/Afgh%20unbound.pdf) is this opinion based, pray? How did you come to this conclusion?

The way that Afghanistan has been the death of many Empires, and the way it's almost always been controlled by the local tribal warlords and leaders, bowing only to incredible military pressure and low amounts of control exerted over their normal way of living.

Why do you ask?

Now its just trying to leave the place better than what we found it...not very likely, but what'cha gonna do?

What if we accept that we've screwed up, that we've overthrown stability in two states, and that we're unlikely to bring any lasting resolution to any of the problems we still face there?

Then we can start shipping troops home tomorrow.

It's right there in the first post. President pushing for $80 billion supplemental.
Which, as I said, is something I do not like, but it is NOT evidence that he acting in the out-of-control manner you have been claiming.

So your source does not support your argument.

Why do you ask?

Curiosity.

Given that, you know, everyone in government, as well as those I linked to, seem to disagree with you. I think it has to do with the fact that war has become more mechanized (so we can fight a regime without even landing on the ground), the world has become more globalized (so we can affect the Afghani economy from home), we're utilizing the very warlords you're referencing (Lion of the Panjshir anyone), and that our idea of "victory" seems to be a return to local rule, just without all of the killing and oppressing of women.

It's almost like we're actually utilizing the very things you mentioned are key characteristics of Afghanistan. Or, at least, we *should be trying* to. That's what the Foreign Affairs article in particular talks about.

What if we accept that we've screwed up, that we've overthrown stability in two states, and that we're unlikely to bring any lasting resolution to any of the problems we still face there?

Then we can start shipping troops home tomorrow.

And completely reverse all that good will Obama's been working so hard for...

screw over all those NATO units in Afghanistan, and go ahead and allow Iraq to be the new Somalia or Zimbabwe...

It just cant be done...

Curiosity.

Given that, you know, everyone in government, as well as those I linked to, seem to disagree with you. I think it has to do with the fact that war has become more mechanized (so we can fight a regime without even landing on the ground), the world has become more globalized (so we can affect the Afghani economy from home), we're utilizing the very warlords you're referencing (Lion of the Panjshir anyone), and that our idea of "victory" seems to be a return to local rule, just without all of the killing and oppressing of women.

It's almost like we're actually utilizing the very things you mentioned are key characteristics of Afghanistan. Or, at least, we *should be trying* to. That's what the Foreign Affairs article in particular talks about.
... Except for the fact that as soon as we leave, the Afghanis will say to hell with whatever we had set down, and return to doing whatever they want to? And I don't think giving control back to Local Warlords is 'Stability', but hey, to each their own.

I'd like for you to point out where.
You said that I was accusing anyone who made arguments like yours of being Obama-haters. I never said anything like that.

I can.:p

No, but with all seriousness, Iraq has taken over security in most provinces over there. It's about as stable as we'll be able to make it.
Oh, as stable as WE can make it.

I thought you meant as it had any potential to ever be.

Well, if you're just talking about what the US can do there, I'll give you that one.

My position about Iraq is that we should exit in a way that does not increase instability, does not make the situation worse for us. But not that we can do more there. Just that we should start leaving, and keep trying to do decent stuff while we are in the leaving process.

What I don't think is that we can, in practical terms, leave as quickly as I wish we could.

As opposed to continued occupation, in which our enemies will say 'ZOMG! EVIL CAPITALIST AMERICAN IMPERIALISTS!' and have some degree of credibility?

Mmm. Can't speak for him.

Of course it is. I can't back up speculation on such matters with facts, not after less than a hundred days in office, one election that I've paid attention to, and no mind probe. But I believe it'll show through eventually.
Well, you can bet on whatever you like. I'm not interested in debating our respective worldviews and pessimism levels.

I was under the impression that they were no longer at each other's throats.
Whatever gave you that idea?

Of course, there's the matter of the current little terrorist training ground we have set up over there right now, creating martyrs to inspire them further...

And whatever equipment they find on US soldiers...

Yeah. With Afghanistan, the sooner the better. If we leave it now, the tribal leaders will most likely regain control faster than the Taliban. They've always been the real ones in power. The Taliban just came in at the right time, when the country was still in turmoil after the USSR. Took them just a few years too long to recover, and the Taliban managed to get in. However, barring further influence from larger and more powerful countries, the Tribal Leaders would be back in only a few years, if not immediately after we left, with maybe a few clashes between them and the Taliban between this.

With Iraq, let's withdraw slowly, make it look like a victory, make it nice and calm. That way, we won't inspire panic, and the current government will stay more or less in control. But let's start, shall we?
We are both speculating about the future based on our opinions of the present and past, but I think your speculations are a lot wilder than mine. Whatever. I am too physically tired to keep up with this conversation, so I'm out for a while.

... Except for the fact that as soon as we leave, the Afghanis will say to hell with whatever we had set down, and return to doing whatever they want to?

Yeah, not entirely sure what this is based on, you know. That's all of that "globalized world" and "mechanized warfare" stuff. We fully have the ability (and probably *will*) keep a "watch" on them. That's not really a good thing, but it does prevent what you're talking about.

Even if there really is no warrant for your random claim.

And I don't think giving control back to Local Warlords is 'Stability', but hey, to each their own.

I always thought a "stable government" was "stability" in the context of society, but, hey, to each their own. It doesn't really matter who's in charge as long as the government is stable.

That's the beauty of national sovereignty.

You said that I was accusing anyone who made arguments like yours of being Obama-haters. I never said anything like that.

I was thinking of how quick you were to accuse me of wanting Obama to, what was it? Do as bad as our last president, I believe, essentially labeling me an Obama hater, when all I did was point out that it was very possible, if not desirable, to have pulled out by now.

Oh, as stable as WE can make it.

I thought you meant as it had any potential to ever be.

Well, if you're just talking about what the US can do there, I'll give you that one.

My position about Iraq is that we should exit in a way that does not increase instability, does not make the situation worse for us. But not that we can do more there. Just that we should start leaving, and keep trying to do decent stuff while we are in the leaving process.

My problem is that we haven't started pulling our troops out in any meaningful or long term amount. Let's start already!

What I don't think is that we can, in practical terms, leave as quickly as I wish we could.

Of course not. We haven't mastered instant teleportation.:D

Well, you can bet on whatever you like. I'm not interested in debating our respective worldviews and pessimism levels.

:(

Whatever gave you that idea?

Erm... Lack of knowledge on the subject?

We are both speculating about the future based on our opinions of the present and past, but I think your speculations are a lot wilder than mine.
I hear that a lot.:D
Whatever. I am too physically tired to keep up with this conversation, so I'm out for a while.
I feel so intellectually deprived.:(

Yeah, not entirely sure what this is based on, you know. That's all of that "globalized world" and "mechanized warfare" stuff. We fully have the ability (and probably *will*) keep a "watch" on them. That's not really a good thing, but it does prevent what you're talking about.

Even if there really is no warrant for your random claim.

Right. Like how Afghanistan could not survive without huge imports. Or how easy it is to root out the local warlords in the wide, open plains of Afghanistan. Or how history never repeats itself.

I always thought a "stable government" was "stability" in the context of society, but, hey, to each their own. It doesn't really matter who's in charge as long as the government is stable.

'Stable' meaning in this society 'ruled by local tribal leaders in such a way that encourages the normal definition of instability'

That's the beauty of national sovereignty.
And since when has Afghanistan been united? Even now you can talk about their national government but most people realize the power is in the hands of the local Tribal Leaders.

Right. Like how Afghanistan could not survive without huge imports. Or how easy it is to root out the local warlords in the wide, open plains of Afghanistan. Or how history never repeats itself.

None of this is directly responsive to anything I said. Simply saying that "it's difficult" doesn't invalidate a point - it mitigates it and saying "history repeats itself" when I've given you clear warrants (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14689348#post14689348) why it won't isn't even responsive. There's no point in a discussion where the other person simply ignores what one says.

'Stable' meaning in this society 'ruled by local tribal leaders in such a way that encourages the normal definition of instability'

This is based on what? this article (http://odagenais.net/pol5815uqam/Articles/Foreign%20Affairs%20-%20Saving%20Afghanistan%20-%202007.pdf) as well as the other two I mentioned earlier (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14689311#post14689311) specifically lend themselves towards preventing this future. The former discusses how to undermine the warlords - i.e., cutting off the opium trade, increasing international pressure, and education, among other things. Unless you can give me a warrant as to your random assertion "everything will be terrible" even though I've given you specific reasons while it will not be, this is pointless.

And since when has Afghanistan been united? Even now you can talk about their national government but most people realize the power is in the hands of the local Tribal Leaders.

...and? This really has no terminal impact. Beyond that, they're uniting (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/central/01/28/gen.afghan.peace.convoy/). That's what people do when they realize that they're under threat (in this case, by the resurgent Taliban).

None of this is directly responsive to anything I said. Simply saying that "it's difficult" doesn't invalidate a point - it mitigates it and saying "history repeats itself" when I've given you clear warrants (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14689348#post14689348) why it won't isn't even responsive. There's no point in a discussion where the other person simply ignores what one says.



This is based on what? this article (http://odagenais.net/pol5815uqam/Articles/Foreign%20Affairs%20-%20Saving%20Afghanistan%20-%202007.pdf) as well as the other two I mentioned earlier (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14689311#post14689311) specifically lend themselves towards preventing this future. The former discusses how to undermine the warlords - i.e., cutting off the opium trade, increasing international pressure, and education, among other things. Unless you can give me a warrant as to your random assertion "everything will be terrible" even though I've given you specific reasons while it will not be, this is pointless.



...and? This really has no terminal impact. Beyond that, they're uniting (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/central/01/28/gen.afghan.peace.convoy/). That's what people do when they realize that they're under threat (in this case, by the resurgent Taliban).

I must say this is mentally exhausting, neither of us are really getting what the other is saying, due to opposing world views. I view this as very much like when the Mongolian Empire took over Afghanistan. It had little real impact, they had little real control, and despite surprisingly similar reforms, Afghanistan returned to the way it was right after military pressure was released. You are arguing that things will change in Afghanistan, I am arguing that, after millenia, Afghanistan is still not going to change. It hasn't yet, with much greater threats, it isn't going to now.

Which, as I said, is something I do not like, but it is NOT evidence that he acting in the out-of-control manner you have been claiming.

So your source does not support your argument.

My argument was that we were seeing the same old supplemental process, and you said that it wasn't, because it hadn't been allowed to happen. Yet.

I think your version of the argument is interesting, but I didn't say 'out of control'. I just find it interesting that you approve of a model where the executive has to be kept in check.

And completely reverse all that good will Obama's been working so hard for...


You think that Obama saying 'we're pulling out' would offend the rest of the world?


screw over all those NATO units in Afghanistan, and go ahead and allow Iraq to be the new Somalia or Zimbabwe...


This whole Somalia idea is interesting.

You might as well argue that Iraq is going to turn into a tuna sandwich as 'the new Somalia'.


It just cant be done...

Sure it could. There might be some political turbulence, but then, we're hardly pristine right now.

I must say this is mentally exhausting, neither of us are really getting what the other is saying, due to opposing world views.

I understand entirely what you're saying. That's how I've been refuting it. ;) My point is that I've repeatedly given you specific reasons why your world view is incorrect and you have not done anything of the sort regarding mine. This is pointless (you're correct about that), and I have to go for dinner, but I'll note that, in an argument, if you don't give specific warrants to support a claim, there's no argument at all, because I can't respond to you. Especially regarding theory. The only arguments I can make are theoretical attacks on what I *think* your warrants are (you provided them later, which was nice). Next time please warrant your assertions - it makes things cleaner. :)

You think that Obama saying 'we're pulling out' would offend the rest of the world?

Yes, I think it would, or do you think all those NATO troops who died and/or were injured, and all that money pored they into it, now being declared pointless is going to go over just fine?



This whole Somalia idea is interesting.

You might as well argue that Iraq is going to turn into a tuna sandwich as 'the new Somalia'.
the Idea being that the country will be turned into a Lawless state, meaning that it will be a hotbed for dissidents, terrorists, pirates, etc...much like Somalia is today...



Sure it could. There might be some political turbulence, but then, we're hardly pristine right now.
I think that could qualify as understatement of the year there...

maybe Obama is a giant screw up so far, but all we can do is bear it and wait

maybe Obama is a giant screw up so far, but all we can do is bear it and wait

Now you understand how Democracy works.

2) I do not give Bush the credit for honestly adjusting his plans to match reality that you seem to give him. I believe his approach to the wars was to keep them going as a permanent political tool. I hope and am still confident that Obama is not doing the same.

"Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began."

"Under the Obama-Biden plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. They will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism."

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

I believe I already posted this.

We are not leaving.

"Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began."

"Under the Obama-Biden plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. They will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism."

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

I believe I already posted this.

We are not leaving.


We will be in Iraq 10 years from now. I don't see really how we are going to leave within 20. The region is so unstable we can't go. The Persians are going to make a go expanding their region of influence even more than now. The US will be there every step of the way.

We will be in Iraq 10 years from now. I don't see really how we are going to leave within 20. The region is so unstable we can't go. The Persians are going to make a go expanding their region of influence even more than now. The US will be there every step of the way.

http://blogstra.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/expletive-deleted.jpg

http://blogstra.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/expletive-deleted.jpg

I am looking at Fathers, sons and grandsons serving in the same theater. It's sad really. My eldest son is probably going over there soon. I was there in '91 and my brother just got back. Kind of a family affair there.

We will be in Iraq 10 years from now. I don't see really how we are going to leave within 20. The region is so unstable we can't go. The Persians are going to make a go expanding their region of influence even more than now. The US will be there every step of the way.

If we had taken the Saud's advice and just put in a new pro American dictator/strong man. We wouldn't need to stay,

It was suggested, and seemingly cast aside. It has the risk of what amounts to 'civil war', maybe. But you could make the same argument for the situation as a 'unity' state, after we leave.

Risk of civil plus a guarantee of Invasion by Turkey (they have actually stated that they would do so if a kurdish state is formed).

My argument was that we were seeing the same old supplemental process, and you said that it wasn't, because it hadn't been allowed to happen. Yet.

I think your version of the argument is interesting, but I didn't say 'out of control'. I just find it interesting that you approve of a model where the executive has to be kept in check.
1) I did not say that "it hadn't been allowed to happen yet."

2) I also did not say I "approve of a model where the executive has to be kept in check." I pointed out the concept of checks and balances and that the fact that the power of the presidency is checked by the powers of the other two co-equal branches IS NOT a sign that "the executive has to be kept in check" as if any given president is a loose cannon in some way.

You apparently cannot counter an argument without misrepresenting it. That tells me pretty much all I need to know about how weak and fundamentally invalid your position is.

"Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began."

"Under the Obama-Biden plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. They will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism."

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

I believe I already posted this.

We are not leaving.
Others have already debunked that interpretation of the source. I agree with them. I see no reason to continue the dogpile on you about that. Just take me as +1 to what has already been said.

I'd like for you to point out where.

You said that I was accusing anyone who made arguments like yours of being Obama-haters. I never said anything like that.
That seems to happen often.

Risk of civil plus a guarantee of Invasion by Turkey (they have actually stated that they would do so if a kurdish state is formed).

They should revive the Ottoman Empire, lol....but, really, I think Id be okay with Turkey doing the dirty work of owning Iraq rather than us...

That seems to happen often.
And...? Do you mean that it often happens that I don't make random blanket accusations of people being Obama-haters?

Others have already debunked that interpretation of the source. I agree with them. I see no reason to continue the dogpile on you about that. Just take me as +1 to what has already been said.

+1 to these:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14688071&postcount=202

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14688046&postcount=197

Those do not debunk anything.

From the article: "They will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism."

In non-political English that translates as: "Um, we are leaving a combat force. I do not want to talk about any exact withdrawal date."

1) I did not say that "it hadn't been allowed to happen yet."


In all but exact wording.


2) I also did not say I "approve of a model where the executive has to be kept in check." I pointed out the concept of checks and balances


Your 'approval' is implicit. You pointed out that it hadn't happened yet, you pointed out the checks and balances. When I discussed the idea that the President is being moderated by his party, you could have condemned, but you didn't - so you condone.


You apparently cannot counter an argument without misrepresenting it. That tells me pretty much all I need to know about how weak and fundamentally invalid your position is.


The argument I presented was that Obama was trying to repeat history. One more supplemental. You haven't shown that to be untrue, and you can't. The best defence you had - was that it hasn't happened yet.

This is hardly a position of strength to be arguing about 'weak' and 'fundamentally invalid' a position might be.

They should revive the Ottoman Empire, lol....but, really, I think Id be okay with Turkey doing the dirty work of owning Iraq rather than us...

The problem is that we can be pretty certain that if Turkey invades their goal will be to annex any territory occupied by Kurds which would undoubtedly prompt other nations in the area to follow suit.

And...? Do you mean that it often happens that I don't make random blanket accusations of people being Obama-haters?
That persons completely misrepresent what has been posted, and then take one to task for arguments one hasn't made (as was just done to you). And also, that you don't tend to make random blanket accusations, since you're a far better debater than that.

1) Please grow a skin. Everything on this forum is not about you.

Yeah, everything on this forum is about ME! Let any who challenge, Step forward! :tongue:

1) Please grow a skin. Everything on this forum is not about you. 2) Don't blame me for the threadjack you started. It's tiresome.

I believe it's quite obvious that the remark was directed at me. I started the thredjack, yes, but I quit after some time. You have seen fit to revive it, once as a split thread, and one more time now.

In all but exact wording.
Well, then I'm sure you could quote me.

Your 'approval' is implicit. You pointed out that it hadn't happened yet, you pointed out the checks and balances. When I discussed the idea that the President is being moderated by his party, you could have condemned, but you didn't - so you condone.
In other words, you're just making this up.

1) My "approval is implicit" means I didn't say it.

2) I did not say it had not happened yet. I said "didn't this just happen?" You -- I believe it was you -- said words to the effect of, "It happend this Thursday. Does that qualify as just happened?" And I said, "Yes."

That indicates that it did happen. In the past. The very recent past. NOT that it has not happened yet. Therefore you are wrong.

Now tell me this: Are you misrepresenting what I said on purpose or by accident?

3) Your claim that because I did not say something to meet a standard you just made up, that means I believe something else you just made up, is of course, complete bullshit.

The argument I presented was that Obama was trying to repeat history. One more supplemental. You haven't shown that to be untrue, and you can't. The best defence you had - was that it hasn't happened yet.

This is hardly a position of strength to be arguing about 'weak' and 'fundamentally invalid' a position might be.
I have already explained what is weak and invalid about your position. I'm not going to do it again. Posters like you don't get to make me run in circles more than three times per issue.

That persons completely misrepresent what has been posted, and then take one to task for arguments one hasn't made (as was just done to you). And also, that you don't tend to make random blanket accusations, since you're a far better debater than that.
Why, thank you. :)

And yes, I do have to say, you've been getting a lot of shit for no apparent reason lately. Wtf? Is astrology to blame, perhaps?

The problem is that we can be pretty certain that if Turkey invades their goal will be to annex any territory occupied by Kurds which would undoubtedly prompt other nations in the area to follow suit.

Kinda reminds me of something with the Slavs a long time ago....

Well, then I'm sure you could quote me.


"What lack of accountability? Do we know about this, or don't we? Are we voters and taxpayers with lines of communication to our elected officials and to the media, or aren't we? Hasn't this just happened? What do you expect -- that anytime he crosses a line, he'll just blow up? You want him held accountable for something, then speak up, as is your right as a citizens (assuming you are a US citizen). Otherwise, wait and see what happens before declaring that it hasn't happened."

His own team let him backtrack on his words - there's the lack of accountability. But it's okay... because the media and the rest of the government might be able to hold him in check.

:rolleyes:


In other words, you're just making this up.

1) My "approval is implicit" means I didn't say it.


In so many words.


2) I did not say it had not happened yet. I said "didn't this just happen?" You -- I believe it was you -- said words to the effect of, "It happend this Thursday. Does that qualify as just happened?" And I said, "Yes."

That indicates that it did happen. In the past. The very recent past. NOT that it has not happened yet. Therefore you are wrong.

Now tell me this: Are you misrepresenting what I said on purpose or by accident?




3) Your claim that because I did not say something to meet a standard you just made up, that means I believe something else you just made up, is of course, complete bullshit.


The 'standard I just made up' is hardly my own invention. If you're not with us, you're against us is Biblical, if no earlier.


I have already explained what is weak and invalid about your position.


The overwhelming evidence, including being reported in a variety of media, across the spectrum... including the President's own people saying it?

I must judge evidence differently. I'd consider that almost the exact opposite of 'weak' and 'invalid'.


I'm not going to do it again. Posters like you don't get to make me run in circles more than three times per issue.

It's an easy mistake to make. You say "make me run in circles more than three times per issue", but you mean "run rings round me, more than three times per issue".

"What lack of accountability? Do we know about this, or don't we? Are we voters and taxpayers with lines of communication to our elected officials and to the media, or aren't we? Hasn't this just happened? What do you expect -- that anytime he crosses a line, he'll just blow up? You want him held accountable for something, then speak up, as is your right as a citizens (assuming you are a US citizen). Otherwise, wait and see what happens before declaring that it hasn't happened."

His own team let him backtrack on his words - there's the lack of accountability. But it's okay... because the media and the rest of the government might be able to hold him in check.

:rolleyes:

Except of course, that those words of mine do not mean what you've been claiming.

I know I'm wasting my time, but let me explain:

Here's what happened: He put in a request for supplemental funding.

Here's what hasn't happened YET: There has not yet been any political fall-out for him putting in that request.

My point is, this is because there hasn't been time for fall-out to happen on account of it only happened a couple of days ago.

Got it yet? Or are you too caught up in your melodrama to pay attention?

Whatever. The words are there. Let others decide if you are full of crap and, if so, by how much.

Why, thank you. :)

And yes, I do have to say, you've been getting a lot of shit for no apparent reason lately. Wtf? Is astrology to blame, perhaps?

No; just a number of anarchists joining the forum.

Why, thank you. :)

And yes, I do have to say, you've been getting a lot of shit for no apparent reason lately. Wtf? Is astrology to blame, perhaps?
I think it's springtime and the young bucks think it impresses to take on the twelve pointers. They should remember I'm not the only mod around, though, and if they need to be taken to task officially for hassling me, there are others to do it.

It does seem like a few are intentionally trying to provoke me, though, doesn't it?

That, and certain folks continuing to try to hijack with pleas that I stop when all they have to do is, you know, stop bringing it up. Would you like to lay a bet that instead of doing that or taking it out of here as has been suggested multiple times, we get more of the same?

Parkus: don't you get tired of hiding in people's shadows with the me too bit? Seriously, grow up.

Parkus: don't you get tired of hiding in people's shadows with the me too bit? Seriously, grow up.

I think I have done more than my fair share of contradicting the majority, Kat.

So, what about that 83 Billion...anyone?.....uh....well, this topic was left in the dust entirely, wasnt it? lol....

Perhaps, after several massive threadjacks, it needs restating:

Obama Seeks $83B for War Spending in Iraq, Afghanistan

Bush's supplemental spending bills that Obama wasn't going to duplicate?

If you want to discuss it, do so. If not, carry on OT and see the thread closed.

I think Obama has finally realized that the war in Iraq between the day he took office and the day the majority of U.S. troops will withdraw isn't going to be free. Unfortunately, this only means that either he will continue to increase tax revenue (or at least, increase the burden of government on the U.S. citizen) or he will instead pay these debts by expanding the money supply (or credit; i.e. inflation). In regards to increased taxes, Herbert Hoover increased taxes dramatically between 1930 and 1932, and actually received less total revenue due to the effects of the great depression. A similar case is probably to be expected with the current recession (which is likely to turn into a drawn out recession as Obama introduces his "New New Deal" in vigor), and so the government will have to pay their debts on credit, which will only make the economic situation worse.

I think Obama has finally realized that the war in Iraq between the day he took office and the day the majority of U.S. troops will withdraw isn't going to be free. Unfortunately, this only means that either he will continue to increase tax revenue (or at least, increase the burden of government on the U.S. citizen) or he will instead pay these debts by expanding the money supply (or credit; i.e. inflation). In regards to increased taxes, Herbert Hoover increased taxes dramatically between 1930 and 1932, and actually received less total revenue due to the effects of the great depression. A similar case is probably to be expected with the current recession (which is likely to turn into a drawn out recession as Obama introduces his "New New Deal" in vigor), and so the government will have to pay their debts on credit, which will only make the economic situation worse.
Considering that before he got the nomination, and all through his election campaign when he did get it, and during and since his inauguration, he has never talked about the wars without stating, several times, that the way was going to be tough, tougher than most people imagined, certainly tougher than we had previously been led to believe, and certainly costly and demanding on all Americans, I would be interested to see a link to the places or times or contexts in which he said anything that led you to believe he ever thought "the war in Iraq between the day he took office and the day the majority of U.S. troops will withdraw" was "going to be free."

As for the likelihood that, whatever he does, it's going to be a huge financial burden on the country at a time when we will have a hard time carrying yet more burden, well, no shit. I never heard him say anything that would make that a surprise, either.

It's also worth mentioning that until he GOT the job, he didn't have access to all the information necessary to make an informed decision.

It's also worth mentioning that until he GOT the job, he didn't have access to all the information necessary to make an informed decision.
Apparently, that's not supposed to matter. Apparently, even though he ran and was elected by a sizeable majority of the people on the promises that his war policy would be realistic and based on true and honest assessments of the actual situations and the reports and advice of the experienced commanders who were running the wars at the time -- which was the whole point of keeping Bob Gates on in the first place -- some people are angry that he did not break that promise and immediately yank all our troops out of both countries, regardless of what might actually be going on there.

Apparently, they are accusing him of breaking a campaign promise because he has not broken a campaign promise.

They seem to be saying "To hell with informed decisions! We want our way NAO!!!!"

Which seems rather similar to the way Bush ran things.

Which only adds irony to their complaints that Obama is continuing in Bush's footsteps.

Apparently, that's not supposed to matter. Apparently, even though he ran and was elected by a sizeable majority of the people on the promises that his war policy would be realistic and based on true and honest assessments of the actual situations and the reports and advice of the experienced commanders who were running the wars at the time


I don't think even you believe this.

If Obama was elected on one issue, which you seem to be suggesting, it was the simple fact that he was the most un-Bush-like candidate running.

Anything else came second, if that.


They seem to be saying "To hell with informed decisions! We want our way NAO!!!!"


You're fighting shadows. Which 'way' is 'our way'?

I don't think even you believe this.

If Obama was elected on one issue, which you seem to be suggesting, it was the simple fact that he was the most un-Bush-like candidate running.

Anything else came second, if that.
More gross misrepresentations of my statements, and this time you don't even wait for a few pages to pass by before you start twisting my words. I am happy to let my quoted statement stand right next to your completely wrong interpretation of it so that anyone who reads it can see how you are failing to make, let alone carry, your argument.

You're fighting shadows. Which 'way' is 'our way'?
I have no idea. Nothing you say makes any sense, so I can't even begin to figure out what you expect Obama to do.

I dont see why its so hard to figure out, A) we went in someone's house and wrecked the place, then B) the populace gets angry because we made a mess, and now C) we have to clean up the mess, which, unfortunately requires us to stay in the house until its livable again...

its not that difficult...

I dont see why its so hard to figure out, A) we went in someone's house and wrecked the place, then B) the populace gets angry because we made a mess, and now C) we have to clean up the mess, which, unfortunately requires us to stay in the house until its livable again...

its not that difficult...

It's not that simple, either - no matter how you might wish it to be.

In your analogy, we made a mess in their house, and now we're going to tidy it up. The analogy would be more accurate if it allowed for the fact that we started fights among those living in the house, also, which are threatening to tear what's left of the house apart... but, that's okay, because we smashed everything that might be useful... not just their tv, but their showers, the plumbing, the fuse-box... we put out all the lights, and we ripped up the books. And we did it with a wrecking ball - so it's not even sure the walls will hold up. We also went round to the neighbour's houses, and told them they smell funny.

Now, we're walking round the house getting in fights with the residents, and what little is left keeps exploding every time we touch it.

The best thing we could do, if we're really concerned about the house - is get out of the house, and get someone elese to fix it.

More gross misrepresentations of my statements, and this time you don't even wait for a few pages to pass by before you start twisting my words. I am happy to let my quoted statement stand right next to your completely wrong interpretation of it so that anyone who reads it can see how you are failing to make, let alone carry, your argument.


It's all right there. The fingers-in-my-ears-la-la-la defense isn't working.


I have no idea. Nothing you say makes any sense, so I can't even begin to figure out what you expect Obama to do.

Not do the same things Bush did.

I don't see why you think that too much to ask?