Quote:
Just because a group of people think they are oppressed doesn't give them the right to bomb innocent civilians. Just thought i'd throw that out there.
Would you agree or disagree that bombing **** cities in WW2 was the "right" thing to do?
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- NYT on Afghanistan and Obama
NYT on Afghanistan and ObamaFollow
Would you agree or disagree that bombing **** cities in WW2 was the "right" thing to do?
Just as Planned.
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
Just because a group of people think they are oppressed doesn't give them the right to bomb innocent civilians. Just thought i'd throw that out there.
Would you agree or disagree that bombing **** cities in WW2 was the "right" thing to do?
Those weren't innocent civilians, Timelord. They were German civilians.
Timelordwho wrote:
Would you agree or disagree that bombing **** cities in WW2 was the "right" thing to do?
German cities. It's not as though they were colonized by *****.
But I think it was "right" to do so.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Only the United States and her allies are capable of entering a Supreme Emergency, naturally.
Jophiel wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Would you agree or disagree that bombing **** cities in WW2 was the "right" thing to do?
German cities. It's not as though they were colonized by *****.
But I think it was "right" to do so.
Just as Planned.
That lady looks pretty ****, lurking over her pile of dead Jews like that... 
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Those are German children hit by collateral bomb damage surplus population.
Just as Planned.
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
How is "we're sending 30,000 troops into Afghanistan and then pulling them out in a year regardless of the situation on the ground" any more of a valid exit strategy than sending troops into the area and then pulling them out when the situation is stabilized?
Because the former is an exist strategy, and the latter is not an exit strategy at all; it is simply by it's concept a more valid exit strategy, because it is one. The quality of it may or may not hold up, but that question is one of degree, not existence in the first place.
The question that always come to mind right about here is: What is the virtue of an "exit strategy" in the first place?
Shouldn't military objectives be about what you accomplish rather than when you leave?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Well, it's both. And *when* is not as important as *that* you leave, and that's the virtue of an exit strategy.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Samira wrote:
Well, it's both. And *when* is not as important as *that* you leave, and that's the virtue of an exit strategy.
So an exit strategy contingent upon achieved objectives is a good idea, and one based on pre-set timeline is a bad idea. Got it. Wait... So that means that the way Bush did it was right, and the way Obama is doing it is wrong! Who woulda thunk it?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
How is "we're sending 30,000 troops into Afghanistan and then pulling them out in a year regardless of the situation on the ground" any more of a valid exit strategy than sending troops into the area and then pulling them out when the situation is stabilized?
Because the former is an exist strategy, and the latter is not an exit strategy at all; it is simply by it's concept a more valid exit strategy, because it is one. The quality of it may or may not hold up, but that question is one of degree, not existence in the first place.
The question that always come to mind right about here is: What is the virtue of an "exit strategy" in the first place?
Shouldn't military objectives be about what you accomplish rather than when you leave?
They should be about what you accomplish, within what time-frame and at what expense.
gbaji wrote:
So an exit strategy contingent upon achieved objectives is a good idea, and one based on pre-set timeline is a bad idea. Got it.
No, only if the pre-set time line is non-negotiable and impossible to change based on circumstances or needs. But having a date set for things to be accomplished is definitely a good thing.
Do you always think in such black & white terms or was that fallacy of the excluded middle there intentional?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
You guys are only helping to illustrate why it shouldn't be called an "exit strategy" in the first place. Set goals and milestones. Absolutely set timelines to those. And of course, when your goals are done, you get to go home.
It just seems backwards to start with the "when do we go home?" part. And let's not kid ourselves. Those pushing for a time based exit strategy don't really care if the objectives are achieved by that time or not.
It just seems backwards to start with the "when do we go home?" part. And let's not kid ourselves. Those pushing for a time based exit strategy don't really care if the objectives are achieved by that time or not.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
You guys are only helping to illustrate why it shouldn't be called an "exit strategy" in the first place. Set goals and milestones. Absolutely set timelines to those. And of course, when your goals are done, you get to go home.
It just seems backwards to start with the "when do we go home?" part. And let's not kid ourselves. Those pushing for a time based exit strategy don't really care if the objectives are achieved by that time or not.
It just seems backwards to start with the "when do we go home?" part. And let's not kid ourselves. Those pushing for a time based exit strategy don't really care if the objectives are achieved by that time or not.
Well, Obama cares, and he is pushing for this strategy. Does Pelosi care? Probably not. I'm sure there are plenty of people who want Afghanistan stabilised but don't think it's worth it if it'll take more than a few years.
gbaji wrote:
And of course, when your goals are done, you get to go home.
Erm, yeah. And one of those goals is "Have the country ready to get out without it falling apart". Hence the whole "exit strategy" thing.
Quote:
Those pushing for a time based exit strategy don't really care if the objectives are achieved by that time or not.
Huh. Well, thanks for answering for me but you're wrong.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
You guys are only helping to illustrate why it shouldn't be called an "exit strategy" in the first place.
Did Obama ever call it an "exit strategy...?"
publiusvarus wrote:
Kavek,
All Obama cares about is appeasing "moderates".
Quote:
Well, Obama cares, and he is pushing for this strategy
All Obama cares about is appeasing "moderates".
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
publiusvarus wrote:
Kavek,
All Obama cares about is appeasing "moderates".
Quote:
Well, Obama cares, and he is pushing for this strategy
All Obama cares about is appeasing "moderates".
It's because the President is responding to the desires of the electorate. Varrus wants an aloof ruler to rule him like a king, brutalise criminals, annex weaker countries and lower taxes.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And of course, when your goals are done, you get to go home.
Erm, yeah. And one of those goals is "Have the country ready to get out without it falling apart". Hence the whole "exit strategy" thing.
Quote:
Those pushing for a time based exit strategy don't really care if the objectives are achieved by that time or not.
Huh. Well, thanks for answering for me but you're wrong.
Ok. So if the time expires and the goals aren't yet met, do we leave anyway, or find another way to achieve the goals?
Cause one of those would indicate that the goals are the most important, and the other would indicate that leaving is more important. Which do you suppose the Democrats would pick?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
To Varrus, moderates are just dirty liberal communists who won't admit to it. Hence the scare quotes. To him, the political spectrum is divided cleanly between "Fox News/Limbaugh Acolytes" and "Everyone else is a dirty communist Muslim terror-monster"
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
Cause one of those would indicate that the goals are the most important, and the other would indicate that leaving is more important.
Can't they both be important? You know, bust your *** to achieve the goals because the time frame really does matter but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater in the event of unforeseen circumstances?
Quote:
Which do you suppose the Democrats would pick?
Based on the last eight years, a faction would howl for immediate withdrawal and then roll over and give the President whatever he wanted to continue.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
This is why the youth are generally not Republican. Who wants to sound like you're a class out of D&D when you can be a terror-monster, armed to the teeth with sharp minarets?
publiusvarus wrote:
Majivo,
Are you really saying that there weren't radical muslims before the US had a presence in the ME?
Quote:
If we (and other Western countries) hadn't been complicit in or condoning of the aforementioned rape, there wouldn't be any radical Muslim terrorists there at all.
Are you really saying that there weren't radical muslims before the US had a presence in the ME?
Don't you remember that meeting several decades ago where all the muslims sat down together and decided the only fair way to vent their hitherto directionless anger at the world was to focus it in one direction, and after three days of discussion, interupted only by epic hookah sessions and the occasional dancing girls, they, completely at random, assisted only by two Sufis, practiced in the art of divining wisdom from the entrails of a freshly slaughtered goat, decided that their needs for radical terrorist style acts of violence should be directed at the USA?
WTF do they teach you cnuts at school these days?
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Recent Visitors: 248
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (248)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- NYT on Afghanistan and Obama
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC