- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Republicans say the darndest things!
Republicans say the darndest things!Follow
I'm thinking "Told ya so" Mr. Duck.
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
paulsol wrote:
It doesn't make a jot of difference to the Afghanis who the President is.
The munitions all say 'Made in the USA'.
Idiot war is idiot.
Not the point. Obama insisted that it was an important war that we had to win at the expense of anything else in that region. Of course, he made those statements when doing so required taking troops away from Iraq or was useful to attack Bush for "taking his eye off the ball". He clearly didn't think it was an "idiot war". Or at least he pretended not to.
It's not unreasonable to hold him to the position he took during the campaign IMO. But some of us see the writing on the wall and that he'll try to argue that he inherited the war from Bush, so it's not his fault if things go poorly. I definitely don't think it's unreasonable to point this out ahead of time so as to try to avoid that happening in the first place.
Um... But if we're going to compare gaffes, what Steele said is vastly less dumb than what Biden said about Iraq. So while the GOP will most likely can Steele, the Dems put their guy in the VP office. So... poorly stated, but not nearly too embarrassing relatively speaking.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Omegavegeta wrote:
(Although, Gbaji will probably say it was taken out of context & that he really meant to say something else).
gbaji wrote:
It was pretty obvious to me, even before listening to anything other than the statements he made, that he wasn't saying that Obama made us go to war in Afghanistan, or that Bush didn't. He was saying that Obama choose to make the focus of our foreign policy in that region, and specifically with regard to the war on terror, about Afghanistan. [...] I can even see what he was trying to do politically, and it wasn't a bad idea.
Like fish in a barrel.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
So while the GOP will most likely can Steele
Not a chance. He won't be elected in January but that won't be over this but rather over a couple year's worth of fuck-ups. He'll definitely last through his term though.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
paulsol wrote:
It doesn't make a jot of difference to the Afghanis who the President is.
The munitions all say 'Made in the USA'.
Idiot war is idiot.
Not the point.
Its exactly the point. While dunces like yourself get all moist argueing about whose war it is, the Afghanis are the ones who are hosting the damn thing. Heads up ladies! The Afghanis NEVER ATTACKED AMERICA!
If you (the US) has an issue in that part of the world it lies within Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Israel.
But they're your 'allies' in the region! Oh no what to do? I know! Keep blasting away at Afghanistan!
Its the wrong answer to a stupid question.
It matters not who is giving the orders. Bush, Obama, Mickey Mouse.
I'd like to say that I'm amazed that after 9 years there, the people in charge think they are still going to succeed (whatever that means to them) but I'm not. Not even slightly.
Its just more 'same, same, but different', and dolts like yourself continue to believe that one political talking suit has anything different to say from the next political talking suit, thereby ensuring that the idiocy that is US foreign policy continues unabated no matter who the figurehead is.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
I'm thinking "Told ya so" Mr. Duck.
Yep, called that one pretty well, eh?
gbaji wrote:
Well gee... Surprised to see a thread about this. Not!
The statements which bothered me more weren't the ones quoted in the OP though. It was his whole "don't engage in a land war in Afghanistan" bit that made me kinda go "huh?". It was pretty obvious to me, even before listening to anything other than the statements he made, that he wasn't saying that Obama made us go to war in Afghanistan, or that Bush didn't. He was saying that Obama choose to make the focus of our foreign policy in that region, and specifically with regard to the war on terror, about Afghanistan. He pretty badly bungled the delivery of that message though.
I can even see what he was trying to do politically, and it wasn't a bad idea. He was attempting to head off at the pass a potential future move by the Obama administration if things don't go well in Afghanistan. The fear/assumption among some on the right is that Obama will use the same "we inherited X" strategy towards Afghanistan if things go wrong. Some even suspect, especially in light of how McCrystal was treated initially (nothing to do with recent events, this was a year ago) and then the lack of full support for troop deployment to Afghanistan, that the Obama administration might even deliberately make Afghanistan into a Vietnam style disaster, just so that they can blame it on Bush and Republicans.
If Iraq was "Bush's war", and Obama attacked him for doing so at the expense of focus on Afghanistan, it does make Afghanistan "Obama's war". He may not have started it, but he publicly stated that it was more important to him and to the country than Iraq was. I don't really care that much about what Steele says, or whether he put his foot in his mouth saying it. To me, this is the more important point to remember.
The statements which bothered me more weren't the ones quoted in the OP though. It was his whole "don't engage in a land war in Afghanistan" bit that made me kinda go "huh?". It was pretty obvious to me, even before listening to anything other than the statements he made, that he wasn't saying that Obama made us go to war in Afghanistan, or that Bush didn't. He was saying that Obama choose to make the focus of our foreign policy in that region, and specifically with regard to the war on terror, about Afghanistan. He pretty badly bungled the delivery of that message though.
I can even see what he was trying to do politically, and it wasn't a bad idea. He was attempting to head off at the pass a potential future move by the Obama administration if things don't go well in Afghanistan. The fear/assumption among some on the right is that Obama will use the same "we inherited X" strategy towards Afghanistan if things go wrong. Some even suspect, especially in light of how McCrystal was treated initially (nothing to do with recent events, this was a year ago) and then the lack of full support for troop deployment to Afghanistan, that the Obama administration might even deliberately make Afghanistan into a Vietnam style disaster, just so that they can blame it on Bush and Republicans.
If Iraq was "Bush's war", and Obama attacked him for doing so at the expense of focus on Afghanistan, it does make Afghanistan "Obama's war". He may not have started it, but he publicly stated that it was more important to him and to the country than Iraq was. I don't really care that much about what Steele says, or whether he put his foot in his mouth saying it. To me, this is the more important point to remember.
You're so predictably moronic it's not even vaguely amusing. I don't know which is worse, the fact that you're willing to go to any length to defend the republican party or the remote possibility that you actually believe everything you say is decent and true.
Edited, Jul 6th 2010 10:33pm by BrownDuck
Omega wrote:
(Although, Gbaji will probably say it was taken out of context & that he really meant to say something else).
It was pretty obvious to me, even before listening to anything other than the statements he made, that he wasn't saying that Obama made us go to war in Afghanistan, or that Bush didn't. He was saying that Obama choose to make the focus of our foreign policy in that region, and specifically with regard to the war on terror, about Afghanistan. [...] I can even see what he was trying to do politically, and it wasn't a bad idea.
Gbaji wrote:
It was pretty obvious to me, even before listening to anything other than the statements he made, that he wasn't saying that Obama made us go to war in Afghanistan, or that Bush didn't. He was saying that Obama choose to make the focus of our foreign policy in that region, and specifically with regard to the war on terror, about Afghanistan. [...] I can even see what he was trying to do politically, and it wasn't a bad idea.
Joph wrote:
Like fish in a barrel.
If you think that's impressive, I predict that in 2012...the world won't end.
Paulsol wrote:
The Afghanis NEVER ATTACKED AMERICA!
Nope, Al Qaeda did. An Al Qaeda whom at the time, were harbored by the Taliban government of Afghanistan. We asked the Taliban for them, they said no, so we overthrew them & drove back most of the Taliban & Al Qaeda into Pakistan.
Then Bush saw something shiny in Iraq & pulled most of our troops out to party over there. That was a huge mistake that lead to the Taliban coming back into Afghanistan, especially after we disbanded the Iraqi military which lead to a civil war there, & established control in some regions yet again. Now we're back close to where we started.
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
Omegavegeta wrote:
Nope, Al Qaeda did. An Al Qaeda whom at the time, were harbored by the Taliban government of Afghanistan. We asked the Taliban for them, they said no, so we overthrew them & drove back most of the Taliban & Al Qaeda into Pakistan.
Hows that working out for you?
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Quote:
Hows that working out for you?
Hindsight being 20/20 & all, it's my belief that if we had stayed & finished the job in Afghanistan instead of getting distracted by Iraq, it'd be working out much better than it is currently. It's certainly not as bad as it was before we went in, but certainly a few steps behind where we were before Iraq.
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
Omegavegeta wrote:
Quote:
Hows that working out for you?
Hindsight being 20/20 & all, it's my belief that if we had stayed & finished the job in Afghanistan instead of getting distracted by Iraq, it'd be working out much better than it is currently. It's certainly not as bad as it was before we went in, but certainly a few steps behind where we were before Iraq.
At the risk of being seen as argumentative......
The job?? I thought 'the job' was to go and get OBL. Te's not there anymore. That 'job' is now elsewhere. GTFO.
Working out better? For who? The US? Or the Afghanis? Who nominated the US as the arbitors of what is right and wrong in other people countries. Its none of your business how people choose to live. Unless they attack you. Which they didn't.
Not as bad? Are you sure? What exactly do you know about Afghanistan before the US invasion. What do you really know about it now? Ever been there?
A few steps behind where you were? Ah. I get it. You were talking about how you feel. How it benefits the US. How it gives the caring US citizen the warm fuzzies to feel that their boys are doing good things for the poor downtrodden peoples of the world outside of the lucky country.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
paulsol wrote:
Omegavegeta wrote:
Nope, Al Qaeda did. An Al Qaeda whom at the time, were harbored by the Taliban government of Afghanistan. We asked the Taliban for them, they said no, so we overthrew them & drove back most of the Taliban & Al Qaeda into Pakistan.
Hows that working out for you?
Iraq? Not so good, really...
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Iraq's not doing so bad, really. It's much easier to hold a country like Iraq, with a large percentage of the population living in cities, than a country full of peasants, such as Afghanistan.
[quote]Its none of your business how people choose to live. Unless they attack you. Which they didn't.
[/quote
Answer me these questions: who has the right of self-determination/of sovereignty/to own a bit of land, why do they have this right, why should being a government allow you total ownership over everyone in your borders?
[quote]Its none of your business how people choose to live. Unless they attack you. Which they didn't.
[/quote
Answer me these questions: who has the right of self-determination/of sovereignty/to own a bit of land, why do they have this right, why should being a government allow you total ownership over everyone in your borders?
Jophiel wrote:
Omegavegeta wrote:
(Although, Gbaji will probably say it was taken out of context & that he really meant to say something else).
gbaji wrote:
It was pretty obvious to me, even before listening to anything other than the statements he made, that he wasn't saying that Obama made us go to war in Afghanistan, or that Bush didn't. He was saying that Obama choose to make the focus of our foreign policy in that region, and specifically with regard to the war on terror, about Afghanistan. [...] I can even see what he was trying to do politically, and it wasn't a bad idea.
Like fish in a barrel.
To be fair, predicting Gbaji is like predicting the seasons.
Just as Planned.
paulsol wrote:
The job?? I thought 'the job' was to go and get OBL.
Not exclusively, no. It was also to remove al'Qaeda and the support network they had in the form of the Taliban. Something which is still ongoing.
The most recent numbers I saw gave 68% support for US forces being in Afghanistan, 90% support for the new government over the Taliban and something over 70% feeling optimistic that their lives are going to be better. Maybe you know a couple unhappy Afghani people or something but is there a reason why we should take your word about the broad sentiment regarding the war over anything else?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Paulsol once flew over the country on his way to a happier place, and now has an irrevocable grasp on their internal politics because of it.
Jophiel wrote:
Maybe you know a couple unhappy Afghani people or something but is there a reason why we should take your word about the broad sentiment regarding the war over anything else?
the only Afghanin people i know are bloody glad to be away from the place and very hapy to be getting free healthcare in New Zealand.
Michael Steele said :
Quote:
"Keep in mind again, federal candidates, this was a war of Obama's choosing. This is not something the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in."
You were attacked by Saudis and Egyptians. They were trained and funded by Pakistanis. None of the major figures linked to 9/11--including Osama bin Laden--were in Afghanistan on 9/11. Bin Laden was in a Pakistani hospital in Islamabad. Al Qaeda's operations were based entirely in Pakistan.
Quote:
90% support for the new government
Karzai is up there in the top 3 most corrupt governments in the world. he's better mates with the Iranians that with the US. His brother, a world class opium dealer, is charging millions of dollars in fees to allow US forces to transport their stuff thru his territory. The Afghan 'government' really isn't in charge of very much, and if it wasn't for the US protecting them, they wouldnt last the week.
The problem ISAF and the US is going to have is that the resistance to their presence there, lives there. Unless you want to keep sending more and more people to fight eventually the locals will force them out. Its inevitable.
Obama needs to find a way to get out of 'The Graveyard of Empires', and sending more troops is not going to be the answer. And arguing about whose fault it is that you're there at all, using phrases such as 'we were attacked by terrorists' is not helping.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
paulsol wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Maybe you know a couple unhappy Afghani people or something but is there a reason why we should take your word about the broad sentiment regarding the war over anything else?
the only Afghanin people i know are bloody glad to be away from the place and very hapy to be getting free healthcare in New Zealand.
Good thing expats are such an unbiased cheery bunch, eh?
Kavek,
Pretty simple answer to all these questions; the one with the biggest gun. There's no God given right for one people to lay claim to any particular land. This is the biggest reason these backward as* countries are so p*ssed at western society in general.
Quote:
Answer me these questions: who has the right of self-determination/of sovereignty/to own a bit of land, why do they have this right, why should being a government allow you total ownership over everyone in your borders?
Pretty simple answer to all these questions; the one with the biggest gun. There's no God given right for one people to lay claim to any particular land. This is the biggest reason these backward as* countries are so p*ssed at western society in general.
paulsol wrote:
the only Afghanin people i know are bloody glad to be away from the place and very hapy to be getting free healthcare in New Zealand.
I'd assume that would have held true for pretty much any point in the last hundred years of Afghanistan history.
Quote:
Quote:
90% support for the new government
That would explain why I wrote "90% support for the new government over the Taliban" and not just "90% support for the new government" as you quoted. LOLOLROFL!!!!!
You still haven't presented any meaningful reason to believe that the will of the Afghan people is being trampled and ignored under the boot heel of US interests or whatever you were blathering on about.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Kavek,
Pretty simple answer to all these questions; the one with the biggest gun. There's no God given right for one people to lay claim to any particular land. This is the biggest reason these backward as* countries are so p*ssed at western society in general.
Quote:
Answer me these questions: who has the right of self-determination/of sovereignty/to own a bit of land, why do they have this right, why should being a government allow you total ownership over everyone in your borders?
Pretty simple answer to all these questions; the one with the biggest gun. There's no God given right for one people to lay claim to any particular land. This is the biggest reason these backward as* countries are so p*ssed at western society in general.
Keep that philosophy in mind the next time you're complaining about the government taking your property at the point of a gun.
Paulsol wrote:
Karzai is up there in the top 3 most corrupt governments in the world. he's better mates with the Iranians that with the US. His brother, a world class opium dealer, is charging millions of dollars in fees to allow US forces to transport their stuff thru his territory. The Afghan 'government' really isn't in charge of very much, and if it wasn't for the US protecting them, they wouldnt last the week.
The problem ISAF and the US is going to have is that the resistance to their presence there, lives there. Unless you want to keep sending more and more people to fight eventually the locals will force them out. Its inevitable.
The problem ISAF and the US is going to have is that the resistance to their presence there, lives there. Unless you want to keep sending more and more people to fight eventually the locals will force them out. Its inevitable.
I'm not a huge fan of Karzai, but I don't feel its in the US' interest to pick someone else. The Afghanis voted him in, so now we have to work with him. The big choice I see coming down the road is whether or not we're willing to give the Taliban a place at the bargaining table. Unfortunately for us, like it or not, Afghanistan is their country too. If we keep them shut out, they'll keep fighting. If we let them into the Afghani government, it'll be back to Islamic fundamentalism & harboring terrorism again in no time.
Glad I'm not a diplomat.
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
Polls are already not very reliable in the West, but in places like Afghanistan they're a complete joke. I think most Afghans will take which ever government is the least corrupt and abusive. Karzai probably just edges the Talibans on that one, but not by much.
The real problem is that you can't kill all the Talibans. I don't think the US made a mistake in invading Afghanistan. They made a mistake in thinking that they could fundamentally change the country just by controlling Kabul. Once they had reached their first objective, which was to drive the Talibans out of power, they should've either left straight away, or really focused a ridiculous amount of resources on that country. This half-baked solution we have now is the reason why there is no way to "win" this war. The Talibans aren't going away. Karzai's government barely controls Kabul, and the second the US leaves, the country will probably plunge into another civil war. Add to this the fact that the Talibans get funded by the opium/heroin trade, the whole Pakistan problem next door, and you realise why Karzai is pretty much screwed.
We could continue with the same strategy for another 20 years, we would barely make any progress. If we were going to try change Afghanistan, we'd have to make serious investment in the country's infrastructure, in its police and army forces, in education, but we'd also have to find a way to legalise the opium trade (either by using it for pharmaceutical purposes like they do in India and Turkey, or by legalising heroin in the West), tax some of those profits, and prevent that revenue stream from falling into the hands of the Talibans.
And for any of this to work, you'd have to stabilise Pakistan too.
So yeah, whoever's war it is, it'll end up being the Afghans'.
The real problem is that you can't kill all the Talibans. I don't think the US made a mistake in invading Afghanistan. They made a mistake in thinking that they could fundamentally change the country just by controlling Kabul. Once they had reached their first objective, which was to drive the Talibans out of power, they should've either left straight away, or really focused a ridiculous amount of resources on that country. This half-baked solution we have now is the reason why there is no way to "win" this war. The Talibans aren't going away. Karzai's government barely controls Kabul, and the second the US leaves, the country will probably plunge into another civil war. Add to this the fact that the Talibans get funded by the opium/heroin trade, the whole Pakistan problem next door, and you realise why Karzai is pretty much screwed.
We could continue with the same strategy for another 20 years, we would barely make any progress. If we were going to try change Afghanistan, we'd have to make serious investment in the country's infrastructure, in its police and army forces, in education, but we'd also have to find a way to legalise the opium trade (either by using it for pharmaceutical purposes like they do in India and Turkey, or by legalising heroin in the West), tax some of those profits, and prevent that revenue stream from falling into the hands of the Talibans.
And for any of this to work, you'd have to stabilise Pakistan too.
So yeah, whoever's war it is, it'll end up being the Afghans'.
knoxxsouthy wrote:
There's no God given right for one people to lay claim to any particular land. This is the biggest reason these backward as* countries are so p*ssed at western society in general.
Because we do it all the time?
Majivo,
You're mistaken; it's not a philosophy but a reality of humanity.
Fortunately we live in a country where I'm allowed to say certain things publicly.
Quote:
Keep that philosophy in mind
You're mistaken; it's not a philosophy but a reality of humanity.
Quote:
the next time you're complaining about the government taking your property at the point of a gun
Fortunately we live in a country where I'm allowed to say certain things publicly.
Recent Visitors: 656
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (656)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Republicans say the darndest things!
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC