By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Political rant.

Jackson50 on 03 September 2009
halogamer1989 said:

50,000,000 people freed from a dictator and a repressive Taliban mini-caliphate.  PS we are not just in Iraq and Afghanistan just to let you know.  Ask any soldier if they would rather stay here when they return or go back and finish the job and they will not hesitate to say that they need to finish the job.  I can't help how Obama's extreme "end the wars now, man" flank is pushing policy but he said in 2007 and continues to that "Af. is a war of necessity."  (Although I do love a Dem civil war  )

 

By the way, I talked to the LTC here about ROTC and I probably wouldn't qualify for medical reasons otherwise I would jump at serving unlike these pansy hippy college kids.

Yeah, I never so much as alluded to Afghanistan. Also, do not patronize me. I am aware of where US personnel are present. I did not say we should not finish the job. I said we should have never initiated the military operation to begin with. Deposing Saddam for the benefit of the Iraqis does not justify spending $650 billion (and counting), 4,200 US casualties (and counting), and 30,000 US wounded (and counting). It was an unnecessary, unjustifiable war. I hate rehashing this topic, but I could not allow the response to Numonex's post go unanswered-not that I endorse Numonex's blather.



Around the Network
halogamer1989 on 03 September 2009
Jackson50 said:
halogamer1989 said:

50,000,000 people freed from a dictator and a repressive Taliban mini-caliphate.  PS we are not just in Iraq and Afghanistan just to let you know.  Ask any soldier if they would rather stay here when they return or go back and finish the job and they will not hesitate to say that they need to finish the job.  I can't help how Obama's extreme "end the wars now, man" flank is pushing policy but he said in 2007 and continues to that "Af. is a war of necessity."  (Although I do love a Dem civil war  )

 

By the way, I talked to the LTC here about ROTC and I probably wouldn't qualify for medical reasons otherwise I would jump at serving unlike these pansy hippy college kids.

Yeah, I never so much as alluded to Afghanistan. Also, do not patronize me. I am aware of where US personnel are present. I did not say we should not finish the job. I said we should have never initiated the military operation to begin with. Deposing Saddam for the benefit of the Iraqis does not justify spending $650 billion (and counting), 4,200 US casualties (and counting), and 30,000 US wounded (and counting). It was an unnecessary, unjustifiable war. I hate rehashing this topic, but I could not allow the response to Numonex's post go unanswered-not that I endorse Numonex's blather.

Well for the bolded I was not referring so much to you but more of the Bay/NYC anarchist/socialist hippies who actually root for the Taliban.  



Kasz216 on 04 September 2009
Mr Khan said:

sqrl is right, really. Strong leadership is what would be most beneficial. Something Obama doesn't seem to be willing to do.

 

The problem, as FamousRingo has pointed out, is that the Democrats have built their modern strength on their ability to build wider coalitions. It makes them weaker in action, but prevents them from losing key votes because they have to adhere to one single dogma, as is more or less required by modern Republicans. The Republicans are playing to their hardcore base right now (the town-hall screamers and their ilk), and it's making a lot of noise, but ultimately it should alienate more people in the long run.

 

I figure Kennedy's death should help, not hurt, if only because it spurs the democrats on to quicker, more decisive action, which is how it should have been from the beginning.

Actually the republicans have been making big gains in public opinion because of the healthcare plan.  More people seem to be against it then for it.


A majority of people are for "Healthcare reform."  But not what the democrats are proposing.



Kasz216 on 04 September 2009
HappySqurriel said:

Personally, I think this discussion has gone into the weeds. I do think there are a few things everyone can probably agree upon regarding the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq ...

  1. The war in Afghanistan was fully justified by the attack on September 11th, the intelligence available at the time, and the unwillingness of the Taliban to do anything about the terrorists training in their country.
  2. The war in Afghanistan has (likely) reduced the threat of terrorism around the world through the destruction of terrorist training camps, and being that potential terrorists are recruited as insurgents rather than terrorists.
  3. The war in Iraq was probably not justified, but it was "legally" entered into through the support of the congress and the citizens of the United States.
  4. The death tolls of US soldiers, their allies, civilians and insurgents in both Iraq and Afghanistan are all very small when compared to other wars throughout history.
  5. There will need to be some military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan for some time to ensure their stability
  6. This military presence will continue to shrink and be removed from direct conflict as citizens in Iraq and Afghanistan choose to enter the military and police force to protect their own country
  7. Long term prospects for personal freedoms and prosperity are far better post war in stable countries for the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan than they were under Sadam Hussein or the Taliban.

Now, there is no doubt that the cost of the wars has been massive, and they really should force EVERYONE to question how the cost of two wars can only be (roughly) 5% of the total federal budget. Where is all the money going and how can a government run a deficit that is (roughly) 10 times the amount it is spending to participate in 2 wars?

 I disagree with 6.  I think Afghanistan isn't going to be able to be able to stablize... or if they do... not for a loooooong time.

 

To show you how much of a sham poltical figureheads are though... a conservative jouranlist just declared that we should pull out.

In the end... very few if any of the politicans and other partisians elected give a fuck about republicans, democrats or any of their stated believes.

All they care about is power and paying off the people who pay them off.



TheRealMafoo on 04 September 2009

I think the biggest problem with the Democrats, is they have lost what it means to be Democrat. In the old days, it was the party that fought for the rights of the common man. The problem is, they did such a good job, there is not much to fight for anymore. Now the party is just how to steal from the rich to give to the poor. Something most Democrats from 30 years ago would never have been for.

Today, it's hard to imagine that it was a Democrat who spoke the famous line "Ask not what your country can do for you, as what you can do for your country."

No Democrat today would ever say that.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 04 September 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
I think the biggest problem with the Democrats, is they have lost what it means to be Democrat. In the old days, it was the party that fought for the rights of the common man. The problem is, they did such a good job, there is not much to fight for anymore. Now the party is just how to steal from the rich to give to the poor. Something most Democrats from 30 years ago would never have been for.

Today, it's hard to imagine that it was a Democrat who spoke the famous line "Ask not what your country can do for you, as what you can do for your country."

No Democrat today would ever say that.

Well it's the same problem as the Republicans.

 

Ever since Reagan... Republicans rushed to power and popularity on the backs of the Russians. 


When the USSR broke up the Republicans lost their "big bad".

Terrorism took over and brought a "new path" to them after 9/11 but their methods don't work since they're fighting an opponent that not only doesn't fear mutual annihilation but actually welcomes it... because even if you win the battle.  Your going to lose the PR war.

Like how Hamas baits Israel into attacking them... and uses their own people as shields so it plays badly in the media.

 

If this were another system that allowed for more then 2 parties... both the republicans and democrats would be fading out... if not gone.


It's an issue that both parties are screwups... because usually a new party is born when one party is a screw up and the other isn't.  One does well.

The other doesn't... and then the bigger successful party has two groups that split in half and the weaker half joins with the failures... etc.

 

If the Democrats weren't being such screwups i'd imagine they'd be really successful and lead to a split between Unionists and more Leftwingers... since unionists mostly aren't republicans only because they're bosses are.



TheRealMafoo on 04 September 2009

I agree Kasz. Republicans suck too.

The only redeeming quality about republicans sucking, is they suck at things that are easily reversible. If you want to cut republican spending, close bases and phase out the war.

if you want to cut democrat spending, you need to remove people from government assistance. A much harder task.



HappySqurriel on 04 September 2009
Kasz216 said:
HappySqurriel said:

Personally, I think this discussion has gone into the weeds. I do think there are a few things everyone can probably agree upon regarding the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq ...

  1. The war in Afghanistan was fully justified by the attack on September 11th, the intelligence available at the time, and the unwillingness of the Taliban to do anything about the terrorists training in their country.
  2. The war in Afghanistan has (likely) reduced the threat of terrorism around the world through the destruction of terrorist training camps, and being that potential terrorists are recruited as insurgents rather than terrorists.
  3. The war in Iraq was probably not justified, but it was "legally" entered into through the support of the congress and the citizens of the United States.
  4. The death tolls of US soldiers, their allies, civilians and insurgents in both Iraq and Afghanistan are all very small when compared to other wars throughout history.
  5. There will need to be some military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan for some time to ensure their stability
  6. This military presence will continue to shrink and be removed from direct conflict as citizens in Iraq and Afghanistan choose to enter the military and police force to protect their own country
  7. Long term prospects for personal freedoms and prosperity are far better post war in stable countries for the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan than they were under Sadam Hussein or the Taliban.

Now, there is no doubt that the cost of the wars has been massive, and they really should force EVERYONE to question how the cost of two wars can only be (roughly) 5% of the total federal budget. Where is all the money going and how can a government run a deficit that is (roughly) 10 times the amount it is spending to participate in 2 wars?

 I disagree with 6.  I think Afghanistan isn't going to be able to be able to stablize... or if they do... not for a loooooong time.

 

To show you how much of a sham poltical figureheads are though... a conservative jouranlist just declared that we should pull out.

In the end... very few if any of the politicans and other partisians elected give a fuck about republicans, democrats or any of their stated believes.

All they care about is power and paying off the people who pay them off.

Afghanistan could be stable in a very short period of time if we had the full support of Iran, Pakistan and India to fully patrol their borders and limit the number of insurgents that could enter into Afghanistan. In the last report I read roughly 60% of people within Afghanistan claim to support NATO forces within their country while only 6% of people were claiming to support the Taliban; while the numbers may not be accurate, there is support for the idea that without external influence the insurgency would rapidly run out of soldiers and resources which would ensure a level of stability that could be built off of.



Kasz216 on 04 September 2009
HappySqurriel said:
Kasz216 said:
HappySqurriel said:

Personally, I think this discussion has gone into the weeds. I do think there are a few things everyone can probably agree upon regarding the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq ...

  1. The war in Afghanistan was fully justified by the attack on September 11th, the intelligence available at the time, and the unwillingness of the Taliban to do anything about the terrorists training in their country.
  2. The war in Afghanistan has (likely) reduced the threat of terrorism around the world through the destruction of terrorist training camps, and being that potential terrorists are recruited as insurgents rather than terrorists.
  3. The war in Iraq was probably not justified, but it was "legally" entered into through the support of the congress and the citizens of the United States.
  4. The death tolls of US soldiers, their allies, civilians and insurgents in both Iraq and Afghanistan are all very small when compared to other wars throughout history.
  5. There will need to be some military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan for some time to ensure their stability
  6. This military presence will continue to shrink and be removed from direct conflict as citizens in Iraq and Afghanistan choose to enter the military and police force to protect their own country
  7. Long term prospects for personal freedoms and prosperity are far better post war in stable countries for the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan than they were under Sadam Hussein or the Taliban.

Now, there is no doubt that the cost of the wars has been massive, and they really should force EVERYONE to question how the cost of two wars can only be (roughly) 5% of the total federal budget. Where is all the money going and how can a government run a deficit that is (roughly) 10 times the amount it is spending to participate in 2 wars?

 I disagree with 6.  I think Afghanistan isn't going to be able to be able to stablize... or if they do... not for a loooooong time.

 

To show you how much of a sham poltical figureheads are though... a conservative jouranlist just declared that we should pull out.

In the end... very few if any of the politicans and other partisians elected give a fuck about republicans, democrats or any of their stated believes.

All they care about is power and paying off the people who pay them off.

Afghanistan could be stable in a very short period of time if we had the full support of Iran, Pakistan and India to fully patrol their borders and limit the number of insurgents that could enter into Afghanistan. In the last report I read roughly 60% of people within Afghanistan claim to support NATO forces within their country while only 6% of people were claiming to support the Taliban; while the numbers may not be accurate, there is support for the idea that without external influence the insurgency would rapidly run out of soldiers and resources which would ensure a level of stability that could be built off of.

And i'd be a millionaire soon if I convinced Bill Gates to give me a million dollars.

Pakistan and India will never cooperate until Kashmere is settled.

Pakistan would rather work WITH the taliban so it can focus on India.

The only bargaining chip the US has with Pakistan and India are the same chip... we can only get one on our side... and even then... not really cause we can't really convince the other to give it up.

Pretty much nobody likes the Taliban but there is so many more factors then that.



Kasz216 on 04 September 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
I agree Kasz. Republicans suck too.

The only redeeming quality about republicans sucking, is they suck at things that are easily reversible. If you want to cut republican spending, close bases and phase out the war.

if you want to cut democrat spending, you need to remove people from government assistance. A much harder task.

The only issue is... who is going to reverse it?


A lot of the stuff Demcorats were complaining about Bush doing remains unfixed... because it's convient for the party in power.


I mean unless i've missed my mark the Patriot Act is still largley in place... and then there was Fiza which... the democrats could eaisly turn over now if they actually cared.

Then there was the department of homeland security.... which is just... a pointless orginzation... since the only issue was intellegence sharing...