"The main reason we are losing in Afghanistan...

fuck

...is not because there are too few American soldiers, but because there are not enough Afghans ready to fight and die for the kind of government we want."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/opinion/30friedman.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

DriftingByTheStorm

Then its up to us to SHOW them how great it is.

We must PROVE it to them by ANY means necessary.

Even if that means tactical nuclear strikes.

yes, thats right.

Democracy is too important!
Too important to leave ANYTHING off the table!

FOR DEMOCRACY!

bruce

_outlaw wrote:

...is not because there are too few American soldiers, but because there are not enough Afghans ready to fight and die for the kind of government we want."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/opinion/30friedman.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

I'm a strong opponent of the Iraq war but I'm not a passivist.

The focus of our military effort needs to be defeating radical extremists in Afghanistan. They are a the last threat to classical liberalism and we along with other western countries need to take charge and develop a system of ending terrorism without over throwing a country and minimalizing loss of life, especial amongst civilians.

Obama 08

bruce

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Democracy is too important!
Too important to leave ANYTHING off the table!

FOR DEMOCRACY!

I agree with the first part of your post, but we have got to be really careful about trying to "spread democracy". In fact, it is in our best interest to NOT try to develop democracy. Ending terrorism is one thing, trying to build their government is another. History is every indicator.

raszputini

As ridiculous as what Driftin says sounds in the first post, that's the reality of how the "Neo-Cons" think. They truly believe (or want to believe) that they are so much more in tune with what "dumb masses" REALLY need, that they are justified in lying to us if that is what is necessary.

Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan is about making democracy or fighting terror, although we'll still attempt to force-feed it down their throats, and use terrorism as an excuse to imprison those who oppose us while we are there. The slimy back-room justification for both is very simply, OIL. Everyone knows how big of a player Iraq is in the oil market, most don't about Afghanistan. We just think it's about the Taliban. Go to google and type "Afganistan Oil Pipeline". You'll find that we and the Brits want to build an enormous pipeline that runs from Azerbaijan and Georgia through Afghanistan, so that we can pick the oil up in friendly India. That's the main reason why Russia is so pissed about our presence in Afghanistan, it cuts them out.

The "Neo-Cons" believe that we will get strangled economically over our oil use long before we change our habits, and they are willing to preemptively go to war over it to prevent that from damaging us strategically. It also gives us two places to project power from, while having a military presence on two Iranian borders. Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are all countries we will continue to create justifications to interfere with. They all are strategically important and all have weak regimes. As for spreading democracy, we'll still use that as an excuse to selectively interfere with other nations when it benefits us. Why are we not in Zimbabwe? Or the Sudan? It's irrelevent, NONE of the countries we are talking about ANY democratic tradition whatsoever - so "democracy" will last as long as we are there.

Cheney, Rumsfield, and much of Bush's administration all subscribe to this "neo-con" philosophy. It's modern-day Machiavellianism based on the theories of Leo Strauss. Many of them were his students. Go check this guy out.

Fortunately for us, neither McCain nor Obama come from that school of thought. Unfortunately, they are both idiots. McCain is as a has-been that's lucky to even be invited to the dance - but is not a leader. Obama is a "never-was" with three years of being a lazy Senator and nothing more, but he can at least speak intelligently. Either way, you're screwed.

fuck

bruce wrote:

I'm a strong opponent of the Iraq war but I'm not a passivist.

The focus of our military effort needs to be defeating radical extremists in Afghanistan. They are a the last threat to classical liberalism and we along with other western countries need to take charge and develop a system of ending terrorism without over throwing a country and minimalizing loss of life, especial amongst civilians.

Obama 08

do you know what a paradox is?

one such is example is talking about using military force (even worse- US military force), while talking about keeping "loss of [civilian] life" minimal.

you really are funny. just because the media doesn't really tell you how many Afghans have died due to our pathetic attempt at a "war on terror" doesn't mean it's not happening at a massive scale, and little Barack won't help make it any better.

fuck

bruce wrote:

I agree with the first part of your post, but we have got to be really careful about trying to "spread democracy". In fact, it is in our best interest to NOT try to develop democracy. Ending terrorism is one thing, trying to build their government is another. History is every indicator.

Ah, I see. so we go to Afghanistan, defeat the terrorists (Bin Laden and the Taliban) and then leave without helping set up a government?

so what's your plan then?

fuck

http://bp0.blogger.com/_O5OuU90ru-Y/SJHoSribfUI/AAAAAAAABrI/3qKk6Gn4tS4/s1600-h/1008MA1.jpg

Wake up bitches, we came to liberate the hell out of you.

Cosmo

Democracy in a theocratic state... hmmm... maybe we should THINK about it first.
...
If they are a theocratic culture... then... is it possible that they will elect theocratic people to lead them? and they migh want fundamentilist laws... such as converting out of islam is punishable by death (which is an Afghani law).
Also... if the people hate Israel... does any think they may vote for people who hate Israel as President?
...
Or, is it just me?

raszputini

That picture says 1000 thousand words

RolandTD20Kdrummer

raszputini wrote:

As ridiculous as what Driftin says sounds in the first post, that's the reality of how the "Neo-Cons" think. They truly believe (or want to believe) that they are so much more in tune with what "dumb masses" REALLY need, that they are justified in lying to us if that is what is necessary.

Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan is about making democracy or fighting terror, although we'll still attempt to force-feed it down their throats, and use terrorism as an excuse to imprison those who oppose us while we are there. The slimy back-room justification for both is very simply, OIL. Everyone knows how big of a player Iraq is in the oil market, most don't about Afghanistan. We just think it's about the Taliban. Go to google and type "Afganistan Oil Pipeline". You'll find that we and the Brits want to build an enormous pipeline that runs from Azerbaijan and Georgia through Afghanistan, so that we can pick the oil up in friendly India. That's the main reason why Russia is so pissed about our presence in Afghanistan, it cuts them out.

The "Neo-Cons" believe that we will get strangled economically over our oil use long before we change our habits, and they are willing to preemptively go to war over it to prevent that from damaging us strategically. It also gives us two places to project power from, while having a military presence on two Iranian borders. Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are all countries we will continue to create justifications to interfere with. They all are strategically important and all have weak regimes. As for spreading democracy, we'll still use that as an excuse to selectively interfere with other nations when it benefits us. Why are we not in Zimbabwe? Or the Sudan? It's irrelevent, NONE of the countries we are talking about ANY democratic tradition whatsoever - so "democracy" will last as long as we are there.

Cheney, Rumsfield, and much of Bush's administration all subscribe to this "neo-con" philosophy. It's modern-day Machiavellianism based on the theories of Leo Strauss. Many of them were his students. Go check this guy out.

Fortunately for us, neither McCain nor Obama come from that school of thought. Unfortunately, they are both idiots. McCain is as a has-been that's lucky to even be invited to the dance - but is not a leader. Obama is a "never-was" with three years of being a lazy Senator and nothing more, but he can at least speak intelligently. Either way, you're screwed.

Well...I can see you've done your homework.

welcome to the mindless orgy...