So like, what I'm noticing in this thread is that people hate war, superpower aggression, lies...etc., and so they feel obligated to hastily assume that the outcome in the middle east is a negative one so as to justify the aforementioned points of disdain.
But, what is being overlooked is that even if the outcome in the middle east is a positive, that does not magically justify US aggression and so forth and so on. Such a justification would be a case of the ends justifying the means, and it is ethics 101 that the ends do not justify the means.
However, I understand that it is a hard argument to make if for some reason is it determined that everyone lived happily ever after. But, again, that does not justify playing the statistics game and making wild projections when it comes to the welfare of the people in question.
It takes guts to say that whatever the outcome in the middle may be, the truth is that the immoralities of the recent invasions should still not go unnoticed.
catefrances was saying that the taliban will eventually progress just as christanity progressed.
i said not so because the taliban intentionally regressed.
if you use the amish to substantiate catefrance's projection, then you imply that the amish will eventually progress into modern day christianity....if one were to call that a progression.
oh i see, so religions and the exponents of said religions can't falter before regaining their progressive step, even if their regression was deliberate?
and what are you psychic? you have no idea whether the taliban will 'progress' or not. could it be possible that with time they will see 'the error' of their ways and get in step with 'modern' society. if this were a fringe sect would we even be having this discussion? is the fact that they may very well control a very strategic country, anything to do with the opposition shown towards them? or is it truly about the concern for the oppressed peoples of afghanistan?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
oh i see, so religions and the exponents of said religions can't falter before regaining their progressive step, even if their regression was deliberate?
and what are you psychic? you have no idea whether the taliban will 'progress' or not. could it be possible that with time they will see 'the error' of their ways and get in step with 'modern' society. if this were a fringe sect would we even be having this discussion? is the fact that they may very well control a very strategic country, anything to do with the opposition shown towards them? or is it truly about the concern for the oppressed peoples of afghanistan?
Anything is possible, but if you're going to take that road, then why even bother trying to use an analogy and passing it off as objective? Your analogy didn't hold water because it was too broad, so now you want to revive it with an "anything is possible" option? What is so objective about leaving it up to chance?
In case you didn't notice, I didn't specifically say that the taliban would not progress. I said that your analogy did a poor job of supporting the notion that it would.
And, again, it is not my concern whether the intentions behind the invasion should be further analyzed for foul play.
What I'm getting at is that if people want to speak out against the war, then using the welfare of the afghani/ iraqi people is a very weak stance to take considering that the real immorality lies with the intentions of the invading army, not the outcome of the invasion. Some people have a real hard time differentiating these concepts.
Here it is in the form of an analogy:
Let's say a person founds a charity with the intentions of laundering drug money. So, in support of dismantling the charity, would you concern yourself with whether or not anybody really benefited from the charity's programs?
Obviously you wouldn't concern yourself with that because the real concern is the laundering of drug money. So, when people throw out statistics about dead civilians and NATO airstrikes, all they're really doing is focusing on whether or not anybody benefited from the charitable programs, not the laundering of the drug money.
Anything is possible, but if you're going to take that road, then why even bother trying to use an analogy and passing it off as objective? Your analogy didn't hold water because it was too broad, so now you want to revive with an "anything is possible" option? What is so objective about leaving it up to chance?
In case you didn't notice, I didn't specifically say that the taliban would not progress. I said that your analogy did a poor job of supporting the notion that it would.
And, again, it is not my concern whether the intentions behind the invasion should be further analyzed for foul play.
What I'm getting at is that if people want to speak out against the war, then using the welfare of the afghani/ iraqi people is a very weak stance to take considering that the real immorality lies with the intentions of the invading army, not the outcome of the invasion. Some people have a real hard time differentiating these concepts.
Here it is in the form of an analogy:
Let's say a person founds a charity with the intentions of laundering drug money. So, in support of dismantling the charity, would you concern yourself with whether or not anybody really benefited from the charity's programs?
Obviously you wouldn't concern yourself with that because the real concern is the laundering of drug money. So, when people throw out statistics about dead civilians and NATO airstrikes, all they're really doing is focusing on whether or not anybody benefited from the charitable programs, not the laundering of the drug money.
perhaps i should think harder before i post. all i was trying to point out was that 600 years ago the christian religion was far more oppressive than it is today. i concluded, rather naively as it turns out, that perhaps a comparative religion just might progress along similar lines given the same expanse of time. that's all. i wasn't consciously trying to be analogous.
and yes i would dismantle the charity. the ability to be charitous to some because of the misery of others doesn't sit well with me at all. i have no problem with people using drugs. but i have a major problem with pushers.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
That isn't saying much based on your posts in this thread so far. You should honestly look at how you have this tendency to say one thing and mean another, and then backtrack over it after being called on it. You really don't have a full understanding of your own point of view, as evidenced by your sloppy stances. I'm only trying to help.
maybe you're just flustered or your undies are bunched around your sack and tugging on your pubes...because I have no idea what you;re talking about or even coming to this conclusion on. Maybe I just beamed into this universe of yours from a parallel one...
What part of I don't think anyone has the right to barge into a country, occupy it, and whack people at will are you stuck on?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
So like, what I'm noticing in this thread is that people hate war, superpower aggression, lies...etc., and so they feel obligated to hastily assume that the outcome in the middle east is a negative one so as to justify the aforementioned points of disdain.
But, what is being overlooked is that even if the outcome in the middle east is a positive, that does not magically justify US aggression and so forth and so on. Such a justification would be a case of the ends justifying the means, and it is ethics 101 that the ends do not justify the means.
However, I understand that it is a hard argument to make if for some reason is it determined that everyone lived happily ever after. But, again, that does not justify playing the statistics game and making wild projections when it comes to the welfare of the people in question.
It takes guts to say that whatever the outcome in the middle may be, the truth is that the immoralities of the recent invasions should still not go unnoticed.
maybe we can all fly to mars and breather the air tomorrow. Maybe If we keep bombing people into submission it will work eventually...hmm possible but not bloody likely now is it? lol...
I just don't see it...it's like screwing for virginity...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
maybe you're just flustered or your undies are bunched around your sack and tugging on your pubes...because I have no idea what you;re talking about or even coming to this conclusion on. Maybe I just beamed into this universe of yours from a parallel one...
What part of I don't think anyone has the right to barge into a country, occupy it, and whack people at will are you stuck on?
The part where you implied that the welfare of the indigenous people had any relevance to that point of view.
maybe we can all fly to mars and breather the air tomorrow. Maybe If we keep bombing people into submission it will work eventually...hmm possible but not bloody likely now is it? lol...
I just don't see it...it's like screwing for virginity...
I'm not advocating war. I'm saying that your anti-war stance is not justified by your pro-indigenous people point of view. I guess you see that now. But in case you don't, here it is again:
If you justify anti-war sentiment by saying that the Iraqi/Afghani people are worse off as a result of the war, then you imply that the war would be justified if the Afghani/Iraq people were better off as a result of the war.
In which case, that is not anti-war sentiment. It is actually anti-poorly planned war sentiment. So, when making your case against war, it is pointless to bring up the suffering of the Iraqi/Afghani people.
If you truly justify across the board anti-war sentiment by citing civilian deaths, then you believe that Hitler should have been left in charge of Europe. If that is your opinion, then that's an entirely different argument altogether.
perhaps i should think harder before i post. all i was trying to point out was that 600 years ago the christian religion was far more oppressive than it is today. i concluded, rather naively as it turns out, that perhaps a comparative religion just might progress along similar lines given the same expanse of time. that's all. i wasn't consciously trying to be analogous.
and yes i would dismantle the charity. the ability to be charitous to some because of the misery of others doesn't sit well with me at all. i have no problem with people using drugs. but i have a major problem with pushers.
Now you're being nice. First time around you tried giving me pointers on being objective. That I didn't like very much.
Now you're being nice. First time around you tried giving me pointers on being objective. That I didn't like very much.
catch more flies with honey than vinegar. next time just tell me. i am approachable. but you know, tis rather difficult to convey tone over the internet.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I'm not advocating war. I'm saying that your anti-war stance is not justified by your pro-indigenous people point of view. I guess you see that now. But in case you don't, here it is again:
If you justify anti-war sentiment by saying that the Iraqi/Afghani people are worse off as a result of the war, then you imply that the war would be justified if the Afghani/Iraq people were better off as a result of the war.
In which case, that is not anti-war sentiment. It is actually anti-poorly planned war sentiment. So, when making your case against war, it is pointless to bring up the suffering of the Iraqi/Afghani people.
If you truly justify across the board anti-war sentiment by citing civilian deaths, then you believe that Hitler should have been left in charge of Europe. If that is your opinion, then that's an entirely different argument altogether.
That's all I'm saying.
I see a definite difference in what Hitler did to what the Taliban is doing, namely the planned genocide of a an entire race. The Taliban is essentially old world tradition and does not want to be included in the Americanization of the world, so they exact punishment(s) according to their book of laws to maintain the purity of their society as they see fit.
If the whole new PNAC strategy has turned pre-emptive then were kinda locked into ongoing war for the next 50 years at the very least. Along this course there will be another US draft. Nukes will be acquired and fly towards the west. This is almost a 100% certainty. No man just lies down when a stranger kills his family and starts living in his house. No man...ever.
Bush thinks it will happen somehow eventually. If you monopolize control of a countries assets and commerce this is possible. But several millions of lives probably be lost long before that happens (in this case).
Could you imagine timed nukes going off in a few major downtown US cities? That would be nuts. Can you imagine? Maybe 8-10 million Americans dead?
Then what? we nuke the entire middle east? I don't think so. It's a pretty serious game being played right now. Hold long does the US gov't think they can prevent this scenario by strong arming the enemy?
The wounds are only getting deeper. The phrase in over your head comes to mind. Suddenly some women wearing veils seems laughable in comparison. I'd bet more men beat their wives in America in sheer numbers alone than in all of Afghanistan.
What the heck are we really fighting for again?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
But...I thought Iraq posed a serious and immediate threat to the survival of the Western world?
That's what Tony Blair told us. Wait! Where's he going? Oy! Come back ya lying fuck! :mad: :eek:
Well...after reading the entire Wiki entry top to bottom for Afghanistan, I may have to concede and say military pressure and complete restructuring may be the only way to go here (Afghanistan). There's piss poor alternative aside from leaving them all alone and hope they don't lash back with something really big in a few years. Maybe I'm chomping at the propaganda bit, but I can see why Canada actually got involved with this one.
Basically the US Gov't is trying to clean up it's huge fuck up from the Carter era, where the US essentially up and left the entire country in a undetermined state by training mujahideen forces to boot out the Russians then walked away leaving a huge control vaccum which gave rise to it coming 95% under Taliban warlord control. Doesn't that suck.
It's basically oops we kinda f-ed the place up pretty bad, and paved the way for the Taliban and Al-Queda. Uhm...doh...
Ufortunately the Taliban is like well fuck you man...thanks for the training and guns and all but were here to stay now...so thanks for everything just the same but f off this time and we mean it.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I see a definite difference in what Hitler did to what the Taliban is doing, namely the planned genocide of a an entire race. The Taliban is essentially old world tradition and does not want to be included in the Americanization of the world, so they exact punishment(s) according to their book of laws to maintain the purity of their society as they see fit.
If the whole new PNAC strategy has turned pre-emptive then were kinda locked into ongoing war for the next 50 years at the very least. Along this course there will be another US draft. Nukes will be acquired and fly towards the west. This is almost a 100% certainty. No man just lies down when a stranger kills his family and starts living in his house. No man...ever.
Bush thinks it will happen somehow eventually. If you monopolize control of a countries assets and commerce this is possible. But several millions of lives probably be lost long before that happens (in this case).
Could you imagine timed nukes going off in a few major downtown US cities? That would be nuts. Can you imagine? Maybe 8-10 million Americans dead?
Then what? we nuke the entire middle east? I don't think so. It's a pretty serious game being played right now. Hold long does the US gov't think they can prevent this scenario by strong arming the enemy?
The wounds are only getting deeper. The phrase in over your head comes to mind. Suddenly some women wearing veils seems laughable in comparison. I'd bet more men beat their wives in America in sheer numbers alone than in all of Afghanistan.
What the heck are we really fighting for again?
lmao. I didn't say there was a threat to the US in aghanistan. The nazis weren't a threat to the US at the time the US decided to join WWII.
Well...after reading the entire Wiki entry top to bottom for Afghanistan, I may have to concede and say military pressure and complete restructuring may be the only way to go here (Afghanistan). There's piss poor alternative aside from leaving them all alone and hope they don't lash back with something really big in a few years. Maybe I'm chomping at the propaganda bit, but I can see why Canada actually got involved with this one.
Basically the US Gov't is trying to clean up it's huge fuck up from the Carter era, where the US essentially up and left the entire country in a undetermined state by training mujahideen forces to boot out the Russians then walked away leaving a huge control vaccum which gave rise to it coming 95% under Taliban warlord control. Doesn't that suck.
It's basically oops we kinda f-ed the place up pretty bad, and paved the way for the Taliban and Al-Queda. Uhm...doh...
Ufortunately the Taliban is like well fuck you man...thanks for the training and guns and all but were here to stay now...so thanks for everything just the same but f off this time and we mean it.
lmao. that's exactly the kind of response I was expecting. No, really, I was expecting that from you because I know that you don't have your own opinion. What you have is a collage of anti-war & anti-gov opinions that, in your mind, make you righteous on every side of the issue. You just want to be right, and the above response proves that, deep down, you don't really know how to feel the issues at hand. Of course you don't believe me, but...
Your first reaction to the issue at hand is that you just think the US is being a bully...
but then you wanted to use the "worsened" state of the afghani people as further justification.....meaning that your concern was for the people rather than the US going beyond its boundaries.
You added that "there are less severe ways of promoting change afghanistan". This implies that you believe there is a cause that needs attention in afghanistan, but that you just don't believe war is ever the answer.
Now, with the post above, you go on about how the whole war isn't really necessary because there is no threat to the US. So, in essence, you're playing the "we were duped" angle.
And such an angle implies that you believe the war would be justified if there was really a good cause. Yet, you spent the whole time acting as though war is not the solution.
You're confused.
Interesting It's great that it all makes sense for you and you have everything all figured out.
Maybe you would like share out this sacred information on foreign agenda that seems to elude, and hopelessly confuse, as you put it billions of other people around the world as well?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Interesting It's great that it all makes sense for you and you have everything all figured out.
Maybe you would share out this sacred information on foreign agenda that seems to elude, and hopelessly confuse, as you put it billions of people around the world as well?
It's as simple as believing in what you're saying. No secret to it. I deleted all that stuff anyway so you wouldn't get discouraged from continuing on in this discussion.
It's as simple as believing in what you're saying. No secret to it. I deleted all that stuff anyway so you wouldn't get discouraged from continuing on in this discussion.
So the right thing to do is........
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
How is that any different from Iraq? Wouldn't pulling the troops out leave a huge power vacuum?
That was known going in. Yes it would ...catch 22. Clusterfuck again...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I guess we all need to think really hard and draw our lines on what justifies humanitarian relief via a full scale military intervention and occupation these days.
Also, exit strategy is not a new concept in military and political circles afaik.
The US gov't trying to fix Afghanistan is a lot like painting over peeling paint. The paint job they did last time.
Why the military tangent suddenly zoomed off to Iraq in lieu of is interesting to say the least.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I meant it would have been crazy for the Taliban to declare war on the US. I thought that was obvious, my bad.
bin laden and his al qaeda captains declared war on the US, and they were fully supported by the taliban. You don't consider that the same thing as the taliban declaring war on the US? And, heh, I thought I was talking to Roland when I typed that.
OK, so you support troops staying in afghanistan and Iraq. I didn't know this.
There's precious little else we can do at this point aside from creating Taliban part 2 bigger badder stronger more hateful. History repeating itself.
Lesson learned? I sure hope so....but I'm not optimistic in seeing it that way at all.
It's a lot like being in quicksand. Sit still ...sink....move...sink faster...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Comments
But, what is being overlooked is that even if the outcome in the middle east is a positive, that does not magically justify US aggression and so forth and so on. Such a justification would be a case of the ends justifying the means, and it is ethics 101 that the ends do not justify the means.
However, I understand that it is a hard argument to make if for some reason is it determined that everyone lived happily ever after. But, again, that does not justify playing the statistics game and making wild projections when it comes to the welfare of the people in question.
It takes guts to say that whatever the outcome in the middle may be, the truth is that the immoralities of the recent invasions should still not go unnoticed.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
oh i see, so religions and the exponents of said religions can't falter before regaining their progressive step, even if their regression was deliberate?
and what are you psychic? you have no idea whether the taliban will 'progress' or not. could it be possible that with time they will see 'the error' of their ways and get in step with 'modern' society. if this were a fringe sect would we even be having this discussion? is the fact that they may very well control a very strategic country, anything to do with the opposition shown towards them? or is it truly about the concern for the oppressed peoples of afghanistan?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Anything is possible, but if you're going to take that road, then why even bother trying to use an analogy and passing it off as objective? Your analogy didn't hold water because it was too broad, so now you want to revive it with an "anything is possible" option? What is so objective about leaving it up to chance?
In case you didn't notice, I didn't specifically say that the taliban would not progress. I said that your analogy did a poor job of supporting the notion that it would.
And, again, it is not my concern whether the intentions behind the invasion should be further analyzed for foul play.
What I'm getting at is that if people want to speak out against the war, then using the welfare of the afghani/ iraqi people is a very weak stance to take considering that the real immorality lies with the intentions of the invading army, not the outcome of the invasion. Some people have a real hard time differentiating these concepts.
Here it is in the form of an analogy:
Let's say a person founds a charity with the intentions of laundering drug money. So, in support of dismantling the charity, would you concern yourself with whether or not anybody really benefited from the charity's programs?
Obviously you wouldn't concern yourself with that because the real concern is the laundering of drug money. So, when people throw out statistics about dead civilians and NATO airstrikes, all they're really doing is focusing on whether or not anybody benefited from the charitable programs, not the laundering of the drug money.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
perhaps i should think harder before i post. all i was trying to point out was that 600 years ago the christian religion was far more oppressive than it is today. i concluded, rather naively as it turns out, that perhaps a comparative religion just might progress along similar lines given the same expanse of time. that's all. i wasn't consciously trying to be analogous.
and yes i would dismantle the charity. the ability to be charitous to some because of the misery of others doesn't sit well with me at all. i have no problem with people using drugs. but i have a major problem with pushers.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
maybe you're just flustered or your undies are bunched around your sack and tugging on your pubes...because I have no idea what you;re talking about or even coming to this conclusion on. Maybe I just beamed into this universe of yours from a parallel one...
What part of I don't think anyone has the right to barge into a country, occupy it, and whack people at will are you stuck on?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
maybe we can all fly to mars and breather the air tomorrow. Maybe If we keep bombing people into submission it will work eventually...hmm possible but not bloody likely now is it? lol...
I just don't see it...it's like screwing for virginity...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
The part where you implied that the welfare of the indigenous people had any relevance to that point of view.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
I'm not advocating war. I'm saying that your anti-war stance is not justified by your pro-indigenous people point of view. I guess you see that now. But in case you don't, here it is again:
If you justify anti-war sentiment by saying that the Iraqi/Afghani people are worse off as a result of the war, then you imply that the war would be justified if the Afghani/Iraq people were better off as a result of the war.
In which case, that is not anti-war sentiment. It is actually anti-poorly planned war sentiment. So, when making your case against war, it is pointless to bring up the suffering of the Iraqi/Afghani people.
If you truly justify across the board anti-war sentiment by citing civilian deaths, then you believe that Hitler should have been left in charge of Europe. If that is your opinion, then that's an entirely different argument altogether.
That's all I'm saying.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Now you're being nice. First time around you tried giving me pointers on being objective. That I didn't like very much.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I see a definite difference in what Hitler did to what the Taliban is doing, namely the planned genocide of a an entire race. The Taliban is essentially old world tradition and does not want to be included in the Americanization of the world, so they exact punishment(s) according to their book of laws to maintain the purity of their society as they see fit.
If the whole new PNAC strategy has turned pre-emptive then were kinda locked into ongoing war for the next 50 years at the very least. Along this course there will be another US draft. Nukes will be acquired and fly towards the west. This is almost a 100% certainty. No man just lies down when a stranger kills his family and starts living in his house. No man...ever.
Bush thinks it will happen somehow eventually. If you monopolize control of a countries assets and commerce this is possible. But several millions of lives probably be lost long before that happens (in this case).
Could you imagine timed nukes going off in a few major downtown US cities? That would be nuts. Can you imagine? Maybe 8-10 million Americans dead?
Then what? we nuke the entire middle east? I don't think so. It's a pretty serious game being played right now. Hold long does the US gov't think they can prevent this scenario by strong arming the enemy?
The wounds are only getting deeper. The phrase in over your head comes to mind. Suddenly some women wearing veils seems laughable in comparison. I'd bet more men beat their wives in America in sheer numbers alone than in all of Afghanistan.
What the heck are we really fighting for again?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
But...I thought Iraq posed a serious and immediate threat to the survival of the Western world?
That's what Tony Blair told us. Wait! Where's he going? Oy! Come back ya lying fuck! :mad:
plus, they tried to kill his daddy.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Basically the US Gov't is trying to clean up it's huge fuck up from the Carter era, where the US essentially up and left the entire country in a undetermined state by training mujahideen forces to boot out the Russians then walked away leaving a huge control vaccum which gave rise to it coming 95% under Taliban warlord control. Doesn't that suck.
It's basically oops we kinda f-ed the place up pretty bad, and paved the way for the Taliban and Al-Queda. Uhm...doh...
Ufortunately the Taliban is like well fuck you man...thanks for the training and guns and all but were here to stay now...so thanks for everything just the same but f off this time and we mean it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
lmao. I didn't say there was a threat to the US in aghanistan. The nazis weren't a threat to the US at the time the US decided to join WWII.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
How is that any different from Iraq? Wouldn't pulling the troops out leave a huge power vacuum?
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Interesting It's great that it all makes sense for you and you have everything all figured out.
Maybe you would like share out this sacred information on foreign agenda that seems to elude, and hopelessly confuse, as you put it billions of other people around the world as well?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
It's as simple as believing in what you're saying. No secret to it. I deleted all that stuff anyway so you wouldn't get discouraged from continuing on in this discussion.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
So the right thing to do is........
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
FDR didn't send any troops over there until after the Nazi's declared war on the US.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
That was known going in. Yes it would ...catch 22. Clusterfuck again...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
So what you're saying is that if the Taliban declared war on the US, the invasion would've been justified?
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
OK, so you support troops staying in afghanistan and Iraq. I didn't know this.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
That would of course be crazy... but I do believe in self defense.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
that's what i mean about your not really having an opinion. you think it's crazy, but then again not crazy. which is it?
If the taliban had declared war on the US, you think that would've justified the invasion. yes or no
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
I meant it would have been crazy for the Taliban to declare war on the US. I thought that was obvious, my bad.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Also, exit strategy is not a new concept in military and political circles afaik.
The US gov't trying to fix Afghanistan is a lot like painting over peeling paint. The paint job they did last time.
Why the military tangent suddenly zoomed off to Iraq in lieu of is interesting to say the least.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
bin laden and his al qaeda captains declared war on the US, and they were fully supported by the taliban. You don't consider that the same thing as the taliban declaring war on the US? And, heh, I thought I was talking to Roland when I typed that.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
There's precious little else we can do at this point aside from creating Taliban part 2 bigger badder stronger more hateful. History repeating itself.
Lesson learned? I sure hope so....but I'm not optimistic in seeing it that way at all.
It's a lot like being in quicksand. Sit still ...sink....move...sink faster...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
so why do so many americans and europeand disagree with you on that stance i wonder.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825