DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Michael Tee on June 19, 2010, 09:39:19 PM
-
Is there anyone in this group who is so fucking stupid that he would lend money to someone he knows only from doing business with him, without getting as much as a signed IOU from him?
Well, your President seems to have done the equivalent with General Petraeus, according to a book by Jonathan Alter and referred to in an article by George Will:
<< . . . there’s the following exchange from 2009 between President Obama, General Petraeus, and Admiral Mullen about the escalation of the war in Afghanistan, taken from The Promise: President Obama, Year One, Jonathan Alter’s book on Obama’s first year:
<<OBAMA "I want you to be honest with me. You can do this in 18 months?"
<<PETRAEUS: "Sir, I'm confident we can train and hand over to the ANA [Afghan National Army] in that time frame."
<<OBAMA: "If you can't do the things you say you can in 18 months, then no one is going to suggest we stay, right?"
<<PETRAEUS: "Yes, sir, in agreement."
<<MULLEN: "Yes, sir.">>
http://www.thenation.com/print/blog/getting-out-2011 (http://www.thenation.com/print/blog/getting-out-2011)
Beautiful, huh? An "exchange" between them, memorialized only by the professional reputation of Jonathan Alter. Nothing in writing signed by the good general. No public hearing to record the good general's words indelibly for posterity. Just an "exchange," one that happens to be vouched for by Jonathan Alter, hardly a rock-solid guarantor of credibility of anyone's word should push come to shove.
Obviously this fucking wimp has absolutely nothing in his hand when the time comes for Petraeus and Mullen to make good on their absurd and ludicrous promises. The usual bullshit (cut and run, sacrifices of our brave men and women, the trust of our brave Afghan allies, armchair generals inside the Beltway versus men in the front lines braving rocket fire and bombs, etc., etc., etc.) will be brought to bear on Obama and the same promises made all over again (anyone remember "the light at the end of the tunnel?") and the fucking wimp will once again cave in and let the atrocity continue for another year and a half or two years.
The military-industrial complex sure got their money's worth out of this clown. As did the insurance industry. As did the mining industry. As did the oil industry. Fuck him. I hope they amend the Constitution so George W. Bush can serve a third term.
-
So, what would you suggest? That Petraeaus provide him with a money-back guarantee: all soldiers killed will be restored to life and all funds spent will be cheerfully refunded? I am not certain what you expected him to do.
-
What I personally would have done was to get some Congressional committee to hold hearings in 2009 when Petraeus was making his bullshit promise to Obama in an "exchange" and fed the exact same questions to some trusted confederate (Carl Levin comes to mind) and hammered at Petraeus until he made the same commitments on camera in open committee.
If Petraeus performed before the committee as expected there would be permanent unimpeachable evidence of his 2009 promises which would be solid gold when he comes around in 2011 pleading for still more time as we all expect he will. Obama had already committed in public to a 2011 withdrawal date, so nothing would have been "given away" in a public forum.
If he didn't commit in front of the cameras, it would be back to the off-the-record exchanges, where Obama could refuse point-blank on any further funding since Petraeus didn't have the balls to commit publicly to what he promised Obama privately. Plus if the guy got out of line in private, Obama could rake him over the coals for his duplicity in promising privately what he backed off from publicly.
Personally, I think Petraeus would have had to go along with the public commitment to a 2011 handover had Obama insisted, because otherwise he wouldn't even have had a chance to keep the game going in 2009 and 2010. Half a loaf is better than none, and Petraeus isn't stupid.
As it is, he got the funding, he made no enforceable commitments (the promises made in the exchange, you can wipe your ass with) and it's now a sure thing he'll be back asking for time and money in 2011, something which neither Obama nor the Democratic Party will have the balls to refuse, considering the approaching 2012 elections.
-
It was Obama's decision. Petraeus gave his best estimate. What's the big deal?
-
Petraeus was obviously bullshitting Obama, playing for time. Obama thought he was smart to pin the guy down verbally - - "So if I give you the time you're asking for, you'll be all set to hand off in 2011?" "Yeah, sure, Chief." But the dumb schmuck just took a virtually undocumented promise. There's no way in hell the military will have a viable puppet government in place by 2011. Karzai's a fucking joke. Petraeus will be back with new demands for more time and money, and of course, new promises. And Obama stuck with no way in hell of showing up Petraeus' earlier promises and inability to make good on them. Petraeus will simply deny that the conversation ever occurred.
-
Petraeus doesn't have to deny anything. He simply can claim conditions changed. Either way it still was Obama's decision at that time and it will be Obama's decision at the end of 11.
-
Did President Obama give the resorces and manpower that the estimate was predicated on?
-
Why do you think he's referred to as Carter II?
-
<<Did President Obama give the resorces and manpower that the estimate was predicated on?>>
Apparently he gave two-thirds. The estimate itself was bullshit. Petraeus knows hundreds of thousands more are required, but he knew there's no funding for that. He asked for a ridiculous number, but one that's within the limits of what the U.S. can afford to fund. Knowing it's not enough and knowing he'd have to come back to ask for more, later. Obama knew that too. Instead of trapping Petraeus into a dead end from which he could never credibly asked for more, Obama kept it all off the record, so when Petraeus asks again, he'll have to give in again. He doesn't have the balls to stand up to the military.
-
<<Why do you think he's referred to as Carter II?>>
Because he's a pushover? Just like dumbass Carter listened to that Nazi creep Kissinger and let the Shah in for "medical treatment" Obama listens to the military and gives in to them
-
I like the title of your post.
-
Fuck him. I hope they amend the Constitution so George W. Bush can serve a third term.
LOL...you're funny Michael Tee!
(http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i99/plwise/1a000aaa12-2.jpg)
-
<<It was Obama's decision. Petraeus gave his best estimate. What's the big deal?>>
The big deal is that Obama totally failed to nail him down. As far as claiming "conditions have changed," all Obama would have had to do would be to re-play the promises that Petraeus made to get the last 18 months, and when he asks for the next 18 months, ask him, how do you know conditions won't change again?
-
<<It was Obama's decision. Petraeus gave his best estimate. What's the big deal?>>
The big deal is that Obama totally failed to nail him down. As far as claiming "conditions have changed," all Obama would have had to do would be to re-play the promises that Petraeus made to get the last 18 months, and when he asks for the next 18 months, ask him, how do you know conditions won't change again?
And nailing him down would accomplish what? And what about Alters book. Isn't that nailing him down?
The fact remains is that conditions change and the timetable needs to be extended, Obama will have to make that decision.
ANd i suspect this whoe meme is more about Petraeus than it is about the war. I think this would be used against Petraeus if he decides to run for office.
-
What did it mean when Obama and his supporters chanted "Yes we can!"?
Were they claiming to be competant?
-
What did it mean when Obama and his supporters chanted "Yes we can!"?
Were they claiming to be competant?
obama told voters what they wanted to hear so the General told obama what he wanted to hear-- what's the diff.
-
<<And nailing him down would accomplish what?>>
IMHO, it would mean that as soon as the time that Petraeus bought with his bullshit promises ran out, there would be no more extensions. Obama would have what he needs to pull the plug. If the military would demand another 18 months, Obama could show them up as unreliable schmucks, forever promising the impossible and getting the U.S. deeper and deeper into wars that it cannot win. The public would not support the military simply because they would be shown concrete and graphic evidence that the military (a) can't deliver and (b) can't be trusted. So if and when Obama pulled the plug, there'd be no way for the military to stab him in the back.
<< And what about Alters book. Isn't that nailing him down?>>
Ha ha ha ha. You really think so?
<<The fact remains is that conditions change and the timetable needs to be extended, Obama will have to make that decision.>>
For sure conditions change. The point is that in a world of changing conditions, the military not only cannot control the changes, but its promises of what it can deliver in return for more time are worthless since they can't foresee the changes coming. In other words, what used to be a reasonable risk based on assurances from the military of how things would turn out would have become a risk of unknown dimensions for which nobody (and certainly not the military) can give any assurances that render the risk reasonable.
<<ANd i suspect this whoe meme is more about Petraeus than it is about the war. I think this would be used against Petraeus if he decides to run for office.>>
That may well be the case as regards Alter's book and the sources that fed it. However, assuming that Alter's account of Petraeus' promises is correct (which was my assumption in this thread) then Obama HAS to be an idiot for not nailing down Petraeus' promise for future use. (Assuming he really does want to find a way out of Afghanistan.)
-
Let me nail you down then!
When will the fight be over.
NO guessing. I want a date.
1)Tell me when Al Quieda will stop attacking Americans it finds vunerable .
2)Tell me when Osama Bin Laden will die?*
WE might stop , but if they do not also stop ,we will return to fighting, no two ways about it.
Only we will fight with less paitience as the years go by.
How would you have written a speech for Winston Chirchill?
" We will fight them on the beaches , we will fight them on the streets , we will fight them in the hills and woods , we will fight them untill our ultimate victory, or untill April next year ."
*(here is a hint , Osama Bin Laden will die on a day of American national celebration)
-
<<Let me nail you down then!
<<When will the fight be over.
<<NO guessing. I want a date.>>
What a question! We've had this discussion before, plane. A few years ago. And my answer now is the same as it was then, it was a parable from the life of the Buddha. The Buddha in his travels through the forest hears sounds of shouting and conflict, and comes upon a man with his arms locked around the trunk of a tree, hugging it as if his life depended on it. "What is the problem, my friend, and can I help you in any way?" And the man looks at the Buddha and says, "I'm trying to move on, Buddha, but this tree won't let go of me."
The fight will end when the aggressor goes home. You won't change the Afghans. Nobody else could and neither can you.
<<1)Tell me when Al Quieda will stop attacking Americans it finds vunerable .>>
Al Qaeda? Probably never. As long as America continues to occupy Muslim lands, interfere in Muslim states, support Israeli oppression, that's how long al Qaeda will continue attacking Americans wherever it can. You must stop your aggressions against the Muslims before they stop their retaliation against you. Your question seems to presuppose that it is al Qaeda that is the aggressor against America, which is true enough in fact, but completely ignores the causes of the hostility. Al Qaeda is in fact a reactive force, and control over what it is reacting against is wholly in American hands.
<<2)Tell me when Osama Bin Laden will die?*>>
What is the difference when OBL dies? OBL is not the cause of the fight any more than Obama is. Why don't you ask when will Obama die? Because even if both of them died tomorrow, the fight would go on. It is a war of policies, not men. The War Party in America, which includes both "political parties" has decided upon a policy of exploitation and oppression in the Middle East and such a policy will always generate armed resistance, of which OBL is only one example. Obama is not the leader of the War Party, only one of its pawns. Bush, IMHO, was closer to the source than Obama, but he too did not set the agenda. OBL is purely reactionary with no real program other than a fundamentalist religion and killing the infidel invaders. Killing him is not going to solve any of your problems in the region. He'll become a martyr and others will quickly take his place.
<<WE might stop , but if they do not also stop ,we will return to fighting, no two ways about it.>>
Depends what exactly it is that you might stop, doesn't it? That Israeli albatross is one big, heavy bird. So is your need for oil. Between the two of them, I don't think you are going to be able to "stop," no matter what it is costing you. That is why you are going broke and that is why the world's other power centres are going to eclipse you in the long run. You are blowing trillions on pointless wars and pointless allies that do not advance your national interests.
<<Only we will fight with less paitience as the years go by.>>
What patience? You flatter yourselves.
<<How would you have written a speech for Winston Chirchill?>>
Winston did alright without any help from me, plane. But Bush and Obama aren't Winston Churchill and Osama is not Hitler.
<<" We will fight them on the beaches , we will fight them on the streets , we will fight them in the hills and woods , we will fight them untill our ultimate victory, or untill April next year . turn over a new leaf in our relations with the Muslim world. We will stop supporting those who oppress the Muslims and steal their land. We will stop supporting those who defy UN resolutions and continue a military occupation of millions of Muslims that has continued longer than any other military occupation in modern history. We will stop supporting the ethnic cleansing of the West Bank and its Apartheid Wall. We will get out of Iraq. We will get out of Afghanistan. We will stop undermining the legitimate government of the Islamic Republic of Iran. We will stop supporting the dictators of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco and the Gulf States. We will end our interference in the civil wars of Somalia and Yemen. We will pay fair reparations to the families of those Muslims we have blown to pieces, tortured, raped and murdered and humbly beg forgiveness for our crimes against them." Not as eloquent as Winston, but then who the hell is?
<<*(here is a hint , Osama Bin Laden will die on a day of American national celebration)>>
That's kind of a thuggish joke in itself. You certainly would not appreciate someone telling you that your President will die on a day of Muslim religious celebration. Yet OBL has killed fewer than 3,000 Americans and both Bush and Obama have each killed many times that number of innocent Muslim women and children. I think you are just reinforcing all of America's negativity, calling for a day of national rejoicing on the death of an enemy leader, especially someone you once supported unequivocally when he was killing the people you wanted him to kill. Maybe if you had not supported such a murderous thug in the first place you would not have felt his lash further on down the road. The law of karma does seem to be inescapable on some occasions, doesn't it?
You reap what you sow.
-
<<How would you have written a speech for Winston Chirchill?>>
<<" We will fight them on the beaches , we will fight them on the streets , we will fight them in the hills and woods , we will fight them untill our ultimate victory, or untill April next year . turn over a new leaf in our relations with the Muslim world. We will stop supporting those who oppress the Muslims and steal their land. We will stop supporting those who defy UN resolutions and continue a military occupation of millions of Muslims that has continued longer than any other military occupation in modern history. We will stop supporting the ethnic cleansing of the West Bank and its Apartheid Wall. We will get out of Iraq. We will get out of Afghanistan. We will stop undermining the legitimate government of the Islamic Republic of Iran. We will stop supporting the dictators of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco and the Gulf States. We will end our interference in the civil wars of Somalia and Yemen. We will pay fair reparations to the families of those Muslims we have blown to pieces, tortured, raped and murdered and humbly beg forgiveness for our crimes against them."
And with pathologically distorted garbage like that, is why he's going to be a 1 term president
-
<<Let me nail you down then!
<<When will the fight be over.
<<NO guessing. I want a date.>>
What a question! We've had this discussion before, plane. A few years ago. And my answer now is the same as it was then, it was a parable from the life of the Buddha. The Buddha in his travels through the forest hears sounds of shouting and conflict, and comes upon a man with his arms locked around the trunk of a tree, hugging it as if his life depended on it. "What is the problem, my friend, and can I help you in any way?" And the man looks at the Buddha and says, "I'm trying to move on, Buddha, but this tree won't let go of me."
The fight will end when the aggressor goes home. You won't change the Afghans. Nobody else could and neither can you.
And we are the tree.
Osama Bin Laden attacked over and over escalateing every time and prepareing to receive the invasion he hoped to provoke.
If we leave won't they return to doing just the same?
There are no Islamic enemys of ours who fight to preserve Islam from us , we arn't doing anything to harm Islam , they just tell each other this constantly to keep up the fighting spirit.
If they would hand over OBL we would have a good excuse to simply leave.
If we make like a tree and just leave , but leave a functioning Al Quieda behind , we shall return , but with less patience.
-
<<And we are the tree.>>
No, you are the guy that insists on attacking the Afghan resistance even though they have no intention of attacking America once the bastards get the fuck out of their land. And claiming that the Afghans won't stop attacking you. Obviously if you withdraw, the Afghans won't pursue you to America and the fighting between you and the Afghans will come to an immediate end.
<<Osama Bin Laden attacked over and over escalateing every time and prepareing to receive the invasion he hoped to provoke.>>
Osama bin Laden is NOT who you are fighting in Afghanistan. He's not the tree any more than you are. You went into a hornets' nest in pursuit of OBL, never found him, and now you're fighting the hornets. As long as you stay in your nest, they will sting you. Get out of the nest, they will stay in it, you won't get stung and they won't get killed.
<<If we leave won't they return to doing just the same?>>
OBL and other Islamic fighters will continue to try to kill Americans as long as America supports Israel and occupies Muslim lands. As long as America supports puppet governments in countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc. Whether you stay in Afghanistan or whether you leave Afghanistan. None of the militants you fight now in Afghanistan are OBL-linked. So you might as well ask yourselves, while the U.S.A. is still fighting the Taliban, how come OBL, who is not now in the fight, has not "returned to doing just the same," if that's what you are so frightened of? The answer is probably that OBL cannot achieve the success that he did with 9-11 simply because 9-11 was just a sucker punch and now you are better prepared. The lack of further 9-11s is due to inherent limits in OBL's striking power and improved security on the home front, not to the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq.
<<There are no Islamic enemys of ours who fight to preserve Islam from us , we arn't doing anything to harm Islam , they just tell each other this constantly to keep up the fighting spirit.>.
This despite constant claims from captured fighters that they joined out of a desire to drive the infidels from Muslim lands, out of outrage over some particularly nauseating Israeli atrocity, or because of what they read about Abu Ghraib.
<<If they would hand over OBL we would have a good excuse to simply leave.>>
When has the U.S. ever made such a ludicrous claim? Before the U.S. invaded, they demanded OBL and the Afghans' response, reasonable enough in the circumstances, was "Show us the evidence against him and we will decide whether or not to turn him over to you." A response that virtually any other sovereign nation in the world would make to demands for the extradition of an alleged criminal within their borders.
<<If we make like a tree and just leave , but leave a functioning Al Quieda behind , we shall return , but with less patience.>>
That is not a problem. If they attack you again, you can attack them again. However OBL is obviously not the problem.No one has ever been able to prove that the Afghan government or the Taliban has OBL or is able to deliver him, yet the occupation and massacres grind on for nine years and counting. It is nothing short of ludicrous to claim that all this is simply because of a search for one alleged criminal, no matter how many Americans he killed.
-
<<And we are the tree.>>
No, you are the guy that insists on attacking the Afghan resistance even though they have no intention of attacking America once the bastards get the fuck out of their land. And claiming that the Afghans won't stop attacking you. Obviously if you withdraw, the Afghans won't pursue you to America and the fighting between you and the Afghans will come to an immediate end.
Yea, that worked really with with AlQeada. Never set foot in America, while we weren't in Afghanistan, did they ::)
-
<<And we are the tree.>>
No, you are the guy that insists on attacking the Afghan resistance even though they have no intention of attacking America once the bastards get the fuck out of their land.
I am sorry , I didn't read the rest.
I will read the rest though-- if you would remind me of how there were not large camps of trainees in Afganistan from whence men were launched ,like dumb bombs, over and over to attack Americans in our bases , on our ships and in our own citys repeatedly BEFORE there were any Americans of any sort in Afganistan.
You might also remind me of how the Afgani authoritys (also known as Taliban) assisted in the apprehention of Osama Bin Laden after the attack on the Kobar towers , USS Cole, Kenyan and Tanzanian embassys the first attack on the WTC or even the 9-11 attack .
We were very justified in invadeing , and if we leave them to regrow their old habits why wouldn't they ? If we leave enough Taliban and /or Al Quieda behind to regrow what they had, why shouldn't we expect an attack every few months again as before?
If we leave them alone they will invite us back in the same manner they invited us before.
-
<<-- if you would remind me of how there were not large camps of trainees in Afganistan from whence men were launched ,like dumb bombs, over and over to attack Americans in our bases , on our ships and in our own citys repeatedly BEFORE there were any Americans of any sort in Afganistan.>>
The attacks you refer to were not launched to avenge the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan, obviously. They were launched to avenge the US-backed occupation of Palestinian land and the presence of US forces on the holy land of Saudi Arabia.
<<You might also remind me of how the Afgani authoritys (also known as Taliban) assisted in the apprehention of Osama Bin Laden after the attack on the Kobar towers , USS Cole, Kenyan and Tanzanian embassys the first attack on the WTC or even the 9-11 attack.>>
The only Afghan response I am aware of was their response to the U.S. request to turn over OBL, which was the perfectly normal and rational response of any sovereign state, "First, show us the evidence against this man you are seeking." Naturally, the Americans totally ignored or else ridiculed this perfectly normal legal and rational request in favour of their "better way" of massive killing and destruction. I would guess that if the Americans even bothered to ask the Afghan authorities of the time for the perpetrators of the other attacks you refer to, the same response would have been made by the Afghans and then ignored by the Americans.
<<We were very justified in invadeing , and if we leave them to regrow their old habits why wouldn't they ? If we leave enough Taliban and /or Al Quieda behind to regrow what they had, why shouldn't we expect an attack every few months again as before?>>
I understand your fear of warriors who aren't afraid to die in their attacks on you, but the fact is that whether or not you are in Afghanistan, they will find a way of attacking America, because they have reason to hate Americans and they are not very forgiving people. The survivors of the tens or hundreds of thousands of women and children murdered by your cowardly army are not going to give up on their attempts at revenge no matter what puppet government sits in Kabul. They don't respect ANY governmental authority over them, certainly not one brought in at gunpoint by infidel foreigners and bought and paid for with US money.
So you'd probably do better to protect yourselves, IMHO, by pulling out now and maintaining your defensive efforts at airport and building security, which are probably the real reasons why nobody has yet been able to pull off a credible sequel to the WTC attacks for the past nine years. Staying there just gives a lot more people a lot more reason to want to fuck you up real bad.
-
Plane, rolling Tee over with a steam roller :D
-
The attacks you refer to were not launched to avenge the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan, obviously. They were launched to avenge the US-backed occupation of Palestinian land and the presence of US forces on the holy land of Saudi Arabia.
Your origional reason had a reason before it and that of course had an origional cause before that . These do not matter now.
So you'd probably do better to protect yourselves, IMHO, by pulling out now and maintaining your defensive efforts at airport and building security, which are probably the real reasons why nobody has yet been able to pull off a credible sequel to the WTC attacks for the past nine years. Staying there just gives a lot more people a lot more reason to want to fuck you up real bad.
The more you are right about that , the less we need to leave them unmolested.
-
<<You might also remind me of how the Afgani authoritys (also known as Taliban) assisted in the apprehention of Osama Bin Laden after the attack on the Kobar towers , USS Cole, Kenyan and Tanzanian embassys the first attack on the WTC or even the 9-11 attack.>>
The only Afghan response I am aware of was their response to the U.S. request to turn over OBL, which was the perfectly normal and rational response of any sovereign state, "First, show us the evidence against this man you are seeking." Naturally, the Americans totally ignored or else ridiculed this perfectly normal legal and rational request in favour of their "better way" of massive killing and destruction. I would guess that if the Americans even bothered to ask the Afghan authorities of the time for the perpetrators of the other attacks you refer to, the same response would have been made by the Afghans and then ignored by the Americans.
The Taliban didn't know that Osama Bin Laden was attacking Americans? They must have been quite stupid , with just ordinary intelligence they would have had better evidence of OBLs activities than we did.
Did Osama being blasted several times by the Americans during the Clinton administration escape their notice?
What did they believe he was building on his large compounds stuffed with foreigners , a resort?
Does Canada ignore activities of this sort?
-
<<Your origional reason had a reason before it and that of course had an origional cause before that . These do not matter now.>>
Of course not. What matters is what motivates your enemy to be your enemy. Those are precisely the causes that I mentioned, not the pre-existing causes that YOU mentioned.
<<The more you are right about that [that continuing the occupation of Muslim lands gives more people more reasons to want to fuck you up real bad,] the less we need to leave them unmolested. >>
The more you stir the hornets' nest, the more you get stung is a truth that you think indicates a need to keep stirring the nest??? But that is the classic definition of insanity - - to keep repeating the same behaviour and expecting it to produce a different result next time.
-
<<The Taliban didn't know that Osama Bin Laden was attacking Americans? They must have been quite stupid , with just ordinary intelligence they would have had better evidence of OBLs activities than we did.
<<Did Osama being blasted several times by the Americans during the Clinton administration escape their notice?
What did they believe he was building on his large compounds stuffed with foreigners , a resort?>>
Bottom line is you don't know what the Taliban knew and I don't know what the Taliban knew. Perhaps they were conned into thinking that the attacks were only to be made on American installations on Muslim soil. Bottom line is, it didn't matter. The U.S. chose war over normal diplomatic practice.
They Afghans asked for the evidence against OBL before just turning him over. A perfectly natural and probably universal reaction of any sovereign state. The U.S. for some unfathomable reason, refused to turn over the evidence (which would have had to be made public in any trial anyway) and instead chose to go to war. A rash and costly decision, the costs of which after nine years of war are still not capped off.
-
<<Your origional reason had a reason before it and that of course had an origional cause before that . These do not matter now.>>
Of course not. What matters is what motivates your enemy to be your enemy. Those are precisely the causes that I mentioned, not the pre-existing causes that YOU mentioned.
<<The more you are right about that [that continuing the occupation of Muslim lands gives more people more reasons to want to fuck you up real bad,] the less we need to leave them unmolested. >>
The more you stir the hornets' nest, the more you get stung is a truth that you think indicates a need to keep stirring the nest??? But that is the classic definition of insanity - - to keep repeating the same behaviour and expecting it to produce a different result next time.
Let me look up that Aesop guy
THE BOY AND THE NETTLE
A Boy, stung by a Nettle, ran home crying, to get his mother to blow on the hurt and kiss it.
"Son," said the Boy's mother, when she had comforted him, "the next time you come near a Nettle, grasp it firmly, and it will be as soft as silk."
Whatever you do, do with all your might.
http://fablesandrhymes.com/aesop.html (http://fablesandrhymes.com/aesop.html)
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
The same result is what we want.
We want the result we got in fighting Spain , Germany or Japan.
What we did then was to break either their will or their ability to fight.
General Shermans mercy was to shorten the war as much as possible , what is better about a longer one?
-
<<The Taliban didn't know that Osama Bin Laden was attacking Americans? They must have been quite stupid , with just ordinary intelligence they would have had better evidence of OBLs activities than we did.
<<Did Osama being blasted several times by the Americans during the Clinton administration escape their notice?
What did they believe he was building on his large compounds stuffed with foreigners , a resort?>>
Bottom line is you don't know what the Taliban knew and I don't know what the Taliban knew. Perhaps they were conned into thinking that the attacks were only to be made on American installations on Muslim soil. Bottom line is, it didn't matter. The U.S. chose war over normal diplomatic practice.
They Afghans asked for the evidence against OBL before just turning him over. A perfectly natural and probably universal reaction of any sovereign state. The U.S. for some unfathomable reason, refused to turn over the evidence (which would have had to be made public in any trial anyway) and instead chose to go to war. A rash and costly decision, the costs of which after nine years of war are still not capped off.
The Taliban were watching the oncomeing juggernaught with arguement at the ready. Perhaps they were just that stupid , that they not only were paying no mind to the accusations of the Americans , but also they were ignoreing the confessions of OBL.
The Taliban should not be morned for the incredable decimation that they have endured over and over, they never had any need to participate in attacking the US nor any need to help hide the criminals who were bragging of their crime.
AS you cite the guy who was hugging the tree so tightly , I point out that the people of the Taliban are still volenterily hugging that tree . We don't need to fight any of them , except those who want to.
-
THE BOY AND THE NETTLE
A Boy, stung by a Nettle, ran home crying, to get his mother to blow on the hurt and kiss it.
"Son," said the Boy's mother, when she had comforted him, "the next time you come near a Nettle, grasp it firmly, and it will be as soft as silk."
Whatever you do, do with all your might.
=================================================
Now that does work for nettles. But is not a good idea with poison ivy, poison sumac, or anything with major thorns.
Fighting Afghanistan with all our might would involve sending at least a half million men. Who wants that?
I am thinking that refraining from touching it at all might be best.
-
<<THE BOY AND THE NETTLE
<<A Boy, stung by a Nettle, ran home crying, to get his mother to blow on the hurt and kiss it.
<<"Son," said the Boy's mother, when she had comforted him, "the next time you come near a Nettle, grasp it firmly, and it will be as soft as silk."
<<Whatever you do, do with all your might.>>
Moving that fable to Afghanistan, the boy's mother should be charged with child neglect since for nine years of constant warfare, she has never advised him to use all his might, only so much thereof as would be deemed sufficient for the job by some, while others equally authoritative claim that the effort requires 500,000 men for a minimum of ten years.
I like the original comparison I drew to stirring the hornets' nest, since the continuation of half-assed efforts to keep stirring the nest for another nine years will produce the same results, more deaths and cripplings of American soldiers (good because they're well-deserved) and more massacres and cripplings of innocent Afghan civilians (bad, because they are totally innocent and don't deserve to have their homeland invaded by America's army of thugs and torturers.)
<<The same result is what we want.
<<We want the result we got in fighting Spain , Germany or Japan.>>
The result you got was VICTORY. In a very short time. With other countries (British Empire, U.S.S.R., China) doing most of the heavy lifting and losing most of the blood, in your latter two examples.
<<What we did then was to break either their will or their ability to fight.>>
Better look at your watch, plane. It's nine years and still counting, with victory nowhere in sight. You're fighting a piss-ant nation of backward peasants and it's cost you over a trillion bucks and still counting. Nine fucking years, plane. Put THAT into your Spanish-German-Jap example.
<<General Shermans mercy was to shorten the war as much as possible , what is better about a longer one?>>
I dunno, if anyone thought Sherman would have taken nine years to smack down a bunch of slaving, pea-brained, racist white trash, his ass would have been canned long before the nine years were up.
-
<<THE BOY AND THE NETTLE
<<A Boy, stung by a Nettle, ran home crying, to get his mother to blow on the hurt and kiss it.
<<"Son," said the Boy's mother, when she had comforted him, "the next time you come near a Nettle, grasp it firmly, and it will be as soft as silk."
<<Whatever you do, do with all your might.>>
Moving that fable to Afghanistan, the boy's mother should be charged with child neglect since for nine years of constant warfare, she has never advised him to use all his might, only so much thereof as would be deemed sufficient for the job by some, .....
I see you understand the drawback tot he Biden philosophy of warfighting.
Sending only the number that will equal the enemys strength is the formula for makeing the war last as long as possible.
-
<<We want the result we got in fighting Spain , Germany or Japan.>>
The result you got was VICTORY. In a very short time. With other countries (British Empire, U.S.S.R., China) doing most of the heavy lifting and losing most of the blood, in your latter two examples.
How long was that Cold war?
Who did the heavy lifting against Japan?
-
<<I see you understand the drawback tot he Biden philosophy of warfighting.>>
Biden philosophy, my ass. That was how BUSH actually fought the war for the entire length of his term. And how Obama's still fighting it.
<<Sending only the number that will equal the enemys strength is the formula for makeing the war last as long as possible.>>
No shit, Sherlock. The U.S. was at war before Afghanistan, and if Afghanistan is ever resolved, it will be at war again somewhere else. For the time being, Afghanistan will do as far as war is concerned. Easier to continue fighting in Afghanistan than to invent new reasons for invading other countries. For the real rulers of the U.S.A., the object of war is war. Victory is not important, and in fact victory is never achieved. Victory in fact is counterproductive, requiring the agents of the military-industrial complex to invent new reasons for new invasions, always with the risk that this one time, the mushrooms might actually revolt.
-
<<I see you understand the drawback tot he Biden philosophy of warfighting.>>
Biden philosophy, my ass. That was how BUSH actually fought the war for the entire length of his term. And how Obama's still fighting it.
<<Sending only the number that will equal the enemys strength is the formula for makeing the war last as long as possible.>>
No shit, Sherlock. The U.S. was at war before Afghanistan, and if Afghanistan is ever resolved, it will be at war again somewhere else. For the time being, Afghanistan will do as far as war is concerned. Easier to continue fighting in Afghanistan than to invent new reasons for invading other countries. For the real rulers of the U.S.A., the object of war is war. Victory is not important, and in fact victory is never achieved. Victory in fact is counterproductive, requiring the agents of the military-industrial complex to invent new reasons for new invasions, always with the risk that this one time, the mushrooms might actually revolt.
So you are happy that the powers you are talking about are getting things their own way?
I don't think you pay attention to the real world , in which the US military has been reduced more than 33% since the late 80's.
The end of the Cold war paid the peace dividend , unfortuneately we have mostly pissed this away building the biggest welfare state on Earth.