I understand how Bush's word salad worked for him. http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=91824 I also understand how Obama's speaking is working for him and frankly, it scares the hell out of me. http://www.pennypresslv.com/Obama's_Use_of_Hidden_Hypnosis_techniques_in_His_Speeches.pdf Obama has basically started monetizing American debt while sending lots of cash to rich folk with no strings attached. He's spent lots of, taxpayer, money on government projects but that does not create lasting jobs. Businesses being able to compete better in the global market is what creates jobs, Obama has done nothing to help with that that I know of. Who knows, maybe you know something I don't there. As far as I can tell Obama has gone around the world looking stylish while the US just lost 80,000 more jobs in March. Its getting really bad fast for lots of people and I don't see how Obama is making it any better by focusing on bailing out irresponsible banks and large insolvent companies, and carrying on with Bush's wars. Youtube is full of both Bush and Obama speaking tardish without their notes. In that respect they're two peas in a pod.
What did you do in the military? What is it about advanced weaponry that you do not understand? Being able to control the sky with stingers is a huge advantage. There is nothing advanced with and AK47. It is a good weapon, but not as good as its American counterpart. And as I said earlier the war if you want to call it that will be won in the hearts and minds of the Afganis not with weapons. Ultimately it is they who will keep out the Taliban and terrorists groups. And I still don't get your comments about communism or how it is relevant to this conversation. Communism is just one of those words the "conservative" leadership throws to its ditto heads to arouse their emotions and bypass any capability for reasoning.
Desi is suggesting that you cannot win the hearts and minds of a nation you are invading. It's hard to argue otherwise.
Controlling the sky is no substitute for boots on the ground. American boots on the ground in Afghanistan tend to go home in body bags. The AK-47 has more penetration power than the US M-16. I don't think you can win the hearts and minds of a people with guns and bombs. If Chinese people bombed your town and killed several of your relatives who love your country, would you learn to love the invaders? Communism is an idea that has never worked out regardless of how hard people have tried to make it a reality. Of course your idea of winning hearts and minds at the end of a gun barrel could never be such a pipe dream...
True about the AK-47. But it doesn't matter on the gun(In some situations)but how the operators acts with it. Sure an AK-47 has more pentration, but the US M16 is much more accuracy and there isnt as much recoil. Thus for better for distance shot or holding ground.
Someone must have forgotten to tell that to Germany, France and Japan last time around in WWII...the largest and most lethal of all wars in the history of mankind.
Again you are being evasive. see previous posts. Who ever said you did not need boots on the ground? No one, it is another of your false arguements. You need control of the air so you can keep the boots on the ground animated. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! See previous posts, see WWII.
So which argument are you using? A or B. Because let me make myself perfectly clear, we not only used bullets in WW II, we used atomic weapons.
I had to chuckle when I read your links. Your leaders would be proud of you. If Obama was using sublininal communication it would be very easily detectable and rapidly exposed. It would be the story of the century. Obama's job is to restore confidence...it is not to create long term jobs. He needs to stop the economic decline and get folks investing again. That is what Obama has to do to get us back on track...not create long term jobs. Two one of the biggest things Obama can do to stimulate international trade is to make American products more competitive...less expensive. He is doing that with healthcare reform. American healthcare is far more expensive than any where in the the world with results that are substandard. It Obama could get healthcare costs more in line it would reduce the cost of production by about ten percent. That would be a huge boost to American trade...that is what is trying to do.
I am not arguing a or b...it is an incorrect selection of choices...gee why am I not suprised. One needs to round up the criminals in Afganistan. And the US is far better equipted to do that mission than the Soviets. Two, ultimately the solution to the problems in Afganistan must be solved by the Afganis. Americans do not want to be in Afganistan indefinately nor should they be. You can kill people all you want, but if you do not change behaviors you just wind up killing a lot of people and solving nothing. You said that behaviors could not be changed because we have engaged in violence...attacked the bad guys. I pointed out that behaviors can and do change and I gave you examples...Japan, Germany, France, etc. SO Your previous arguements have been shot to shreads now you are trying to morph the subject by presenting false choices...typical "conservative" ploy. But it aint working. How dense can you get?
\ More correctly put, I quoted you word for word. We completely crippled Germany and Japan in World War 11. They were devastated on every level. Unlike the effort we are using in the Middle East. We have sent a token Army into Afghanistan, much like we are using in our war on drugs. Another war we seemingly cannot win. We are merely occupying Afghanistan , there is a greater chance of losing the support of Pakistan to a civil war then we have of defeating the Taliban. Your comments begs the question, when we will round up the criminals in America. And for the record, hurling insults at me doesn't make your argument any stronger.
Yes you quoted word for work and took them out of context to imply a false choice...when no such choice existed. It was at the least a deception. Two there is nothing token about the military presense in Afganistan. The war on drugs in the US is not at all comperable to nation building in Afganistan. And that is what we are talking about in Afganistan, nation building...similar to what we did in Germany, France and Japan. Yes, Germany was demolished in WWII, not so much with Japan. But what does that have to do with the price of tea in China...nothing. By the way, have you been to Afganistan, it is a pretty devistated place. And for the record, where did I hurl an insult in your direction? If proving your postion false is an insult, then I am guilty.
They used British guns. They repelled the British because they knew the country, they maintained the high ground and fought a guerilla war, and had the support of the people. Those things only went so far with the Soviets. The Soviets also made many mistakes, their helicopters had a weak spot, their convoys were easily ambushed, their troops were unmotivated and sometimes sold weapons to their enemy. Still, in spite of all that, the Soviets were controlling most of the territory. That is, until the US started spending the kind of money needed to win. We supplied the Afghanis with sophisticated anti-aircraft guns and stinger missiles, remote controlled rockets and all kinds of mines, and they picked up Soviet weapons too. The USSR didn't have to leave as well. They had a choice. They just didn't want to pay the price.
If the US did not provide advance weaponry to the Afgans, they would all be speaking Russian today...and maybe that would not have been a bad thing.
Too goddamn far to the right I'll remember that for when he disappoints ... well, one of us. You might be correct, but it's far too early to tell. I say this because, well, think about it this way: We hate our politicians. Despise them. Nothing they do ever satisfies us. We think they're incompetent. And so on, and so on. At some point, it strikes me that all of a sudden, people are asking Obama and the Congress to move really, really quickly. More specifically, though, in terms of the daily briefings, it's way too early to tell what he's doing. The hard six will be if Obama is playing true political performance art, which few politicians are capable of these days. But it occurs to me that certain decisions he's made—including following the Bush administration in responding to a certain lawsuit—are intended to allow certain things to play out. In that case, the course seems clear. Bush started it with a bad strategy; play it out. Argue the case in as good of faith as you can manage when shoveling that much bullshit at a court, and when you lose, you can say you tried your best and the approach failed, and now it's time to get on with better things. One can only hope, though. It's frustrating to watch these events from day to day, but if the Bush administration taught me anything, it's that I really do need to let things play out. For all I might choose to bitch and moan about Obama, he might come through in the end and make me look stupid for abandoning him. Just like Bush, in a way. For all the bitching and moaning I did, I really couldn't imagine he would actually fuck up as badly as he did. I mean, I'm raised on some older principles, so my low opinion of the president was considered inappropriate by many in my circles. But, in the end, my low opinion at the outset proved far too generous. Let things play out; people might surprise you. And if they don't .... Well, I voted for him, so he gets his four years. I'll reconsider that if he recants his oath to imitate his predecessor's hatred for the Constitution, but I sincerely doubt he'll go that far. • • • Pretty much anything. Ever hear the phrase "Blue Dogs"? • • • As to the thread topic, the problem with the Democrats is that they're too fucking right-wing.
Good lord. I find myself agreeing with Joe. I must therefore arrange for a expiative session with a whip-wielding albino monk.
I find my self embarrassed to, I have to agree with joe.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
