On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 14:55:59 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 11:07:39 -0800, wrote:

On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 18:57:52 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 11:25:22 -0800, wrote:

On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 13:53:43 -0500, wrote:


Generals always want more troops and a bigger war. It is what they do
for a living, whether it is good foreign policy or not. That is why we
have civilian oversight.

So, which is it. Should Obama listen or not listen to military
experts? Bush said he would, but he didn't.

They both followed the same exact path. Obama is on the Bush schedule.

Right now, it makes sense to try and wind things down in Afg.
According to you, we should just get on a plane and leave. That's
shortsighted nonsense, and it makes no sense militarily or
politically.

It is interesting that when this was Bush's plan you folks all said
"get out now". Now that it is the Obama plan you have all the patience
in the world.

Really? Sounds to me like you're rewriting public opinion. Most people
once they found out the facts of Iraq said we should get out asap.
Most people thought that the Afg. war was justified. Feel free to keep
your eyes closed if it makes you feel better.

There were polls saying the Vietnam was the right thing to do too. It
all depends on what the talking heads on TV tell Americans to believe.
When the networks have their "Cronkite" moment, we will demand an end
to that war too.

Not sure what VN has to do with either situation. You keep bringing it
up as though it's got something to do with this.

You still can't ignore history. Harry has this one right. Afghanistan
is not a country, it is just a collection of tribes who hate each
other.

It may or may not be, but in any case, we can't just drop the effort
overnight even if we wanted to.

Like most of the countries in South West Asia, Afghanistan was the
creation of colonial European powers, not any natural political
division.


Harry is the only one who is consistent here.




In 50 years Iraq may be seen as the good war, if they actually come
out of it with a democracy. I doubt there will be any good coming out
of the Afghanistan war. There is absolutely ZERO chance that **** hole
will ever be a democracy.

Right. Because Iraq was Bush's war, but Afg. is Obamas? There is a
decent chance that they won't devolve back into Taliban control...

There is a fair to middling chance that Iraq might evolve into a
somewhat democratic government that successfully participates in the
global economy. Afghanistan will still be a **** hole that will remain
a tribal culture and the only participation in the world economy will
be the powerful will exploit the weak to produce a few natural
resources and a lot of smack.

According the you.... expert on all things, esp. those in the middle
east.

You don't have to be a middle east expert to predict that. You only
have to look at history (recent and long term). Iraq is a lot more
westernized than Afghanistan.

Well, as you're fond of saying, we'll see. It won't be an
American-style democracy, but it could be a relatively safe place,
free (for the most part) of terrorism.


We are going to be lucky not to lose Pakistan to the Taliban right
now. I think Afghanistan will go back to obscurity as soon as we leave
but I doubt it will ever be a real democracy.

Pakistan is making great strides in security. I hope you're not right.
If it happens, it became a reality because of Bush's negligence in the
region.

Yup the whole 1000 years or turmoil in the middle east is GWs fault.

Come on. I didn't say that. I said that Bush made things worse not
better. He did this via the mechanism of neglect.

Actually I do not remember any Bush incursions into sovereign
Pakistani territory. That is not true now. Each one of them is an act
of war.

Bush's? How about the current administration? Seems to me that
Pakistan complains, but only in public.

The open question is how many acts of war does it take before you have
a war.
This is Obama's "Cambodia".

Again with the VN war reference. It's a bit long in the tooth. Find
another analogy.

In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...
Then there would be Pakistan, North Pakistan and Outer Pakistan.

East Iran and North Pakistan.

I don't disagree with your analysis. I hope that causes you angst.

It does give you pause doesn't it.


I think it is encouraging that we are actually having a civilized
conversation and actually agreeing on something ;-)



Someone please explain to me in polite terms how the leaders of two
administrations, the current one and the one in the immediate past,
hoodwinked themselves into believing anything worth saving could be made
from either Iraq or Afghanistan.

I understand what Bush I did with his war with Iraq. It was rational. I
understand what Clinton did in Bosnia. That was rational.

Iraq? Afghanistan? Huh?

A view that people are generally good and that they will do the right
thing if given the opportunity.

If you do not have a positive outlook and faith in the good of mankind
then you might as well go live in a cave.

On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 19:38:01 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article , payer3389
says...
Then there would be Pakistan, North Pakistan and Outer Pakistan.

East Iran and North Pakistan.

I don't disagree with your analysis. I hope that causes you angst.

It does give you pause doesn't it.


I think it is encouraging that we are actually having a civilized
conversation and actually agreeing on something ;-)



Someone please explain to me in polite terms how the leaders of two
administrations, the current one and the one in the immediate past,
hoodwinked themselves into believing anything worth saving could be made
from either Iraq or Afghanistan.

I understand what Bush I did with his war with Iraq. It was rational. I
understand what Clinton did in Bosnia. That was rational.

Iraq? Afghanistan? Huh?

A view that people are generally good and that they will do the right
thing if given the opportunity.

If you do not have a positive outlook and faith in the good of mankind
then you might as well go live in a cave.

I agree. I had a good view of Bush until he was proven to be a liar.

On Feb 9, 8:22*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 17:07:11 -0800, wrote:
I agree. I had a good view of Bush until he was proven to be a liar.

This war will go on long enough that you will end up with the same
opinion of Obama

This war as of to say, could go on longer than Obama's administration,
and LePlume will still believe he is the Messiah of the ages.

In article 29305ff5-b6c8-40ed-9cf4-ebd6b86c54a5
@e21g2000yqe.googlegroups.com, says...

On Feb 9, 8:22*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 17:07:11 -0800, wrote:
I agree. I had a good view of Bush until he was proven to be a liar.

This war will go on long enough that you will end up with the same
opinion of Obama

This war as of to say, could go on longer than Obama's administration,
and LePlume will still believe he is the Messiah of the ages.

Didn't Osellout dump more troops into Afghanistan after campaigning all
year he was going to pull them out? Or did he just say that for the
votes?

On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 21:22:43 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 17:07:11 -0800, wrote:

I agree. I had a good view of Bush until he was proven to be a liar.

This war will go on long enough that you will end up with the same
opinion of Obama

I don't see any way that Obama has lied about either conflict. He
didn't start either, and from everything I can see, he's trying to fix
Bush's mess.

On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 21:05:34 -0500, wrote:


It might survive as 2 countries.

Then there would be Pakistan, North Pakistan and Outer Pakistan.

East Iran and North Pakistan.

I don't disagree with your analysis. I hope that causes you angst.

It does give you pause doesn't it.


I think it is encouraging that we are actually having a civilized
conversation and actually agreeing on something ;-)



Someone please explain to me in polite terms how the leaders of two
administrations, the current one and the one in the immediate past,
hoodwinked themselves into believing anything worth saving could be made
from either Iraq or Afghanistan.

I understand what Bush I did with his war with Iraq. It was rational. I
understand what Clinton did in Bosnia. That was rational.

Iraq? Afghanistan? Huh?

I think the ultimate blame still comes back to GHWB. If he had
actually brought our troops home in 1991 like he was advised, we would
not have been in any of this.

Clinton could have pulled the plug too but he didn't. It just went
down hill from there.

So, he should have listened to his generals? Just a while ago, you
were claiming he shouldn't have. Pick one please.

On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 21:21:01 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 13:04:21 -0800, wrote:

The open question is how many acts of war does it take before you have
a war.
This is Obama's "Cambodia".

Again with the VN war reference. It's a bit long in the tooth. Find
another analogy.

It is hard to find examples of obfuscation, duplicity and futility
like this without invoking Vietnam.

There's no comparison between Obama and LBJ/Nixon. Sorry.

For some of us, that was not really very long ago and we remember the
lies. The people who remember the lies most vividly are the soldiers
who saw it happening right in front of them with their ass on the line

In any case, this has nothing to do with Obama. He isn't the one who's
lying or lied about either war.

Then like now. the government lied about the mission, they lied about
the progress and in the end they lied about what we actually hoped to
achieve.

Which administration? Bush, I agree. He lied.

I know you are young and got caught up in the rhetoric but some of us
are old enough to be having our "you can fool us once ..." moment.

Sure. Whatever.

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 21:22:43 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 17:07:11 -0800, wrote:

I agree. I had a good view of Bush until he was proven to be a liar.

This war will go on long enough that you will end up with the same
opinion of Obama

I don't see any way that Obama has lied about either conflict. He
didn't start either, and from everything I can see, he's trying to fix
Bush's mess.

Of course he lied. He said he was going to bring troops home from both
countries on day one! Bold faced lie, in fact he has added to the troops
in Afghanistan, I guess he had his finger (and toes) crossed during the
campaign... Please check your facts

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 01:14:05 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 21:03:48 -0800, wrote:

On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 21:05:34 -0500, wrote:


It might survive as 2 countries.

Then there would be Pakistan, North Pakistan and Outer Pakistan.

East Iran and North Pakistan.

I don't disagree with your analysis. I hope that causes you angst.

It does give you pause doesn't it.


I think it is encouraging that we are actually having a civilized
conversation and actually agreeing on something ;-)



Someone please explain to me in polite terms how the leaders of two
administrations, the current one and the one in the immediate past,
hoodwinked themselves into believing anything worth saving could be made
from either Iraq or Afghanistan.

I understand what Bush I did with his war with Iraq. It was rational. I
understand what Clinton did in Bosnia. That was rational.

Iraq? Afghanistan? Huh?

I think the ultimate blame still comes back to GHWB. If he had
actually brought our troops home in 1991 like he was advised, we would
not have been in any of this.

Clinton could have pulled the plug too but he didn't. It just went
down hill from there.

So, he should have listened to his generals? Just a while ago, you
were claiming he shouldn't have. Pick one please.

I have never changed my opinion about Iraq. I have always said get out
now.

Listening to generals will give you their plan to win, not whether you
should be there at all.

So, in a war you don't want to know how to win, you just want to
decide without any facts. If the opinion polls say get out, then get
out. Is that what you're claiming?