The War in Afghanistan

[bryand]

What should we do now?

First, for all the liberals, let's get this out of the way.....everything wrong in the world today was caused directly by George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Fox News

Now, on to the problem. Here are the basic choices:
1. Cut and run immediately.
2. Keep statas quo.
3. Decrease US troops.
4. Increase US troops.
5. Send the entire Army and bomb the hell out of Afghanistan, Iran, Yemen and Pakistan.

What would happen if the US (and all other forces) just packed up and left the country?

 

[jetset]

The way things are right now I think if everyone just said fug it and left, the Taliban - and everything that goes with that - would be back in control fairly quickly. I say this because I don't believe the Karzai government has the strength to survive on its own.

How long it would take to get the Afghans to stand on their own is debateable and damned expensive, but that's at the heart of the West's strategy as I see it.

And btw why is Obama taking so long to make a decision - everyone seems to be waiting to see which way the USA jumps on this issue?

Whether a hostile regime back in power in Kabul would pose a direct terrorist threat to the West in general and the UK and USA in particular is arguable. Intel says it does, but the intelligence agencies have been known to be wrong.

And the Taliban proved in the past that they were not averse to raising funds through the poppy fields and at the same time wreaking drugs havoc on the West.

But I'm pretty sure that an extremist and frankly lunatic government in Afghanistan would not bode well for the stability of the region, and I think Pakistan would be one of the priority focuses of Taliban wrath and revenge.

On balance it looks like a choice between a corrupt and weak government (anyone here remember the early Vietnam days?) or having the unpredictability of a crazed bunch of fundamentalists screwing up the region.

That's hardly a palatable choice, but the armed forces appear to be suggesting that given time, more troops and plenty of money the Afghan forces could be brought to a sufficient level of commitment and efficiency to successfully defend a democratic form of government that would be sane and relatively safe.

And in the process try to build infrastructure and win the hearts and minds battle. That in itself is a tall order when your control of the situation on the ground is generally tenuous.

But the quid pro quo from Karzai's side must be that - as he has been told by politicians in Washington and London - he has to cut down the corruption and fly considerably straighter. That's another very tall order.

I would not be surprised if the spectre of Vietnam continued to influence political thinking in the States, and there are some similarities here - propping up a corrupt government, the temptation to pour more and more money and troops into a difficult situation and not going balls to the wall to win.

The difference imo is that, unlike Vietnam, in Afghanistan there is not the immediate danger of regular army help for the Taliban from a neighbouring giant (like North Vietnam and China in the Vietnam conflict.)

But a guerilla war in terrain as big and difficult as Afghanistan is likely to be a prolonged and nasty business.

 

[bryand]

Gorbachev recently said that he believes the war 'unwinnable' regardless of the amount of troops given the nature of tribal areas of Afghanistan. Maybe sour grapes, who knows.

In addition to drug problems caused by unpoliced poppy fields, the extremists would have an almost endless supply of money to carry out their agenda.

Obama is obviously bogged down in the complexity of the problem. It seemed such an easy fix for the democrats during the last campaign.

 

[jetset]

He could be right - Afghanistan has historically proved to be a soldiers' graveyard since the times of Alexander the Great and its ethnic makeup and geography present any occupying force with massive challenges.

Then you have the political impact that such a foreign adventure has at home, especially if it drags on.

The electorate prefers quick triumphs, and starts getting edgy at the flow of returning dead heroes and the perceived wastefulness of war when those funds could so much more usefully be spent at home.

To the average citizen the war is geographically remote and divorced from his or her everyday experience and priorities, although these days the media brings its take on a conflict directly to our living rooms, and therefore has a major influence.

Osama identified public reaction as a key element in beating the US, opining that Americans did not have the stomach for a fight once the number of bodybags returning home escalated (I seem to recall some Asian communist leader making a similar prediction a long time back.)

I don't believe that's the case, but there are other reasons why the public might not want to be bogged down in some third world wilderness indefinitely, and for little apparent return.

 

[bryand]

*bump*

I was hoping to get feedback especially from the Obama supporters that bought into his promise to end the war in 16 months.

 

[jetset]

Judging by yesterday's news reports the President has not yet made up his mind, instead asking for other options.

Whilst that may be construed as dithering in some quarters, I'm all for a thorough consideration of every possible option before sending more young people off to fight and possible die or be seriously injured.

And the report of the former general who is now ambassador to the region - Eikenberry? - suggesting that no further support should be given to the corrupt Karzai regime has undoubtedly given President Obama pause for thought.

 

[lots0]

*bump*

I was hoping to get feedback especially from the Obama supporters that bought into his promise to end the war in 16 months.

Looking for me?

bryand... your getting your facts mixed up again.

Nowhere has President Obama said he would end the war in Afghanistan in 16 months...

When the President was discussing the 16 month time frame to end the war the President was referring to that 'other' war in Iraq... (Which is ending according to his 16 month time frame..)


I'm all for cut and run... Just what do we gain by staying in Afghanistan?
Except more dead Americans and another country that sees us 'invading' them and where the people will fight to the death to drive us out and we gain another mega large war debt that we can't afford to pay and have to borrow the money for the war from the Chinese... Lots of down sides and no up sides to staying in Afghanistan.

But the neo-cons seem to just want war... war war war... dead young Americans seem to make the right wing radicals very happy or else they would not have started the last 4 un-necessary wars and try to make the wars they start never ending. I been in war, it doesn't fix anything, it only kills people and destroys stuff.

Maybe just maybe.. If we leave them alone they will leave us alone.

The Talaban can't kill our troops if our troops are at home in the USA. They don't have boats, planes or missiles to attack us with... so I think we'll be safe enough from the Talaban and their ilk if we bring the troops home.

 

[bryand]

What would Ron Paul do?

 

[RobWin]

What would Ron Paul do?

Is that a hypothetical question Bryan, I think you already know what Dr. Paul would have done...but the neo-cons (as lots0 put it) in the mass media outlets, would not even give the man a chance. If only you republicans had gotten behind Dr. Paul as I did then we may have been able to find out what Dr. Ron Paul would have done.

He made it perfectly clear that he would have brought the troops home during his first month in office.
____
____

 

[bryand]

Is that a hypothetical question Bryan, I think you already know what Dr. Paul would have done...but the neo-cons (as lots0 put it) in the mass media outlets, would not even give the man a chance. If only you republicans had gotten behind Dr. Paul as I did then we may have been able to find out what Dr. Ron Paul would have done.

He made it perfectly clear that he would have brought the troops home during his first month in office.
____
____

I intended the question as literal, not rhetorical.

Although I disagree with Paul's assessment and plan of action, it would be much better than keeping the strategy status quo. Its hard not to compare the situation with that of the quagmire in Vietnam. Every day I find it harder to reconcile the 'body bag count' with the lack of progress. More troops will not help much IMO because Iran, Pakistan, Yeman, Egypt and others are cranking out jihadists faster than we can kill them. And their funding is almost limitless with the sale of oil and poppy.

 

[RobWin]

I intended the question as literal, not rhetorical.

Although I disagree with Paul's assessment and plan of action, it would be much better than keeping the strategy status quo. Its hard not to compare the situation with that of the quagmire in Vietnam. Every day I find it harder to reconcile the 'body bag count' with the lack of progress. More troops will not help much IMO because Iran, Pakistan, Yeman, Egypt and others are cranking out jihadists faster than we can kill them. And their funding is almost limitless with the sale of oil and poppy.

I agree with most everything you just said, surprisingly lol

What really pi$$es me off though is the fact of how long we have already been over there in Afghanistan and even while most of that time it was Bush who was in fact in office.

Now I have a question for you....what I would like to know is why Bush did not order all of the poppy fields in Afghanistan to be torched by our troops. This could have been accomplished in a matter of a couple weeks time just by ground troops and even faster if napalm had of been allowed to been used on them.

Now why do you think that Bush never ordered that to happen?
____
____

 

[bryand]

I agree with most everything you just said, surprisingly lol

What really pi$$es me off though is the fact of how long we have already been over there in Afghanistan and even while most of that time it was Bush who was in fact in office.

Now I have a question for you....what I would like to know is why Bush did not order all of the poppy fields in Afghanistan to be torched by our troops. This could have been accomplished in a matter of a couple weeks time just by ground troops and even faster if napalm had of been allowed to been used on them.

Now why do you think that Bush never ordered that to happen?
____
____

For the same reason Obama doesn't order it. Because its logistically impossible (then or now). And napalm the fields???? I think you meant incendiary bombs.

 

[RobWin]

For the same reason Obama doesn't order it. Because its logistically impossible (then or now). And napalm the fields???? I think you meant incendiary bombs.

No, I meant napalm...deliver it by any means you like...

noun
1. a highly incendiary jellylike substance used in fire bombs, flamethrowers, etc.

Anyway, it sounds like you watched the same O'Reilly Afghanistan Special from his trip there in 2007 that I watched. He did not even want to comment about the poppy fields when confronted with the same question that I just asked you.

Bryan, I know you are smarter than to believe that the Afghanis grow these poppy fields on the sides of cliffs...correct. These poppy fields could all be destroyed at any time with just the "word", in a matter of days. The fact is though that they will not be destroyed because there are way to many greasy, greedy hands involved in this special CIA project. It's all about the $$$$$ my friend.

Here is a good article from the "American Chronicle" that you might like....

Destroy Afghanistans Poppy Fields Now

April 07, 2008 North Star Writers Group

By Gregory D. Lee

Afghanistan is the worlds largest producer of opium, an essential ingredient of heroin. The vast majority of Afghan/Pakistan-refined heroin is sold in Western Europe and Great Britain to feed their growing number of heroin addicts. Only between 5 percent and 15 percent reaches the U.S. The production is so immense that it has even affected Afghan food supplies. According to the International Monetary Fund, opium production is worth $1 billion to Afghan farmers. A whopping 12 percent of the Afghan population is involved in opium production.

Opium continues to be the major source of funding for militants in the Northwest Frontier of Pakistan, the Taliban and the Al Qaeda terrorist network in particular. This symbiotic relationship is especially true since other sources of funding through fraudulent charity front organizations and wealthy Saudi benefactors have been dismantled and scrutinized through President Bushs Executive Order 13224 and the passage of the Patriot Act. So why not directly attack this source of drug proceeds that finances terrorist training and events the same way?

When I spoke at the Department of Defense National Security Studies Program last year, I learned from several general officer attendees that they didnt view drug enforcement as a military mission, and said that many of the opium farmers were valuable sources of information for them in capturing and killing terrorist leadership. Others expressed concern about the economic well being of Afghanistan. But at what price, I asked?

If bombing aircraft factories in Germany during World War II to halt aerial bombing raids on London made sense then, why not destroy poppy fields that fill terrorist coffers today? In two words: Political correctness.

It isnt PC to deprive a poor, hard working, uneducated dirt farmer the ability to feed his family. That would be true if we werent talking about poppy. Crop substitution programs have failed miserably in Afghanistan. Why? Because there is much more money to be made from growing poppy than rice or wheat, despite claims that drug lords force them to grow the illicit crop. Its as simple as that.


Afghan farmers dont consider what they are doing as immoral or harmful to their economy because they dont have Western morals or any sense of geopolitical consequences of their acts. In fact, virtually all the Afghan farmers are sympathetic to Al Qaeda, hate the West in general and hate the U.S. in particular.

But they readily accept aid from the State Department and the UN in the form of new roads, wells for irrigation and equipment for substitute crop production. As a special agent for the Drug Enforcement Administration on assignment in the mid-1990s to the U.S. embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, I saw the problem firsthand and the enormity of the situation. Every time the State Department financed the drilling of a new well or the construction of a new road, poppy production increased and farmers had an easier way to bring their deadly opium to market.

NATO forces in Afghanistan need to eradicate the farmers and heroin laboratories in addition to the poppy. They need to poison the wells and tear up the roads that have increased production. NATO nations have the most to gain by eliminating or at least reducing opium production, but they lack the political will. If the tables were reversed, poppy farmers wouldnt hesitate to do the same to us. I wouldnt believe a word these people tell me about the whereabouts of terrorist leaders, as they will say whatever they think you want to hear in order to survive. They view inaction by U.S. and NATO forces as utter weakness and ineptness, and they wouldnt hesitate to kill all the foreign soldiers on Afghan soil if given the opportunity.

The only thing these farmers understand is substantial, unrelenting blunt force that will subside only when they decide to go along with the program: Grow something other than poppy and accept the rule of the central government in Kabul. Unless affirmative action is taken, heroin production and the financing of terrorism will go unabated.

This may sound harsh to some, but nothing else tried has worked. A radically different course of action must take place if we ever expect to halt this major form of terrorist financing.
____
____

 

[lots0]

Dr. Paul is all about taking care of our own first and "avoiding foreign entanglements", as our first President warned us about.

Think about it... if our Oil Companies (backed up by our Military, CIA, State Dept. and both political parties leadership) would not have been up to their collective asses in middle east politics and directly effecting the lives of the people in the middle east would the attack on 9/11 ever have happened in the first place? I kinda doubt it.

 

[RobWin]

Dr. Paul is all about taking care of our own first and "avoiding foreign entanglements", as our first President warned us about.

Think about it... if our Oil Companies (backed up by our Military, CIA and State Dept.) would not have been up to their collective asses in the middle east politics would 9/11 ever have happened? I kinda doubt it.

I remember all of those speeches very well that he gave during his campaign regarding those very issues. He basically stated many times to let the rest of them take care of themselves. Washington's Farewell Address is one that should be required reading for any new president taking office.

Re: 911... I agree.
____
____

 

[Rambler]

Dr. Paul is all about taking care of our own first and "avoiding foreign entanglements", as our first President warned us about.

Think about it... if our Oil Companies (backed up by our Military, CIA, State Dept. and both political parties leadership) would not have been up to their collective asses in middle east politics and directly effecting the lives of the people in the middle east would the attack on 9/11 ever have happened in the first place? I kinda doubt it.

With a mantra like that, your sanity is in doubt, brother...not your politics. Karl Marx could have done better in less words. First, they are not "our oil" companies as they were post world war two under standard oil.

Capitalism Sesame Street for you. I am Big Bird and for fun's sake, you are Oscar in the can, lol. Now, "Bigbird Oil controls the world and we need to help ourselves to everything. There just isn't enough garbage to go around."

Bigbird: "Oscar, Oil is a commodity and exchanged like gold, pork bellies and citrus in mercantile exchanges around the world."

Oscar:"you calling me a liar birdy because I think it is political and you just want to hurt me cause I fart from my mouth and arse."

Bigbird: "Geez, Oscar, it is like ABC. A is for the abundance of oil that is out there. B is for Mr. Snufalufagus take, on his but and C is for Capitalism."

Oscar: "Bigbird, me never heard of capitalism and it is all about politics anyway."

Bigbird" Politics is not what it is about, unless you see Sesame Street as the Pravda we are. It is about money and power. But a grouch has no power and money and only has his bad breath to spit out garbage."

Oscar: "You are A Republican and I am dumping my garbage on your head. 9/11 was your fault. If you, Bigbird, were not entertaining the kids, you would have stopped the terror."

Bigbird: "Oscar, you have it all wrong the kids are the future and if I abandoned them for a grouch it would have been worse. Oscar I am, "A" politcical, but every day since Mr. Hooper died, you have gotten worse, as he was your only friend."

Oscar: "Me falling and can't get up. Call 9/11 Bigbird for help..."

The world would be a better place without the trash and a bit more class.

:

 

[4 of a kind]

Lotso, can I ask you two questions?

1) Are you a Muslim?
or
2) Are you Keith Olbermen?

 

[bryand]

Lotso, can I ask you two questions?

1) Are you a Muslim?
or
2) Are you Keith Olbermen?

And do you feel a tickle up your leg when Chris Matthews speaks?

 

[LaurieJim]

Lotso, can I ask you two questions?

1) Are you a Muslim?
or
2) Are you Keith Olbermen?

And do you feel a tickle up your leg when Chris Matthews speaks?

I laughed at first ,im only human but then i started thinking about Lots0 and the beliefs of others that feel this way,i thought about my own beliefs, i will always voice my thoughts on these issues and not once has Lots0 ever disrespected me over my political views.

I think we as Americans are confused for the first time in many years and should be trying to find common ground instead of ripping into each other, its hard and we will never see eye to eye, Lord knows Lots0 and i have had many disagrements but at the end theres always respect for each other.

What i dont like is being preached and talked down to for what i believe strongly in and i try not to do this to others but with politics, it sometimes gets to this point and its sad, really sad.....................laurie

 

[Simmo!]

And the Taliban proved in the past that they were not averse to raising funds through the poppy fields and at the same time wreaking drugs havoc on the West.

I recently spoke to someone based in Afghanistan and the above statement is seen as a very significant factor in the campaign. They not-so-jokingly refer to the drugs as the potential "weapon of mass destruction" - the borders between Afghanistan and surrounding nations, most notably Pakistan, are not well controlled and the general feeling is that this would provide a route to flood the West with drugs, which in turn would raise significant revenue as Jetset mentions, and with that, in time, comes significant power.

On the OP's question, it's a tough call, but obviously a main aim is to train the Afghans up to resist the Taliban and stand on their own two feet to create a stable environment, which seems to make sense, but sounds like it could be a long, drawn out and uphill task.

The thing that bothers me is this: the forces stay there and all that time people die, the threat of terrorism is higher in the West and we have a volatile relationship. But the forces pull out, the Taliban take control, raise the capital they need through drugs etc and in some years to come, future generations face a far, far more dangerous threat.

Only one option as I see it.

And finally, destroying the poppy fields would only be a temporary respite. The climate is perfect for them and I would have thought it would only be a question of time before they sprung up again.

 

[bryand]

I laughed at first ,im only human but then i started thinking about Lots0 and the beliefs of others that feel this way,i thought about my own beliefs, i will always voice my thoughts on these issues and not once has Lots0 ever disrespected me over my political views.

That has not been my experience.

Besides, the comparison to Muslims ("infidels must leave the middle east immediately"), Keith Ohlbermann (MSNBC conservative-hater) and Chris Matthews (MSNBC big Obama supporter) is not far off the mark and not an attack, IMO.

 

[LaurieJim]

That has not been my experience.

Besides, the comparison to Muslims ("infidels must leave the middle east immediately"), Keith Ohlbermann (MSNBC conservative-hater) and Chris Matthews (MSNBC big Obama supporter) is not far off the mark and not an attack, IMO.

I didnt mean it to sound like an attack from you Bryan, not at all, its true while i get so pissed at the biased reporting from the media and yes i do watch Fox as i feel they are fair and balanced imo, damn sure a alot better than MSNBC, which i stopped watching and ABC isnt much better imo..........

I just think Lots0 and everyone else has the right to voice their views as i would also like them to respect mine, it doesnt always happen that way but most on here do show some respect after all we are the minority on our political opinnions here on the forum Bryan, you know it and so do i, there will always be someone putting us down for our political veiws, thats politics lol, the one thing that hasnt brought "The Change"................laurie

 

[lots0]

With a mantra like that, your sanity is in doubt, brother...not your politics.

Lotso, can I ask you two questions?

1) Are you a Muslim?
or
2) Are you Keith Olbermen?

And do you feel a tickle up your leg when Chris Matthews speaks?

I am an Atheist and a radical one at that.

I do like Keith Olbermann (I assume that is who you are talking about...), I like the fact he is not afraid to speak his mind and most important he is not afraid of all the wackos that attack him for voicing his beliefs... Isn't that what America is supposed to be all about... Free speech, standing up for what you believe in and all that. But I guess all that crap about free speech for you neo-cons is only for those you agree with...

Now would you please answer my questions... Why can't you neo-cons just stick to the issues and avoid all the personal attacks?

Is there some flaw in the personalities of you neo cons that requires you to personally attack or question the motives of people that you disagree with? Why can't you folks just stick to discussing the issues?

I think maybe not being able to discuss your political views without personally attacking those you disagree with is a lack of education and maturity... it certainly is a lack of good manners.

 

[lots0]

That has not been my experience.

Besides, the comparison to Muslims ("infidels must leave the middle east immediately"), Keith Ohlbermann (MSNBC conservative-hater) and Chris Matthews (MSNBC big Obama supporter) is not far off the mark and not an attack, IMO.

Not an attack... your kidding right?
If I started making fun of you (and there is a LOT there to make fun of...), you would be up in arms about me "attacking" you in a heart beat and you know it...

Once again... why can't you just discuss the issues and stop the personal stuff???

 

[clj7221]

I am an Atheist and a radical one at that.

I do like Keith Olbermann (I assume that is who you are talking about...), I like the fact he is not afraid to speak his mind and most important he is not afraid of all the wackos that attack him for voicing his beliefs... Isn't that what America is supposed to be all about... Free speech, standing up for what you believe in and all that. But I guess all that crap about free speech for you neo-cons is only for those you agree with...

Now would you please answer my questions... Why can't you neo-cons just stick to the issues and avoid all the personal attacks?

Is there some flaw in the personalities of you neo cons that requires you to personally attack or question the motives of people that you disagree with? Why can't you folks just stick to discussing the issues?

I think maybe not being able to discuss your political views without personally attacking those you disagree with is a lack of education and maturity... it certainly is a lack of good manners.

You have gotten pretty nasty in here Lotso so lets not try and look so innocent. You also go behind the "scenes" and have left some really wacky, ugly comments in Ramblers Reputation feedback.Your only getting back what you put out Lotso.

 

[lots0]

You have gotten pretty nasty in here Lotso so lets not try and look so innocent. You also go behind the "scenes" and have left some really wacky, ugly comments in Ramblers Reputation feedback.Your only getting back what you put out Lotso.

The last person I personally attacked here was the professor and I got a time out from CM for it.

I have no clue what "wacky" "Ugly" comments you are talking about...

Yes I did give him neg rep after he did a fly by flame on me in a thread... So what? Isn't that what neg rep is for? as a matter of fact, I'd give him more neg rep for his last post but the system won't let me...

 

[clj7221]

The last person I personally attacked here was the professor and I got a time out from CM for it.

I have no clue what "wacky" "Ugly" comments you are talking about...

Yes I did give him neg rep after he did a fly by flame on me in a thread... So what? Isn't that what neg rep is for? as a matter of fact, I'd give him more neg rep for his last post but the system won't let me...

LOL I can't believe you actually made me laugh.( regarding wanting to give him more neg. feedback) At least I can say thanks for the honesty

 

[4 of a kind]

Isn't that what America is supposed to be all about... Free speech and all that.

Yes, I agree here. Yet, it's okay for the Obama White House to try and trash and silence Fox News.

The only reason they backed off of Fox by the way, is because all the other channels CNN, MSNBC, etc.etc. (left leaning channels) started to show concern and expressed that it wasn't correct for the White House's approach and was un-constitutional. Only for the reason that if their channel in the future opposed Obama's view would they then be next in line to be silenced. In addition thanks to the thinking wonder's in the Obama's camp, Fox News ratings sky rocketed. So, they backed off.


Now would you please answer my question... Why can't you neo-cons just stick to the issues and avoid all the personal attacks?

Neoconservative:
moderate political conservatism espoused or advocated by former liberals or socialists.

The difference between neo-con and socialist left wing liberals without any fear of any god like yourself is that we are willing to admit when we're wrong and are willing to compromise for the best future the US can have. As you have proven in all your posts related to politics, regardless of the issue, if it's a view coming from the conservatives or the right, you trash their thinking or their views in every case.

Every part of our government is loaded with ass holes and crooks on both sides and I don't see anything changing in the future. The peoples mission is to expose and delete them, and hope the replacement is not the same. If he or she is, then the people have to get to work again.

I disagree with the path Obama is presently taking with many of his policy's. To me it's just looking like to much government and heading in the direction of socialism.

I'm not opposed to government health care, it may even be a good thing. But based on the plan he's submitting and trying to ram down our throats without enough time for debate and accumulating over a trillion dollars of debt in less then ten years, (which will be passed on to the tax payers one way or another) I admit I'm not a fan of it. What's the hurry anyhow? Is the world going to implode if it's not passed in a couple of months? If passed it doesn't even go into effect I think for 4 years. It's starting to sound like nothing but a re-election format for Obama's re-election.

He's accomplished nothing since he's in office and everything he's done so far has already proved to worsen things.

I know Bush approved certain useless bail-outs, but Obama could of put more thought into it. Instead he went on a bail-out spree taking over Banks and Businesses. Un-employment now 10.2% a record high and expected to even go higher next month.

While in Japan he couldn't even express his real opinion during a press conference about the A-Bombs used. He dodged the question and even dodged it a second time when asked again. Why? Cause his real answer would of exposed what everyone is starting to believe is his real agenda.

I hope I'm wrong for the benefit of my kid's, but this guy already proved that he is a complete fool with no clue, and is leading this country to disaster.

This past election was an indication that the people were scared of where we already were heading and took a shot on hope, and maybe just maybe this guy was going to fix things for us.

Well, it looks like we are going to be disappointed again as usual. Obama is so bad we may have no choice but to enter complete socialism counting on the government for everything.

 

[heatherad]

You have gotten pretty nasty in here Lotso so lets not try and look so innocent. You also go behind the "scenes" and have left some really wacky, ugly comments in Ramblers Reputation feedback.Your only getting back what you put out Lotso.

Thats not exactly how you saw it in another thread where you actually gave a wee bit of good advice by stating *why add to it, when its only adding fuel to the fire*

Perhaps the thread can get back on topic here and everyone agree to disagree in an adult manner.

 

[clj7221]

Isn't that what America is supposed to be all about... Free speech and all that.

Yes, I agree here. Yet, it's okay for the Obama White House to try and trash and silence Fox News.

The only reason they backed off of Fox by the way, is because all the other channels CNN, MSNBC, etc.etc. (left leaning channels) started to show concern and expressed that it wasn't correct for the White House's approach and was un-constitutional. Only for the reason that if their channel in the future opposed Obama's view would they then be next in line to be silenced. In addition thanks to the thinking wonder's in the Obama's camp, Fox News ratings sky rocketed. So, they backed off.


Now would you please answer my question... Why can't you neo-cons just stick to the issues and avoid all the personal attacks?

Neoconservative:
moderate political conservatism espoused or advocated by former liberals or socialists.

The difference between neo-con and socialist left wing liberals without any fear of any god like yourself is that we are willing to admit when we're wrong and are willing to compromise for the best future the US can have. As you have proven in all your posts related to politics, regardless of the issue, if it's a view coming from the conservatives or the right, you trash their thinking or their views in every case.

Every part of our government is loaded with ass holes and crooks on both sides and I don't see anything changing in the future. The peoples mission is to expose and delete them, and hope the replacement is not the same. If he or she is then the people have to get to work again.

I disagree with the path Obama is presently taking with many of his policy's. To me it's just looking like to much government and heading in the direction of socialism.

I'm not opposed to government health care, it may even be a good thing. But based on the plan he's submitting and trying to ram down our throats without enough time for debate and accumulating over a trillion dollars of debt in less then ten years, (which will be passed on to the tax payers one way or another) I admit I'm not a fan of it. What's the hurry anyhow? Is the world going to implode if it's not passed in a couple of months? If passed it doesn't even go into effect I think for 4 years. It's starting to sound like nothing but a re-election format for Obama's re-election.

He's accomplished nothing since he's in office and everything he's done so far is already proved to worsen things.

I know Bush approved certain useless bail-outs, but Obama could of put more thought into it. Instead he went on a bail-out spree taking over Banks and Businesses. Un-employment now 10.2% a record high and expected to even go higher next month.

While in Japan he couldn't even express his real opinion during a press conference about the A-Bombs used. He dodged the question and even dodged it a second time when asked again. Why? Cause his real answer would of exposed what everyone is starting to believe is his real agenda.

I hope I'm wrong for the benefit of my kid's, but this guy already proved that he is a complete fool with no clue, and is leading this country to disaster.

This past election was an indication that the people were scared of where we already were heading and took a shot on hope, and maybe just maybe this guy was going to fix things for us.

Well, it looks like we are going to be disappointed again as usual. Obama is so bad we may have no choice but to enter complete socialism counting on the government for everything.

Give me a break. Fox news is not silenced. Lets now add self made communism to this. Obama criticized fox news on many occasions it certainly gave Fox News loads of ratings and they are still reporting as always. Explain how Fox news is being silenced? It is the only news I watch and do not see them holding back on any news Reporting.

 

[clj7221]

Thats not exactly how you saw it in another thread where you actually gave a wee bit of good advice by stating *why add to it, when its only adding fuel to the fire*

Perhaps the thread can get back on topic here and everyone agree to disagree in an adult manner.

Sorry for the confusion your having with this and Yes what I stated is correct. I Never come in here looking for trouble and just pick up a post and add fuel to it. What does adding fuel to a post have to do with defending yourself? when this poster was criticizing mine or my husbands post.There is a big difference in defending yourself then pulling a post to add fuel to the fire and get a forum fight going, because the need for attention as a trouble maker and all The " Thank You's" that lift their ego.

 

[4 of a kind]

Give me a break. Fox news is not silenced. Lets now add self made communism to this. Obama criticized fox news on many occasions it certainly gave Fox News loads of ratings and they are still reporting as always. Explain how Fox news is being silenced? It is the only news I watch and do not see them holding back on any news Reporting.

Yet, it's okay for the Obama White House to try and trash and silence Fox News.

TRY being the clue to this statement.

 

[clj7221]

Yet, it's okay for the Obama White House to try and trash and silence Fox News.

TRY being the clue to this statement.

Oh sorry I didn't see the " Try". I had no idea Obama was trying to silence Fox news. I must be out of the loop. Please tell me what I missed and what efforts Obama had made to Try and silence Fox news?

 

[lots0]

The difference between neo-con and socialist left wing liberals without any fear of any god

Are you trying to make me laugh... cuz you did.

Yup I am a godless American and extremely proud of it.

So yes, I have a hard time being afraid of a magical sky man.

 

[lots0]

TRY being the clue to this statement.

More personal attacks... you just can't stop attacking people that disagree with you can ya...

Why don't you get a clue and stick to the issues... and stop attacking and flaming everyone that disagrees with you.

Look I understand you can't win any arguments based on your view of neo-con idealism and your getting frustrated, but back off people... this crap of yours is getting real old.

You throw out stupid statements like saying the President is trying to silence Faux... then get upset and attack when you get called on your statements and can't back them up.

Just give one example of how The President is trying to silence Faux... just one example to back up what you said...

 

[clj7221]

I would be so thrilled if Obama got the insurance companies to lower their Prices. As a small Family we pay so much monthly it's crazy. It is way over 1000 dollars we pay monthly for health care. We do not even have any pre existing conditions and we hardly even go to the Doctor.
If he did that I would have such a different opinion of Obama and Rambler would be singing his praises.LOL

 

[lots0]

I would be so thrilled if Obama got the insurance companies to lower their Prices...

Me too.
But I don't think it will happen. Far too many people can't see past color or political party and are fighting against what is best for their own good.

I am perdy sure everyone on this forum would benefit if we had health care reform as the President has described... But some just want nothing more then to see the President (and the Country) fail in their effort to make things better for everyone.

 

[LaurieJim]

Me too.
But I don't think it will happen. Far too many people can't see past color or political party and are fighting against what is best for their own good.

I am perdy sure everyone on this forum would benefit if we had health care reform as the President has described... But some just want nothing more then to see the President (and the Country) fail in their effort to make things better for everyone.

Your wrong my dear Lots0, i dont wish him to fail, just do the job he was elected to do for all Americans, not just those who believe in his way America should be.We are Americans, some are God fearing Christians and some are not, some are white and black and many other colors,some are rich and others poor, thats what makes this a great country, for better or worse.

If we dont find common ground and stand together, there are folks out there who would love to see us go under and we just prove them right everyday when we bicker amongst ourselves and look like a nation without a solid leader or leadership imo...............laurie

 

[lots0]

I didn't vote for him either. From what I see he is doing what the people that elected him to do want him to do. You Conservatives keep forgetting that Liberals elected him and that he has had a Liberal agenda all along.

It is frustrating to those of us that did not vote for him or share his agenda for the country to see him going about his business.

But lets be honest, neither you or I voted for him... So it is not really our agendas he is interested in. He is doing what the people that voted for him and elected him want... no matter if the other side likes it or not.

See that is the problem with people like Bryland, I didn't vote for Obama, nor support him. But because I disagree with Bryland and his radical Glen Beck view, I am the bad guy Liberal.

Laurie you may not want the President and Country to fail but it sure seems like there are a lot of folks in the Republican party that do.

 

[Simmo!]

Ah lovely. We're on a gambling forum, discusing politics and religion as an offshoot to a thread about drugs and war (talking of which, this thread is titled "The War in Afghanistan" *hint* *hint*).

Max / Webzcas - I'm just off, hope you have a great week.

 

[LaurieJim]

Ah lovely. We're on a gambling forum, discusing politics and religion as an offshoot to a thread about drugs and war (talking of which, this thread is titled "The War in Afghanistan" *hint* *hint*).

Max / Webzcas - I'm just off, hope you have a great week.

ALL WARS SUCK!!!!!!!!!! Sorry Simmo..............me

 

[clj7221]

Ah lovely. We're on a gambling forum, discusing politics and religion as an offshoot to a thread about drugs and war (talking of which, this thread is titled "The War in Afghanistan" *hint* *hint*).

Max / Webzcas - I'm just off, hope you have a great week.

" It's a Beautiful Day in The Political Neighborhood" LOL

 

[bryand]

Ah lovely. We're on a gambling forum, discusing politics and religion as an offshoot to a thread about drugs and war (talking of which, this thread is titled "The War in Afghanistan" *hint* *hint*).

Max / Webzcas - I'm just off, hope you have a great week.

So the question is complex and seems to be choosing the leser of two evils (build up or pull out). I empathize with Bush, Obama or anyone else that had/has to make the decision. I guess my opinion is that keeping things status quo is the worst option.

 

[jetset]

I would guess that the poppy fields will be allowed to flourish and deliver rewards to the Afghani peasants as a short to medium term necessary evil in order to maintain the hearts and minds strategy with the growers (who claim they cannot get by without that sort of 'bonus crop' in spite of financial incentives.)

That sucks for obvious reasons, but also because the Taliban are still benefitting from it (and if the accusations of corruption against the Karzai government are right they're probably taking a cut somewhere too).

It's a generally nasty and unpalatable situation all round, with any decision having a serious downside.

Once more the west is faced with a war where it is trying to fight it as a limited action whilst the opposition go all out.

I don't personally believe that 'hearts and minds' has necessarily prevailed over the immediate terror that the Taliban can impose out in the boonies, anyway.

Unlike Western forces, they're not fighting with one hand tied behind their backs and a cautious eye on the media.

But I think to abruptly up stakes and pull out could be extremely dangerous in the medium to long term, even if accompanied by a sustained destruction of the poppy fields as has been suggested earlier in this thread (Agent Orange anyone?)

 

[clj7221]

Me too.
But I don't think it will happen. Far too many people can't see past color or political party and are fighting against what is best for their own good.

I am perdy sure everyone on this forum would benefit if we had health care reform as the President has described... But some just want nothing more then to see the President (and the Country) fail in their effort to make things better for everyone.

We don't want the President to fail. At least I don't. I'm not a person who is owned by the political Party I belong to and have to agree with everything they say and root for my team. I don't copy and paste ridiculous articles and post them because I can't think for myself. I'm not a follower, I bow to no one and kiss no ones ass. With that said, what has Obama done for us lately?

He has done nothing for me except take our hard earned money and bailed out credit card companies without saying,if you want any bail out help from us, you will have to lower your interest rates immediately.

We have a terrible economy and instead of working with insurance companies to lower rates, change rules and even offer us a choice to buy in to Government insurance, he wants to offer free insurance for everyone.Who will pay for this? California is already bankrupt as is because of big Government to much free give aways and incompetence at every level.

The way our country is going is certainly helping China.We continue to borrow money from China and because we are in such terrible financial shape, China is buying up more real estate here.

You say in here we have to look passed Politics and race, I wish Obama would. His agenda goes against the middle class, Business owners of this country who contribute to many jobs, Provide a paycheck and health insurance to our employee's. Instead, he wants to help everyone else at our expense. I certainly understand helping poor people, but when does it become at a loss of my income? what happened to all the money we donate to churches and other charities? What is wrong the Government programs already in place to help the poor?

I hate to say this but I will, Obama's plan will help the Lazy get Lazier at my expense.

 

[lots0]

...He has done nothing for me except take our hard earned money and bailed out credit card companies without saying,if you want any bail out help from us, you will have to lower your interest rates immediately.

Ahhh, it was George Bush that bailed out the Banks and Credit Card Companies, Not Obama.

What is wrong the Government programs already in place to help the poor?

George Bush de-funded most of those programs for the poor. Don't you remember that Bush was all for turning over our welfare system to the Churches... and that was an utter failure so the programs just got no money.

look I am not saying that the President is doing everything I want, he is not. But with all the problems he inherited, we are truly lucky the entire country did not melt down.

As far as China goes... The free traders and one world people have brought our great country down, These free traders have accomplished what several world wars and a great depression were unable too, bring down America. We are now owned lock stock and barrel by China, any President from now until we pay them off is gonna hafta kiss Chinese ass. And we are stuck with people that run China that have no problem what so ever running over people with tanks or using real slave labor as our landlords...

 

[clj7221]

Ahhh, it was George Bush that bailed out the Banks and Credit Card Companies, Not Obama.

George Bush de-funded most of those programs for the poor. Don't you remember that Bush was all for turning over our welfare system to the Churches... and that was an utter failure so the programs just got no money.

look I am not saying that the President is doing everything I want, he is not. But with all the problems he inherited, we are truly lucky the entire country did not melt down.

As far as China goes... The free traders and one world people have brought our great country down, we are now owned lock stock and barrel by China, any President from now until we pay them off is gonna hafta kiss Chinese ass.

The excuse of he inherited this mess is kind of lame now. What has Obama done so far to help get out of this mess? He can change any wrongs he feels Bush did. what has Obama done for us? for this country? Listen, I see nothing but a self-serving president who was to occupied making friends with all the wrong countries lol The first thing he did wrong was to throw Israel under the bus. That was when I lost any bit of respect I ever had for this president.

 

[lots0]

The excuse of he inherited this mess is kind of lame now.

Well the fact is the problems he inherited are still there and some are getting worse.

The first thing he did wrong was to throw Israel under the bus.

What has Israel ever done good for us?
They lied to us about Saddam and his "weapons of mass destruction" and they have even intentionally attacked and killed American troops (USS Liberty).
With 'friends" like that we don't need enemies...

P.S. do you realize that we are still borrowing money from China to GIVE to Israel... Billions a year...
and you say we threw them under the bus... More like they are taking us for everything they can.

 

[clj7221]

Well the fact is the problems he inherited are still there and some are getting worse.

What has Israel ever done good for us?
They lied to us about Saddam and his "weapons of mass destruction" and they have even intentionally attacked and killed American troops (USS Liberty).
With 'friends" like that we don't need enemies...

Israel lied? well then we may as well shuv all the other counties under the bus who " Lied" about it because Israel is not the only country they got this information from. Who knows if there were weapons or not. Just because they were not found a number of different possibilities could have happened. Non the less, I feel Bush would have gone in there anyway.

 

[jetset]

The level of US indebtedness to China is reaching scary heights - over a trillion dollars I heard in a news broadcast this morning covering the President's visit to China.

I'll say one thing for the Obama Administration - they don't put up with too much nonsense from the bankers, and have used quite strong language in dealing with their renewed excesses.

BTW my recollection was that it was Obama's government that initiated the bail outs?

I had to look the Liberty incident up - it occurred in 1967. Certainly made for interesting reading given present circumstances.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Edited to add that in fairness to the Israeli Mossad, the Brit MI5 and the CIA concurred on the WMD.