Funny how republicans think different...

ziggy wrote:
Sam, I am not the one that hung that big ole' "Mission Accomplished" banner out there for the cameras- while they watched Bush landing on that aircraft carrier in a Navy jet- .....

No shit Zigster, tell me something I didn't know.

GEEEZUS, it would scare you to death to even be close to a carrier, ...... let alone be hanging a banner on one.

You would have a " Viet Nam Gulf of Tonkin" relapse with "flashbacks" of being Drafted ..... right there in front of gawd and everyone.



.

Sam, I didn't invent that phony "Gulf of Tonkin Incident" nor the equally phony "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution" as an excuse for ramping up the war in Vietnam. That was the brainchild of the Lyndon Johnson gang of international thugs.

SheikBen wrote:Craig,

You and Sherm still haven't answered this question: if the Taliban needs to be removed in Afghanistan, exactly how is that to happen?

I hate doing this, but let me answer you with a question. If the US were attacked by China, would we invade Japan? Iraq was an always has been erroneous.

The Taliban fosters terrorism AND inflicts terror on Afghanistan. If any military action were justified it would have been on SA or Afghanistan. It's up the Military leaders to decide how to accomplish that.

I'd say if either of those were to come to fruition, following the Powell doctrine would have worked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_Doctrine

The Powell Doctrine states that a list of questions all have to be answered affirmatively before military action is taken by the United States: (Emphasis mine)

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?

shermangeneral wrote:Again you are just fabricating aaron.

I said we should go root out the terrorists in Afghanistan because that's where they are.

And what do we do about the continued prescence of the Taliban? We removed them from control but they've not went away. So how do we deal with them in this continued pursuit of justice you've spouted on and on about?

Well again Aaron I have not spouted on and on about "establishing justice" in Afghanistan.

I have said to go get the terrorists including bin Ladin is justified in the pursuit of justice for what they did on 9-11.

There is a clear distinction there.

If the afghanistan people want justice from their own government that will be up to them.

I hope this clears it up for you.

So I'm wondering, Sherm. Do you say, send in the Airborne 82 or whomever, let them do as they will provided that the occupation is a brief one?

No. I think whomever is sent should have a well-defined objective and orders to get it done and get out.

I don't need anything cleared up Sherm. I know what you've said in the past and it involved occupying Afghanistan.

Just because you've changed you mind doesn't change that. That's just part of your democrat ways.

Sherm,

I wonder what ideal world exists in which people, by their mere presence, are able to kill and/or capture bad guys without occupying any territory or killing any innocent civilians.

SFCraig wrote:Iraq was an always has been erroneous.

That doesn't change the fact that we went in and to leave prematurely would not be in the best interest of the United States.

SFCraig wrote:
The Taliban fosters terrorism AND inflicts terror on Afghanistan. If any military action were justified it would have been on SA or Afghanistan. It's up the Military leaders to decide how to accomplish that.

I'd say if either of those were to come to fruition, following the Powell doctrine would have worked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_Doctrine

The Powell Doctrine states that a list of questions all have to be answered affirmatively before military action is taken by the United States: (Emphasis mine)

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?

For Afghanistan the answer would be no to 3,4,5, and 6 and for South Africa (I have no idea how that country came into the conversation) the answer would be no to all 8 questions.

Aaron wrote:I don't need anything cleared up Sherm. I know what you've said in the past and it involved occupying Afghanistan.

Just because you've changed you mind doesn't change that. That's just part of your democrat ways.

No your attitude is just part of your authoritarian ways.

You do not proclaim what I think or what I say.

You only get to say what YOU think.

Not what I think.

Sherm my man, I know what you on one of the few occasions you actually attempted to clarify something and that was of doing whatever it took to bring OBL to justice, up to and including the occupation of Afghanistan.

Your words, not mine. If the search was any good on here I'd find it tonight. As it's not, I'll see if I can find it tomorrow even though I know you'll try to find a way to squirm out of what you said.

SFCraig wrote: If any military action were justified it would have been on S(audia)A(rabia) ......

(edited for Aaron)

YADA, ..... YADA, ..... YADA

Should the USSR have "aimed their nuclear weapons at Italy during the cold war" ..... just because there was a BIIIIIGGGGG boatload of Italians living in the US?



.

SamCogar wrote:

SFCraig wrote: If any military action were justified it would have been on S(audia)A(rabia) ......

(edited for Aaron)

Well, that certainly makes a little more sense. The initials of the country that is. Going to war against an ally; sorry, no that doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.

And the answer to all 8 questions would still be a resounding NO!!!