The Cycle of Violence in Afghanistan

How much anti-American sentiment is there in those countries? How does that compare with the sentiments of Muslim nations in the Middle East?

I think our assistance after the tsunami did improve our image in that part of the world. It certainly didn't hurt like waging war does.

In any event, I don't think you and I are in disagreement. I want the troops home too.

Aaron wrote:Perhaps Sam, your problem is that you can't come up with any justification on why The United States of America should be waging war against the Taliban or the Afghan people or why we allowed out mission to evolve from chasing Al Qeada and the terrorist responsible for 9/11 into a mission of nation building but you're too stu...or stu... to admit the truth, we have no business in that country.

That's the only reason I can think of that a reasonable man would avoid a simple question for over a week.

Any insight or can I just expect more bloviating from you in an attempt to outlast me?

Aaron, if it is such a f'ing "simple question" ....... then there is no reason in hell for you to have been acting like a nagging female for over a week ....... attempting to get a "simple answer" out of me?

You aren't the least bit interested in "getting a simple answer to your simple question", ...... and you damn well know that is a fact.

I have proven you ...... flat--assed wrong and/or incorrect ..... on several statements that you have made ....... and that has pissed you off to no end. And the two (2) primary reasons that it "has pissed you off to no end" is that: 1) Your nurtured personality/disposition absolutely, positively inhibits you from vocally/correspondingly admitting to any said mistakes on your part; and 2) You have enough "presence of mind" to realize that Forum participants other than myself are now party to and also recognize your mistakes and the only thing that you could "do about that" was to attempt to quickly change the subject by asking me an irrelevant question in hopes that I would "take the bait". Well now big boy, I didn't. And thus you commenced with your incessant "fault-finding" nagging in an attempt to “re-nurture the thoughts” of other Forum participants into thinking that I was the one that had erred.

Aaron, ADMIT that you were flat--assed wrong and/or incorrect . And then, and only then, will I entertain the thought about answering your “simple questions” by offering my opinion concerning your three (3) simple but completely different questions as noted in your Posting on Fri Aug 20, 2010 6:04 pm.

But until then, you just keep on reminding everyone as to why I’m ignoring your incessant nagging, why should I care. Cheers

And ps: Maybe I should be asking you, “What is the justification for your recent bout of incessant nagging: motorcycle break down, new job not going good, one of your boys do something they shouldn’t have, ……?”

Sorry Sam, I hate to tell you that the bikes fine, the kids are all good, school's about to start again, I'm dating 3 different women and all is well and good.

So can you tell what it is that I’m flat assed wrong about or is this something else where you’ll spout more of your hot air in which you bloviate endlessly to hear yourself talk?

As for my recent “nagging”, there is nothing recent about it as Ziggy, Cato, Stephanie and TC can attest to. If you make a statement and I disagree, I’ll call you on it and expect you to back it up. What I don’t care for are blowhards who spout off about a whole lot of nothing with the only thing worse (at least in my book) being the ones who can’t admit they’re wrong and continue to try and twist and play word games in a pathetic attempt to sound like they actually know what they’re talking about.

Sound familiar?

Stephanie wrote:How much anti-American sentiment is there in those countries? How does that compare with the sentiments of Muslim nations in the Middle East?

I think our assistance after the tsunami did improve our image in that part of the world. It certainly didn't hurt like waging war does.

In any event, I don't think you and I are in disagreement. I want the troops home too.

That's a good question Stephanie and one that is hard to answer because unlike Afghanistan and the rest of the Middle East, we're not meddling in that part of the world as much.

Places like Thailand and Malaysia and don't have the resources that have us in the Middle East so we don't hear as much on the news about the anti-Americanism that is in that part of the world.

Our main interaction with many of those countries is our service members on R and R and as the locals don't want to lose that money, they don't upset the apple cart too much.

It's something I think I'll dig into a little later if I get the chance as you've no piqued my interest.

That's a good question Stephanie and one that is hard to answer because unlike Afghanistan and the rest of the Middle East, we're not meddling in that part of the world as much.

Further evidence that Muslims don't hate us because we are free, or because of MTV, or because of our religion. The Muslims in the Middle East hate us because we have been over there for decades, interferring with their affairs, installing dictators, overthrowing governments, waging war, displacing people and the like.

We haven't been engaged in that kind of activity in Malaysia, or Thailand, or any of the myriad of other nations in the Pacific with large Muslim populations so they don't feel compelled to come here to hijack airplanes, or blow themselves up.

Part of that could be due to the fact that non-Arab Pacific Muslims is a bit more tolerant then their Arabic counterparts or perhaps it is because much of the Pacific Muslims have lived under tyrannical, atheistic dictators who would not tolerate any type of violence or insurgency, particularly if religion were the underlying reason.

At any rate, as America occupies not one but two Middle Eastern nations, fundamentalist have moved east into the pacific region as the recent attack in Bali-the second worst terrorist attack in history-indicate.

The really sad part is that most, as evidenced by Sam's responses over the past two weeks, do not understand that we are reaping what we sow in the Middle East and that our actions are responsible for creating many of the monsters we face today.

What's worse is that our founding fathers foresaw this which is why they preached a non-interventionist policy with all other nations; entanglement with none, free trade with all was the foundation for a new nation 220 years ago.

Aaron wrote:

What's worse is that our founding fathers foresaw this which is why they preached a non-interventionist policy with all other nations; entanglement with none, free trade with all was the foundation for a new nation 220 years ago.

And there in is the heart of the matter. While I agree with Sam's view of fighting, that it is conducted in a manner to win, the turth is we wouldn't be in this mess if we had kept our noses to ourselves.

Yes, we've created a great number of monsters by our interventionist activities. It seems we never ever learn, bcause we continue to create monsters, we continue to mettle where we have no business.

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:

What's worse is that our founding fathers foresaw this which is why they preached a non-interventionist policy with all other nations; entanglement with none, free trade with all was the foundation for a new nation 220 years ago.

And there in is the heart of the matter. While I agree with Sam's view of fighting, that it is conducted in a manner to win, the turth is we wouldn't be in this mess if we had kept our noses to ourselves.

Yes, we've created a great number of monsters by our interventionist activities. It seems we never ever learn, bcause we continue to create monsters, we continue to mettle where we have no business.

We told you so- 45 years ago- and again seven years ago. It's taken seven years, but Cato has come around almost word for word to what I said the week we invaded Iraq in 2003. Back then Cato said that the time to be introspective was over- that once war begins, that discisssion about if and why was irrelevant- that winning the war was the only legitimate exercise. But now, after more than 7 years and no win, Cato is ready to talk about why we should NOT be meddling where we have no legitimate business doing so. That's progress- however slow and feeble.

In terms of Vietnam, our international policy and what the conditions was in the 50’s and 60’s, Vietnam was at the very least a draw although many consider the fact that we did directly engage the Soviet Union, some would consider it a victory. You're "I told you so" on that one is wrong.

Or would you have preferred a face to face with the Soviets? Correct me if I’m wrong but that doesn’t go with a pacifist’s point of view, does it?

The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution did not say one word about the Soviets. In all his several dozen public statements about escalating the war in Vietnam, then President Johnson did not, to the best of my recollection, say one word about the Soviets.

I don't care what the Gulf of Tonkin resolution said. That doesn't change the fact that as a result of the conflict in Vietnam, the United States and the Soviet Union did not directly engage in war.

How do we know now that it is because of Vietnam that the United States and the Soviet Union did not directly engage in war? That makes for a convenient after the fact excuse for the apologists for wreckless militarism. But the written official records of that era do not support that.

What we know is that the United States and the Soviet Union, despite many close calls that kept getting closer as the years went by and included President Truman giving the order to launch American nuclear weapons and drop them on Soviet troops at one point, did not engage in direct war.

That is a fact that does not need an apology.

ziggy wrote: We told you so- 45 years ago- and again seven years ago. It's taken seven years, but Cato has come around almost word for word to what I said the week we invaded Iraq in 2003. Back then Cato said that the time to be introspective was over- that once war begins, that discisssion about if and why was irrelevant- that winning the war was the only legitimate exercise. But now, after more than 7 years and no win, Cato is ready to talk about why we should NOT be meddling where we have no legitimate business doing so. That's progress- however slow and feeble.

A disengenuous commentary to say the least.

Yes, 45 years ago and again 7 years ago you said "don't go to War", but they did.

And Willy said "Fight to win" .... but you said, "OH, NO, don't do that, be nice to all those enemy combatants, don't be treating them mean and unAmerican", and they took your advice and treated them nice.

And technically we lost both frigging Wars at a great loss of both money and military personnel.

You didn't approve of or support Barry Goldwater's "initive" 45 years ago and you didn't approve of or support Willy Cato's "initive" 7 years ago.

And now you are trying to CYA by claiming "We told you so" and using Willy as your scapegoat in an attempt at doing so.

It is devious, dishonest and disengenuous when one refuses to acknowledge and/or take the sound, reasonable and logical advice of another person on how to accomplish an action and then blame them for the failure after you did it your way.


,

ziggy wrote:

We told you so- 45 years ago- and again seven years ago. It's taken seven years, but Cato has come around almost word for word to what I said the week we invaded Iraq in 2003. Back then Cato said that the time to be introspective was over- that once war begins, that discisssion about if and why was irrelevant- that winning the war was the only legitimate exercise. But now, after more than 7 years and no win, Cato is ready to talk about why we should NOT be meddling where we have no legitimate business doing so. That's progress- however slow and feeble.

As usual you fail to comprehend what is being said. I still stand by the fact that once war is the chosen path all other discussion goes out the window. The only relative goal is to win and win quickly and decisively. The discussion regarding meddling is irrelevent to the here and now of war.

The point is we should have never meddled in the middle east or anywhere else for that matter. I beleive that now as I have always beleived that. However, the reality is we did meddle and we continue to. War is the result and we if we are going to meddle then we had better we willing to fight and win.