financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
(From Chris Hitchens' right wing brother, Peter Hitchens)
"Like Haig on the Somme, we’ll bleed to death in Afghanistan"
- Thread starter financeguy
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
(From Chris Hitchens' right wing brother, Peter Hitchens)
purpleoscar
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
"Neglect can only be better?" 
Can't people wait for a proper handoff when Afghanistan can run its own military?
Can't people wait for a proper handoff when Afghanistan can run its own military?
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
And here I thought you liked small government, saving, and were against deficit spending...
How many of my tax dollars will it take to get Afghanistan's military running on it's own?
purpleoscar
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
If Bush didn't plow into education and health spending the war costs wouldn't be so bad.
The bailouts cost way more than the both wars.
Spending money on military sucks but being a wimp getting bullied is even worse. I don't like wars either but look at WWII and tell me if pacifism works.
If Barack Obama can find lots of entitlement cuts to pay for the completion of the handover it will be good.
That's one thing Obama said well was that wars are hard to keep up with bad finances. If the massive bailouts continue to the highest degree they will be forced to pull out if China decides to sell its bonds. I don't see how dangers will stay the same or decrease from a quick pull out.
The best way IMO would be to freeze entitlement spending and cut entitlement spending and earmarks until there is a balanced budget over the years and keep the war funded until all regions of Iraq and Afghanistan are handed over.
I mean what do you support? In dealing with terrorists or dictators what should America do when it gets attacked or its allies? Should we bomb and run away? Should we do nothing? What's the proper response in your opinion?
If Pakistan harbors terrorists and chooses to do nothing about it what would be the appropriate response in your mind? I'm all ears.
toscano
Refugee
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
- Messages
- 2,032
Pakistan gets a LOT of Us Financial aid, we can start with that.
Also, a lot of Pakistani students come to the US to study, we can put a stop to that too.
We can hurt Pakistan financially a lot more than we'd be willing to do militarily.
purpleoscar
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
YouTube - Psychopath Channel4 - [part1]
YouTube - Psychopath Channel4 - [part2]
YouTube - Psychopath Channel4 - [part3]
YouTube - Psychopath Channel4 - [part4]
YouTube - Psychopath Channel4 - [part5]
YouTube - Egomania - Documentary [part 1]
YouTube - Egomania - Documentary [part 2]
YouTube - Egomania - Documentary [part 3]
YouTube - Egomania - Documentary [part 4]
YouTube - Egomania - Documentary [part 5]
YouTube - A CLOCKWORK ORANGE!! - FULL SCENE!
YouTube - Afghan Girls Sprayed With Acid For Attending School
With people like this I have little hope that war and human struggles will disappear. Some people just have such enormous drives that economic sanctions don't seem to stop them. Look at North Korea. I wish war could be past history but I don't think I will see that in my life time.
There certainly will be a point when there is no money left to stay in Afghanistan but I don't think we've got to that point yet.
To me the best thing for countries that defend freedom is to have a tough justice system, strong military and as many healthy moral individuals as self-reliant as possible. Entitlement programs should be for those who really can't help themselves. If we shower everyone with entitlement programs and reduce the military it opens up the opportunity for bullies to gain more power with little worry of retaliation. Is it possible for isolationism to be a viable strategy in a world of nuclear weapons and other WMD? Can we trade with countries that hate us? The solutions to these problems just seem so beyond my lifespan.
YouTube - Psychopath Channel4 - [part2]
YouTube - Psychopath Channel4 - [part3]
YouTube - Psychopath Channel4 - [part4]
YouTube - Psychopath Channel4 - [part5]
YouTube - Egomania - Documentary [part 1]
YouTube - Egomania - Documentary [part 2]
YouTube - Egomania - Documentary [part 3]
YouTube - Egomania - Documentary [part 4]
YouTube - Egomania - Documentary [part 5]
YouTube - A CLOCKWORK ORANGE!! - FULL SCENE!
YouTube - Afghan Girls Sprayed With Acid For Attending School
With people like this I have little hope that war and human struggles will disappear. Some people just have such enormous drives that economic sanctions don't seem to stop them. Look at North Korea. I wish war could be past history but I don't think I will see that in my life time.
There certainly will be a point when there is no money left to stay in Afghanistan but I don't think we've got to that point yet.
To me the best thing for countries that defend freedom is to have a tough justice system, strong military and as many healthy moral individuals as self-reliant as possible. Entitlement programs should be for those who really can't help themselves. If we shower everyone with entitlement programs and reduce the military it opens up the opportunity for bullies to gain more power with little worry of retaliation. Is it possible for isolationism to be a viable strategy in a world of nuclear weapons and other WMD? Can we trade with countries that hate us? The solutions to these problems just seem so beyond my lifespan.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Yes, because education and health are horrible things to spend on, let's spend on wars of choice like Iraq...
His education and health programs were horrible, wasted money. But let's not forget the biggest drain, Iraq. Iraq was uneeded, poorly planned, and the "coalition" is weak. So it's just draining us.
Everything is either/ or with you... Do you not understand nuance?
I supported going into Afghanistan, but starting another war while being in Afghanistan, a war you don't need, a war that you don't even understand(Bush didn't even know the inner going-ons of Iraq), and piss poor planned war screwed us.
yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
At the moment I'm not seeing any indications that Obama intends to depart radically from the Bush Administration's Afghanistan/Pakistan strategy. I would hope that his future strategy includes retooling aid to Pakistan more towards preferential trade agreements to help their freefalling economy, encouraging Kabul to negotiate with the Afghan Taliban with an eye to weaning them away from both the Pakistani Taliban and al-Qaeda, assisting the Pakistani army in FATA/NWFP through counterinsurgency training support rather than Predator missile strikes, and pressuring Delhi not to reflexively respond to recent and future terrorist strikes by ratcheting up tensions with Islamabad--but those are just hopes. In terms of military aid, Pakistan has a major trump card in the form of 75% of US troop supplies arriving in Afghanistan via Karachi, so there are limits to how punitive Washington is likely to get there. Negotations between the warring factions in Afghanistan as a foundation for future political stability and a stronger Afghan army is a long shot, but it's a better one than the chimera of 'transforming society' through the anemic reconstruction efforts of the terminally inadequate combined NATO/US forces. Ultimately it's fear of al-Qaeda, not commitment to 'democracy,' that's keeping the US in Afghanistan, and there has to be a point past which our presence will hurt that cause more than it helps. I don't think we're there yet, but it will come.
purpleoscar
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
So what do you advise now? Should Obama ignore the new military pact Bush made for 3 years and leave?
I don't see anti-Bush types with lots of nuance either. I believe in supporting something until it's obvious it is a failure. I believe some things like wars can take a long time to see the results and consequences. I prize perserverence and understand that strategies can develop and enhance over time.
Well good that you supported it but I will reserve judgment on whether it's all screwed when the war is actually over. As mismanaged the tactics were in Iraq in the beginning there has been progress. I don't want to invest so much emotion on it being a failure before it is.
If the handoff goes smoothly and Afghanistan and Iraq turn to dogshit then I'll admit being wrong about the reconstruction. BTW if it turns to dogshit we will still have problems that might require some military action of another kind because as I've shown, psychopaths and narcissitic bullies recuperate and try again. They like to wear you down until you submit to their grandiose visions of themselves.
I've met so many people in office jobs that have mental problems like that and I found I couldn't be too nice because they looked at it as weak and appeasing. They can wear you out. I also needed to control my reactive emotions around them. They push buttons, use fear and intimidation constantly.
The Impact of Narcissism on Leadership and Sustainability
This is a good indication of their thought process and resembles my personal experiences. They don't have your sympathy abilities and don't respect them.
When I look at Chavez, Putin or Ahmadinejad and their "meetings" and "diplomacy" efforts I'm very cynical and skeptical of their value or true intent. It always looks superficial and glib.
OP
OP
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
And you don't see this in Western leaders??
OP
OP
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
C'mon, it's staring you right in the face!
The narcissistic/psychopathic traits you identify - probably quite correctly - in the likes of Chavez are equally present in people like Blair, Bush.
Blair and Bush are or were in charge of much bigger militaries than tinpot dictators like Saddam and that, frankly, makes them MORE dangerous.
Need I mention the 'Bring 'em on!' and 'You're either with us or against us' quotes from Bush and even worse messianic stuff from Blair. Blair was probably even more dangerous because most of the media quite liked him.
The narcissistic/psychopathic traits you identify - probably quite correctly - in the likes of Chavez are equally present in people like Blair, Bush.
Blair and Bush are or were in charge of much bigger militaries than tinpot dictators like Saddam and that, frankly, makes them MORE dangerous.
Need I mention the 'Bring 'em on!' and 'You're either with us or against us' quotes from Bush and even worse messianic stuff from Blair. Blair was probably even more dangerous because most of the media quite liked him.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
No, I think a staged withdrawal is the only way this will work. I think we need to get them and their money involved in the reconstruction, and if at all possible repair some damaged relationships and get other countries involved in the rebuilding.
Well labeling me "anti-Bush" doesn't help your argument one bit, and just furthers the appearance of not understanding nuance at all.
That's great, but it doesn't make a lick of sence whatsoever. If the premise is a failure then there is no waiting til it's obvious? The premise can be wrong and still have an outcome that looks good. When all is said and done it may look like Iraq is a better country, but you have to ask yourself why, at what cost, and who are we to go around nation building at our own will?
I really have no idea what you are alluding to here, or what this has to do with the discussion at hand.
Bluer White
New Yorker
American forces are operating in some very tough mountainous terrain. Advantage goes to the bad guys.
The U.S. isn't even officially allowed to bring the fight over the Pakistani border, right?
An American troop surge is not the answer in Afghanistan.
The U.S. isn't even officially allowed to bring the fight over the Pakistani border, right?
An American troop surge is not the answer in Afghanistan.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Sociopathic tendencies are fine in politics because the national interest isn't altruistic, having said that I do think the democratic peace theory co-opted by the neoconservative movement deserves consideration as a model of advancing liberalisation for nationally selfish reasons.
Of course we have no problem with authoritarianism when it delivers a steady flow of resources or cheap goods, which undercuts any practical way of enacting change (not necessarily militarily).
Of course we have no problem with authoritarianism when it delivers a steady flow of resources or cheap goods, which undercuts any practical way of enacting change (not necessarily militarily).
purpleoscar
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
I don't compare Blair/Bush to Chavez at all. That's too much of a stretch for me.
If you want to criticize Bush for failed intelligence reports and botched military strategies and arrogance I'll agree with that. I won't put them on the same level as Chavez or Putin. There's a big difference between living in the U.S and living in Venezuela or Russia. Any comparison like that is too much of a moral equivalence path for me to follow. You could call Bush naive on cultures in the middle east and not understanding tribalism well but there have been improvements since 2004.
If anything you can see weakness in Bush and leadership problems like when the Iraqi army was dismantled against his wishes. He didn't reverse the decision. Bush's vaccillating on his economics policies that got the U.S. into this debt mess with education and health spending that didn't match with lower taxes. The big useless bailouts is another example of not being able to stand up to what you believe in. I'm actually more worried about his domestic policies than his foreign policies. The U.S. can't do much if they go bankrupt.
I know libertarians are hardcore against U.S. military might and they are afraid the military will increase in size and create 1984 situations to justify itself, but we can't handcuff ourselves and not react in some measure against terrorists and dictators. Even if we don't do preemptive strikes anymore and only fight when we get hit we will still need a large military to do that.
I get the sense that if the U.S. does any military action they will be criticized no matter what and compared to the people they are against. Dictators don't have to worry about what the people think so they just do what they please until someone stops them.
The problem with libertarian claims regarding foreign policy and military for me was their assertion that Truman dropped the bomb on Japan just to scare the Russians. Nevermind that Japan was scary enough to require atomic bombs to stop their dictatorship. It just looks like a conspiracy theory. If you do constant juxtaposition of two different characters and remove as much context and detail as you can you can make all kinds of people morally on the same wavelength no matter how stretched.
OP
OP
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
OP
OP
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
What is it, do you think, that makes these Western leaders so uniquely exempt from these psychopathic and narcissistic tendencies that so greviously afflict leaders of other regions of the world? Perhaps it is something in the water, or maybe quality of Coca-cola or McDonald's hamburgers that is uniquely superior in the West? I dunno, I'm lost here. Is it that Bush and Blair have a direct line to the Almighty, so they have to be right?
What's this 'we' shit? Remember Ali's famous quote from the Vietnam era: 'I've got no quarrel with the Viet Cong'? Well, I've got no quarrel with Russia.
purpleoscar
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
WTF.
Why did Truman drop the bomb? - Mises Economics Blog
The CATO institute is also VERY anti-military. I think the real Cato would be rolling in his grave.
OP
OP
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
I have not seen that article before. I have occasionally browsed that blog. Still, it's an enormous stretch to imply libertarians en masse take that particular view of the bombing of Hiroshima, I would see that as a somewhat eccentric viewpoint.
Well, in your view its 'anti-military', I would tend to see CATO and blogs like Antiwar.com as welcome right-libertarian responses to the idea that all right-wingers and conservatives MUST be unabashed supporters of military expansion.
I guess we can agree to differ on descriptions.
Ron Paul, incidentally, has a very high support rate amongst soldiers.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
purpleoscar
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
First did I mention character faults of Bush? Yes. I don't know enough about Blair to get to his character faults but I'm sure there probably are some, but I still can't stretch them to a Chavez or Putin. I think the checks and balances in the U.S. and Britain protect the country from having a Chavez and Putin type in power. The only way that could change would be if there was a 'night of the long knives' Hitler style to remove those checks and balances. I don't see the U.S. as a pseudo democracy or dictatorship. Obama's election proves that. Most of the economy is still in the hands of the private sector though you could have a point that governments are increasing. There may be a dependency that can nullify political freedom in the future.
I do think the West is superior in many ways but is starting to slowly fade and decay. There's a lack of belief in its institutions that's disheartening. If you take humanities university courses you see a huge anti-western civilization attitude that ignores the benefits of economics and democracy that it espouses. I remember an anthropology teacher talking about moral relativism and she came to the conclusion that living a hunting and gathering lifestyle is equal to what we have now and one is not superior to the other. Of course she then said that she wouldn't live that lifestyle because she is used to this one.
Why change to a lifestyle that reduces your lifespan when you can live in Western Civilization and bash the west at the same time?I have a preference for Western Civilization. I can't think it's simply equal to any other system because I think individuals run from many countries to the west precisely for the same reasons I don't want to live in Vietnam or North Korea. I like constitutions, private property rights, trade, common law system, limited government and freedom of speech. I think when people have an option to live in a dictatorship or a democracy like in Europe or North America most people would choose the west if language wasn't an impediment.
I can tell the difference between "democracy" in Venezuela and Russia versus Democracy in North America and Europe. It is quite different. I really like living in North America, and I would really find it hard to make a living in many other countries with less economic opportunities and rights. I really treasure the freedoms I have and the ability I have to debate and vote without intimidation.
When I mean 'we' I meant the coalition of the willing.
Ali was a great boxer but I actually believe communists, fascists and currently terrorists don't leave you alone. If dictators didn't always try and consolidate power constantly then isolationism would be the best course of action. I believe the days of a small military are over and have been over since WWI. The weapons used for threatening today are so damaging that a large military presence is necessary to preserve western democracy.
purpleoscar
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Why do you think many conservatives don't vote for libertarian parties anymore? They don't trust that they can protect the country and they agree to have some social programs for people who medically and mentally can't compete in the market place. John Stuart Mill could at least make that connection. Libertarians are more of a think tank now.
If there are any libertarians that followed Bush they probably would have been ostracized by now and called neo-Conservatives. Though smaller government conservatives were called neo-Conservatives as well. I would put Bush in the category of Nixon wing like his father and Reagan as Goldwater wing. There are so many labels now.
Many libertarians are afraid of government increasing in size too much from war. They often use examples of WWI and WWII. I mean they are right in sense that government increased in size because of war yet can we really be safe if we go back to the way things were before? The 'uping the ante' of dictatorships forces us to keep up just like criminals force police to keep up in tactics and armament.
I think libertarians are good at monetary and fiscal policy understanding and they know the trade-offs of government policy. They are good at understanding the individual though people like Ayn Rand I think like Nietzsche too much. Humans are not "Supermen".
I also like Libertarians for their understanding of capital theory and the role of saving money. They are the best at that for me.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Because the party as a whole is weak, not unified, and inconsistent. It has nothing to do with the essay of one individual.
You live in a country which does not grant you any constitutional right to your property.
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
OP
OP
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
Yes, my understanding is he is a Christian.
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
purpleoscar
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
There is a comma inbetween.
Similar threads
