• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Winning hearts and minds in Chad

So is the plan to rescue the girls and get out?

Or stick around for a while like in Afghanistan?

If those are the only two options you can think of then the word "think" is too favorable a word for what you are accomplishing here.

You might do well to look up previous cases that the US was involved in where we sent troops to assist and/or train but did not end up fighting. Start with most but not all central american countries. Panama being the biggest exception.
 
Last edited:
Can somebody make a "I never realized war was bad until I could accuse Obama of starting" picture?

On second thought, make that a "Hey look, I found a new excuse to smear Obama" picture.
 
So why is this German guy an unconditional Obama apologist? You know the kind.

Unlike Chaos, I actually voted for Obama once. As US senator from Illinois in 2004. By 2008 I had given up voting.
 
Nobody ever declares war any more. Declaring war is so-o-o-o-o-o first half of the 20th century.

It is a statement that war is being made.

The letter didn't say anything about war. Your assuming that every time the President sends military advisers somewhere, it means WAR! I'm sure we have lots of military personnel in foreign countries that we are not at war with.
 
As an aside, most modern people do not realize what the phrase "declaration of war" meant back in 1776. You know, back when that document which says "The Congress shall have power to declare war..." was written. It did not mean "our ambassador goes to foreign sovereign and tells him we are at war". Not at all. In 18th century it was an accepted fact of life that sort-of-sanctioned low-level violence between sovereign states happens all the time. Somewhere in the boonies a British privateer sinks a French privateer, some native tribe beholden to Spain attacks a tribe allied with Portugal, that sort of thing. It was not "war". it was just imperial business as usual. "Declaration of war" meant that violence reached the point where traveling to, or dealing with country A would physically endanger any citizen of country B, and is to be avoided. The purpose of "declaring war" was to tell one's own citizens that "we are now at war with A, and any contact with A will imperil you". Which usually happened months after full-scale violence between A and B has erupted.
 
So why is this German guy an unconditional Obama apologist? You know the kind.

Unlike Chaos, I actually voted for Obama once. As US senator from Illinois in 2004. By 2008 I had given up voting.

So why does this Chicago guy make up **** about others?

Unlike the Mad Arab, I actually form opinions more nuanced that "Obama bad".
 
Can somebody make a "I never realized war was bad until I could accuse Obama of starting" picture?
:D

I wonder how many countries have more than 80 US military people in them and we are not at war in them. I suspect the number is greater than 50.
Lots. The UK, Canada, Mexico, Germany, Belgium and Italy for a start.
So why does this Chicago guy make up **** about others?

Unlike the Mad Arab, I actually form opinions more nuanced that "Obama bad".
Non-binary thinking, an important step in the journey beyond tribalism.
 
Not even the folks at InfoWars have reached the conclusion offered in the OP. When one finds oneself further out there than Alex Jones, it is time to stop and re-evaluate one's ability to navigate the political terrain.
 
FWIW, I was in the antiwar movement in the Vietnam era, and in the 1980s I was in the nuclear freeze movement.

In retrospect I believe I was right about Vietnam, and wrong about the nuclear freeze.

And speaking of nukes, did you know Chad has uranium?
Some of us, who were paying attention, knew that back in the 80's when the Mad Colonel of Libya went in there and the French went down there to stop him.

Old news, amigo. :)
 
Wow just think of all the countries I didn't know we were at war with. Germany, Columbia and so on.
 
Not even the folks at InfoWars have reached the conclusion offered in the OP. When one finds oneself further out there than Alex Jones, it is time to stop and re-evaluate one's ability to navigate the political terrain.

First I think we would have to get him a road map back to reality.
 
There's nothing new about that.

There wasn't a single year during the Pax Britannica where no British soldiers were killed in combat.
This dovetails with my previous post. Abdul Alhazred seems to believe that "war/peace" is a binary state -- either one or the other. He is not alone in believing so, but it is a very modern view -- for almost entire human history there was continuous low-level violence, which occasionally flared up into full-scale war.

The "one or the other" view was only made possible by the unprecedented monopoly on violence enjoyed by 20th Century governments. In the past, kings and emperors simply had no way to completely control what their subjects did on the periphery of the empire even if they wanted to (and quite often they liked it that way -- plausible deniability). Nowadays the world seems to be moving away from centralized governments -- and back to continuous low-level violence which can be somewhat reigned in, but like weeds, always comes back.
 
He is not alone in believing so, but it is a very modern view -- for almost entire human history there was continuous low-level violence, which occasionally flared up into full-scale war...

I liked Pondering Turtle's comment too.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom