Michael Steele: Obama got us into Afghanistan.

[ComsatAngel2017]

<snip> England would be too hard to invade and decided to go after Russia first. <snip>.

Britain, old chap. The coastline doesn't stop at Berwick-Upon-Tweed and Bristol!

As for Afghanistan, I believe the Raj had a spot of bother there in the late 19th Century, after which we kept clear. Game not worth the candle, don't you know. Don't think we ever gave Johnny Foreigner a date for our pulling up stumps, however - bit of a fumble at the crease, that.

Pip pip!

 

[leftysergeant]

Given a choice between rooting for the United States of America and an Islamo-Fascist dictatorship... well, those girls don't really need to go to school, do they?

Sounds to me like you are trying to employ some version of the old "White Man's Burden" argument for a continued military presence.

In a Muslim country, that is fore-doomed to failure. We need to just fall back into a secure position from which to launch surgical strikes against al Qaeda targets and let the foreign mining companies come in and negottiate safe routes through the countryside with the war lords. The war lords will then be more likely to put the Taliban in their place in order to keep the gravy train running.

 

[thaiboxerken]

So you would have left the Taliban in power, and Al Qaida with safe secure bases to launch futher attacka against the US?

No, I would've had our resources concentrated there back in 2001, when it was a winnable war. Splitting our troops for the nonsensical war in Iraq made the Afghan front unwinnable. Now, it's too late.

 

[leftysergeant]

Britain, old chap. The coastline doesn't stop at Berwick-Upon-Tweed and Bristol!

Hitler might have figured on the possibility of a Scottish uprising, from some of the odd records I have come across. Even holding just the southern end of the island would have been a big military advantage for logistical reasons.

The whole war on terror was based on a superficial understanding of military science. The Republicans were thinking only in terms of areas controlled, of numerical superiority and technological superiority, and ignoring logistic and moral factors.

When you have a local population firmly committed as an article of religiuous faith to repel your army, you need enormous numbers of troops just to stay in place.

If the enemy can move more freely about the countryside with all the materiel they need to fight in their own style, and you cannot move your superior weaponry into place, the technological advantage is meaningless.

The Shrub slapped a tar baby. He used conventional forces where Special Forces would have had the advantage.

That the initial operation was concieved by an idiot has created a mess from which even a genius is going to have trouble withdrawing.

 

[Upchurch]

Yes, I do think the anti-war Democrats want us to lose and are rooting against our soldiers; that's pretty easy.

What disturbes me for is they are defacto rooting for the Taliban and it's Al Qaida allies.

You two can't really be so far into the partisan kool-aid as to believe that is true, can you?

 

[GreNME]

Yes, I do think the anti-war Democrats want us to lose and are rooting against our soldiers; that's pretty easy.

What disturbes me for is they are defacto rooting for the Taliban and it's Al Qaida allies.

Given a choice between rooting for the United States of America and an Islamo-Fascist dictatorship... well, those girls don't really need to go to school, do they?

Are you guys being serious? I mean, are you seriously saying that you feel there are politically partisan opponents to you that are, in effect, behaving as enemies of the state? You're not using hyperbole with the above quoted statements?

 

[BenBurch]

Yes, I do think the anti-war Democrats want us to lose and are rooting against our soldiers; that's pretty easy. They have the cover that you suggest; "We're not rooting against our troops, we just don't want to pay for it." But they're fooling only a small percentage of the people; hereabouts only you seem to have swallowed the line.

Wow, you have a pathologically sick view of your fellow man.

 

[Brainster]

Are you guys being serious? I mean, are you seriously saying that you feel there are politically partisan opponents to you that are, in effect, behaving as enemies of the state? You're not using hyperbole with the above quoted statements?

You're going to tell me that you don't believe that there is a substantial element in the left wing of the Democratic party that loathes the US military? That actively rooted against America in the Cold War? That thinks Hugo Chavez must be a great guy since he opposes the USA? That will praise Fidel Castro when he dies?

I'm not saying it's a huge percentage of the Democrats, and, from what I'm seeing it does not include Barack Obama (or Bill Clinton anymore, past loathing statements aside). But idiots like Jim McDermott or Dennis Kucinich? Yeah, that's a pretty easy call.

 

[Upchurch]

You're going to tell me that you don't believe that there is a substantial element in the left wing of the Democratic party that loathes the US military? That actively rooted against America in the Cold War? That thinks Hugo Chavez must be a great guy since he opposes the USA? That will praise Fidel Castro when he dies?

Let's say I'm skeptical of your claim that there is a "substantial element" that loathes the US military.

I'm not saying it's a huge percentage of the Democrats, and, from what I'm seeing it does not include Barack Obama (or Bill Clinton anymore, past loathing statements aside). But idiots like Jim McDermott or Dennis Kucinich? Yeah, that's a pretty easy call.

Uh-huh. Do you have evidence or are you taking this on partisan faith?

eta: I eagerly await the one out-of-context quote you find that somehow proves your "substantial element"

 

[Ausmerican]

You two can't really be so far into the partisan kool-aid as to believe that is true, can you?

Nice to see that the rhetoric hasn't changed since iraq huh?
"If you dont support the mission you want our soldiers DEAD!!11! You support the IslamoFacists!!!11! Wah, oh wah do yew haaaate 'Murrica?!?!"

 

[leftysergeant]

You're going to tell me that you don't believe that there is a substantial element in the left wing of the Democratic party that loathes the US military?

Compared to the element withon the GOP that despises working people, insignificant.

That thinks Hugo Chavez must be a great guy since he opposes the USA?

It's actually because he stands up for his country and his people against international corporations.

That will praise Fidel Castro when he dies?

Well, he did show the world that a people's war if winnable even against massive military resistance I wish a few GOP presidents had learned that lesson.

But idiots like Jim McDermott or Dennis Kucinich? Yeah, that's a pretty easy call.

I've actually met McDermott. He's bright. Nearly every lefty in the country knows more aobut the proper use of military force than the Shrub and his gang Ever will.

 

[Upchurch]

Compared to the element withon the GOP that despises working people, insignificant.

Yeah, you're no better than Brainster or dudalb.

 

[joobz]

So you're saying that the solution is to replace the opium with iocane powder?

I think that would be a good move.

I'd bet my life on it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Are you guys being serious? I mean, are you seriously saying that you feel there are politically partisan opponents to you that are, in effect, behaving as enemies of the state? You're not using hyperbole with the above quoted statements?

Wow, you have a pathologically sick view of your fellow man.

It's just the patriotism-baiting game. "Anyone who disagrees with policy X is anti-American." I don't think it's hyperbole as much as it is a dreadfully disingenuous argumentation technique. (Poisoning the well.)

Sadly, it's nothing new.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You're going to tell me that you don't believe that there is a substantial element in the left wing of the Democratic party that loathes the US military? That actively rooted against America in the Cold War? That thinks Hugo Chavez must be a great guy since he opposes the USA? That will praise Fidel Castro when he dies?

I'm not saying it's a huge percentage of the Democrats, and, from what I'm seeing it does not include Barack Obama (or Bill Clinton anymore, past loathing statements aside). But idiots like Jim McDermott or Dennis Kucinich? Yeah, that's a pretty easy call.

No, there is not a substantial element of the anti-war left that espouses those views.

Rather most of us want the U.S. to use its military only in keeping with the ideals of our great country that we think makes us great. We deplore when defending those very ideals is somehow used to justify violations of those same ideals.

We don't think it's impossible for the U.S. to be wrong in its use of the foreign policy. We don't support policies that are wrong and contrary to the ideals that make our country great. We think this sort of dissent is indeed one of those ideals. Personally, I think dissent is not just something that must be tolerated in a free and open society, but is actually the duty of every citizen.

Dissent is not anti-American; nor is it supporting or rooting for our enemies (real or imagined enemies).

 

[dudalb]

No, there is not a substantial element of the anti-war left that espouses those views.

Rather most of us want the U.S. to use its military only in keeping with the ideals of our great country that we think makes us great. We deplore when defending those very ideals is somehow used to justify violations of those same ideals.

We don't think it's impossible for the U.S. to be wrong in its use of the foreign policy. We don't support policies that are wrong and contrary to the ideals that make our country great. We think this sort of dissent is indeed one of those ideals. Personally, I think dissent is not just something that must be tolerated in a free and open society, but is actually the duty of every citizen.

Dissent is not anti-American; nor is it supporting or rooting for our enemies (real or imagined enemies).

Real or imiginaed enemies. Nice way to suggest that Al Qaida is imaginary.
And I strongly disagree with your nicely colored version of the ANti War Left.
Sorry, but quite a few of them, by no means all, have become de facto apologists for Islamic Fundmentalists.
And I resent being called a Partisan for having problems with the Militant left. I also have problems with the Militant Right.
DO you think the US was justified in using Military Force in Afghanstan after 9/11? Yes Or No?
ANd if no, what effective...underling effective....action should the US have taken.

 

[Upchurch]

Real or imiginaed enemies. Nice way to suggest that Al Qaida is imaginary.

Speaking of a colored version of a position, who was suggesting that Al Qaeda was imaginary?

In the past, you at least pretended at a balanced POV, even if you had to invent wildly unrealistic strawmen to do it.

And I strongly disagree with your nicely colored version of the ANti War Left.
Sorry, but quite a few of them, by no means all, have become de facto apologists for Islamic Fundmentalists.

Brainster said a "substantial element". You're saying "quite a few of them". These are weasel words with no substance. What is your evidence?

And I resent being called a Partisan for having problems with the Militant left. I also have problems with the Militant Right.

If you resent being called a partisan, stop acting like one. Your problems with the "Militant Right" are often quite milquetoast compared to your criticism of the "Militant Left".

DO you think the US was justified in using Military Force in Afghanstan after 9/11? Yes Or No?

Yes, with the express purpose of capturing or killing Osama Bin Laden. To my knowledge, that isn't even on the radar in Afghanistan. Spreading democracy there and in Iraq was secondary and pure BS, respectively.

 

[Brainster]

Brainster said a "substantial element". You're saying "quite a few of them". These are weasel words with no substance. What is your evidence?

Okay, here you go.

And here.

And here.

And Nicholas De Genova, a professor at Columbia:

Columbia University professor Nicholas De Genova hoped at an "antiwar teach-in," hosted by left-wing writer and historian Eric Foner, that there would be "a million Mogadishus" in this war. To translate: This guy wants to see a million young American troops subjected to war crimes, shot and mutilated, and paraded through the streets. No one in the crowd objected. "The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military," he elaborated. And to loud cheers from an Ivy League college audience, he thundered, "If we really [believe] that this war is criminal ... then we have to believe in the victory of the Iraqi people and the defeat of the U.S. war machine."

And who could forget this incident:

Four military recruiters hastily fled a job fair Tuesday morning at UC Santa Cruz after a raucous crowd of student protesters blocked an entrance to the building where the Army and National Guard had set up information tables.

Members of Students Against War, who organized the counter-recruiting protest, loudly chanted "Don't come back. Don't come back" as the recruiters left the hilltop campus, escorted by several university police officers.

Remember Move-On (a tiny fringe element, no doubt), with their "General Betray-Us" ad? Remember John Kerry's reason for getting a good education?

"You know, education -- if you make the most of it, you study hard and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well.

"If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

How about Pinch Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times?

Pinch was a political activist in the Sixties, and was twice arrested in anti-Vietnam protests. One day, the elder Sulzberger asked his son what Pinch calls, “the dumbest question I’ve ever heard in my life.” If an American soldier runs into a North Vietnamese soldier, which would you like to see get shot? Young Arthur answered, “I would want to see the American get shot. It’s the other guy’s country.”

Let the hand-waving begin!

 

[eeyore1954]

Okay, here you go.

And here.

And here.

And Nicholas De Genova, a professor at Columbia:



And who could forget this incident:



Remember Move-On (a tiny fringe element, no doubt), with their "General Betray-Us" ad? Remember John Kerry's reason for getting a good education?



How about Pinch Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times?



Let the hand-waving begin!

All that shows is there a few not a substantial portion.
You can find ten pictures of people protesting almost anything on the internet. There are a couple of 100 million people in the US

 

[Upchurch]

All that shows is there a few not a substantial portion.
You can find ten pictures of people protesting almost anything on the internet. There are a couple of 100 million people in the US

I expected at least some out-of-context congressman saying something overtly that they want the war to fail. Not even that.