quote:Sam, you may not know now what passions you will allow to control you in the future, but if you follow a certain course now, the future is quite predictable. Cain killed Abel because Abel obeyed God, and God made manifest His acceptance of Abel. This Cain resented, and took out his rebellion against God by murdering his faithful brother. In the end, all conflict between Good and Evil will come down to the same thing. The powers of evil will encite all mankind to the point where the majority will feel they must kill the dissenting minority. No one will be neutral. See Rev. 9:15, 18; 13:5.
This is why Hatrack rocks. Even the death threats are unique.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, Sam, do you have any predictions to make based on your supposedly superior "apprehension of the real world"?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, you do recall that Obama sent 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan within two months of taking office, yes? 21,000 all together this year, bringing the total in-country troops to 68,000?
Let me stress that again. Almost a third of the troops currently in Afghanistan were sent there this year by President Obama.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Frisco, it is not exactly a death threat to warn that someone may become murderous in the future if they follow a certain course now. More properly, it should be considered cautionary.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're right. If I keep pointing out how completely deluded you are, I will obviously kill my brother in a heretical act paralleling a biblical story. And then there will be an all-consuming prophecy-told conflict between good and evil. Or something. How could I not have seen it. It is so obvious that this is relevant to my talking about how you make terrible predictions all the time and that Obama won't be impeached and that you make terrible psychoanalytical claims about Europeans. Thank you for incorporating the big picture so rigorously.
quote:Sam, you like to string together invective after invective, denunciation after denunciation, but you really do not say anything.
Yes I do. I'm actually pretty clear about it. I'm saying that Obama will not be impeached, you're wrong, you have no idea what you're talking about most of the time, and you have a penchant for spouting off scores of incorrect predictions and blatant falsehoods that you refuse to acknowledge even in the face of rigorous and overwhelming correction.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, Chris, he had to transfer the troops being withdrawn from Iraq somewhere. But his generals tell him they need another 40,000 troops, or they will not be able to prevail against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. All he has done so far is have meetings about it. Will he increase troop strength in Afghanistan by more than 61%? Does he really mean business in Afghanistan?
If he should surprise me and finally agree to the increase (and not compromise with a smaller increase), then would he give back his Nobel Peace Prize?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: By the way, Sam, do you have any predictions to make based on your supposedly superior "apprehension of the real world"?
You have to have very very terrible reading comprehension to not have figured out that I am very clearly making an assertion that Obama will not be impeached for what you are predicting he will be impeached for. I'm predicting that you will be wrong, basically! But I guess I could hork up a small list if that will help you out!
1. Obama will never be impeached for what you are suggesting he will be impeached for.
2. The likelihood of Obama getting impeached for anything is actually incredibly low.
3. Obama is actually vastly more likely to INCREASE troops to Afghanistan rather that DECREASE them as you are predicting, especially considering that he currently has a habit of increasing troops in Afghanistan.
4. You're wrong with your predictions pretty much all the time and this prediction of yours will be no different.
5. You're wrong.
6. You're totally wrong.
7. You're usually wrong.
There, that should be sufficient for the time being!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sam: You say "rigorous and overwhelming correction"?!
You show all of the "rigor" of a high school chemistry student who "dry-labs" all his assignments (writes down the results he expects of experiments without actually performing them). And the only thing overwhelming about your correction is the plethora of words you employ to say nothing of substance.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, Ron, would you like to put some money on that impeachment thing? Say, 50 bucks. This is a pretty un-ambiguous point, right? If Obama is impeached by 2012, you win. Otherwise not.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Sam: You say "rigorous and overwhelming correction"?!
You show all of the "rigor" of a high school chemistry student who "dry-labs" all his assignments (writes down the results he expects of experiments without actually performing them). And the only thing overwhelming about your correction is the plethora of words you employ to say nothing of substance.
Ron, my statement about rigorous and overwhelming correction is true. You seem to be displaying poor reading comprehension yet again by assuming that the statement of your having received rigorous and overwhelming correction must be a statement that can be asserted by you only to apply to
1. this thread, or 2. me specifically.
In fact, neither condition is true! for purposes of the truth of the statement, you could disregard me entirely, as I am not currently providing any sort of exhaustive process to demonstrate how you are wrong, though I have in the past, and I am certainly not the only person who has expended a lot of time and effort attempting to patiently demonstrate your fallacious thinking and correct you.
For a perfect example of a thread where you were completely wrong, this was rigorously shown to be the case, and you did nothing but refuse to be corrected and even display your bizarre penchant for moving straight to nonsequitorially arguing about biblical things, please see:
posted
I think it would be a nice gesture, if possible, for the President to donate his award money to the groups represented by the other nominees.
ETA: Otherwise I think this was just about right:
quote: This morning, Michelle and I awoke to some surprising and humbling news. At 6 a.m., we received word that I'd been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009.
To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.
But I also know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.
That is why I've said that I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st century. These challenges won't all be met during my presidency, or even my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone.
This award -- and the call to action that comes with it -- does not belong simply to me or my administration; it belongs to all people around the world who have fought for justice and for peace. And most of all, it belongs to you, the men and women of America, who have dared to hope and have worked so hard to make our world a little better.
So today we humbly recommit to the important work that we've begun together. I'm grateful that you've stood with me thus far, and I'm honored to continue our vital work in the years to come.
I think that does a good job of expressing the premature nature of the award and explaining why he is accepting it anyway and in what spirit.
posted
King of Men, let me answer that challenge by telling a true story. This was a long time ago, when I was on a Boy Scout field trip to Cranbrook Museum of Science near Detroit, Michigan. All the way on the bus, some friends of mine (kids in my unit) kept flipping a quarter and betting a nickle on the outcome. They kept trying to get me to join them, but I said, no, I did not believe in gambling.
After we had nearly finished our tour of the museum, and were waiting in the minerals room for the rest of the troop to catch up to us, my friends started up with the betting on coin tosses again, and again tried to get me to join in. Finally they said I did not have to bet anything, just guess and see how well I might do.
So I sighed and agreed to do it. The kid flipped the quarter, and I called it correctly over 22 times in a row, with no errors. Might have been 25 times. Each time, as the coin was tumbling end over end in the air, a feeling of certainty came over me, and I knew for sure what it would be, and called it. But the last time, that feeling did not come, and I kept my mouth closed. The coin came down, bounced out of the kid's hand, landed on the floor, and started rolling. As soon as it was out of everyone's reach, I felt the feeling of certainty, and called it. When the coin came to the end, wobbled around and finally came to rest, it was what I had called it.
The others decided this was just too weird, and said they weren't going to bet against me, and dispersed. I did not see them betting on the toss of a coin any more.
Now, the odds against calling a coin toss 22 or more times in a row are nearly astronomical. Did I reveal some kind of clairvoyant gift? Or was God using me to teach my friends a lesson that they should not gamble?
Have I ever won the state lottery? A few times--once it gave me the $500 I needed to pay my rent that month. But I always feel guilty and stop trying after a while. I have to be honest with myself. I would rather be known for accomplishing something, rather than for winning the lottery.
So no, I do not wish to place any bets. Prestige and credibility are enough to risk.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, Chris, he had to transfer the troops being withdrawn from Iraq somewhere.
From the NYTimes: "Under Mr. Obama’s plan, a unit of 8,000 marines from Camp Lejeune, N.C., will be deployed in the next few weeks, aiming to be in Afghanistan by late spring, administration officials said, while an Army brigade from Fort Lewis, Wash., composed of 4,000 soldiers, will be sent in the summer. An additional 5,000 Army support troops will also be deployed in the summer."
About 3,000 more support troops were sent later, mostly (I believe) trainers. I do not know if any of the support troops came from Iraq, but at least the first 12,000 deployed this year did not.
Have any troops been removed from Iraq by Obama? There are plans to withdraw them, and about 4,000 are supposed to be withdrawn this month, the number of US contractors has dropped, and about 100 bases have been closed. But I didn't see where he's pulled any this year. He may have, I just haven't found an article about it yet.
However, the point I'm trying to make is that initially you were castigating Obama for doing nothing, not for doing enough. Even if those troops were redeployed from Iraq, he could still have brought them all home. Sending them to Afghanistan was doing something in response to requests from his generals.
Rather than continuing to throw men into the mix and hope for the best, I prefer a president who wants to make sure we have an actual goal in mind.
The discussion of whether he's doing what needs to be done is an important one. But you don't get to frame the discussion by first declaring he's done nothing and then forcing us to defend a do-nothing president.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Prestige and credibility are enough to risk.
Then agree that if Obama doesn't get impeached by 2012 for the reasons you stated, you'll make a thread announcing publicly that you were wrong and I was right.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Prestige and credibility are enough to risk.
That would be a lot more impressive if you had any. You were offered an opportunity to put up or shut up, and you refused to do either.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sam, I said that impeachment would happen if Obama did not send in another 40,000 troops. If he does do this, then I will be quite surprised. But if he does not, then the only other alternative would be to cut and run, and that would indeed be viewed by very many Americans, both Democrats and Republicans, as out and out treason.
Let me answer you this way. If Obama finishes out his term without being impeached or hounded out of office, and actually wins a second term, I will state that you were right and I was wrong.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
King of Men, I do not have to submit to your control. You do not get to set any terms for me. I have no obligation to "put up," nor do I have to "shut up."
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I said that impeachment would happen if Obama did not send in another 40,000 troops.
That's not what you said. You very unambiguously made the claim that Obama will be impeached with the help of democrats who will turn against him and vote for impeachment because he has withdrawn troops from Afghanistan. You're now blindly changing your story.
quote:Let me answer you this way. If Obama finishes out his term without being impeached or hounded out of office, and actually wins a second term, I will state that you were right and I was wrong.
Oh? And why are you doing this? Moving the goalposts? Why don't you want to stick up for the prediction you just made? Having second thoughts? Are you abandoning it in a cowardly way or have you just forgot what your prediction really was in such a short amount of time?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chris, an increase of over 61% of present troop strength would be a much more significant matter than sending in 8,000 here, and 5,000 there. Also, those figures do not reflect the number of troops finishing their tours and coming home from Afghanistan at the same time. This is barely a replacement number. The generals want 40,000 additional troops over the present troop level.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: King of Men, I do not have to submit to your control. You do not get to set any terms for me. I have no obligation to "put up," nor do I have to "shut up."
I do not claim you have any such obligation. But I do note that refusing to put your money where your mouth is does not speak well of your mouth.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK Sam, if you are unwilling to take what I say in context, then let me be as simplistic as you wish. If Obama sends 40,000 troops to Afghanistan--right away, no fudging or spacing it out (waiting for soldiers already there to finish their tours and come home)--then I am wrong in my assessment of him. But then, the other predictions about being impeached over this would become moot.
And I repeat. What is your prediction? Have any? Or is the future too foreign a country for your prognostications?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, I'm posting this stuff mostly because I get tired of people deciding what has happened without researching it and then basing their arguments on those decisions.
You have characterized him as a "do-nothing" president and then based your predictions on that description. I quickly found out that in fact Obama has deployed troops to Afghanistan, on his generals request.
You responded by declaring, again I assume without checking, that those were merely troops he had left over from Iraq and had to put somewhere (I'm paraphrasing), apparently to further your declared assumption that Obama is doing nothing.
I have now given you the source of most of those troops, which was not Iraq.
Obama has clearly responded to the requests of his generals in the past, so "do-nothing" is inaccurate. Does that change your prediction? Are you basing your predictions on what has actually happened, or on what the Obama you've decided upon in your head might do?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What if he approves a smaller number of troops, but with a plan and goals that his generals agree with? Would that work, or is 40k the magic not-a-weakling number?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, I see now you noticed what I said about 40,000 more troops representing a more than 61% increase.
The general(s) said they need 40,000. This is based on their military expertise and their knowledge of conditions in the field. You don't negotiate these things. If Obama gets the generals to accept a lesser amount, it will only be because he ordered them to.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Chris, an increase of over 61% of present troop strength would be a much more significant matter than sending in 8,000 here, and 5,000 there.
Sending in 21,000 troops this year was an increase of over 30% of present levels, which I find pretty damn significant for a "do-nothing" president. And even if he does approve the 40,000 they would also be deployed in 8,000 here, 5,000 there, as usually happens. I doubt we have 40,000 standing troops ready to go at a moment's notice right now, so dismissing the previous troops is also spurious.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: KofM, you should be more concerned with what speaks well (or not) of your mind.
And so I am, thank you. I think I may say that your reputation around here is not going to keep me awake at night. But since you seemed to need some advice, I gave it to you, free of charge. I realise charity is a foreign concept to you Christian types, but it does exist. Of course, you are free to do what you like with your gift, including spurning it. Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Last April the magic number being requested was 10,000, based on their military expertise and their knowledge of conditions in the field.
From what I've read, there may be a shift to take the fight harder against Al Queda and less against the Taliban, largely because the Taliban are locally entrenched and difficult to weed out. If Obama convinces his generals that getting Al Queda is a winnable war, and one that can be fought with fewer than 40,000 additional troops, what does that make him, in your opinion?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: OK Sam, if you are unwilling to take what I say in context
Listen to yourself. Here, let's go back and confront you with the inconvenient issue of what you actually claimed.
These are your words. Yours. You wrote them, and now you're furiously backpedaling from them.
quote:Let's see which of us has the best apprehension of the real world. I predict that Obama will continue to waffle until non-response becomes his response, and he will wind up withdrawing U.S. forces from Afghanistan. No matter what pretty face he tries to put on it, the harsh reality will be that Al Qaeda and the Taliban will return to positions of power. When that happens, even many Democrats will denounce Obama as a traitor, and enough will join with Republicans to impeach him and remove him from office.
Let's make sure to bold and reinforce sections of that which are very important insofar as they were the prediction that you actually made.
quote:I predict that Obama will continue to waffle until non-response becomes his response, and he will wind up withdrawing U.S. forces from Afghanistan.
Note "I predict." Immediately after stating that this is your prediction you determine that he will 'waffle,' respond with 'non response' and then will wind up 'withdrawing U.S. forces from Afghanistan.'
Next:
quote:No matter what pretty face he tries to put on it, the harsh reality will be that Al Qaeda and the Taliban will return to positions of power.
Here you are unambiguously stating that the result of Obama's withdrawal of troops will result in the Taliban again returning to positions of power. This one has some fudge room so I am not doting on it too long. I'm just going to assume you mean that the Taliban will simply reconquer the country again.
And now, the final part, which I will reinforce yet again that you wrote as part of your prediction:
quote:When that happens, even many Democrats will denounce Obama as a traitor, and enough will join with Republicans to impeach him and remove him from office.
Here you are saying with no wiggle room that your prediction results in Obama's impeachment and removal from office.
You are saying that Obama will not commit, he will specifically withdraw troops rather than adding them (since he commits with 'non-response,' a concept at odds with adding troops, which is a response), and that as a result of this, he will be impeached and removed from office.
So.
If Obama is not impeached and removed from office for the reasons you detailed, you were wrong.
You don't want to commit to this all the sudden.
You say this:
quote:I said that impeachment would happen if Obama did not send in another 40,000 troops.
Sorry if this is a little over your head, but here goes: you are here saying that you said something that, reviewing the thread, it is obvious you did not say.
You then say this:
quote:If Obama finishes out his term without being impeached or hounded out of office, and actually wins a second term, I will state that you were right and I was wrong.
You move the goalposts. Even if your prediction is proven to be completely false (obama is not impeached and removed from office with the help of democrats specifically because he removed troops from Afghanistan and the Taliban takes over) you're now saying that you aren't going to admit that you were wrong if he merely doesn't win a second term.
You keep changing your story.
Thankfully, even if you can't keep your story straight from one post to the next, I can.
I'm watching.
And I know you'll be wrong!
Now, here's a real big question for a real big man: will you admit you were wrong if your actual prediction turns out to be wrong, or will you refuse your own prediction and change your story?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sam, no one is born right. So anyone who wants to be right, must become right. And the only way that can happen is to allow one's self to be corrected, and learn better. Are you willing to do that? Let's dispense with the trash-talking, and see now what unfolds.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Yes, Chris, he had to transfer the troops being withdrawn from Iraq somewhere. But his generals tell him they need another 40,000 troops, or they will not be able to prevail against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. All he has done so far is have meetings about it. Will he increase troop strength in Afghanistan by more than 61%? Does he really mean business in Afghanistan?
If he should surprise me and finally agree to the increase (and not compromise with a smaller increase), then would he give back his Nobel Peace Prize?
Why don't we tell our officers of the peace to give back their badges the moment they fire their weapons?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sam, no one is born right. So anyone who wants to be right, must become right. And the only way that can happen is to allow one's self to be corrected, and learn better. Are you willing to do that?
*facepalm* Well, that's certainly a novel way to admit to being wrong, I suppose.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's hard for me to believe the coin flip story when there's a demonstrated tendency to misremember the last several hours, and the error is in the direction of grandiose.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of my good friends -- who is still an atheist -- remembers having a conversation with a Catholic acquaintance about the ways God tended to intercede in people's lives. The acquaintance was just saying, "It's not like God is going to perform earthquakes on demand to prove a point..." when a surprisingly strong tremor struck in, of all places, the Midwest.
If it weren't for the fact that I'm reasonably certain that people say similar things all the time without having them ironically contradicted....
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I'll make a couple predictions. Pres. Obama can't pull out of Afghanistan. Even if he wanted to just call it quits and say screw it there, he couldn't. Even if the long term strategic importance of Afghanistan were somehow to be explained away, our presence in the region is far too important with relation to Pakistan. If we have even the slightest chance of getting them to take on rebels in places like Waziristan and the Swat Valley, we need to be putting on pressure from the west. Boots on the ground are going to be essential to proving long term stability to small villages, and thus to earning their long term loyalty, which we'll need if any lasting government, whatever it might look like, is to be formed.
Personally I think a long term government will have to involve some sort of elected official operating out of Kabul, and an agreement, whether formal or informal, with local warlords that turns them into some form of territorial governors. We're never going to be able to turn Afghanistan into the sort of democracy that the American people expect us to, maybe not even into the messy democracy that Iraq ended up with. Running that hell hole is going to have to be a hybrid of that an authoritarian rule, it's the only way to ensure that the forces in place are strong enough to combat Al Qaeda, and really, the Taliban isn't any more a fan of AQ than we are. They've intimated in the past that they wouldn't mind some sort of peace deal that involves fighting AQ. I think we might even get some bonuses out of the deal, like a changeover in the economy from poppies to some other agricultural product, and might even secure lasting social change in the form of female rights (well, they'll get to go to schools and not be treated as property, but that's progress).
This isn't going to end in the sort of smashing success that some people might be eying, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did end with a structure in place that keeps AQ out, that we can live with, and that actually benefits the locals in some way. Obama knew that when he was running for office. In fact, he spent a lot of time telling war weary Democrats to suck it up, cause we're going to be in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future. I think the reason he's hesitating on sending in 40,000 troops automatically is one, where does he get them from? And two, he's possibly hoping to use personal prestige, and us being too tied up to try and shoehorn more EU troops into the field. I suspect that might be hard, since they barely even want the troops they have there to stay, and Bush really burned that bridge with his handling of the Iraq "coalition," but it's still worth trying.
As for Obama being impeached? Republican fantasyland. Seriously. Even if he did remove the troops from Afghanistan, it won't happen, at least not for the reason you've stated. Pulling troops out of Afghanistan isn't treasonous, at least, no more than Bush sending them into Iraq was. Both things would be utterly stupid, and bad for the US, but I don't think treasonous.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
(I actually did find that post informative and interesting, since I haven't thought too much about Afghanistan recently, but I'm not sure I was your target audience)
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyone who finds any of my long winded blathering interesting is my target audience.
The media like to call Afghanistan 'the forgotten war,' which is maybe true in some ways. The facts haven't really changed that much in the last couple of years, unlike in Iraq where complicated shifting alliances and factions, combined with numerous military and political strategies really made getting an amateur grasp of the facts in their entirety, and to keep current, was somewhat difficult.
Afghanistan on the other hand really has the same issues it has had for years. They need an economy that doesn't center around poppy exports. We've been spending millions of dollars to try and irrigate and seed land for (I think) corn cultivation, and thus far it's actually working to some extent. Locals have even voluntarily destroyed poppy crops in many cases, but this runs counter to the fact that poppy growth has actually increased (after decreasing following the first few years of "occupation") in the last year or so.
They need infrastructure, but this is also difficult. We spend a crap ton of money rebuilding a massive modern highway running from Kandahar to Kabul, basically from their version of NYC (in importance) to their version of Washington DC (political center of power). A third of Afghanistan's population lives within relatively close proximity to the highway. It used to take two days to cover the 300 mile length of the road, and when the road was finished, it only took six hours. That's a huge improvement both for economic and defense purposes, but the road in the last couple years has become a major target for insurgents, who've blown so many holes in the road that travel time is more like eight hours now, and people are afraid to travel the road without an armed guard.
There's other infrastructure progress made as well, in the especially important region of Helmand province, where the majority of the heavy fighting is still taking place. Modern power plants have been installed in many of the villages and cities in the province, all in a hearts and minds battle to try and win local villagers over to the allied side, and in many places, it's working. But a lack of troops, despite a concerted international allied effort, makes it very hard to really guarantee safety to locals for more than a short period of time.
Governance is also a major issue. We've turned Kabul into an armed fortress in order to protect President Karzai, who by all accounts is at the head of a corruption ridden government that really doesn't even have that much power. We funnel a ton of money through a guy whose authority doesn't extend far beyond the city limits, which really makes him the best funded ruler of a small city-state as opposed to the democratically elected leader of a geographically large nation. Despite the initial gains made by allied troops and Northern Alliance (hey, remember those guys?) forces back in the early stages of the war, 99% of the country has returned to warlord control. A lot of policy advisers recognize that dethroning those warlords and replacing them with elected officials would not only be extremely difficult, but may in fact be counterproductive. Removing them means a protracted military effort in harsh territory that the enemy has a decided advantage in, and at the end of the day, the warlord himself would either be likely to win such an election, or the person replacing him is likely to be just as corrupt. The British had maharajahs; we're going to have Afghan warlords. We'll pay them off, tell them to play nice with Karzai, probably team up with them to fight AQ, and wag our fingers at them if we don't like how they treat the locals, but if that's the best you can do, you call it a win and walk off the field.
The real problem from an American perspective in winning Afghanistan is political rhetoric. The solution in Afghanistan is going to look a lot more like what we did during the cold war than what we SAY our current goals are. The problem is, Afghanistan in many ways IS ungovernable by western style democracy. Our form of government only works when put into place in a nation that already has some fundamental and complementary societal standards in place. Afghanistan doesn't have those (they have standards, just not complementary ones), not in the same way that Germany did when we installed a "modern" democracy in the 40s. But Americans have been promised, just like in Iraq, Afghanistan is going to be a democracy, we're going to beat that wily Taliban and their Al Qaeda friends (note the lack of depth in that characterization), we're going to spread freedom, cheeseburgers, and gender equality by golly. Now, anything less is going to appear to be a failure because of the conditioning the American public has had to what a victory will look like. Moving the goal posts back in this war isn't a bad idea, because our goals were unrealistic, outlandish, and ignorant in their initial formulation and presentation to the public.
Afghanistan is still a winnable war, so long as we realize what "winning" actually is there, and then commit the forces and the time necessary to do it.
Edit to add: Yeah, and Pakistan. Pulling out of Afghanistan would only lead to further encroachment of radical Muslim militants beyond the Swat Valley and Waziristan into the Pakistani heartland, further destabilizing a fledgling civilian government that is still trying to work out the boundaries between civilian and military control. If the militants get too far beyond the lawless borderlands into more important areas, the military could simply take control of the country in the name of national security, and from a US point of view, that probably wouldn't be the worst thing. Getting Musharraf to attack militants was like pulling teeth, but he never let them take over, and I suspect the military, in a coup, would do the same. But at least that way we're assured that the military, and not radical militants, have control of their nuclear arsenal. Regardless though, I think if we leave, you'll see them spread out, and I think you'll see a fledgling Muslim democracy destroyed in a coup, and possibly a civil war. Imagine how that sort of internal strife will make India and China feel. The region is just too important for world, as well as US stability. This is what I was trying to hint at above, but what the hell, as long as I'm writing a mini-essay on internal Afghan issue, I might as well expound upon the broader regional implications. It's 3:30 am, what else do I have to do?
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: And the only thing overwhelming about your correction is the plethora of words you employ to say nothing of substance.
posted
Very good points, Lyrhawn--especially about the implications for Pakistan (which has nuclear weapons) if we cut and run in Afghanistan. But what if Obama ignores all these good and valid points and does cut and run anyway? Do you see how utterly bad that would be? A president that irresponsible could not be allowed to continue in office. His own party would turn against him.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"...but the road in the last couple years has become a major target for insurgents, who've blown so many holes in the road that travel time is more like eight hours now..."
Every time I meet a member of an organized religion who is nice and reasonable, somebody comes along and does something like this, and completely destroys religion's credibility for the millionth time. The Abrahamic religions are utterly and irrevocably tainted by pointless violence from WAY before 9/11 (see my recent thread on violence in the Holy Land), but the rest of the world's religions are still riddled with factual inaccuracies. Blowing up roads, flying planes into buildings...the only God that supports and encourages THAT type of behavior is a God who is off his meds. LOL
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Sam, I said that impeachment would happen if Obama did not send in another 40,000 troops. If he does do this, then I will be quite surprised. But if he does not, then the only other alternative would be to cut and run, and that would indeed be viewed by very many Americans, both Democrats and Republicans, as out and out treason.
Really, Ron, this is just sad. I'm sorry that you have to go through life this way- I think sometimes I'm unfair to you because I see now that you don't understand how ridiculous you sound most of the time.
Here, I have a suggestion. Next time something big happens in national politics, go ahead and just write down a list of predictions similar to the ones you list here all the time. Keep it to yourself. Now, when the event has run its course and the time span of your predictions has passed, look at the list and assess your average. Pay attention to why the things you predicted did not happen, or whenever a prediction does come true, examine the nature of the prediction, how specific it is, or general, and the likelyhood it had at the beginning of coming true.
This will save you the embarrassment of posting all your predictions on Hatrack, or Ornery, or wherever, and then having them not come true, and then suffering the added humiliation of trying to salvage your dignity by somehow justifying your predictions as valid, despite the fact that they have not come to pass. If you do not do this, I will be glad to start a new thread. In it I will collect and keep track of your predictions, so that we can all marvel at your predictive powers. What do you say? I'm looking forward to this project.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, I am sorry, but I am not going to Afghanistan unless you really convince me that it is vital I be on the ground. (Excellent posts as usual.)
steven, Muslims hardly have a corner on believing ridiculous things about God.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"steven, Muslims hardly have a corner on believing ridiculous things about God."
What I learned in history class was that in the Middle Ages it was actually the Christians who were the backwards fundamentalists.
An example--When the Christians took over a bit of disputed land for a while their motto was "convert or die" toward the Jews and Muslims who happened to be living there. When the Muslims took over a specific piece of land, they simply required the Jews and Christians living there to pay an extra tax.
I'm trying to figure out whose credibility is more effectively undermined by comparing today's Muslim extremism with that historical fact. What do you think, kate? Can you support your conclusion?
I really don't see how I can be expected to take either religion seriously, given these historical flip-flops. Both are prone to extremism. Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Very good points, Lyrhawn--especially about the implications for Pakistan (which has nuclear weapons) if we cut and run in Afghanistan. But what if Obama ignores all these good and valid points and does cut and run anyway? Do you see how utterly bad that would be? A president that irresponsible could not be allowed to continue in office. His own party would turn against him.
What evidence do you have that makes you believe he'll do so, after spending enormous political capital promising to do the exact opposite?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Ron, can you name any times you've made predictions and they've come true? I could be mistaken, but frankly I doubt you can name even one time, let alone enough times to give you prestige or credibility when it comes to making predictions.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
He claims to have predicted the fall of a coin 22 times in a row. As a point of minor interest, the odds against this are not exactly astronomical, being in the region of one in ten million.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Really, Ron, this is just sad. I'm sorry that you have to go through life this way- I think sometimes I'm unfair to you because I see now that you don't understand how ridiculous you sound most of the time. 
