- This topic has 1,260 replies, 39 voices, and was last updated 15 years ago by
ucodegen.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 13, 2009 at 6:56 PM #469250October 13, 2009 at 7:37 PM #468427
briansd1
Guestucodegen,
Here is the non-voting records of the 110th Congress.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/McCain is the worst at 63.9% missed votes.
When candidates campaign, they miss votes. That’s understandable.
Obama had a more difficult campaign. Yet, he made time to vote more than McCain. McCain is the only senator who missed more than 1/2 the votes.
I still hear conservatives conflating the “present” votes in the Illinois legislature to the missed votes in the Senate. It shows you how well the talk jocks are at “educating” their audiences. And it shows you how well those conservatives understand our government.
I hear that in polite company so I don’t bother correcting the guests. But when I hear that, I know immediately where those people get their news.
October 13, 2009 at 7:37 PM #468610Guestucodegen,
Here is the non-voting records of the 110th Congress.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/McCain is the worst at 63.9% missed votes.
When candidates campaign, they miss votes. That’s understandable.
Obama had a more difficult campaign. Yet, he made time to vote more than McCain. McCain is the only senator who missed more than 1/2 the votes.
I still hear conservatives conflating the “present” votes in the Illinois legislature to the missed votes in the Senate. It shows you how well the talk jocks are at “educating” their audiences. And it shows you how well those conservatives understand our government.
I hear that in polite company so I don’t bother correcting the guests. But when I hear that, I know immediately where those people get their news.
October 13, 2009 at 7:37 PM #468971Guestucodegen,
Here is the non-voting records of the 110th Congress.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/McCain is the worst at 63.9% missed votes.
When candidates campaign, they miss votes. That’s understandable.
Obama had a more difficult campaign. Yet, he made time to vote more than McCain. McCain is the only senator who missed more than 1/2 the votes.
I still hear conservatives conflating the “present” votes in the Illinois legislature to the missed votes in the Senate. It shows you how well the talk jocks are at “educating” their audiences. And it shows you how well those conservatives understand our government.
I hear that in polite company so I don’t bother correcting the guests. But when I hear that, I know immediately where those people get their news.
October 13, 2009 at 7:37 PM #469042Guestucodegen,
Here is the non-voting records of the 110th Congress.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/McCain is the worst at 63.9% missed votes.
When candidates campaign, they miss votes. That’s understandable.
Obama had a more difficult campaign. Yet, he made time to vote more than McCain. McCain is the only senator who missed more than 1/2 the votes.
I still hear conservatives conflating the “present” votes in the Illinois legislature to the missed votes in the Senate. It shows you how well the talk jocks are at “educating” their audiences. And it shows you how well those conservatives understand our government.
I hear that in polite company so I don’t bother correcting the guests. But when I hear that, I know immediately where those people get their news.
October 13, 2009 at 7:37 PM #469255Guestucodegen,
Here is the non-voting records of the 110th Congress.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/McCain is the worst at 63.9% missed votes.
When candidates campaign, they miss votes. That’s understandable.
Obama had a more difficult campaign. Yet, he made time to vote more than McCain. McCain is the only senator who missed more than 1/2 the votes.
I still hear conservatives conflating the “present” votes in the Illinois legislature to the missed votes in the Senate. It shows you how well the talk jocks are at “educating” their audiences. And it shows you how well those conservatives understand our government.
I hear that in polite company so I don’t bother correcting the guests. But when I hear that, I know immediately where those people get their news.
October 13, 2009 at 9:57 PM #468467Arraya
Participant[quote=surveyor][quote=Arraya][quote=surveyor][quote=Arraya]If we “won” Vietnam, would anything be different? What would we have won, bragging rights?[/quote]
Bin Ladin said specifically that when he studied American history, that he concluded that America was a paper tiger, that if you bloody its nose, it would run away.
He got that lesson from Vietnam.[/quote]
Do you have a link for that quote because it sounds like a right-wing myth. Here is the only OBL vietnam quote I could find.
[/quote]So just because it contradicts your world view you think it’s a right-wing myth?
Sorry that the facts get in the way. Even from your quote it was obvious that bin Ladin studied history. He may have a sick view of it, but he did study it.
From an interview in 1998:
http://www.meforum.org/435/usama-bin-ladin-american-soldiers-are-paper-tigers
“Bin Ladin: After God honored us with victory in Afghanistan, and justice prevailed against those who slaughtered millions of Muslims in the Muslim republics, Muslim minds no longer believed in the myth of superpowers. The youth no longer saw America as a superpower.After leaving Afghanistan they headed for Somalia and prepared for a long battle, thinking that the Americans were like the Russians. They were surprised when the Americans entered with 300,000 troops, and collected other troops from around the world-5,000 from Pakistan, 5,000 from India, 5,000 from Bangladesh, 5,000 from Egypt, Senegal, and others like Saudi Arabia. The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the America soldiers are paper tigers. After a few blows, the Americans ran away in defeat.
After a few blows, they forgot about being the world leader and the leader of the new world order. They left, dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat, and stopped using such titles. They learned in America that this name [i.e., God] is larger than them.
When this great defeat took place I was in Sudan, and it pleased me very much, just as it pleases all Muslims. God willing, the next victory will be in Hijaz and Najd, [provinces of] Saudi Arabia, and it will cause Americans to forget the horrors of Vietnam and Beirut.”
So realize whatever you feel about how the war started and who started it, there will be huge repercussions based on how it is resolved. If the U.S. leaves Afghanistan and Iraq in shame, then the muslim world will have won a tremendous victory against the great satan. This will result in a huge rallying cry that will increase alQaeda’s popularity and recruitment drive. It will increase attacks against the U.S. and all its allies, esp. Israel.[/quote]
Haha…. No it sounded SOOO stupid. At least in the respect that we would let it drive our foreign policy. But alas we were baited into an un-winnable war because the child president and his band of merry henchmen didn’t want to get called pussies. Boy did we show them.
There will be cheering in the streets of Islamabad when we leave because we can’t fund the war anymore. The right will howl in righteous indignation and the 2012 campaign slogan for the GOP will be “blame the black guy”.
We’re fucking nuts.
October 13, 2009 at 9:57 PM #468650Participant[quote=surveyor][quote=Arraya][quote=surveyor][quote=Arraya]If we “won” Vietnam, would anything be different? What would we have won, bragging rights?[/quote]
Bin Ladin said specifically that when he studied American history, that he concluded that America was a paper tiger, that if you bloody its nose, it would run away.
He got that lesson from Vietnam.[/quote]
Do you have a link for that quote because it sounds like a right-wing myth. Here is the only OBL vietnam quote I could find.
[/quote]So just because it contradicts your world view you think it’s a right-wing myth?
Sorry that the facts get in the way. Even from your quote it was obvious that bin Ladin studied history. He may have a sick view of it, but he did study it.
From an interview in 1998:
http://www.meforum.org/435/usama-bin-ladin-american-soldiers-are-paper-tigers
“Bin Ladin: After God honored us with victory in Afghanistan, and justice prevailed against those who slaughtered millions of Muslims in the Muslim republics, Muslim minds no longer believed in the myth of superpowers. The youth no longer saw America as a superpower.After leaving Afghanistan they headed for Somalia and prepared for a long battle, thinking that the Americans were like the Russians. They were surprised when the Americans entered with 300,000 troops, and collected other troops from around the world-5,000 from Pakistan, 5,000 from India, 5,000 from Bangladesh, 5,000 from Egypt, Senegal, and others like Saudi Arabia. The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the America soldiers are paper tigers. After a few blows, the Americans ran away in defeat.
After a few blows, they forgot about being the world leader and the leader of the new world order. They left, dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat, and stopped using such titles. They learned in America that this name [i.e., God] is larger than them.
When this great defeat took place I was in Sudan, and it pleased me very much, just as it pleases all Muslims. God willing, the next victory will be in Hijaz and Najd, [provinces of] Saudi Arabia, and it will cause Americans to forget the horrors of Vietnam and Beirut.”
So realize whatever you feel about how the war started and who started it, there will be huge repercussions based on how it is resolved. If the U.S. leaves Afghanistan and Iraq in shame, then the muslim world will have won a tremendous victory against the great satan. This will result in a huge rallying cry that will increase alQaeda’s popularity and recruitment drive. It will increase attacks against the U.S. and all its allies, esp. Israel.[/quote]
Haha…. No it sounded SOOO stupid. At least in the respect that we would let it drive our foreign policy. But alas we were baited into an un-winnable war because the child president and his band of merry henchmen didn’t want to get called pussies. Boy did we show them.
There will be cheering in the streets of Islamabad when we leave because we can’t fund the war anymore. The right will howl in righteous indignation and the 2012 campaign slogan for the GOP will be “blame the black guy”.
We’re fucking nuts.
October 13, 2009 at 9:57 PM #469011Participant[quote=surveyor][quote=Arraya][quote=surveyor][quote=Arraya]If we “won” Vietnam, would anything be different? What would we have won, bragging rights?[/quote]
Bin Ladin said specifically that when he studied American history, that he concluded that America was a paper tiger, that if you bloody its nose, it would run away.
He got that lesson from Vietnam.[/quote]
Do you have a link for that quote because it sounds like a right-wing myth. Here is the only OBL vietnam quote I could find.
[/quote]So just because it contradicts your world view you think it’s a right-wing myth?
Sorry that the facts get in the way. Even from your quote it was obvious that bin Ladin studied history. He may have a sick view of it, but he did study it.
From an interview in 1998:
http://www.meforum.org/435/usama-bin-ladin-american-soldiers-are-paper-tigers
“Bin Ladin: After God honored us with victory in Afghanistan, and justice prevailed against those who slaughtered millions of Muslims in the Muslim republics, Muslim minds no longer believed in the myth of superpowers. The youth no longer saw America as a superpower.After leaving Afghanistan they headed for Somalia and prepared for a long battle, thinking that the Americans were like the Russians. They were surprised when the Americans entered with 300,000 troops, and collected other troops from around the world-5,000 from Pakistan, 5,000 from India, 5,000 from Bangladesh, 5,000 from Egypt, Senegal, and others like Saudi Arabia. The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the America soldiers are paper tigers. After a few blows, the Americans ran away in defeat.
After a few blows, they forgot about being the world leader and the leader of the new world order. They left, dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat, and stopped using such titles. They learned in America that this name [i.e., God] is larger than them.
When this great defeat took place I was in Sudan, and it pleased me very much, just as it pleases all Muslims. God willing, the next victory will be in Hijaz and Najd, [provinces of] Saudi Arabia, and it will cause Americans to forget the horrors of Vietnam and Beirut.”
So realize whatever you feel about how the war started and who started it, there will be huge repercussions based on how it is resolved. If the U.S. leaves Afghanistan and Iraq in shame, then the muslim world will have won a tremendous victory against the great satan. This will result in a huge rallying cry that will increase alQaeda’s popularity and recruitment drive. It will increase attacks against the U.S. and all its allies, esp. Israel.[/quote]
Haha…. No it sounded SOOO stupid. At least in the respect that we would let it drive our foreign policy. But alas we were baited into an un-winnable war because the child president and his band of merry henchmen didn’t want to get called pussies. Boy did we show them.
There will be cheering in the streets of Islamabad when we leave because we can’t fund the war anymore. The right will howl in righteous indignation and the 2012 campaign slogan for the GOP will be “blame the black guy”.
We’re fucking nuts.
October 13, 2009 at 9:57 PM #469082Participant[quote=surveyor][quote=Arraya][quote=surveyor][quote=Arraya]If we “won” Vietnam, would anything be different? What would we have won, bragging rights?[/quote]
Bin Ladin said specifically that when he studied American history, that he concluded that America was a paper tiger, that if you bloody its nose, it would run away.
He got that lesson from Vietnam.[/quote]
Do you have a link for that quote because it sounds like a right-wing myth. Here is the only OBL vietnam quote I could find.
[/quote]So just because it contradicts your world view you think it’s a right-wing myth?
Sorry that the facts get in the way. Even from your quote it was obvious that bin Ladin studied history. He may have a sick view of it, but he did study it.
From an interview in 1998:
http://www.meforum.org/435/usama-bin-ladin-american-soldiers-are-paper-tigers
“Bin Ladin: After God honored us with victory in Afghanistan, and justice prevailed against those who slaughtered millions of Muslims in the Muslim republics, Muslim minds no longer believed in the myth of superpowers. The youth no longer saw America as a superpower.After leaving Afghanistan they headed for Somalia and prepared for a long battle, thinking that the Americans were like the Russians. They were surprised when the Americans entered with 300,000 troops, and collected other troops from around the world-5,000 from Pakistan, 5,000 from India, 5,000 from Bangladesh, 5,000 from Egypt, Senegal, and others like Saudi Arabia. The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the America soldiers are paper tigers. After a few blows, the Americans ran away in defeat.
After a few blows, they forgot about being the world leader and the leader of the new world order. They left, dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat, and stopped using such titles. They learned in America that this name [i.e., God] is larger than them.
When this great defeat took place I was in Sudan, and it pleased me very much, just as it pleases all Muslims. God willing, the next victory will be in Hijaz and Najd, [provinces of] Saudi Arabia, and it will cause Americans to forget the horrors of Vietnam and Beirut.”
So realize whatever you feel about how the war started and who started it, there will be huge repercussions based on how it is resolved. If the U.S. leaves Afghanistan and Iraq in shame, then the muslim world will have won a tremendous victory against the great satan. This will result in a huge rallying cry that will increase alQaeda’s popularity and recruitment drive. It will increase attacks against the U.S. and all its allies, esp. Israel.[/quote]
Haha…. No it sounded SOOO stupid. At least in the respect that we would let it drive our foreign policy. But alas we were baited into an un-winnable war because the child president and his band of merry henchmen didn’t want to get called pussies. Boy did we show them.
There will be cheering in the streets of Islamabad when we leave because we can’t fund the war anymore. The right will howl in righteous indignation and the 2012 campaign slogan for the GOP will be “blame the black guy”.
We’re fucking nuts.
October 13, 2009 at 9:57 PM #469295Participant[quote=surveyor][quote=Arraya][quote=surveyor][quote=Arraya]If we “won” Vietnam, would anything be different? What would we have won, bragging rights?[/quote]
Bin Ladin said specifically that when he studied American history, that he concluded that America was a paper tiger, that if you bloody its nose, it would run away.
He got that lesson from Vietnam.[/quote]
Do you have a link for that quote because it sounds like a right-wing myth. Here is the only OBL vietnam quote I could find.
[/quote]So just because it contradicts your world view you think it’s a right-wing myth?
Sorry that the facts get in the way. Even from your quote it was obvious that bin Ladin studied history. He may have a sick view of it, but he did study it.
From an interview in 1998:
http://www.meforum.org/435/usama-bin-ladin-american-soldiers-are-paper-tigers
“Bin Ladin: After God honored us with victory in Afghanistan, and justice prevailed against those who slaughtered millions of Muslims in the Muslim republics, Muslim minds no longer believed in the myth of superpowers. The youth no longer saw America as a superpower.After leaving Afghanistan they headed for Somalia and prepared for a long battle, thinking that the Americans were like the Russians. They were surprised when the Americans entered with 300,000 troops, and collected other troops from around the world-5,000 from Pakistan, 5,000 from India, 5,000 from Bangladesh, 5,000 from Egypt, Senegal, and others like Saudi Arabia. The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the America soldiers are paper tigers. After a few blows, the Americans ran away in defeat.
After a few blows, they forgot about being the world leader and the leader of the new world order. They left, dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat, and stopped using such titles. They learned in America that this name [i.e., God] is larger than them.
When this great defeat took place I was in Sudan, and it pleased me very much, just as it pleases all Muslims. God willing, the next victory will be in Hijaz and Najd, [provinces of] Saudi Arabia, and it will cause Americans to forget the horrors of Vietnam and Beirut.”
So realize whatever you feel about how the war started and who started it, there will be huge repercussions based on how it is resolved. If the U.S. leaves Afghanistan and Iraq in shame, then the muslim world will have won a tremendous victory against the great satan. This will result in a huge rallying cry that will increase alQaeda’s popularity and recruitment drive. It will increase attacks against the U.S. and all its allies, esp. Israel.[/quote]
Haha…. No it sounded SOOO stupid. At least in the respect that we would let it drive our foreign policy. But alas we were baited into an un-winnable war because the child president and his band of merry henchmen didn’t want to get called pussies. Boy did we show them.
There will be cheering in the streets of Islamabad when we leave because we can’t fund the war anymore. The right will howl in righteous indignation and the 2012 campaign slogan for the GOP will be “blame the black guy”.
We’re fucking nuts.
October 13, 2009 at 9:59 PM #468472ParticipantBack in April, I provided some testimony on the future of warfare to the House Armed Services committee. One of the questions I got from a Congressman was: what should our strategy be in Afghanistan? I responded with something that made everyone, particularly the Congressmen in the room, uncomfortable. Essentially, what I proposed was this:
Aghanistan is a hollow state — it has international recognition (and the trappings of a nation-state including five star hotels in the capital for journalists and diplomats), but it retains little control over the countryside. Further, the state lacks legitimacy. All legitimacy is local/tribal/gang. So, let’s skip to the end game in Afghanistan and run this war through “nominally loyalist” tribal militias (loyal to US money and support rather than to the Afghan government). Let’s not waste time on building up the Afghan military, trying to make the Afghan government legitimate, or on reconstruction efforts.
This wasn’t a strategy for “victory” (in the sense of the maximal goals required: a legitimate democracy that is integrated into the global economy), it was a strategy of “good enough” (a defensive delay). The strategy above allows the US to maintain a level of controlled chaos in Afghanistan, enough to allow an exit. It doesn’t waste the lives of US soldiers and our increasingly scarce financial resources on a maximal effort that can’t be won. It’s also a strategy that comes straight out of Brave New War (the strategy, re: Sons of Iraq, that was eventually used in Iraq to create controlled chaos sufficient for an exit, is too).
October 13, 2009 at 9:59 PM #468655ParticipantBack in April, I provided some testimony on the future of warfare to the House Armed Services committee. One of the questions I got from a Congressman was: what should our strategy be in Afghanistan? I responded with something that made everyone, particularly the Congressmen in the room, uncomfortable. Essentially, what I proposed was this:
Aghanistan is a hollow state — it has international recognition (and the trappings of a nation-state including five star hotels in the capital for journalists and diplomats), but it retains little control over the countryside. Further, the state lacks legitimacy. All legitimacy is local/tribal/gang. So, let’s skip to the end game in Afghanistan and run this war through “nominally loyalist” tribal militias (loyal to US money and support rather than to the Afghan government). Let’s not waste time on building up the Afghan military, trying to make the Afghan government legitimate, or on reconstruction efforts.
This wasn’t a strategy for “victory” (in the sense of the maximal goals required: a legitimate democracy that is integrated into the global economy), it was a strategy of “good enough” (a defensive delay). The strategy above allows the US to maintain a level of controlled chaos in Afghanistan, enough to allow an exit. It doesn’t waste the lives of US soldiers and our increasingly scarce financial resources on a maximal effort that can’t be won. It’s also a strategy that comes straight out of Brave New War (the strategy, re: Sons of Iraq, that was eventually used in Iraq to create controlled chaos sufficient for an exit, is too).
October 13, 2009 at 9:59 PM #469016ParticipantBack in April, I provided some testimony on the future of warfare to the House Armed Services committee. One of the questions I got from a Congressman was: what should our strategy be in Afghanistan? I responded with something that made everyone, particularly the Congressmen in the room, uncomfortable. Essentially, what I proposed was this:
Aghanistan is a hollow state — it has international recognition (and the trappings of a nation-state including five star hotels in the capital for journalists and diplomats), but it retains little control over the countryside. Further, the state lacks legitimacy. All legitimacy is local/tribal/gang. So, let’s skip to the end game in Afghanistan and run this war through “nominally loyalist” tribal militias (loyal to US money and support rather than to the Afghan government). Let’s not waste time on building up the Afghan military, trying to make the Afghan government legitimate, or on reconstruction efforts.
This wasn’t a strategy for “victory” (in the sense of the maximal goals required: a legitimate democracy that is integrated into the global economy), it was a strategy of “good enough” (a defensive delay). The strategy above allows the US to maintain a level of controlled chaos in Afghanistan, enough to allow an exit. It doesn’t waste the lives of US soldiers and our increasingly scarce financial resources on a maximal effort that can’t be won. It’s also a strategy that comes straight out of Brave New War (the strategy, re: Sons of Iraq, that was eventually used in Iraq to create controlled chaos sufficient for an exit, is too).
October 13, 2009 at 9:59 PM #469087ParticipantBack in April, I provided some testimony on the future of warfare to the House Armed Services committee. One of the questions I got from a Congressman was: what should our strategy be in Afghanistan? I responded with something that made everyone, particularly the Congressmen in the room, uncomfortable. Essentially, what I proposed was this:
Aghanistan is a hollow state — it has international recognition (and the trappings of a nation-state including five star hotels in the capital for journalists and diplomats), but it retains little control over the countryside. Further, the state lacks legitimacy. All legitimacy is local/tribal/gang. So, let’s skip to the end game in Afghanistan and run this war through “nominally loyalist” tribal militias (loyal to US money and support rather than to the Afghan government). Let’s not waste time on building up the Afghan military, trying to make the Afghan government legitimate, or on reconstruction efforts.
This wasn’t a strategy for “victory” (in the sense of the maximal goals required: a legitimate democracy that is integrated into the global economy), it was a strategy of “good enough” (a defensive delay). The strategy above allows the US to maintain a level of controlled chaos in Afghanistan, enough to allow an exit. It doesn’t waste the lives of US soldiers and our increasingly scarce financial resources on a maximal effort that can’t be won. It’s also a strategy that comes straight out of Brave New War (the strategy, re: Sons of Iraq, that was eventually used in Iraq to create controlled chaos sufficient for an exit, is too).
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.