Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
gandalf
ParticipantHey schizo, LMAO!
Enjoy the next 8 years…
BTW, that was ME posting the ‘Obama is Conservative’ thread, and we’ve managed to have a good discussion about actual foreign policy issues, mostly non-partisan.
For the record, I’m neither Democrat or Republican. In the 90’s, I used to vote ‘R’. Right now, I do think Obama is a better candidate for our country right now. So do many current and former Republicans.
You?
You’re a creepshow partisan DOUCHEBAG and your type has been wrecking our country for about a decade now. Enjoy the next 8 years, bro’. Sucks being you.
ParticipantHey schizo, LMAO!
Enjoy the next 8 years…
BTW, that was ME posting the ‘Obama is Conservative’ thread, and we’ve managed to have a good discussion about actual foreign policy issues, mostly non-partisan.
For the record, I’m neither Democrat or Republican. In the 90’s, I used to vote ‘R’. Right now, I do think Obama is a better candidate for our country right now. So do many current and former Republicans.
You?
You’re a creepshow partisan DOUCHEBAG and your type has been wrecking our country for about a decade now. Enjoy the next 8 years, bro’. Sucks being you.
ParticipantHey schizo, LMAO!
Enjoy the next 8 years…
BTW, that was ME posting the ‘Obama is Conservative’ thread, and we’ve managed to have a good discussion about actual foreign policy issues, mostly non-partisan.
For the record, I’m neither Democrat or Republican. In the 90’s, I used to vote ‘R’. Right now, I do think Obama is a better candidate for our country right now. So do many current and former Republicans.
You?
You’re a creepshow partisan DOUCHEBAG and your type has been wrecking our country for about a decade now. Enjoy the next 8 years, bro’. Sucks being you.
ParticipantHey schizo, LMAO!
Enjoy the next 8 years…
BTW, that was ME posting the ‘Obama is Conservative’ thread, and we’ve managed to have a good discussion about actual foreign policy issues, mostly non-partisan.
For the record, I’m neither Democrat or Republican. In the 90’s, I used to vote ‘R’. Right now, I do think Obama is a better candidate for our country right now. So do many current and former Republicans.
You?
You’re a creepshow partisan DOUCHEBAG and your type has been wrecking our country for about a decade now. Enjoy the next 8 years, bro’. Sucks being you.
ParticipantFYI, I think the weakness in our strategic position is chiefly economic, depletion of wealth and imbalance of accounts (staggering flow of capital out of the country over the past 20 years), and very specifically, our energy infrastructure.
I think economic aspects were ALWAYS part of Bin Laden’s game plan, if not the central strategy. Bankrupt us. Is is fair to say the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan was in part due to the staggering costs of the war?
Seems like we tend to credit America as being a bit more responsible for winning the Cold War than we actually were. Glasnost and Perestroika were as much about the failure of Soviet systems internally as they were about us. Sure we helped. We held the line and applied tremendous pressure. But the Soviets were primarily responsible for their own demise.
Could similar breakdowns occur to American institutions and systems of governance, politics, economy, society? It’s quite possible that we’re witnessing some of this occurring before our very eyes. Pax Cathay. What a scary thought.
Overall, I’m optimistic. I think we can turn things around (get past Iraq and the mortgage crisis, for example). But I think we have to start addressing our collective future in earnest, in a non-partisan way, and it starts with re-inventing and re-tooling our energy infrastructure. That’s the challenge of our time.
In the interim, I think we have to be ‘realistic’ about national security and what we can achieve with our foreign policy. That would be “American Realism” to me — simply being pragmatic about what we can achieve. We have finite (but effective) resources.
War has a time and place. Iraq is not at the top of the list. In my view, Obama, though not a ‘policy wonk’, has correctly prioritized and identified a sound overall direction. I think his comprehension, values and vision are correct. Remains to be seen if he governs effectively.
My take, for what it’s worth.
ParticipantFYI, I think the weakness in our strategic position is chiefly economic, depletion of wealth and imbalance of accounts (staggering flow of capital out of the country over the past 20 years), and very specifically, our energy infrastructure.
I think economic aspects were ALWAYS part of Bin Laden’s game plan, if not the central strategy. Bankrupt us. Is is fair to say the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan was in part due to the staggering costs of the war?
Seems like we tend to credit America as being a bit more responsible for winning the Cold War than we actually were. Glasnost and Perestroika were as much about the failure of Soviet systems internally as they were about us. Sure we helped. We held the line and applied tremendous pressure. But the Soviets were primarily responsible for their own demise.
Could similar breakdowns occur to American institutions and systems of governance, politics, economy, society? It’s quite possible that we’re witnessing some of this occurring before our very eyes. Pax Cathay. What a scary thought.
Overall, I’m optimistic. I think we can turn things around (get past Iraq and the mortgage crisis, for example). But I think we have to start addressing our collective future in earnest, in a non-partisan way, and it starts with re-inventing and re-tooling our energy infrastructure. That’s the challenge of our time.
In the interim, I think we have to be ‘realistic’ about national security and what we can achieve with our foreign policy. That would be “American Realism” to me — simply being pragmatic about what we can achieve. We have finite (but effective) resources.
War has a time and place. Iraq is not at the top of the list. In my view, Obama, though not a ‘policy wonk’, has correctly prioritized and identified a sound overall direction. I think his comprehension, values and vision are correct. Remains to be seen if he governs effectively.
My take, for what it’s worth.
ParticipantFYI, I think the weakness in our strategic position is chiefly economic, depletion of wealth and imbalance of accounts (staggering flow of capital out of the country over the past 20 years), and very specifically, our energy infrastructure.
I think economic aspects were ALWAYS part of Bin Laden’s game plan, if not the central strategy. Bankrupt us. Is is fair to say the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan was in part due to the staggering costs of the war?
Seems like we tend to credit America as being a bit more responsible for winning the Cold War than we actually were. Glasnost and Perestroika were as much about the failure of Soviet systems internally as they were about us. Sure we helped. We held the line and applied tremendous pressure. But the Soviets were primarily responsible for their own demise.
Could similar breakdowns occur to American institutions and systems of governance, politics, economy, society? It’s quite possible that we’re witnessing some of this occurring before our very eyes. Pax Cathay. What a scary thought.
Overall, I’m optimistic. I think we can turn things around (get past Iraq and the mortgage crisis, for example). But I think we have to start addressing our collective future in earnest, in a non-partisan way, and it starts with re-inventing and re-tooling our energy infrastructure. That’s the challenge of our time.
In the interim, I think we have to be ‘realistic’ about national security and what we can achieve with our foreign policy. That would be “American Realism” to me — simply being pragmatic about what we can achieve. We have finite (but effective) resources.
War has a time and place. Iraq is not at the top of the list. In my view, Obama, though not a ‘policy wonk’, has correctly prioritized and identified a sound overall direction. I think his comprehension, values and vision are correct. Remains to be seen if he governs effectively.
My take, for what it’s worth.
ParticipantFYI, I think the weakness in our strategic position is chiefly economic, depletion of wealth and imbalance of accounts (staggering flow of capital out of the country over the past 20 years), and very specifically, our energy infrastructure.
I think economic aspects were ALWAYS part of Bin Laden’s game plan, if not the central strategy. Bankrupt us. Is is fair to say the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan was in part due to the staggering costs of the war?
Seems like we tend to credit America as being a bit more responsible for winning the Cold War than we actually were. Glasnost and Perestroika were as much about the failure of Soviet systems internally as they were about us. Sure we helped. We held the line and applied tremendous pressure. But the Soviets were primarily responsible for their own demise.
Could similar breakdowns occur to American institutions and systems of governance, politics, economy, society? It’s quite possible that we’re witnessing some of this occurring before our very eyes. Pax Cathay. What a scary thought.
Overall, I’m optimistic. I think we can turn things around (get past Iraq and the mortgage crisis, for example). But I think we have to start addressing our collective future in earnest, in a non-partisan way, and it starts with re-inventing and re-tooling our energy infrastructure. That’s the challenge of our time.
In the interim, I think we have to be ‘realistic’ about national security and what we can achieve with our foreign policy. That would be “American Realism” to me — simply being pragmatic about what we can achieve. We have finite (but effective) resources.
War has a time and place. Iraq is not at the top of the list. In my view, Obama, though not a ‘policy wonk’, has correctly prioritized and identified a sound overall direction. I think his comprehension, values and vision are correct. Remains to be seen if he governs effectively.
My take, for what it’s worth.
ParticipantFYI, I think the weakness in our strategic position is chiefly economic, depletion of wealth and imbalance of accounts (staggering flow of capital out of the country over the past 20 years), and very specifically, our energy infrastructure.
I think economic aspects were ALWAYS part of Bin Laden’s game plan, if not the central strategy. Bankrupt us. Is is fair to say the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan was in part due to the staggering costs of the war?
Seems like we tend to credit America as being a bit more responsible for winning the Cold War than we actually were. Glasnost and Perestroika were as much about the failure of Soviet systems internally as they were about us. Sure we helped. We held the line and applied tremendous pressure. But the Soviets were primarily responsible for their own demise.
Could similar breakdowns occur to American institutions and systems of governance, politics, economy, society? It’s quite possible that we’re witnessing some of this occurring before our very eyes. Pax Cathay. What a scary thought.
Overall, I’m optimistic. I think we can turn things around (get past Iraq and the mortgage crisis, for example). But I think we have to start addressing our collective future in earnest, in a non-partisan way, and it starts with re-inventing and re-tooling our energy infrastructure. That’s the challenge of our time.
In the interim, I think we have to be ‘realistic’ about national security and what we can achieve with our foreign policy. That would be “American Realism” to me — simply being pragmatic about what we can achieve. We have finite (but effective) resources.
War has a time and place. Iraq is not at the top of the list. In my view, Obama, though not a ‘policy wonk’, has correctly prioritized and identified a sound overall direction. I think his comprehension, values and vision are correct. Remains to be seen if he governs effectively.
My take, for what it’s worth.
ParticipantThat’s interesting, AFF. Thought-provoking. And I think I see the connection you’re drawing to Iraq.
BTW, do you think “The Surge” seems to be following same path as the events you describe in Vietnam? I don’t have a military background but I find it hard to imagine that ‘adding 30,000 troops’ has made THE DIFFERENCE. We’ve got what? 150K troops in uniform plus how many more thousands of contractors? I imagine it’s upwards of 50K off-books (GWB’s preferred approach to accounting).
My take, the perceived improvements in conditions, as reported in the American MSM, are part statistical tom-foolery, plus real improvements due to better understanding of conditions on the ground, better counter-insurgency strategy and tactics, better leadership from Petraus, elimination of dreadful mistakes such as Abu Ghraib, mistakes by AQ that have turned local population against AQ, especially in Sunni areas, and partly peaceful ethnic cleansing and management of civil strife via security walls, mangaging transit, checkpoints, etc.
I’d suggest that the overall narrative of the surge seems to be following the same path as Vietnam events, distorted for politics back home. McCain especially seem intent on using it to weaken Obama. I disapprove of playing this kind of politics with issues of war and peace. Falsehoods seem to come back to haunt us, with absurd impacts on outcomes in the long-term. This seems to be one of the lessons from Vietnam, as you describe above.
Have to work today, but I’ll check in later. Appreciate the questions.
ParticipantThat’s interesting, AFF. Thought-provoking. And I think I see the connection you’re drawing to Iraq.
BTW, do you think “The Surge” seems to be following same path as the events you describe in Vietnam? I don’t have a military background but I find it hard to imagine that ‘adding 30,000 troops’ has made THE DIFFERENCE. We’ve got what? 150K troops in uniform plus how many more thousands of contractors? I imagine it’s upwards of 50K off-books (GWB’s preferred approach to accounting).
My take, the perceived improvements in conditions, as reported in the American MSM, are part statistical tom-foolery, plus real improvements due to better understanding of conditions on the ground, better counter-insurgency strategy and tactics, better leadership from Petraus, elimination of dreadful mistakes such as Abu Ghraib, mistakes by AQ that have turned local population against AQ, especially in Sunni areas, and partly peaceful ethnic cleansing and management of civil strife via security walls, mangaging transit, checkpoints, etc.
I’d suggest that the overall narrative of the surge seems to be following the same path as Vietnam events, distorted for politics back home. McCain especially seem intent on using it to weaken Obama. I disapprove of playing this kind of politics with issues of war and peace. Falsehoods seem to come back to haunt us, with absurd impacts on outcomes in the long-term. This seems to be one of the lessons from Vietnam, as you describe above.
Have to work today, but I’ll check in later. Appreciate the questions.
ParticipantThat’s interesting, AFF. Thought-provoking. And I think I see the connection you’re drawing to Iraq.
BTW, do you think “The Surge” seems to be following same path as the events you describe in Vietnam? I don’t have a military background but I find it hard to imagine that ‘adding 30,000 troops’ has made THE DIFFERENCE. We’ve got what? 150K troops in uniform plus how many more thousands of contractors? I imagine it’s upwards of 50K off-books (GWB’s preferred approach to accounting).
My take, the perceived improvements in conditions, as reported in the American MSM, are part statistical tom-foolery, plus real improvements due to better understanding of conditions on the ground, better counter-insurgency strategy and tactics, better leadership from Petraus, elimination of dreadful mistakes such as Abu Ghraib, mistakes by AQ that have turned local population against AQ, especially in Sunni areas, and partly peaceful ethnic cleansing and management of civil strife via security walls, mangaging transit, checkpoints, etc.
I’d suggest that the overall narrative of the surge seems to be following the same path as Vietnam events, distorted for politics back home. McCain especially seem intent on using it to weaken Obama. I disapprove of playing this kind of politics with issues of war and peace. Falsehoods seem to come back to haunt us, with absurd impacts on outcomes in the long-term. This seems to be one of the lessons from Vietnam, as you describe above.
Have to work today, but I’ll check in later. Appreciate the questions.
ParticipantThat’s interesting, AFF. Thought-provoking. And I think I see the connection you’re drawing to Iraq.
BTW, do you think “The Surge” seems to be following same path as the events you describe in Vietnam? I don’t have a military background but I find it hard to imagine that ‘adding 30,000 troops’ has made THE DIFFERENCE. We’ve got what? 150K troops in uniform plus how many more thousands of contractors? I imagine it’s upwards of 50K off-books (GWB’s preferred approach to accounting).
My take, the perceived improvements in conditions, as reported in the American MSM, are part statistical tom-foolery, plus real improvements due to better understanding of conditions on the ground, better counter-insurgency strategy and tactics, better leadership from Petraus, elimination of dreadful mistakes such as Abu Ghraib, mistakes by AQ that have turned local population against AQ, especially in Sunni areas, and partly peaceful ethnic cleansing and management of civil strife via security walls, mangaging transit, checkpoints, etc.
I’d suggest that the overall narrative of the surge seems to be following the same path as Vietnam events, distorted for politics back home. McCain especially seem intent on using it to weaken Obama. I disapprove of playing this kind of politics with issues of war and peace. Falsehoods seem to come back to haunt us, with absurd impacts on outcomes in the long-term. This seems to be one of the lessons from Vietnam, as you describe above.
Have to work today, but I’ll check in later. Appreciate the questions.
ParticipantThat’s interesting, AFF. Thought-provoking. And I think I see the connection you’re drawing to Iraq.
BTW, do you think “The Surge” seems to be following same path as the events you describe in Vietnam? I don’t have a military background but I find it hard to imagine that ‘adding 30,000 troops’ has made THE DIFFERENCE. We’ve got what? 150K troops in uniform plus how many more thousands of contractors? I imagine it’s upwards of 50K off-books (GWB’s preferred approach to accounting).
My take, the perceived improvements in conditions, as reported in the American MSM, are part statistical tom-foolery, plus real improvements due to better understanding of conditions on the ground, better counter-insurgency strategy and tactics, better leadership from Petraus, elimination of dreadful mistakes such as Abu Ghraib, mistakes by AQ that have turned local population against AQ, especially in Sunni areas, and partly peaceful ethnic cleansing and management of civil strife via security walls, mangaging transit, checkpoints, etc.
I’d suggest that the overall narrative of the surge seems to be following the same path as Vietnam events, distorted for politics back home. McCain especially seem intent on using it to weaken Obama. I disapprove of playing this kind of politics with issues of war and peace. Falsehoods seem to come back to haunt us, with absurd impacts on outcomes in the long-term. This seems to be one of the lessons from Vietnam, as you describe above.
Have to work today, but I’ll check in later. Appreciate the questions.
-
AuthorPosts
