Uprising in Egypt Splitting the Conservatives in the US

[Dr.Drock]

Speak for yourself.

I didn't say all, just overwhelming majority. The "anti-war" crowd was nowhere to be found when the warmongering in Afghanistan skyrocketed and the villagers were driving truckloads of civilian bodies to the us posts.

I'd say they got drowned out and marginalized by the mainstream media once the circus came to town, crying about birth certificates, stimulus money, health care reform, Obama addressing school children, Poor Sarah whining about this or that . . .

There's probably some truth to that, media has to continue the stereotypes of "Republicans want war, Democrats don't" b-s but you'd still think I'd at least hear a rumbling or 2 at some point.

Tea partiers are mostly republicans who will vote republican in 2012 and thereafter, the supposed antiwar crowd are mostly democrats who will vote democrat no matter how much warmongering they do. Neither group is anything revolutionary or important.

 

[PoliticalChic]

American cannot allow there to be a holocaust in Israel.

Why is this our burden?

PoliticalChic declined to address this post. Hmmm.....

For the same reasons we stepped into Bosnia.


Martin Niemoller - “In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me—and by that time no one was left to speak up.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider it addressed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Doesn't have to be that way.

Wouldn't it be nice to be able to watch the Egyptians in a purely voyeuristic sense? Without worrying about how it's going to affect us, through oil?

Right now, the actions of poor, ignorant, societal and socially stunted people are making our gas prices to go up, our food to go up, our everything to go up. And the Egyptians don't even have the oil!!! That's fucked up.

It's time we get serious about solar, hydro, wind, natural gas and anything else that will get us out of the Middle East.

"Doesn't have to be that way."

Yeah, it does.

Although it is clear than many folks, yourself included, enjoy living in that special 'world as we would like it to be," consider the following:

1. Our future is in ‘green energy’? “Presidents all the way back to Richard Nixon -- whose "Project Independence" promised to make America independent from foreign oil by 1980 -- were thwarted by short attention spans, other urgent problems and gyrations in the energy market.” After some 30 years and billions of dollars poured into alternative technologies, renewable energy now accounts for a mere 6.7% of our total.
A Past President's Advice to Obama: Act With Haste - WSJ.com

2. Based on US Department of Energy, sources of energy used in the US:
39.2% petroleum, 23.3% natural gas, 22.4% coal, 8.3% nuclear, 3.6% biomass, 2.4% hydroelectric, 0.35% geothermal, 0.31% wind, 0.08% solar.

3. If green energy is as good, cheap, and clean as supporters say, why haven’t market forces made it an increasing part of the energy picture…? Politics: rather than the promotion of new sources of energy, the movement has been hijacked by those whose main motivation is the devolution of America, or to accomplish government ownership and control of our energy supply. Sometimes called the “Watermelon Effect,” it is made up of the ‘green’ pro-environment policies on the outside, hiding the red Marxist redistributive policies on the inside.
BTW, we imported just over a third of our oil in 1981, and now 70%.

Now, if you have incorporated the factual info contained in the above, you will agree that oil will continue to be the potent determinor of our future for the foreseeable future...so, how does this change your thingking?

Hint: How about drilling in ANWR?

The answer isn't looking for more oil to drill - it will get slurped up as fast, or faster than it can be found. India and China's oil consumption is growing exponentially every year, with millions more cars on the roads of those two countries alone. ANWR is a drop in a bucket, and any oil pumped from there goes straight to the world market - we do not get to keep that for ourselves.

Who's fault is it that we have short attention spans? As Londoner already pointed out, President Carter tried to get us off ME oil and onto a path of energy independence. Reagan ridiculed that idea.

There have been studies showing that a gallon of gas really costs Americans over $15 per gallon when you add in all the costs to get it, protect it's flow, and protect the rulers who sell it to us. The only reason we have a massive military there, and private contractors like Halliburton charging the U.S. government $100 per load of laundry and $45 for Coca Cola, is to protect "our" oil. If we were to stop doing that, and start subsidizing alternative energy to the same degree, we would be off oil as our major energy source in a very short time.

I don't wish to be responsible for a nice fella like you having a breakdown, and understand that our back and forth posts have plumbed the depths of your ability to understand that there is no alternative to oil....so let's leave it at your wishing for a better reality than that which exists.

This is why the best outcome for this nation and the world will be a change in the parties that govern...you know, let the adults back in.
Carry on.

 

[kiwiman127]

Earlier I posted an article by an expert who knows the Middle East, knows terrorism, knows al Qaeda and was an expert enough to be on Dick Cheney's staff. His bio: Chris Harnisch is an al Qaeda analyst focusing primarily on Yemen and Somalia. He has briefed members of the House and the Senate on issues relating to Yemen and Somalia, and he has published articles on the Islamist threat in those countries in numerous publications. Chris served on the staff of Vice President Dick Cheney. He has lived and studied in Yemen and Egypt.

His description of the Muslim Brotherhood was as follows:
"Contrary to popular belief in the West, the Muslim Brotherhood is not a militant Islamist group with close ties to al Qaeda, and its active participation in Egyptian politics would not turn Egypt into a terrorist safe haven. In fact, Ayman al Zawahiri, al Qaeda’s deputy leader, criticized the Brotherhood at length in 2008 for operating within the bounds of the Egyptian constitution and not “recognizing the authority of Shari’a.” Likewise, Al Fajr Media Center, the official network responsible for disseminating messages from al Qaeda factions, released an audio tape in August 2010 called “Manufacturing Terrorism” that stated the following: “The Muslim Brotherhood thinks that democracy is the path to take [for change], while jihad groups believe the path is through jihad.”

The Muslim Brotherhood, in reality, is an Islamist social movement that represents a wide spectrum of political ideology. Many of its younger members advocate for a Western-style democracy and would likely welcome continued cooperation with the United States. Many of the Brotherhood’s “old guard,” however, adhere to a much more rigid interpretation of Islam and would likely shun close relations with the United States"
Read more: Fears of a Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Egypt are overblown The Daily Caller – Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

Now Fox News has done their own portrait of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is as follows.

The Muslim Brotherhood

"The Muslim Brotherhood is the most prominent opposition group in Egypt. Though it seems they were not the ones to organize the wave of protests, they have definitely exploited them to voice their agenda: to form a state governed by Islamic law.

This Sunni movement was founded in 1928, partly in response to the British occupation in Egypt, and became one of the first and most successful movements advocating Islam as a political program. Over the years the group gathered many supporters and established branches throughout the world. (Gaza-ruling Hamas party originated in the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.)

Though there was never proof of the group's involvement in terror acts, its motto is: “Allah is our objective; the Koran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations.”

The movement has been banned in Egypt since 1954 after being accused in the assassination attempt of President Gamal Abdel Nasser (a charge the Brotherhood has always denied). Still, the Brotherhood operates openly within limits that vary at the whim of the authorities.

Until last year, members of the movement running as independent candidates held one-fifth of the seats in parliament, but after loosing many seats in the 2010 elections, which were marred by serious fraud, the group boycotted the second round of elections and announced it would shift its political struggle to the streets.

The Brotherhood has huge influence on the Egyptian public and group emerging as the ruling party is perceived as a very possible scenario. Some fear the group could threaten U.S. interests on issues including Arab-Israeli peace efforts if they gain power."
FoxNews.com - Amid Turmoil in Egypt, Opposition Groups Emerge With Varied, Conflicting Agendas


Is Fox News trying to incite anguish? Is the ME expert wrong?

 

[Synthaholic]

Why is this our burden?

PoliticalChic declined to address this post. Hmmm.....

For the same reasons we stepped into Bosnia.


Martin Niemoller - “In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me—and by that time no one was left to speak up.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider it addressed.

Haven't we allowed a holocaust in Sudan? Darfur?

What's the difference?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Most of the wars the US has been a part of in the last half century have been very liberal, thus requiring the supporters of these wars to be very liberal in their views.

Sadly yes most people who pretended to be anti-war were really just Democrats who were anti-Bush. The principle of war and innocent people being killed wasn't really a big deal to the overwhelming majority.

So the things we've done in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iraq again, Vietnam, Korea, were just small military actions? They shouldn't be called "wars"?

Speak for yourself.

I didn't say all, just overwhelming majority. The "anti-war" crowd was nowhere to be found when the warmongering in Afghanistan skyrocketed and the villagers were driving truckloads of civilian bodies to the us posts.

The war in Afghanistan had overwhelming support when it started. Who opposed it at the outset and then switched when Bush left office?

 

[Synthaholic]

"Doesn't have to be that way."

Yeah, it does.

Although it is clear than many folks, yourself included, enjoy living in that special 'world as we would like it to be," consider the following:

1. Our future is in ‘green energy’? “Presidents all the way back to Richard Nixon -- whose "Project Independence" promised to make America independent from foreign oil by 1980 -- were thwarted by short attention spans, other urgent problems and gyrations in the energy market.” After some 30 years and billions of dollars poured into alternative technologies, renewable energy now accounts for a mere 6.7% of our total.
A Past President's Advice to Obama: Act With Haste - WSJ.com

2. Based on US Department of Energy, sources of energy used in the US:
39.2% petroleum, 23.3% natural gas, 22.4% coal, 8.3% nuclear, 3.6% biomass, 2.4% hydroelectric, 0.35% geothermal, 0.31% wind, 0.08% solar.

3. If green energy is as good, cheap, and clean as supporters say, why haven’t market forces made it an increasing part of the energy picture…? Politics: rather than the promotion of new sources of energy, the movement has been hijacked by those whose main motivation is the devolution of America, or to accomplish government ownership and control of our energy supply. Sometimes called the “Watermelon Effect,” it is made up of the ‘green’ pro-environment policies on the outside, hiding the red Marxist redistributive policies on the inside.
BTW, we imported just over a third of our oil in 1981, and now 70%.

Now, if you have incorporated the factual info contained in the above, you will agree that oil will continue to be the potent determinor of our future for the foreseeable future...so, how does this change your thingking?

Hint: How about drilling in ANWR?

The answer isn't looking for more oil to drill - it will get slurped up as fast, or faster than it can be found. India and China's oil consumption is growing exponentially every year, with millions more cars on the roads of those two countries alone. ANWR is a drop in a bucket, and any oil pumped from there goes straight to the world market - we do not get to keep that for ourselves.

Who's fault is it that we have short attention spans? As Londoner already pointed out, President Carter tried to get us off ME oil and onto a path of energy independence. Reagan ridiculed that idea.

There have been studies showing that a gallon of gas really costs Americans over $15 per gallon when you add in all the costs to get it, protect it's flow, and protect the rulers who sell it to us. The only reason we have a massive military there, and private contractors like Halliburton charging the U.S. government $100 per load of laundry and $45 for Coca Cola, is to protect "our" oil. If we were to stop doing that, and start subsidizing alternative energy to the same degree, we would be off oil as our major energy source in a very short time.

I don't wish to be responsible for a nice fella like you having a breakdown, and understand that our back and forth posts have plumbed the depths of your ability to understand that there is no alternative to oil....so let's leave it at your wishing for a better reality than that which exists.

This is why the best outcome for this nation and the world will be a change in the parties that govern...you know, let the adults back in.
Carry on.

That is patently false. There are plenty of alternatives for oil. You stomping your feet on it doesn't make it so.

No one is saying that we have to completely get off oil. All the cars on the road will still need it for a long time. But power grids/electricity/long haul commerce, etc can all be done with alternative energy. And by doing that, the demand for oil goes down, and the price for oil goes down.

It's going to happen. The only question is whether we develop the technology or if we just buy the technology from China, Japan, or Korea, or Germany, or France, or Sweden, or any of the other nations who are actively developing this. I prefer inventions and copyrights to belong to U.S. companies, but that's me.

 

[Avatar4321]

The war in Afghanistan had overwhelming support when it started. Who opposed it at the outset and then switched when Bush left office?

The people who realized that you needlessly put the lives of our soldiers in danger when the commander in chief has no desire to win.

If you aren't going to find to win, there really is no point to fighting there. Obama mad it clear from the beginning that he wasnt concerned about winning in Afghanistan. What then is the point of risking any more American lives?

 

[Synthaholic]

The war in Afghanistan had overwhelming support when it started. Who opposed it at the outset and then switched when Bush left office?

The people who realized that you needlessly put the lives of our soldiers in danger when the commander in chief has no desire to win.

If you aren't going to find to win, there really is no point to fighting there. Obama mad it clear from the beginning that he wasnt concerned about winning in Afghanistan. What then is the point of risking any more American lives?

So, you think the commanders, including Gen. Patraeus, do not want to win? It's their plan that Obama is following. He is truly listening to the commanders on the ground.

Unless you can show otherwise? And by that, I mean show where they presented a different plan from what the President is pursuing.

ETA: And when you are done answering that, perhaps you can tell me the definition of winning in Afghanistan.

 

[Gunny]

Earlier I posted an article by an expert who knows the Middle East, knows terrorism, knows al Qaeda and was an expert enough to be on Dick Cheney's staff. His bio: Chris Harnisch is an al Qaeda analyst focusing primarily on Yemen and Somalia. He has briefed members of the House and the Senate on issues relating to Yemen and Somalia, and he has published articles on the Islamist threat in those countries in numerous publications. Chris served on the staff of Vice President Dick Cheney. He has lived and studied in Yemen and Egypt.

His description of the Muslim Brotherhood was as follows:
"Contrary to popular belief in the West, the Muslim Brotherhood is not a militant Islamist group with close ties to al Qaeda, and its active participation in Egyptian politics would not turn Egypt into a terrorist safe haven. In fact, Ayman al Zawahiri, al Qaeda’s deputy leader, criticized the Brotherhood at length in 2008 for operating within the bounds of the Egyptian constitution and not “recognizing the authority of Shari’a.” Likewise, Al Fajr Media Center, the official network responsible for disseminating messages from al Qaeda factions, released an audio tape in August 2010 called “Manufacturing Terrorism” that stated the following: “The Muslim Brotherhood thinks that democracy is the path to take [for change], while jihad groups believe the path is through jihad.”

The Muslim Brotherhood, in reality, is an Islamist social movement that represents a wide spectrum of political ideology. Many of its younger members advocate for a Western-style democracy and would likely welcome continued cooperation with the United States. Many of the Brotherhood’s “old guard,” however, adhere to a much more rigid interpretation of Islam and would likely shun close relations with the United States"
Read more: Fears of a Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Egypt are overblown The Daily Caller – Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

Now Fox News has done their own portrait of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is as follows.

The Muslim Brotherhood

"The Muslim Brotherhood is the most prominent opposition group in Egypt. Though it seems they were not the ones to organize the wave of protests, they have definitely exploited them to voice their agenda: to form a state governed by Islamic law.

This Sunni movement was founded in 1928, partly in response to the British occupation in Egypt, and became one of the first and most successful movements advocating Islam as a political program. Over the years the group gathered many supporters and established branches throughout the world. (Gaza-ruling Hamas party originated in the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.)

Though there was never proof of the group's involvement in terror acts, its motto is: “Allah is our objective; the Koran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations.”

The movement has been banned in Egypt since 1954 after being accused in the assassination attempt of President Gamal Abdel Nasser (a charge the Brotherhood has always denied). Still, the Brotherhood operates openly within limits that vary at the whim of the authorities.

Until last year, members of the movement running as independent candidates held one-fifth of the seats in parliament, but after loosing many seats in the 2010 elections, which were marred by serious fraud, the group boycotted the second round of elections and announced it would shift its political struggle to the streets.

The Brotherhood has huge influence on the Egyptian public and group emerging as the ruling party is perceived as a very possible scenario. Some fear the group could threaten U.S. interests on issues including Arab-Israeli peace efforts if they gain power."
FoxNews.com - Amid Turmoil in Egypt, Opposition Groups Emerge With Varied, Conflicting Agendas


Is Fox News trying to incite anguish? Is the ME expert wrong?

Want to try and read the copyright policy of this board before you go posting novels?

 

[Gunny]

PoliticalChic declined to address this post. Hmmm.....

For the same reasons we stepped into Bosnia.


Martin Niemoller - “In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me—and by that time no one was left to speak up.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider it addressed.

Haven't we allowed a holocaust in Sudan? Darfur?

What's the difference?

The Darfur region IS in Sudan. And if we needed to stick our dicks in anything .....

 

[kiwiman127]

Earlier I posted an article by an expert who knows the Middle East, knows terrorism, knows al Qaeda and was an expert enough to be on Dick Cheney's staff. His bio: Chris Harnisch is an al Qaeda analyst focusing primarily on Yemen and Somalia. He has briefed members of the House and the Senate on issues relating to Yemen and Somalia, and he has published articles on the Islamist threat in those countries in numerous publications. Chris served on the staff of Vice President Dick Cheney. He has lived and studied in Yemen and Egypt.

His description of the Muslim Brotherhood was as follows:
"Contrary to popular belief in the West, the Muslim Brotherhood is not a militant Islamist group with close ties to al Qaeda, and its active participation in Egyptian politics would not turn Egypt into a terrorist safe haven. In fact, Ayman al Zawahiri, al Qaeda’s deputy leader, criticized the Brotherhood at length in 2008 for operating within the bounds of the Egyptian constitution and not “recognizing the authority of Shari’a.” Likewise, Al Fajr Media Center, the official network responsible for disseminating messages from al Qaeda factions, released an audio tape in August 2010 called “Manufacturing Terrorism” that stated the following: “The Muslim Brotherhood thinks that democracy is the path to take [for change], while jihad groups believe the path is through jihad.”

The Muslim Brotherhood, in reality, is an Islamist social movement that represents a wide spectrum of political ideology. Many of its younger members advocate for a Western-style democracy and would likely welcome continued cooperation with the United States. Many of the Brotherhood’s “old guard,” however, adhere to a much more rigid interpretation of Islam and would likely shun close relations with the United States"
Read more: Fears of a Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Egypt are overblown The Daily Caller – Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

Now Fox News has done their own portrait of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is as follows.

The Muslim Brotherhood

"The Muslim Brotherhood is the most prominent opposition group in Egypt. Though it seems they were not the ones to organize the wave of protests, they have definitely exploited them to voice their agenda: to form a state governed by Islamic law.

This Sunni movement was founded in 1928, partly in response to the British occupation in Egypt, and became one of the first and most successful movements advocating Islam as a political program. Over the years the group gathered many supporters and established branches throughout the world. (Gaza-ruling Hamas party originated in the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.)

Though there was never proof of the group's involvement in terror acts, its motto is: “Allah is our objective; the Koran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations.”

The movement has been banned in Egypt since 1954 after being accused in the assassination attempt of President Gamal Abdel Nasser (a charge the Brotherhood has always denied). Still, the Brotherhood operates openly within limits that vary at the whim of the authorities.

Until last year, members of the movement running as independent candidates held one-fifth of the seats in parliament, but after loosing many seats in the 2010 elections, which were marred by serious fraud, the group boycotted the second round of elections and announced it would shift its political struggle to the streets.

The Brotherhood has huge influence on the Egyptian public and group emerging as the ruling party is perceived as a very possible scenario. Some fear the group could threaten U.S. interests on issues including Arab-Israeli peace efforts if they gain power."
FoxNews.com - Amid Turmoil in Egypt, Opposition Groups Emerge With Varied, Conflicting Agendas


Is Fox News trying to incite anguish? Is the ME expert wrong?

Want to try and read the copyright policy of this board before you go posting novels?

Novels? Maybe I should have book signings around the country and promote myself like everyone and their brother who's having thoughts about running for prez? What do you think?
Anyway I followed the rules, two small excerpts from two different sources that include the links.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The answer isn't looking for more oil to drill - it will get slurped up as fast, or faster than it can be found. India and China's oil consumption is growing exponentially every year, with millions more cars on the roads of those two countries alone. ANWR is a drop in a bucket, and any oil pumped from there goes straight to the world market - we do not get to keep that for ourselves.

Who's fault is it that we have short attention spans? As Londoner already pointed out, President Carter tried to get us off ME oil and onto a path of energy independence. Reagan ridiculed that idea.

There have been studies showing that a gallon of gas really costs Americans over $15 per gallon when you add in all the costs to get it, protect it's flow, and protect the rulers who sell it to us. The only reason we have a massive military there, and private contractors like Halliburton charging the U.S. government $100 per load of laundry and $45 for Coca Cola, is to protect "our" oil. If we were to stop doing that, and start subsidizing alternative energy to the same degree, we would be off oil as our major energy source in a very short time.

I don't wish to be responsible for a nice fella like you having a breakdown, and understand that our back and forth posts have plumbed the depths of your ability to understand that there is no alternative to oil....so let's leave it at your wishing for a better reality than that which exists.

This is why the best outcome for this nation and the world will be a change in the parties that govern...you know, let the adults back in.
Carry on.

That is patently false. There are plenty of alternatives for oil. You stomping your feet on it doesn't make it so.

No one is saying that we have to completely get off oil. All the cars on the road will still need it for a long time. But power grids/electricity/long haul commerce, etc can all be done with alternative energy. And by doing that, the demand for oil goes down, and the price for oil goes down.

It's going to happen. The only question is whether we develop the technology or if we just buy the technology from China, Japan, or Korea, or Germany, or France, or Sweden, or any of the other nations who are actively developing this. I prefer inventions and copyrights to belong to U.S. companies, but that's me.

Little fella, I get such a kick out of anti-intellectuals who gaze at factual notes and quotes and come back with the cliched and sophomoric "That is patently false."

And to pretend that there is any "stomping your feet" going on is not quite as disciplined as providing support for your (infantile) perspective, such as data showing how:

alternative energy is displacing fossil fuels,

or how free market investments- the litmus test of success- is becoming more of an impetus than government subsidies and crony capitalism,

and the value of green jobs in solving the unemployment crisis.

If you can see how these concrete steps prove more efficacious in advancing your side of the dabate, then there may be hope for you... educationally.

Politically? A lost cause.

But...that doesn't make you a bad person, ....or does it.....?

 

[PoliticalChic]

PoliticalChic declined to address this post. Hmmm.....

For the same reasons we stepped into Bosnia.


Martin Niemoller - “In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me—and by that time no one was left to speak up.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider it addressed.

Haven't we allowed a holocaust in Sudan? Darfur?

What's the difference?

I need you to be clear here: is your point if we don't involve ourselves in every evil, we must not involve ourselves in any?

Or, was your post merely the equivalent of flailing around looking for a reponse?

 

[saveliberty]

It was an attempt at a geography lesson wrapped in moral relativism. I'm going to need a Diet Pepsi with that...to go.

 

[Charles_Main]

The people who realized that you needlessly put the lives of our soldiers in danger when the commander in chief has no desire to win.

Actually I do not even think it is about Not having the Desire to win. I don't think it matters who is president. I think we as a nation lack the Will to win that type of war. Oh were all for the Made for TV wars, where we take apart conventional Armies like a hot knife cutting through butter. However once the hard part of Nation Building, and Occupation begin(which is what we are doing despite our claims to the contrary) We as a nation lose the needed will to Make the Sacrifices in blood and treasure needed to do the Job. We are unwilling to fight to win. We want our Troops to fight with their hands tied behind their Backs, one Eye shut, and kid gloves on. Yet expect that to do a job that could take decades in months with out any Collateral Damage.

As long as we continue to dilute ourselves about the Nature of War Fare, and what you must be willing to do to win, we might as well not even try.

You can not fight wars in half Measures, with Kid gloves, and expect good results.

Fight to win, or stay home. IMO

From what I have seen since the end of WWII we have lost the will to fight to win.

 

[georgephillip]

Where have we needed to fight since the end of WWII?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Speak for yourself.

I didn't say all, just overwhelming majority. The "anti-war" crowd was nowhere to be found when the warmongering in Afghanistan skyrocketed and the villagers were driving truckloads of civilian bodies to the us posts.

The war in Afghanistan had overwhelming support when it started. Who opposed it at the outset and then switched when Bush left office?

In 2001 it had overwhelming support when we wanted to teach Osama Bin Laden and those responsible a lesson. Even the leader of the Taliban Mullah Mohammed Omar had no idea of the plans for 9/11 or what Osama was doing behind the scenes. Yes he shouldn't have protected him all along, but it's clear to me that the purpose of the war in 2001 was FAR different than the purpose of the war in 2009 and beyond.

Those responsible for 9/11 were either long gone from Afghanistan or dead in 2009, so it's been a pointless war for quite awhile and yet the "anti-war" crowd is still nowhere to be found. Again because they weren't anti-war, they were democrats posing as such.

 

[Jarhead]

I didn't say all, just overwhelming majority. The "anti-war" crowd was nowhere to be found when the warmongering in Afghanistan skyrocketed and the villagers were driving truckloads of civilian bodies to the us posts.

The war in Afghanistan had overwhelming support when it started. Who opposed it at the outset and then switched when Bush left office?

In 2001 it had overwhelming support when we wanted to teach Osama Bin Laden and those responsible a lesson. Even the leader of the Taliban Mullah Mohammed Omar had no idea of the plans for 9/11 or what Osama was doing behind the scenes. Yes he shouldn't have protected him all along, but it's clear to me that the purpose of the war in 2001 was FAR different than the purpose of the war in 2009 and beyond.

Those responsible for 9/11 were either long gone from Afghanistan or dead in 2009, so it's been a pointless war for quite awhile and yet the "anti-war" crowd is still nowhere to be found. Again because they weren't anti-war, they were democrats posing as such.

They weren't anti war. They were anti anything that Bush did.

That is why we are continually hearing "Bush did the same thing" everytime an Obama hypocrisy is pointed out..

What they dont realize is....Bush never said he would do differently. Obama ran on a platform of promising to do differently.

 

[8537]

The war in Afghanistan had overwhelming support when it started. Who opposed it at the outset and then switched when Bush left office?

In 2001 it had overwhelming support when we wanted to teach Osama Bin Laden and those responsible a lesson. Even the leader of the Taliban Mullah Mohammed Omar had no idea of the plans for 9/11 or what Osama was doing behind the scenes. Yes he shouldn't have protected him all along, but it's clear to me that the purpose of the war in 2001 was FAR different than the purpose of the war in 2009 and beyond.

Those responsible for 9/11 were either long gone from Afghanistan or dead in 2009, so it's been a pointless war for quite awhile and yet the "anti-war" crowd is still nowhere to be found. Again because they weren't anti-war, they were democrats posing as such.

They weren't anti war. They were anti anything that Bush did.

That is why we are continually hearing "Bush did the same thing" everytime an Obama hypocrisy is pointed out..

What they dont realize is....Bush never said he would do differently. Obama ran on a platform of promising to do differently.

Obama pledged during the campaign to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office. The actual drawdown date was 19 months. So he was three months off.

He pledged to send two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan to fight the insurgency there. He sent about 4 times that amount.

The committed anti-war crowd knew from the start that Obama was not going to end either war immediately - he said as much in his own platform.

The committed Bush crowd knew from the start that they would oppose whatever Obama did, for the sake of opposition.