The Watering Hole

Although I understand why Obama did it, I don't agree one bit.  The time to put a full-fledged effort into Afghanistan came and went 7 years ago.  We gave it half-hearted effort for so long, and spent so much time on Iraq, that we are now in an impossible situation.  There is, as far as I can see, only one big difference between our war in Afghanistan and Russia's... Russia was truly fighting a united Afghanistan, and we are fighting only a minority, and have at least some of the country on our side.  However, that doesn't mean it's a good idea, or that we can "win" or that there is even anything to win.  I think the fraudulent elections this year should have showed us exactly how much of our support Afghanistan deserves.  

A good, strong, multinational policing force targeting terrorism would be far more effective and far less expensive than trying to "root out terrorism at its source."  The people who believe radical terrorism comes from a "place" are deluded.  

Ultimately, what I admire in Obama is his ability to see multiple sides of an issue and to compromise and put forth a moderated and thoughtful plan.  However, in this case, I wish he had just said "fuck this" and called for withdrawal.  I'm done with that war.

I believe he called this move "Operation Linebacker" or am I thinking of a different war? ::)

You should only have two options when dealing with miltary conflicts:
- Go in fully prepared to win (i.e., with more than adequate amounts of troops and gear, the correct rules of engagement and with MILITARY leaders fulfilling the outlined objectives - not self-motivated politicians who have never seen any service duty)

OR

- Stay the fuck out of the situation, let the U.N. (or some other multi-national force) handle the policing and deal with the consequences later.

Ahhhh

You have the black and white theory of military engagement,

The world is far too messy to fit that neatness.
war is diplomacy by other means.

Afghanistan - it is not really about it
It is about Pakistan

It is about a war you have not even been aware you are engaged in for the last decade.

Pakistan is a bigger threat than Iran.

It is the likeliest source of a smuggled and detonated nuke in a city local to you folks  in the next 10 years,

Obama is doing what he has to

fingers — Dec 03, 2009Ahhhh

You have the black and white theory of military engagement,

No, I have the black and white theory of U.S. envolvement in military engagement.  Let some multi-national "peace-keeping" force handle the messy grey areas.

And, yes, I'm quite familiar with the Pakistan issue.  ;)

(Have you started stock-piling rocks for World War IV yet?)

I think also that Afghanistan is about Pakistan.

The thing I didn't like about Obama's speech is how similar it was to something Bush would say. Yeah, much better put without the Cowboy attitude, but saying pretty much the same type shit and at the same time bashing Bush for doing and saying the same exact things. Really fucking close if you compared the two attitudes. Really funny that he bashed Bush. Sounded rediculous.

I fucking keep hoping Obama will at least show something to hint at change, as he promised. Seems the only change so far is Obama thinks a quite a while before he makes the same type decisions as Bush did seconds.

I think it's high time he, Obama, consider the fact that he is President now. Not Bush. I personally don't want to hear one more fucking thing about the last 8 years. Tell me something that will give me hope for the future 8 years Mutherfucker. :)  

Hookbender — Dec 03, 2009 I think it's high time he, Obama, consider the fact that he is President now. Not Bush. I personally don't want to hear one more fucking thing about the last 8 years. Tell me something that will give me hope for the future 8 years Mutherfucker. :)  

I expect 8 more years of bashing Bush in the future.  ;)

Obama spending money, (possibly a little unfair), his war speech, the fighting between repubs and dems.....getting kinda worried. I kinda doubt he will be there for 8 years if he doesn't make some drastic "changes" in the next few years.

I think the same thing was said by Tiger Woods wife. ;D

Notice that I didn't say Obama would be the one doing the bashing.  ;)

CraigBert — Dec 03, 2009[quote author=fingers link=1259785924/0#2 date=1259801528]Ahhhh

You have the black and white theory of military engagement,

No, I have the black and white theory of U.S. envolvement in military engagement.  Let some multi-national "peace-keeping" force handle the messy grey areas.

And, yes, I'm quite familiar with the Pakistan issue.  ;)

(Have you started stock-piling rocks for World War IV yet?)



There is no way your  war conditions could ever be met.
So you are a de-facto US pacifist.

Peace through greater fire power!  ;)

We have greater firepower, and have had it for a long time.  Unfortunately, it seems like even though we look better on paper, and are heavy favorites, they are still going to make us play the games to determine the outcome.

Can we defeat an idea?  That's the problem I have with this war.  Put us up against, say, Germany invading Europe, and I like our chances.  Put us up against a small group of heavily idealistic zealots spread out around the globe, and I think we are trying to swat flies with a hammer.

charger — Dec 03, 2009 Can we defeat an idea?  

'Tis why they say the pen is mightier than the sword.

Liked the fly and hammer analogy too!  :)

I'd fight this war on our borders. I f you aren't a American, you don't come here. No more Middle East people are allowed in the U.S. Problem solved!

Much more effective to make a rule you can enforce as opposed to fighting a war basically blind. Sound extreme? Who gives a fuck how it sounds? I'd enjoy the results!

Wow, that's smart.  We institute a no middle-easterner policy, and then watch as OPEC decides "no middle eastern oil for the US," and then, suddenly, you are paying 15$ a gallon and the country implodes into a crisis far beyond anything we have ever imagined.

Hookbender — Dec 04, 2009
Much more effective to make a rule you can enforce as opposed to fighting a war basically blind. Sound extreme? Who gives a fuck how it sounds? I'd enjoy the results!

How would you enforce it ?

Terrorists are as likely to be African or Asian as middle eastern.
They might be US citizens or Europeans,

You would have to ban foreigners
and implement a police state to monitor the enemy within - need concentration camps.


This would be against a background where you have alienated states all over the world especially muslim,
A ban on travel is effectively a ban on trade and economic activity
So economic collapse would naturally follow.

Lost intelligence connections, handing power and resources (including nuclear) to extremists who would have a stunning propaganda coup
Muslim states that can no longer justify cooperating with the US on security - extremists hold sway
Extremists take power in several muslim countries - including Pakistan.

Middle east wars with Muslim states vs  Israel and India  possibly nuclear that would disrupt oil supplies,
Sky high oil prices and more economic collapse.

And with nukes and billions of oil money to plan and bribe with - the extremists will find a way to detonate nukes in the US - probably several.

It could all be ready for the 2012 Armageddon date

Nice idea Einstein. :)

Hehe...

"Yes, I would like to ban all people I don't personally care for."

"Uh, how do we tell who goes on which list?"

"Just make it so!"

:D

charger — Dec 04, 2009Wow, that's smart.  We institute a no middle-easterner policy, and then watch as OPEC decides "no middle eastern oil for the US," and then, suddenly, you are paying 15$ a gallon and the country implodes into a crisis far beyond anything we have ever imagined.

Wouldn't that be an idea. Opec decides no oil for the U.S. That would be the best self imposed sanction the world has ever seen. It would be short lived at best. They need, not want, our money....etc etc.

Then maybe we would be forced to take alternative fuels seriously. And while we get serious about alternative fuels, we could use our own supply. Drill baby drill, only with purpose and only because of need.

We don't have to be dependent on oil, and we're not. We have chosen to be dependent on oil. There is a difference.

Since the government basically owns GM, I would force, yes force, them to come up with a alternative fuel car asap. Stop all production of gasoline vehicles and build the car of the future. We have the technology, we just need to utilize it. What a perfect time for change.

fingers — Dec 04, 2009[quote author=Hookbender link=1259785924/0#12 date=1259903349]
Much more effective to make a rule you can enforce as opposed to fighting a war basically blind. Sound extreme? Who gives a fuck how it sounds? I'd enjoy the results!

How would you enforce it ?

Terrorists are as likely to be African or Asian as middle eastern.
They might be US citizens or Europeans,

You would have to ban foreigners
and implement a police state to monitor the enemy within - need concentration camps.


This would be against a background where you have alienated states all over the world especially muslim,
A ban on travel is effectively a ban on trade and economic activity
So economic collapse would naturally follow.

Lost intelligence connections, handing power and resources (including nuclear) to extremists who would have a stunning propaganda coup
Muslim states that can no longer justify cooperating with the US on security - extremists hold sway
Extremists take power in several muslim countries - including Pakistan.

Middle east wars with Muslim states vs  Israel and India  possibly nuclear that would disrupt oil supplies,
Sky high oil prices and more economic collapse.

And with nukes and billions of oil money to plan and bribe with - the extremists will find a way to detonate nukes in the US - probably several.

It could all be ready for the 2012 Armageddon date

Nice idea Einstein. :)
















That was a little irrational, of course. I would guess it would be way cheaper to keep the enemy out of the U.S. than to track the dogs down and attempt to kill them or bring them to the good ole U.S. and put them in a prison for life. At a cost of over 30 grand a year, each.

The U.S. will not change the people in Afgan. or Iraq, Iran, or anyone else in that part of the world. It's a waste of time. These people have fought damn near forever. They will continue to do the same shit no matter what we do. We can't afford a war. It's a useless cause. Protecting our borders is something we should always do, imo. It would be like an investment to assure our people and country are really safe, not just hoping our efforts are having an impact. It's really not that important that we kill Bin Laden, it's more important that he and others can't get to us ever again. Just my opinion.

Now if we know, really know, that Iran has or will have nukes and we have a good idea that they may be used, take out the facilities with bombs and come home. No need for an all out war and invasion of Iran. If we wanted to get Hussein in Iraq, we should have sent special forces in at the right opportunity and killed the fucker. the end. I don't agree with getting him in the first place but......

And another thing, if the U.S. kept it's fucking nose out of everybody's business over there it may do more good than anything we've done to this point or anything I mentioned above. Why do we seem to think we can be the worlds dictator is beyond me.

i'm glad obama did what he did. outright pulling out isn't an option at this point. his choice was give much needed support or let us (continue to) drown. i don't like the way the war has turned out, but i'm willing to give our troops 100% support. if the .gen says we need 40,000 and he is the most qualified than give him the troops. it's not often talked about but the surge did have good results in iraq...

chase — Dec 08, 2009i'm glad obama did what he did. outright pulling out isn't an option at this point. his choice was give much needed support or let us (continue to) drown. i don't like the way the war has turned out, but i'm willing to give our troops 100% support. if the .gen says we need 40,000 and he is the most qualified than give him the troops. it's not often talked about but the surge did have good results in iraq...

Why isn't pulling out an option? Does the U.S. fall apart if we do? Does Afgan get worse? What is worse? Of course pulling out is an option, just as it was with Iraq. Can we afford to chase Binny through the mountains right now? Is Binny still alive? Are we chasing a ghost? Would it not be better to invest our time and money on our own country right now? If the U.S. is broke and it's economy falls apart, will we pull out then? Can we do that at that time sir? Can we help anyone if we aren't a strong and well country ourselves? I don't think so.

One sentence here........this isn't about supporting our troops, we do.

If you don't have a war, well, fuck what the general says. The general is pro war, he wants to fight, that's what he's trained to do. He wants to win. He thinks we need to win. If we pull out, the general will say, ahhh hell, we could have beat those guys.....

One of the hardest things for a guy to do is to walk away from a fight when someone is threatening him.

I just don't think we need to be there. We can't change things. I think we need to watch the nukes, not all this bullshit around them. Make sure these kinds of people can't get to us spending the same kind of money here as we are there. Much better bang for the buck. People need to get over this cowboy revenge type of thinking. Binny really doesn't matter if Binny can't get here.

Just to play devil's advocate...

Ok, Hooky.  So you don't believe ANY of the following to be true?

- If the US pulls out now, the Middle East will become far more anti-US and will hurt our interests globally
- If we don't finish the job, the terror organizations will reform even stronger and WILL cause more terrorist actions inside the US
- Iran will get nukes (via friendly Muslim countries or by making them themselves) and will start WWIII

Here's another fun one:

- Name five things where oil doesn't play a part directly or indirectly in its manufacture.  No, how about naming ONE?

CraigBert — Dec 08, 2009Just to play devil's advocate...

Ok, Hooky.  So you don't believe ANY of the following to be true?

- If the US pulls out now, the Middle East will become far more anti-US and will hurt our interests globally
- If we don't finish the job, the terror organizations will reform even stronger and WILL cause more terrorist actions inside the US
- Iran will get nukes (via friendly Muslim countries or by making them themselves) and will start WWIII

Here's another fun one:

- Name five things where oil doesn't play a part directly or indirectly in its manufacture.  No, how about naming ONE?

1) No, they will like us getting out.

2) If terrorist can't get here, and they can't communicate with ones outside the U.S., etc, then what we have is criminals. If we forget about trying to bust joe, who works his ass off but like a joint or two from time to time, maybe, just maybe, we can get our country a little safer.The terrorist can get stronger otside the U.S. all they want. When they do, fly a plane load of bombs over them and wipe their ass out. Russhia has proved that Afgan. is a place we don't want to be, along with other history. If we can't fight like they do, I want out! If we have to worry about backlash from a war fought dirty on our part, fuck it. This is a political war. It isn't about Binny any longer. Obama has proven that to us by basically doing the exact same thing as Bush did when he was in charge. Even gave the same type speech in front of the same type people in the same type place. Who is running the country right now and since Bush gave the orders to go to Iraq? The generals are. And until we have a person who has some real desire for change, and balls to tell the generals to fuck themselves, as in a President, not a political machine, this shit won't end.

3) As I said in my post, watch the nukes. That is the real war. We can watch the Nukes without being in Afgan., Iraq, Germany, and all the other places "we" think we're needed.

Hookbender — Dec 08, 2009[quote author=chase link=1259785924/0#18 date=1260232208]i'm glad obama did what he did. outright pulling out isn't an option at this point. his choice was give much needed support or let us (continue to) drown. i don't like the way the war has turned out, but i'm willing to give our troops 100% support. if the .gen says we need 40,000 and he is the most qualified than give him the troops. it's not often talked about but the surge did have good results in iraq...

Why isn't pulling out an option? Does the U.S. fall apart if we do? Does Afgan get worse? What is worse? Of course pulling out is an option, just as it was with Iraq. Can we afford to chase Binny through the mountains right now? Is Binny still alive? Are we chasing a ghost? Would it not be better to invest our time and money on our own country right now? If the U.S. is broke and it's economy falls apart, will we pull out then? Can we do that at that time sir? Can we help anyone if we aren't a strong and well country ourselves? I don't think so.

One sentence here........this isn't about supporting our troops, we do.

If you don't have a war, well, fuck what the general says. The general is pro war, he wants to fight, that's what he's trained to do. He wants to win. He thinks we need to win. If we pull out, the general will say, ahhh hell, we could have beat those guys.....

One of the hardest things for a guy to do is to walk away from a fight when someone is threatening him.

I just don't think we need to be there. We can't change things. I think we need to watch the nukes, not all this bullshit around them. Make sure these kinds of people can't get to us spending the same kind of money here as we are there. Much better bang for the buck. People need to get over this cowboy revenge type of thinking. Binny really doesn't matter if Binny can't get here.



it's a bit naive to think the US can up and walk away from a country it has been attempting to stabilize for the last 8 years. the best case scenario for pulling out would be to lay a timeline and stick to it. if we leave now, as in RIGHT NOW our credibility is lost and we will be blamed for every problem in the region for the next 20 years

- Name five things where oil doesn't play a part directly or indirectly in its manufacture.  No, how about naming ONE?

Manufacture of what? Nukes? Don't get this one.

Hookbender — Dec 08, 2009- Name five things where oil doesn't play a part directly or indirectly in its manufacture.  No, how about naming ONE?

Manufacture of what? Nukes? Don't get this one.

Oil is currently involved in one way or another with practically EVERYTHING that is currently made.  Think of what machinery makes things, think of the storage, think of transit and think about the item itself.  From fertilizer to lawn chairs to computers, you name it.

Until we've got lots of alternate means of making, storing and distributing things we need oil so we keep ourselves firmly in the middle of the Middle East.

chase — Dec 08, 2009[quote author=Hookbender link=1259785924/0#19 date=1260237842][quote author=chase link=1259785924/0#18 date=1260232208]i'm glad obama did what he did. outright pulling out isn't an option at this point. his choice was give much needed support or let us (continue to) drown. i don't like the way the war has turned out, but i'm willing to give our troops 100% support. if the .gen says we need 40,000 and he is the most qualified than give him the troops. it's not often talked about but the surge did have good results in iraq...

Why isn't pulling out an option? Does the U.S. fall apart if we do? Does Afgan get worse? What is worse? Of course pulling out is an option, just as it was with Iraq. Can we afford to chase Binny through the mountains right now? Is Binny still alive? Are we chasing a ghost? Would it not be better to invest our time and money on our own country right now? If the U.S. is broke and it's economy falls apart, will we pull out then? Can we do that at that time sir? Can we help anyone if we aren't a strong and well country ourselves? I don't think so.

One sentence here........this isn't about supporting our troops, we do.

If you don't have a war, well, fuck what the general says. The general is pro war, he wants to fight, that's what he's trained to do. He wants to win. He thinks we need to win. If we pull out, the general will say, ahhh hell, we could have beat those guys.....

One of the hardest things for a guy to do is to walk away from a fight when someone is threatening him.

I just don't think we need to be there. We can't change things. I think we need to watch the nukes, not all this bullshit around them. Make sure these kinds of people can't get to us spending the same kind of money here as we are there. Much better bang for the buck. People need to get over this cowboy revenge type of thinking. Binny really doesn't matter if Binny can't get here.



it's a bit naive to think the US can up and walk away from a country it has been attempting to stabilize for the last 8 years. the best case scenario for pulling out would be to lay a timeline and stick to it. if we leave now, as in RIGHT NOW our credibility is lost and we will be blamed for every problem in the region for the next 20 years


We've been attempting to stabilize Iraq. We've just been pissing around in Afgan. A pretty good argument could be made that our credibility would be much greater if we got out of the middle east's business, if we left. And, what credibility are you referring to? We don't have any credibility right now. that region has had problems for eternity, and will continue too no matter what we do.

CraigBert — Dec 08, 2009[quote author=Hookbender link=1259785924/0#23 date=1260249071]- Name five things where oil doesn't play a part directly or indirectly in its manufacture.  No, how about naming ONE?

Manufacture of what? Nukes? Don't get this one.

Oil is currently involved in one way or another with practically EVERYTHING that is currently made.  Think of what machinery makes things, think of the storage, think of transit and think about the item itself.  From fertilizer to lawn chairs to computers, you name it.

Until we've got lots of alternate means of making, storing and distributing things we need oil so we keep ourselves firmly in the middle of the Middle East.


I agree that we need alternative fuels. We use to make many things out of pot. Yeah, sounds silly, but research it. I read somewhere that we could even produce fuel out of pot, I think. And we have plenty of oil right here, in our own country. A friend of mine works offshore on a boat of some kind. All they do all year is find oil in the gulf, drill it and tap it off marking the spot on GPS systems or something like that. We have options. Getting serious about alternative fuel cars would go a long way. The technology is there, not sure about the desire though.

blow away the smoke and research hemp a bit. if it wasn't for rockefeller and standard oil hemp would be "americas cash crop". its diversity is really astounding

No need to research hemp Hooky!  It's extensive list of "other" uses has been well-known for centuries.  George Washington used to have many things made from hemp.

My point is that right now we're screwed if we don't get oil.  Think about everything, plastics, packing, lubrication, transportation, etc.  Everything has an oil requirement either directly or indirectly right now.  Most people consider fuels and lubrication but don't notice tires, plastics, fertilizers or many of the streets themselves...

Started with Stone age
went to the Bronze age
then the Iron age

ends with the hemp Age :)