Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Civil War President

Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2009 7:55:49 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
"Barack Obama's intensification of the occupation of Afghanistan is nothing less than a full commitment to one side in the civil war raging there. What he calls a threat of a Taliban takeover is actually a Pashtun resistance to the U.S. occupation and the corrupt Karzai government it backs. Obama's and Hillary Clinton's spin cannot change those facts.

Obama's story isn't even coherent. Al-Qaeda is in Pakistan, he says, not Afghanistan. (Obama's speech said nothing about the continuing "secret" drone assault that the U.S. military is conducting there.) Yet he insists that we must see Afghanistan through because that's where the 9/11 attacks were planned. Well, not actually. You can just as easily say they were planned in Germany and Florida. Why are those terrorist sanctuaries not feeling the wrath of the U.S. military?

Obama vows to defeat al-Qaeda, but what does that mean in the case of a highly decentralized "organization" under whose banner anyone anywhere may claim to be operating?

Obama promises that U.S. forces will begin leaving in July 2o11--maybe, depending on conditions on the ground.

Our only hope is that opposition will keep growing--where is that antiwar movement anyway?--and that the looming 2012 presidential election will prompt Obama to get out.

But in the meantime, Afghan people, expect more U.S.-sponsored violence, more maimed and dead babies and children, compliments of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner.

I don't know about you, but I don't regard someone as my enemy merely because he refuses to recognize the legitimacy of Karzai's gang." - Sheldon Richman[1]

[1] http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2009 7:59:40 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/3/2009 7:55:49 AM, Reasoning wrote:
What he calls a threat of a Taliban takeover is actually a Pashtun resistance to the U.S. occupation and the corrupt Karzai government it backs.

so was 9/11 an event of pashtun resistance against the US occupation of the world, or is this "pashtun resistance" movement really not so legitimate, and instead just a bunch of crazy theocratic @holes.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2009 8:22:20 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
We should not be there to start with. How can we squelch something that will contiune to sprout up?...We have thoroughly engrained a hatred for America that will fester for generations. Obama plugged into the Matrix like any other president.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2009 12:49:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
If there was really a civil war:

1) The elections wouldn't have gone through

2) A member representing the Pashtun would have ran for office

3) Proof of the Pashtun resistance other than the above article
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2009 12:54:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Besides most U.S. president have supported some form of Civil War in a foreign country since 1945.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2009 1:26:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/3/2009 12:54:31 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Besides most U.S. president have supported some form of Civil War in a foreign country since 1945.

nice point.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2009 1:29:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Civil War is a contradiction. There's nothing civil about shooting people with automatic rifles unless it's in a videogame.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2009 1:51:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/3/2009 1:29:45 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Civil War is a contradiction. There's nothing civil about shooting people with automatic rifles unless it's in a videogame.

Videogames have made it fun, but ask the children in Iraq, or Afghanistan that have severed limbs is it civil. I agree, there is nothing civil about it.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2009 2:12:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/3/2009 1:26:03 PM, kelly224 wrote:
At 12/3/2009 12:54:31 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Besides most U.S. president have supported some form of Civil War in a foreign country since 1945.

nice point.

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com...
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2009 2:36:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/3/2009 1:29:45 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Civil War is a contradiction. There's nothing civil about shooting people with automatic rifles unless it's in a videogame.

The word "civil" in the way you have used it is a corruption of what the word actually means. "Civil" only refers to matters within the state, and not much else. Hence "civilians,""civil war,""Civil Marriage Act," etc. So, there is no contradiction with the phrase "civil war," unless you don't know what the word means.

And video games hardly make it just "fun." If you bothered to look farther into most games, you will notice stories - moral stories, at that. This ranges from GTA 4 to Katamari. They are not the simple conduits that so many claim they are.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2009 2:49:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/3/2009 2:36:22 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 12/3/2009 1:29:45 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Civil War is a contradiction. There's nothing civil about shooting people with automatic rifles unless it's in a videogame.

The word "civil" in the way you have used it is a corruption of what the word actually means. "Civil" only refers to matters within the state, and not much else. Hence "civilians,""civil war,""Civil Marriage Act," etc. So, there is no contradiction with the phrase "civil war," unless you don't know what the word means.

Civil: adhering to the norms of polite social conduct. - Dictionary.com

And video games hardly make it just "fun." If you bothered to look farther into most games, you will notice stories - moral stories, at that. This ranges from GTA 4 to Katamari. They are not the simple conduits that so many claim they are.

I have GTA IV, but you missed the point. I'm not saying video games are a means to be immoral, I was saying the only time shooting people is acceptable is if it's done virtually.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2009 2:51:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/3/2009 2:49:17 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Civil: adhering to the norms of polite social conduct. - Dictionary.com

Again, corruption of the original meaning, as I noted. Even if it weren't, that definition does not belong where you're putting it.

I have GTA IV, but you missed the point. I'm not saying video games are a means to be immoral, I was saying the only time shooting people is acceptable is if it's done virtually.

Really? I guess American soldiers are fighting with flowers then.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2009 2:51:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/3/2009 2:49:17 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Civil: adhering to the norms of polite social conduct. - Dictionary.com

Bitch - female dog

I also like how the first six definitions on dictionary.com of civil are like Volkov said - the correct definition.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2009 3:03:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/3/2009 2:51:55 PM, Nags wrote:
At 12/3/2009 2:49:17 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Civil: adhering to the norms of polite social conduct. - Dictionary.com

Bitch - female dog

I also like how the first six definitions on dictionary.com of civil are like Volkov said - the correct definition.

Haha, the first six? Hardly. His was certainly a minority and they weren't even direct. They (the few) mainly implied it.

Besides, my remark was based on a joke from a George Carlin act.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2009 3:23:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/3/2009 7:55:49 AM, Reasoning wrote:
"Barack Obama's intensification of the occupation of Afghanistan is nothing less than a full commitment to one side in the civil war raging there. What he calls a threat of a Taliban takeover is actually a Pashtun resistance to the U.S. occupation and the corrupt Karzai government it backs. Obama's and Hillary Clinton's spin cannot change those facts.

Obama's story isn't even coherent. Al-Qaeda is in Pakistan, he says, not Afghanistan. (Obama's speech said nothing about the continuing "secret" drone assault that the U.S. military is conducting there.) Yet he insists that we must see Afghanistan through because that's where the 9/11 attacks were planned. Well, not actually. You can just as easily say they were planned in Germany and Florida. Why are those terrorist sanctuaries not feeling the wrath of the U.S. military?

Obama vows to defeat al-Qaeda, but what does that mean in the case of a highly decentralized "organization" under whose banner anyone anywhere may claim to be operating?

Obama promises that U.S. forces will begin leaving in July 2o11--maybe, depending on conditions on the ground.

Our only hope is that opposition will keep growing--where is that antiwar movement anyway?--and that the looming 2012 presidential election will prompt Obama to get out.

But in the meantime, Afghan people, expect more U.S.-sponsored violence, more maimed and dead babies and children, compliments of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner.

I don't know about you, but I don't regard someone as my enemy merely because he refuses to recognize the legitimacy of Karzai's gang." - Sheldon Richman[1]

[1] http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com...

Of course he's saying this.

What would be the reaction if he decided to withdraw tomorrow? Impeachment, probably. The fact that Obama is even trying to leave in 2011 is huge. When he came into office, there were people suggesting that the U.S. could remain in the middle east for the next hundred years. That is imperialism and Obama put a stop to it. He was given a crappy war and by gone, he's fighting it.

That being said, if I were in his shoes I would withdraw regardless of the political ramifications. One man's career is less important than the lives of hundreds of soldiers and thousands of civilians. Obama is probably, in terms of rhetoric, the most anti-war president since Carter, yet his means of aggressive pacifism entails wiping out scores of people for the eventual goal of peace. This will not work.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2009 9:17:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/3/2009 9:14:28 PM, comoncents wrote:
How far way from D.C do you think will be safe to not get hit.

And all major cities.

What?.... Are you saying that there is nuclear bombs in the major US cities, or near them, at the moment, and that Afghanistan (because I know you're not stupid enough to say Iraq) and Al-Qaeda had these capabilities, or at least had the ability to get towards them, before the invasion of Afghanistan, which pushed the Taliban to destabilize nuclear-armed Pakistan?
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2009 9:23:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/3/2009 9:17:53 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 12/3/2009 9:14:28 PM, comoncents wrote:
How far way from D.C do you think will be safe to not get hit.

And all major cities.

What?.... Are you saying that there is nuclear bombs in the major US cities, or near them, at the moment, and that Afghanistan (because I know you're not stupid enough to say Iraq) and Al-Qaeda had these capabilities, or at least had the ability to get towards them, before the invasion of Afghanistan, which pushed the Taliban to destabilize nuclear-armed Pakistan?

Wow, Wow, Wow.
Man, how much coke a cola did you drink tonight.

I was just wondering, damn.
What are some of the safest places in every state.
I was just thinking about it.

Like in virginia would i be safe. When i lived in watertown, ny would i have been safe.
I know i would have been screwed when i lived in New Orleans.
When i lived in san antonio.

Just wondering.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2009 9:31:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/3/2009 9:23:02 PM, comoncents wrote:
Just wondering.

My fault, I'm too use to the rather belligerent nature of this site.

Nuclear weapons aren't actually that powerful, considering. The largest, of which no terrorist could get their hands on unless Putin hands them the keys directly, only reach a destructive radius of about one and a half miles. All others are quite low, but it is the aftermath that matters more. Meaning fires, overwhelming of emergency services, loss of infrastructure, and etc.

If you're in D.C., being across the river in the suburban sections of Arlington, Falls Church, Alexandria and other cities, would get you out of the way of any direct damage from a bomb - assuming its centered on the National Mall area. That is about the general radius.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2009 9:44:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/3/2009 9:31:07 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 12/3/2009 9:23:02 PM, comoncents wrote:
Just wondering.

My fault, I'm too use to the rather belligerent nature of this site.

Nuclear weapons aren't actually that powerful, considering. The largest, of which no terrorist could get their hands on unless Putin hands them the keys directly, only reach a destructive radius of about one and a half miles. All others are quite low, but it is the aftermath that matters more. Meaning fires, overwhelming of emergency services, loss of infrastructure, and etc.

If you're in D.C., being across the river in the suburban sections of Arlington, Falls Church, Alexandria and other cities, would get you out of the way of any direct damage from a bomb - assuming its centered on the National Mall area. That is about the general radius.

Oh, i am in southwest virginia.
l am about 4 hours away from DC.

Thanks
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2009 1:05:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/3/2009 9:31:07 PM, Volkov wrote:

If you're in D.C., being across the river in the suburban sections of Arlington, Falls Church, Alexandria and other cities, would get you out of the way of any direct damage from a bomb - assuming its centered on the National Mall area. That is about the general radius.

Fallout 3 ftw.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.