Originally posted by 27jd
We'll have to disagree on this one. We can't afford it anymore. I believe that we should of course be able to defend ourselves, or protect ourselves
from threats by criminal extremist organizations. But we need to fight smarter, not harder. I believe we are in Afghanistan still, because there are
special interests there. Perhaps that Enron pipeline, taken over by god knows who? Something else the public is not made aware? I don't know, but you
know what they say about Afghanistan, graveyard of empires and all that. We should be fighting extremists in no man's lands with good intelligence,
and surgical special ops strikes. Not massive regular army buildup. It's too easy for a coporation to buy a few of our corrupt politicians to send
our military to protect their interests on the taxpayer dime, and alot cheaper for them than hiring a Blackwater like firm. As for Pak, if we're out
of the region, they can't cause much trouble for us. Ron Paul is the most popular candidate among those in the military. He'll bring them home, to
defend this nation from symetrical threats. Assymetrical threats need assymetrical solutions, IMO. I don't think RP's position is to take it on the
No, we're not that t far into disagreement here. That's exactly what I meant by "fight like they mean it". That war should have been won inside of
3 years, and then we should have gotten on with the business of helping Afghans build the Afghanistan they want, rather than the one we want them to
have. When Kabul fell, we had 100 soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan. Just 100 SpecOps types. Then, the General staff dropped the ball by insisting
on a massive influx of regulars, useless as it gets in an asymmetrical conflict, but good to gain ribbons for the higher ups. In my opinion, THAT is
why we are still there. Pipelines are far easier to get and maintain in peace, rather than in war where they may be blown into bit at any instant.
The "graveyard of empires" only applies to incompetents, which describes our current General Staff to a tee, as it did the Soviets and the British
in their endeavors there. Both Alexander and Genghis conquered Afghanistan by NOT being incompetent. There just isn't any way to fight a war gently,
and too many cooks get in each other's way and spoil the broth.
As you say, it really should have been pursued through intelligence gathering and surgical SpecOps strikes, without a massive regular troop build up.
Regulars are best employed in regular wars, which we may not see any time soon. The biggest build up should have been nothing more than a couple of
reaction battalions to clean up nests that the SpecOps and intel guys smoked out. Waziristan and the Swat Valley in particular should be levelled from
end to end as a sample of what will happen if they don't stop giving aid and comfort to the enemy. All financial assistance to Pakistan should be
stopped cold until the ISI and certain government elements get with the program. I can't see giving them money to assist the enemy.
It's my understanding that Ron Paul's position is to bring 'em all home, win or loss, and decommission the majority of the military. That sounds a
lot like an invitation to mayhem to me.
I'm sure Israel would make that happen anyway. Iran can't hit us, we know who they would hit, but they would be done. Plus, if Israel feels they're
a threat, let them take them out.
Well, I'm not specifically thinking of their threat to Israel, but to the region as a whole. On top of that, I'm still a bit upset with the Iranian
penchant for taking hostages.
Didn't that have to do having to register as a Republican to run for the house seat in his district or something? I believe he stated he'll run as
an Independent if he doesn't get the nomination, since he's not running for the House seat again. But if he does get the nomination, the media
REALLY wouldn't be able to marginalize him anymore like they do now. I'm gonna switch from Independent, to Republican just to vote in the primaries,
then switch back.
Well, like I said that's just a personal problem for me, and not entirely insurmountable. I think that if he had a solid courage of his convictions,
he'd release the republican coat-tails right now, and actively start an Independent campaign against BOTH of the major parties.
Unfortunately, I believe that the powers in power have already chosen Romney to be the Republican runner, and the rest of this is just a dog and pony
Probably, but if enough people vote against the establishment, I wonder if they will be able to hide it. I'm hoping to see such a decisive victory,
that they can't rig it. At this point, it's the only hope I feel we have to get this country back on track.
They will do what they want, hidden or not. Florida, 2000 A.D.
I personally think that the Democratic Conventions in the last election were rigged as well. Clinton had a solid lead, then one day I woke up, turned
on the news, and it was suddenly upside down. Ditto for the Republicans, 2008. There is no way that McCain should have prevailed against the other
contenders, but with his progressive-like stance, he was a shoe-in for the Powers in the Power. Not a nickel's worth of difference between he and
Obama, so after those rigs, it didn't matter at all which candidate the laity selected. On top of that, he ran what was probably the weakest campaign
I have ever witnessed, and I'll bet there was a good, solid, reason for that beyond incompetence.
In this cycle, Romney is the new mcCain. Progressive to a fault, Republican in name only, and slow out of the gate. A guaranteed loser.