Damn gobment

[j_b]

what?

[billcoe]

what?

 

I wuz like: "Boyz, we're all on the same damn side here."

 

Then U wuz like: "I doubt that very much."

 

Then I wuz all like talking about the constitution meaning that wuz the side we wuz all on and stuf.

 

Then U wuz all like: "What"

 

Now I'm all like thinking of only responding "Huh", but instead I'm all like jus' repeating myself again.

 

Good talkin' to ya.

 

 

[j_b]

All types claim to adhere to the constitution, yet only few wants what is best for Afghans so there is clearly something faulty with your logic.

 

Afghanistan isn't such a threat that we need 200,000 men (military + mercenaries) to occupy that country and kill civilians 8000 miles away. The fog of war isn't that thick.

[tvashtarkatena]

We're already in Pakistan. The majority of our drone air strikes now are executed there, with an increasing number of targets selected by the Pakistanis...not us.

 

This is Vietnam all over. We have no strategy, there will be no good outcome for the U.S., yet some vastly overblown, amorphous 'threat' keeps us over there and draining our national coffers. We can leave now, or leave after spending another trillion we don't have (and we will do that); the result will be the same, only the longer we wait, the weaker we'll be for the next few decades.

 

The sad part is that every single one of you as well as most other yanks who aren't in a coma, when the pretend-debate is stripped away, knows this to be true.

 

It would be vastly better for the health of our nation, dear fellow patriots, to pull out now, shunt the money into federally supported energy independence technology (windmills, mostly), and say a fond 'fuck you and farewell' to the Middle East and central Asia forever.

Edited December 8, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[Pete_H]

We should have invaded France instead. The skiing is better and the women more attractive.

[jon]

We should have invaded France instead. The skiing is better and the women more attractive.

 

They don't have oil. Canada does. And Poutine.

[j_b]

This is Vietnam all over. We have no strategy, there will be no good outcome for the U.S., yet some vastly overblown, amorphous 'threat' keeps us over there and draining our national coffers. We can leave now, or leave after spending another trillion we don't have (and we will do that); the result will be the same, only the longer we wait, the weaker we'll be for the next few decades.

 

[..]

 

It would be vastly better for the health of our nation, dear fellow patriots, to pull out now, shunt the money into federally supported energy independence technology (windmills, mostly), and say a fond 'fuck you and farewell' to the Middle East and central Asia forever.

 

Most of the above is very true, but even worse IMO is that waging perpetual war in Afghanistan isn't good for Afghans and will set Afghanistan further back. As I said to Bill, any policy that doesn't explicitly accounts for the role we played in making Afghanistan hell on earth and drawing lessons from it, is likely opportunistic and therefore untrustworthy.

[tvashtarkatena]

what?

 

I wuz like: "Boyz, we're all on the same damn side here."

 

Then U wuz like: "I doubt that very much."

 

Then I wuz all like talking about the constitution meaning that wuz the side we wuz all on and stuf.

 

Then U wuz all like: "What"

 

Now I'm all like thinking of only responding "Huh", but instead I'm all like jus' repeating myself again.

 

Good talkin' to ya.

 

 

I don't know what this cadet is going on about either.

[Pete_H]

Private, you'd best unfuck yourself.

[olyclimber]

We should have invaded France instead. The skiing is better and the women more attractive.

 

They don't have oil. Canada does. And Poutine.

 

54 40 or fight