JayB Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 "Never attempt to reason a man out of something that he wasn't reasoned into." ~Swift Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 "Never attempt to reason a man out of something that he wasn't reasoned into." ~Swift the inevitable truncation of this lovely little bit of swift wisdom though is "never attempt to reason w/ a man" which sadly leaves you quickly w/ no more option than to open him up w/ whatever sharp object lies close at hand, no? heaven forbid, it is heathenish itself! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 sadly, Authority HAS had a poor track record of winning the hearts or especially the minds of its Peasants - watergate did, as thompson decried, break the heart of the american dream Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glassgowkiss Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 Yeah, like selling Central and Eastern Europe to stalin and soviets by Americans in Yalta. On that token i should tell my friends there to beat the shit out of every visiting yank, because they are responsible for 50 years of soviet occupation, mass killings and general misery- great logic, isn't it? like i said- get a clue. i reckon you can tell your friends whatever you want - irrationality is at the heart of history, and you'd be proud to play your part i'll warrant - in your case, i'm not certain how eastern europe was ever america's to "sell" nor how we could have imposed our will upon marshall stalin even had we been seriously inclined to do so perhaps we're straying from the original point? was it that irrational to, after 9/11, provide military support to the afghan northern alliance to evict the (unjust, as you say) governmetn of afghanistan, which had knowingly like OBL do his thing there? seems hard to argue against, but any military force, however nobly wielded, kills innocents. Dig, dig, ding, we have a winner! yes, Eastern and Central Europe was no interest to the US, so pretty much in Yalta there was a line drawn, essentially dividing Europe in half. There were plenty of ways to persuade stalin and soviets from abandoning their claim on these parts, but none of them were followed. there are plenty of historical books regarding this subject matter, so just read on that. The point is, that an average Afghan had nothing to do with hosting terrorists on their soil. There known cases of beheadings for listening to the music, and pretty much in a country where someone is pointing a gun at you, you do as you are told. Like it would be a nonsense to blame average US citizen for fucking over general population of countries like Poland, Slovakia or Czech Republic, it's a utter nonsense to blame Afghans for what happened on 9/11. As the matter of fact, a big part of the issue was a vacuum created after soviets pulled out in (final troops left in 1989). While US US spent billions of $$$ fighting a proxy war with soviets, this county did nothing to help Afghanistan in the post soviet era. So fuck you for your initial statement, I stand by my words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 it's a utter nonsense to blame Afghans for what happened on 9/11. So fuck you for your initial statement would punching me make you feel like you were getting even w/ the mean, mean world? did i make it this way? would it really be so much better if everybody was as kewl as you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 There were plenty of ways to persuade stalin and soviets from abandoning their claim on these parts sure, patton had a great plan - and how likely would have being way more forceful w/ the soviets at that time ended up in ww3? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 There were plenty of ways to persuade stalin and soviets from abandoning their claim on these parts sure, patton had a great plan - and how likely would have being way more forceful w/ the soviets at that time ended up in ww3? Patton opines on the Russian character: "The difficulty in understanding the Russians is that we do not take cognizance of the fact that he is not a European, but an Asiatic, and therefore thinks deviously. We can no more understand a Russian than a Chinaman or a Japanese, and from what I have seen of them, I have no particular desire to understand them, except to ascertain how much lead or iron it takes to kill them. In addition to his other Asiatic characteristics, the Russian have no regard for human life and is an all out son of bitch, barbarian, and chronic drunk." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 Yeah, like selling Central and Eastern Europe to stalin and soviets by Americans in Yalta. On that token i should tell my friends there to beat the shit out of every visiting yank, because they are responsible for 50 years of soviet occupation, mass killings and general misery- great logic, isn't it? like i said- get a clue. i reckon you can tell your friends whatever you want - irrationality is at the heart of history, and you'd be proud to play your part i'll warrant - in your case, i'm not certain how eastern europe was ever america's to "sell" nor how we could have imposed our will upon marshall stalin even had we been seriously inclined to do so perhaps we're straying from the original point? was it that irrational to, after 9/11, provide military support to the afghan northern alliance to evict the (unjust, as you say) governmetn of afghanistan, which had knowingly like OBL do his thing there? seems hard to argue against, but any military force, however nobly wielded, kills innocents. Dig, dig, ding, we have a winner! yes, Eastern and Central Europe was no interest to the US, so pretty much in Yalta there was a line drawn, essentially dividing Europe in half. There were plenty of ways to persuade stalin and soviets from abandoning their claim on these parts, but none of them were followed. there are plenty of historical books regarding this subject matter, so just read on that. The point is, that an average Afghan had nothing to do with hosting terrorists on their soil. There known cases of beheadings for listening to the music, and pretty much in a country where someone is pointing a gun at you, you do as you are told. Like it would be a nonsense to blame average US citizen for fucking over general population of countries like Poland, Slovakia or Czech Republic, it's a utter nonsense to blame Afghans for what happened on 9/11. But we didn't attack the "average Afghan" -- we attacked the taliban. The guys we're killing over there now are also not the "average afghan." As Ivan points out, any military action will kill innocents, but our military is definitely more cautious of collateral damage now than during, say, WWII. The point is, the average afghan is not the one lobbing rockets into our bases and getting shot at by marines. I'm not a fan of the afghan war but you and kevbone sound like idiots going on and on about how we're just randomly gunning down every tom, dick and harry over there in the street like bloodthirsty wolves. I'm pretty sure you guys are full of shit. The truth is bad, but there is no need to make it worse with hyperbole and ignorant comparisons to Yalta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 my family never held patton in much regard - in the war games in louisiana shortly before ww2 my grandfather, as part of the opposing force, got bitched out by old blood'n'jizz when he tried passing through his checkpoint and my pop had the audacity to tell him he'd been killed by the enemy - old-boy cursed a blue-streak and sped off in his jeep - i might add though that my gramps was in way more enlightened in his racial views Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glassgowkiss Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 Yeah, like selling Central and Eastern Europe to stalin and soviets by Americans in Yalta. On that token i should tell my friends there to beat the shit out of every visiting yank, because they are responsible for 50 years of soviet occupation, mass killings and general misery- great logic, isn't it? like i said- get a clue. i reckon you can tell your friends whatever you want - irrationality is at the heart of history, and you'd be proud to play your part i'll warrant - in your case, i'm not certain how eastern europe was ever america's to "sell" nor how we could have imposed our will upon marshall stalin even had we been seriously inclined to do so perhaps we're straying from the original point? was it that irrational to, after 9/11, provide military support to the afghan northern alliance to evict the (unjust, as you say) governmetn of afghanistan, which had knowingly like OBL do his thing there? seems hard to argue against, but any military force, however nobly wielded, kills innocents. Dig, dig, ding, we have a winner! yes, Eastern and Central Europe was no interest to the US, so pretty much in Yalta there was a line drawn, essentially dividing Europe in half. There were plenty of ways to persuade stalin and soviets from abandoning their claim on these parts, but none of them were followed. there are plenty of historical books regarding this subject matter, so just read on that. The point is, that an average Afghan had nothing to do with hosting terrorists on their soil. There known cases of beheadings for listening to the music, and pretty much in a country where someone is pointing a gun at you, you do as you are told. Like it would be a nonsense to blame average US citizen for fucking over general population of countries like Poland, Slovakia or Czech Republic, it's a utter nonsense to blame Afghans for what happened on 9/11. But we didn't attack the "average Afghan" -- we attacked the taliban. The guys we're killing over there now are also not the "average afghan." As Ivan points out, any military action will kill innocents, but our military is definitely more cautious of collateral damage now than during, say, WWII. The point is, the average afghan is not the one lobbing rockets into our bases and getting shot at by marines. I'm not a fan of the afghan war but you and kevbone sound like idiots going on and on about how we're just randomly gunning down every tom, dick and harry over there in the street like bloodthirsty wolves. I'm pretty sure you guys are full of shit. The truth is bad, but there is no need to make it worse with hyperbole and ignorant comparisons to Yalta Actually, you are full of shit. It's actually ordinary Afghans shooting at the bases, then go home and eat family dinner. What you (and most Americans) fail to understand is, that these folks were in some form of military conflict for the past 1000 years, war and fighting invaders is a part of their culture. Therefor this conflict is and always will be impossible to win. And drawing lessons from a history books is the single biggest failure in this country. Seems like 95% of people here have memory span of 5 minutes and keep making same fucking mistakes over and over again. Like I can't fathom why "trickle down economic" is still an option and legit claim in newest political circus. It did not work in the past 30 years, it never will. Yalta is a prime example of such thinking , and this lesson is being repeated over and over. This country has zero long term foreign strategy and short term gains always seem to tramp any long term logical moves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 1000 years of history aside, and I don't know but Glasgow maybe right, but over the last 11 years we have not been anything like clear about what we are trying to do. We invaded in response to 9-11, but we didn't attack training camps or AlQueda sites. We gave six weeks' public notice so any bad guys could get away, and we took over the country rather than to go after those who might actually have been behind the attack (yes, I know, we argued that the government allowed the training camps on their soil). We let Osama go at Tora Bora. Then we killed him in Pakistan. We are now preparing to pull out, but clearly the place is a mess and I don't think any better than when we went in. What the hell are we doing there, anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 What the hell are we doing there, anyway? like they said in vietnam! "hey, don't knock it, it's the only war we got!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 my point isn't that we know what the fuck we're doing over there, because we probably don't. my point is that we're not really at war with the average afghan. I bet the average afghan is probably just trying to keep his fucking head down and provide for his family and not get his ass shot off in the crossfire. And, despite the fact that we really fucked it up, it's retarded to say we're just "trying to punish the afghans for 9/11" I like you bob Bob, you're kind of like the bizarro kevbone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckaroo Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 Kevbone thinks Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were framed, so yeah. The CIA painted their pictures and then framed them. These are wars for the control of oil, everything else is just the excuse. 911 was "we need a new Pearl Harbor" (to foment war) as explicitly publicly stated by PNAC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckaroo Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 my point isn't that we know what the fuck we're doing over there, because we probably don't. my point is that we're not really at war with the average afghan. I bet the average afghan is probably just trying to keep his fucking head down and provide for his family and not get his ass shot off in the crossfire. And, despite the fact that we really fucked it up, it's retarded to say we're just "trying to punish the afghans for 9/11" Originally the Afghan invasion served several purposes and we know exactly what we are doing over there. 1) Re-establish the CIA's opium crop. According to the CIA's own World Fact Book, the Taliban destroyed an entire year's crop. Within the first six months of our invasion, the crop was brought back. $250 Billion drug money annual gets laundered on Wall St. 2) Attempt to open a pipeline route from the 'Stans basin to the nearest deepwater port (shortest route is through Afghan) Kharzai worked for the pipeline company. Enron was also connected to the deal. 3) Initiate the "war on terror" to bring into use the military and increase military spending. Russia had folded and they needed a new enemy, a new reason to exist and thrive. The "war on terror" is perfect because you can pick any country you need to invade for oil, declare them terrorists and invade. It's a moving target and they pick who. The first day they launched 50 cruise missiles at $1 Million each. There aren't $50 Million worth of targets in the entire country. It's just to make the warmongers rich with the expenditure of the bombs they build. "Terror" is the most exaggerated propaganda imaginable. Our "war on terror" has actually increased real terrorism, which is exactly what they want to do. Just like early in the Iraq war when they didn't want to fight. So you release a bunch of photos from a "secure" prison (Abu Ghraib) showing people being tortured and sodomized. That's all it took to make them want to fight. The official reason is still to stop 911 terrorists in Afghan, even though the patsies were from Saudi and Egypt, and all the terror training camps were and still are in Pakistan. The real terrorists are at the Builderberg meetings, they are the ones who start and stop all the modern oil wars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckaroo Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 The Builderbergs want a New World Order, they've had this goal since the 1800's They have already built the European Union, they are working on the North American Union. Canada, USA, Mexico. The money will be the Amero. Iraq, Libya, Iran are all obstacles to the NWO goal. They are/were rouge states who are totally resistant to assimilation. Their main source of money/power is oil. Saddam was also non compliant with the major oil companies. He constantly was dumping on the market keeping the price down. We didn't invade Iraq to steal their oil, we invaded to stop the flow. Control supply, control the price, it shot up right after we invaded and hasn't been down since. Libya's Qaddafi had amassed a huge supply of gold and was attempting to start an African currency exchange. Both Iraq and Libya were coming into the first world. Builderbergs don't want that, they want population control, especially in the first world. Iraq was the most advanced of the Arab countries with Libya not far behind. They are both now bombed back into the 3rd world. The Arab spring was real in Egypt as witnessed by the vids and photos of huge crowds, it was a popular uprising. It's total BS in Libya, nothing but a proxy war. There are no photos vids of any popular uprising in Libya because there was none. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckaroo Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 We let Osama go at Tora Bora. Then we killed him in Pakistan. None of what you hear, and only half of what you see. So if you didn't see Osama's body then why do you believe? Because the TV that is totally owned by the military industrial complex told you what to believe? Several people in the Arab world have stated that Osama died in 2002. But I guess they haven't mentioned that on CNN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crux Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 Nice work Roo, but you've got a ways to go. For your edification, a few points of correction: Oil as a commodity to which scarcity applies is a canard; petroleum is readily synthesized from water, of which there is more than ample supply. You see water. You don't see oil under the ground. Nuf said. Since oil is not scarce, the truth of the CIA is not about the scarcity of oil. It's about labels. Read the fine print, dude, the CIA is just a family owned subsidiary of the Builderbergs, of which Obama is a member. That's the key man, that's the key. So you're not too far off. Once you accept that Bin Laden only got to us by milk cartons, you know, all the pictures, they see two ways man, then you know better. You can even hear them, a little, if you just put your ear up to one of those cartons. That's proof! Peace out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckaroo Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 Oil as a commodity to which scarcity applies is a canard; the CIA is just a family owned subsidiary of the Builderbergs, of which Obama is a member. agree. They took Iraq off the market, the 2nd largest reserve on the planet, and there's still really no shortage. The shortages that drive up prices are contrived. They haven't built any new refineries in the US in years. Agree, the CIA is just the police arm of the global elite. And you can't become president without belonging to Builderberg. And that's against the constitution, you can't assemble in secret to discuss national policy. All the presidents since Kennedy have been total puppets. I think they thought they could control Kennedy but he went rouge and tried to put us back on the gold standard for which he was killed. First thing Johnson did was take us off gold and put us back on fiat money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted September 16, 2012 Author Share Posted September 16, 2012 What buckaroo said Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akhalteke Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 Bob, I will disagree on your point about it being 'average Afghans' as most of the guys I have seen have Pakistani, Saudi, Chechnyan ect origins. The 'agerage Afghan' is scared shitless of the Americans almost as much as it is of the Taliban. Most Afghans WANT to tell us information, but are scared for their lives and families if they were to divulge information. Sitting down and drinking some scalding hot chai with no handle and looking into peoples' eyes can give you a very poweless feeling when you know you cannot protect them 24/7 and that your presence alone can make them targets of the T-ban. That being said, many Afghans are knowingly giving aid to the Taliban (though mostly through coersion) indirectly through the drug trade. All in all, they are good people (unlike most Iraqi's) and are just trying to survive; and by survive, I mean it litterally. It is a shitty place and it was made much shittier by the Taliban. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted September 16, 2012 Author Share Posted September 16, 2012 I'm not a fan of the afghan war but you and kevbone sound like idiots going on and on about how we're just randomly gunning down every tom, dick and harry over there in the street like bloodthirsty wolves. What the hell are you talking about. When have I ever said that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akhalteke Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 I'm not a fan of the afghan war but you and kevbone sound like idiots going on and on about how we're just randomly gunning down every tom, dick and harry over there in the street like bloodthirsty wolves. What the hell are you talking about. When have I ever said that? Well you have dodged the fuck out of the questions posed to you, so I suppose making assumptions is all anyone can do in regards to your stance on anything with the exception of Ron Paul. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akhalteke Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 We let Osama go at Tora Bora. Then we killed him in Pakistan. None of what you hear, and only half of what you see. So if you didn't see Osama's body then why do you believe? Because the TV that is totally owned by the military industrial complex told you what to believe? Several people in the Arab world have stated that Osama died in 2002. But I guess they haven't mentioned that on CNN. What MattP said was spot on. I suppose my friends and co-workers are liars; or were brainwashed by the CIA? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.