[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Davey, I thought we hustled you off to the train paintin’ yard. Why are you back already?[/quote]
Why would anybody want to paint rain…? Just get paint all over the ground and all.[/quote]
I tot u n mi warnt on speeeekin tirmms? Nowz uz wanna bee frendz?[/quote]
I think I just need some time off from these forums again. Too much fucking negativity.
I’m sure I’ll be back eventually. In the meantime, take care, sir.
George Will: McChrystal’s jettisoning as a matter of unavoidable circumstance
[quote]The American undertaking in Afghanistan is a fool’s errand, and McChrystal is breathtakingly foolish. Even so, he and it were badly matched. This, even though the errand is of the president’s careful devising and McChrystal was the president’s choice to replace the four-star general who had been commanding there.
It may be said that McChrystal’s defect is only a deficit of political acumen. Only? Again, the mission in Afghanistan is much more political than military. Counterinsurgency, as defined by McChrystal’s successor, Gen. David Petraeus, and tepidly embraced by Barack Obama for a year or so, does not just involve nation-building, it is nation-building.
This does not require just political acumen; it requires the wisdom of Aristotle, the leadership skills of George Washington and the analytic sophistication of de Tocqueville. But, then, the grinding paradox of nation-building is this: No one with the aptitudes necessary for it would be rash or delusional enough to try it. [/quote]
With McChrystal replaced by Petreus, will this involve looking at the war with new glasses to develop a change in policy/objectives?
I doubt if policy objectives will change though the rules for getting there probably will some. However, I’d be lying if I said I had no doubts that anybody can tame Afghanistan into a stable self sufficient free society.
[quote]Otep wrote:
George Will: McChrystal’s jettisoning as a matter of unavoidable circumstance
[quote]The American undertaking in Afghanistan is a fool’s errand, and McChrystal is breathtakingly foolish. Even so, he and it were badly matched. This, even though the errand is of the president’s careful devising and McChrystal was the president’s choice to replace the four-star general who had been commanding there.
It may be said that McChrystal’s defect is only a deficit of political acumen. Only? Again, the mission in Afghanistan is much more political than military. Counterinsurgency, as defined by McChrystal’s successor, Gen. David Petraeus, and tepidly embraced by Barack Obama for a year or so, does not just involve nation-building, it is nation-building.
This does not require just political acumen; it requires the wisdom of Aristotle, the leadership skills of George Washington and the analytic sophistication of de Tocqueville. But, then, the grinding paradox of nation-building is this: No one with the aptitudes necessary for it would be rash or delusional enough to try it. [/quote]
With McChrystal replaced by Petreus, will this involve looking at the war with new glasses to develop a change in policy/objectives?[/quote]
No. The plan is still to get the heck out. Unfortunately, there’s this idea we can’t start today without being seen as having beat a hasty retreat. So, we’ll stretch this out until some “wind-down” date. That way it seems as if we pulled out exactly when we planned to. And, not a moment sooner! So more deaths, more money spent, on a war we’ve already decided we’re not going to win. The only responsible position is to demand that the administration and congress bring our troops home now.
[quote] To someone in Norway that’s a shrug of the shoulders. “what’s wrong with that?”
[/quote]
Not sure what you’re getting at here, sorry. Do you think I want a weakened US? I honestly don’t…
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Otep wrote:
George Will: McChrystal’s jettisoning as a matter of unavoidable circumstance
[quote]The American undertaking in Afghanistan is a fool’s errand, and McChrystal is breathtakingly foolish. Even so, he and it were badly matched. This, even though the errand is of the president’s careful devising and McChrystal was the president’s choice to replace the four-star general who had been commanding there.
It may be said that McChrystal’s defect is only a deficit of political acumen. Only? Again, the mission in Afghanistan is much more political than military. Counterinsurgency, as defined by McChrystal’s successor, Gen. David Petraeus, and tepidly embraced by Barack Obama for a year or so, does not just involve nation-building, it is nation-building.
This does not require just political acumen; it requires the wisdom of Aristotle, the leadership skills of George Washington and the analytic sophistication of de Tocqueville. But, then, the grinding paradox of nation-building is this: No one with the aptitudes necessary for it would be rash or delusional enough to try it. [/quote]
With McChrystal replaced by Petreus, will this involve looking at the war with new glasses to develop a change in policy/objectives?[/quote]
No. The plan is still to get the heck out. Unfortunately, there’s this idea we can’t start today without being seen as having beat a hasty retreat. So, we’ll stretch this out until some “wind-down” date. That way it seems as if we pulled out exactly when we planned to. And, not a moment sooner! So more deaths, more money spent, on a war we’ve already decided we’re not going to win. The only responsible position is to demand that t.he administration and congress bring our troops home now.[/quote]
Hey lets bring em home.
[quote]Carl_ wrote:
[quote] To someone in Norway that’s a shrug of the shoulders. “what’s wrong with that?”
[/quote]
Not sure what you’re getting at here, sorry. Do you think I want a weakened US? I honestly don’t…
[/quote]
What WOULD you like to see here? That’s not a trick sarcastic question. I’m asking honestly. You seem to me a passably level headed thinking person though certainly raised in an environment entirely foreign to my own (duh). I have a feeling you bear no serious animosity toward this country, but simply don’t understand. Probably through no fault of your own.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Carl_ wrote:
[quote] To someone in Norway that’s a shrug of the shoulders. “what’s wrong with that?”
[/quote]
Not sure what you’re getting at here, sorry. Do you think I want a weakened US? I honestly don’t…
[/quote]
What WOULD you like to see here? That’s not a trick sarcastic question. I’m asking honestly. You seem to me a passably level headed thinking person though certainly raised in an environment entirely foreign to my own (duh). I have a feeling you bear no serious animosity toward this country, but simply don’t understand. Probably through no fault of your own.[/quote]
Thanks for a well intentioned response. I’ve had quite a few beers, so I probably should wait until tomorrow before responding, but what the hell 
I can tell you that I don’t want a weak US, though - the world would in be a bigger mess than it already is if that were to happen.
Don’t really know how to express what I’d like to see over there right now. I don’t want to tell you how to go about your business (although I can’t always help myself). But less partisanship would probably be a start. Less extreme “in the trenches” mentality on both sides.
Cliché alert: That uniquely American can do spirit, pull yourself up by the bootstraps kind of thing - I actually admire that. May sound incredible to many Americans, but a lot of Euros do as well
What I’d like to see over here, though, is less knee jerk Anti US sentiment. This will probably sound like a cliché as well, but I really appreciate what you did during WW2, the Cold War, and let’s not forget the Marshall plan. Most of us actually remember that, even though we disagreed about Iraq (most of us agreed about Aghanistan, though).
And hey, did you know that the US was the 2nd country to recognize our independence from Sweden?
Hell, I knew the pledge of allegiance by heart when I was 14, but I got it from a WASP song, so it probably doesn’t count
This probably doesn’t make much sense at this point - if so, sorry about that 
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Carl_ wrote:
<<< I think that Obama is a nice guy >>>[/quote] So do I[quote]Carl_ wrote:
<<< who’s not quite up to the task at hand. >>>[/quote] If you’re referring to military matters this is the understatement of the century. He shouldn’t even be allowed near a Stratego board.[quote]Carl_ wrote:
<<< I think he’s a very bright guy, >>>[/quote] So do I [quote]Carl_ wrote:
<<< perhaps somewhat naive, but well intentioned. I don’t for a second think he’s out to destroy the US, although there are a lot of conspiracy theories out there. I wish the best for him, the US and by extension the rest of us. Is that so bad?[/quote]I couldn’t disagree more. He is not well intentioned. If by this it’s meant he wants a traditionally strong and exceptional United States. I do not believe he wants to destroy America in the same sense that Osama Bin Laden does. He does not want to see our cites burn. He does want to reinvent her into a diminished, more just and fair diluted version of herself with a distinct emphasis on stirring her into the world community. For the United States of America, that is destruction. To Americans still bearing a shadow of her founding that is destruction. To someone in Norway that’s a shrug of the shoulders. “what’s wrong with that?”
[/quote]
I’m American but I’m confused by this. Why is it “destruction” to America not to be preeminent militarily? (if that’s what you mean by “strong.”) What does it have to do with “a shadow of her founding”? The US was not anything like a world superpower at its founding.
Honest question.
[quote]Carl_ wrote:
<<< Thanks for a well intentioned response. I’ve had quite a few beers, so I probably should wait until tomorrow before responding, but what the hell
I can tell you that I don’t want a weak US, though - the world would in be a bigger mess than it already is if that were to happen.
Don’t really know how to express what I’d like to see over there right now. I don’t want to tell you how to go about your business (although I can’t always help myself). But less partisanship would probably be a start. Less extreme “in the trenches” mentality on both sides.
Clich�© alert: That uniquely American can do spirit, pull yourself up by the bootstraps kind of thing - I actually admire that. May sound incredible to many Americans, but a lot of Euros do as well
What I’d like to see over here, though, is less knee jerk Anti US sentiment. This will probably sound like a clichÃ?© as well, but I really appreciate what you did during WW2, the Cold War, and let’s not forget the Marshall plan. Most of us actually remember that, even though we disagreed about Iraq (most of us agreed about Aghanistan, though).
And hey, did you know that the US was the 2nd country to recognize our independence from Sweden?
Hell, I knew the pledge of allegiance by heart when I was 14, but I got it from a WASP song, so it probably doesn’t count
This probably doesn’t make much sense at this point - if so, sorry about that
[/quote]
LOL!!! Well you’re OK by me bud and contrary to how it may seem sometimes I am not sitting on the edge of my seat longing for opportunities to have tension and discord with my international neighbors. I am not however prepared to forfeit my God given freedoms in the name of a misguided and wholly unworkable vision of global mediocrity. That’s where the “partisanship” part of your post comes in. That I don’t think you understand. Which doesn’t make you ill intentioned or stupid, you’re just not from here.
We are in an ideological war over whether we will continue on, or actually return to, the unprecedentedly successful trajectory set for us by the giants at our founding or relinquish the power of those ideals in a fatal compromise with a world view that has been our historical enemy. In my view, in this environment, compromise equals probably at this point now, permanent surrender and permanent decline.
It is that serious.
I agree with what McChrystal said. To fight a war effectively, you go all in or pull out. This half-assed send a few troops over and see what happens just results in lost lives. Afghanistan is now about nation-building, which is something that the U.S. tried before and it didn’t work out too well.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
<<< I’m American but I’m confused by this. Why is it “destruction” to America not to be preeminent militarily? (if that’s what you mean by “strong.”) What does it have to do with “a shadow of her founding”? The US was not anything like a world superpower at its founding.
Honest question.[/quote]As much as we usually disagree I have come to expect nothing less than honest thoughtful discourse with you Alisa as I have previously stated.
Having reread my post and recognizing the context in which it is found it appears that I have left myself open to this very line of questioning. I view military might as the inevitable achievement of a people who persist in the powerful ideals of our founding long enough for the necessity for it to emerge.
It is but one of the many benefits. The ideals of divinely ordained individual rights, high social morality, government limited by design and personal responsibility are what I primarily mean by “founding”.
Those who cherish those principles and recognize them as in fact being the founding of America (to somewhat varying degrees) have developed very high standards for both their responsibility and standing in the world and with each other.
Any American who finds themselves satisfied with a path of decline and weakness has lost the fire handed down to us through the vision of our founders. Military power and international prestige are merely positive side effects and only parts of the package maybe even unforeseen in the beginning.
That will either make sense to you or come across as arrogant sophistry (or maybe a bit of both)
OK, that does clarify.
I think I like the same values you do. I’m skeptical that ambitious foreign and military policy is the best way to maintain them. I do like to think that good values help us win wars, when we do need to fight.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
…with a distinct emphasis on stirring her into the world community. For the United States of America, that is destruction. To Americans still bearing a shadow of her founding that is destruction. To someone in Norway that’s a shrug of the shoulders. “what’s wrong with that?”
[/quote]
If by “stirring her into the world community” you mean some type of One World government then I agree that this is a bad thing. However, increasing international trade and opening up foreign markets is most definitely a good thing in terms of our economy. Big Labor doesn’t like free trade, but they’re a bunch of communists.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
OK, that does clarify.
I think I like the same values you do. I’m skeptical that ambitious foreign and military policy is the best way to maintain them. I do like to think that good values help us win wars, when we do need to fight.[/quote]
That may or may not be true in my opinion depending on the specific mission or policy and is fodder for 50 more pages here =] Your view in short is that stepping on weaker nations, militarily, diplomatically or financially does not well represent the values I’ve claimed and weakens our moral authority in the world.
My response would be that while I agree that dominance for the sake of it is both unnecessary and immoral, we probably disagree on the definition of the word “need” in your post, though maybe not in every case. I suspect I see the world as more dangerous and power as more fragile than you do.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
…with a distinct emphasis on stirring her into the world community. For the United States of America, that is destruction. To Americans still bearing a shadow of her founding that is destruction. To someone in Norway that’s a shrug of the shoulders. “what’s wrong with that?”
[/quote]
If by “stirring her into the world community” you mean some type of One World government then I agree that this is a bad thing. However, increasing international trade and opening up foreign markets is most definitely a good thing in terms of our economy. Big Labor doesn’t like free trade, but they’re a bunch of communists.
[/quote]
I mean intentionally bringing her into financial and influential parity with less successful nations in the name of an international communist vision of fairness whether that encompasses a formal governing element or not.
Example: paying Venezuela our money to drill for oil offshore at depths many times what is being denied our own private domestic companies to the simultaneous benefit of Venezuela and China, but the great detriment of the United States. It strengthens them and weakens us. Bring down the peaks and pull up the valleys. I resent that and reject that it is well intentioned U.S. policy.
Making it a relentless mission to facilitate as much illegal immigration as possible even going to so far as to produce a PSA encouraging illegals to demand equal pay and benefits and appointing a former self proclaimed sanctuary city mayor as head of the 287g program. I resent that and reject that it is well intentioned U.S. policy.
Just those 2 examples betray not a well meaning, but misguided agenda to strengthen America, but one clearly designed to fortify other countries and weaken America.
I’m not a strict isolationist. International trade and markets pursued with our best interests in mind are fine in principle with me, though inherently problematic in practice in some cases.
Tiribulus:
On your first example:
“…Paying Venezuela our money to drill for oil offshore at depths many times what is being denied our own private domestic companies to the simultaneous benefit of Venezuela and China, but the great detriment of the United States. It strengthens them and weakens us. Bring down the peaks and pull up the valleys. I resent that and reject that it is well intentioned U.S. policy…”
I seriously think that a lot of our Policy toward China is driven by two things:
They hold an ENOURMOUS amount of our debt and
They tend to keep things “in check” in that region of the World…as long as it is to their best interest and/or we give them something in return.
We’ve discussed it many times on this site before…the Chinese are very pragmatic people. Talks with them most likely are along the lines of “…you help me…I help you…”…and “don’t publicly embarrass us”.
No “ideology”. No “religion”. No pretense.
We most likely do things with and for China in order to get something in return. On the surface, some of these agreements may make us pull our hair out…but by giving their growing economy more access to oil, we most likely have gotten some assurances in return.
That’s how the Chinese roll.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
<<< I seriously think that a lot of our Policy toward China is driven by two things: >>>[/quote]
This is not a policy toward China. It is a policy toward offshore drilling only involving China because they are in business with Hugo Chavez. The same Hugo Chavez that overtly hates this country and that Obama has given my money to to drill for oil way offshore at ENORMOUS depths. They’re doing it with my money as I type this. Offshore drilling, remember that? That’s what Obama is also forbidding to our companies and companies in which we have a very a large private interest supposedly because it’s a danger to the environment.
Obama to America:
No no no, you can’t drill out there because it’s too deep and this spill has shown us what can happen. So the energy economy in the country I am president of must be dealt a massive blow and thousands of American Jobs lost.
Obama to Chavez/Venezuela(same thing):
Not only can you drill til yer hearts content, but I will give you 2 billion dollars of my country’s money to do it and that at depths faaaar deeper than what I have told our companies is too dangerous. Make all the oil profits you can and oh yeah, don’t forget to give China their cut.
You have no problem with this?