Pakistan

[Cleets Part 2]

What do we do? Hope Pakistan can fend off the Taliban?

What if they get control of Pakistan's nukes with 60k coalition troops right next door?

I'm really not sure what we should do... the American people can not stomach another war... but, the consequences of doing nothing are HUGE.

Ah, love it. Let's abandon THEM just like we're about to abandon the Iraqis.

Oh yeah... and kill hundreds of thousands of Pakistani citizens as we "free them"
We're such "Liberators"

[Wedgebuster]

One definition of "setting them free" is in fact the act of killing them.

Wonder if all those Iraqis we "freed" appreciated the attention we gave them?

[native]

One definition of "setting them free" is in fact the act of killing them.

Wonder if all those Iraqis we "freed" appreciated the attention we gave them?

Some do, and some do not. The 400,000 CIVILIANS killed by Saddam don't get to vote.

[native]

Ah, love it. Let's abandon THEM just like we're about to abandon the Iraqis.

Oh yeah... and kill hundreds of thousands of Pakistani citizens as we "free them"
We're such "Liberators"

Your avatar is so appropriate, Cleets - an empty suit!

[Cleets Part 2]

One definition of "setting them free" is in fact the act of killing them.

Wonder if all those Iraqis we "freed" appreciated the attention we gave them?

Some do, and some do not. The 400,000 CIVILIANS killed by Saddam don't get to vote.

So we should start a war with every nation we deem "not free"
Would you like a list of active dictators who have killed hundreds of thousands..?

Team America World Police

[dbackjon]

One definition of "setting them free" is in fact the act of killing them.

Wonder if all those Iraqis we "freed" appreciated the attention we gave them?

Some do, and some do not. The 400,000 CIVILIANS killed by Saddam don't get to vote.

And the 100,000 and climbing rapidly since then? The millions displaced?

[Cleets Part 2]

Your avatar is so appropriate, Cleets - an empty suit!

You know nothing about me...

[native]

Some do, and some do not. The 400,000 CIVILIANS killed by Saddam don't get to vote.

So we should start a war with every nation we deem "not free"
Would you like a list of active dictators who have killed hundreds of thousands..?

Team America World Police

Nope, we should not invade every country we deem "not free." But neither should we be isolationist.

We should be able to discuss and agree on the criteria for when and how we engage.

I think the Weinberger Doctrine was a pretty good start:
1. The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved.
2. U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed.
3. U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military objectives and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives.
4. The relationship between the objectives and the size and composition of the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.
5. U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a "reasonable assurance" of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress.
6. The commitment of U.S. troops should be considered only as a last resort.

[Cleets Part 2]

So we should start a war with every nation we deem "not free"
Would you like a list of active dictators who have killed hundreds of thousands..?

Team America World Police

Nope, we should not invade every country we deem "not free." But neither should we be isolationist.

We should be able to discuss and agree on the criteria for when and how we engage.

I think the Weinberger Doctrine was a pretty good start:
1. The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved.
2. U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed.
3. U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military objectives and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives.
4. The relationship between the objectives and the size and composition of the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.
5. U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a "reasonable assurance" of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress.
6. The commitment of U.S. troops should be considered only as a last resort.

So obviously you are against us attacking Iraq... (I'm glad we agree)

[native]

Your avatar is so appropriate, Cleets - an empty suit!

You know nothing about me...

And if the rest of your posts are as vacuous as the post that prompted my smack, I am unlikely to learn anything about you.


...empty suit ... prove me wrong!

[BlueHen86]

Nope, we should not invade every country we deem "not free." But neither should we be isolationist.

We should be able to discuss and agree on the criteria for when and how we engage.

I think the Weinberger Doctrine was a pretty good start:
1. The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved.
2. U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed.
3. U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military objectives and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives.
4. The relationship between the objectives and the size and composition of the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.
5. U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a "reasonable assurance" of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress.
6. The commitment of U.S. troops should be considered only as a last resort.

So obviously you are against us attacking Iraq... (I'm glad we agree)

[native]

Nope, we should not invade every country we deem "not free." But neither should we be isolationist.

We should be able to discuss and agree on the criteria for when and how we engage.

I think the Weinberger Doctrine was a pretty good start:
1. The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved.
2. U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed.
3. U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military objectives and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives.
4. The relationship between the objectives and the size and composition of the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.
5. U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a "reasonable assurance" of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress.
6. The commitment of U.S. troops should be considered only as a last resort.

So obviously you are against us attacking Iraq... (I'm glad we agree)

No, not really, because I think the case could have been made to meet the criteria of the Weinberger Doctrine, but Bush failed to make that case. Iraq was a gamble that succeeded militarily and failed - at least partially - politically. (how often have we heard that one before?)

If Franklin Roosevelt had organized a coalition to stop Hitler after Munich, before Hitler was strong enough to invade western Europe and Russia, it might have prompted a military victory at the cost of very few lives. But without the foreknowledge of the MILLIONS of deaths Hitler would impose on the world in WWII, it would have been a political disaster of massive proportions for Roosevelt.

I give Bush credit for being willing to expend political capital in a noble cause. I do not give him credit for planning how to win the peace.

[native]

Some do, and some do not. The 400,000 CIVILIANS killed by Saddam don't get to vote.

And the 100,000 and climbing rapidly since then? The millions displaced?

POINTS WELL TAKEN, JON! NATION BUILDING IS A DANGEROUS AND RISKY BUSINESS, I AGREE.

Sorry to shout, friend, I just want you to know that I agree with you on this.

[travelinman67]

You know nothing about me...

And if the rest of your posts are as vacuous as the post that prompted my smack, I am unlikely to learn anything about you.


...empty suit ... prove me wrong!

"You don't...if, if...I could...how dare you...I'm a....I'm a...why you..."

[BlueHen86]

So obviously you are against us attacking Iraq... (I'm glad we agree)

No, not really, because I think the case could have been made to meet the criteria of the Weinberger Doctrine, but Bush failed to make that case. Iraq was a gamble that succeeded militarily and failed - at least partially - politically. (how often have we heard that one before?)

If Franklin Roosevelt had organized a coalition to stop Hitler after Munich, before Hitler was strong enough to invade western Europe and Russia, it might have prompted a military victory at the cost of very few lives. But without the foreknowledge of the MILLIONS of deaths Hitler would impose on the world in WWII, it would have been a political disaster of massive proportions for Roosevelt.
I give Bush credit for being willing to expend political capital in a noble cause. I do not give him credit for planning how to win the peace.

An example of Godwin's Law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law

I love it.

[AZGrizFan]

So obviously you are against us attacking Iraq... (I'm glad we agree)

No, not really, because I think the case could have been made to meet the criteria of the Weinberger Doctrine, but Bush failed to make that case. Iraq was a gamble that succeeded militarily and failed - at least partially - politically. (how often have we heard that one before?)

If Franklin Roosevelt had organized a coalition to stop Hitler after Munich, before Hitler was strong enough to invade western Europe and Russia, it might have prompted a military victory at the cost of very few lives. But without the foreknowledge of the MILLIONS of deaths Hitler would impose on the world in WWII, it would have been a political disaster of massive proportions for Roosevelt.

I give Bush credit for being willing to expend political capital in a noble cause. I do not give him credit for planning how to win the peace.

You know, you're pretty smart for a Wildcat fan.

[native]

No, not really, because I think the case could have been made to meet the criteria of the Weinberger Doctrine, but Bush failed to make that case. Iraq was a gamble that succeeded militarily and failed - at least partially - politically. (how often have we heard that one before?)

If Franklin Roosevelt had organized a coalition to stop Hitler after Munich, before Hitler was strong enough to invade western Europe and Russia, it might have prompted a military victory at the cost of very few lives. But without the foreknowledge of the MILLIONS of deaths Hitler would impose on the world in WWII, it would have been a political disaster of massive proportions for Roosevelt.
I give Bush credit for being willing to expend political capital in a noble cause. I do not give him credit for planning how to win the peace.

An example of Godwin's Law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law

I love it.

Funny, Blue Hen, but do you have an analysis to challenge the proposition on its merits?

[AZGrizFan]

An example of Godwin's Law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law

I love it.

Funny, Blue Hen, but do you have an analysis to challenge the proposition on its merits?

No, he doesn't.

[native]

Hey Wedgebuster,

On a separate note, that is a cool avatar.

Is it from the movie, "Tron?"

Warning:

[AZGrizFan]

Hey Wedgebuster,

On a separate note, that is a cool avatar.

Is it from the movie, "Tron?"

Warning:

Smart, but ADHD, huh?

[BlueHen86]

An example of Godwin's Law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law

I love it.

Funny, Blue Hen, but do you have an analysis to challenge the proposition on its merits?

Other than the fact that Saddam was not Hitler...

Hitler declared war on us - Saddam did not.
I believe that WWII met the criteria in the Weinberger Doctrine. I don't believe that the Iraq War meets that criteria.

[BlueHen86]

Funny, Blue Hen, but do you have an analysis to challenge the proposition on its merits?

No, he doesn't.

Yes I do. Do you have any original ideas on the subject? All you've done is criticize the posts of others... and suck up to someone who agrees with you - why don't you guys get a room?

[Wedgebuster]

Hey Wedgebuster,

On a separate note, that is a cool avatar.

Is it from the movie, "Tron?"

Warning:

Maybe I'd better pm this.

[AZGrizFan]

No, he doesn't.

Yes I do. Do you have any original ideas on the subject? All you've done is criticize the posts of others... and suck up to someone who agrees with you - why don't you guys get a room?

We have one....just waitin' on you. And how can I add any more to the perfect dissection of liberal gibberish?

[Wedgebuster]

Hey Wedgebuster,

On a separate note, that is a cool avatar.

Is it from the movie, "Tron?"

Warning:

It is of a barely recalled techno band from the 80's known for their irritating robot music.

any guesses?