• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama "very close" to Afghan troop decision: TV report

Objective Voice said:
I would soak Crunch for free! Have water hose, will dowse him good. (Just kidding...:mrgreen: )
Click to expand...

Don,t piss him off until I find out where the rainbows came from.:mrgreen:
 
ptif219 said:
Wrong they had Kings before 1973
Click to expand...

"Politics in Afghanistan has historically consisted of power struggles, bloody coups and unstable transfers of power. With the exception of a military junta, the country has been governed by nearly every system of government over the past century, including a monarchy, republic, theocracy and communist state. The constitution ratified by the 2003 Loya jirga restructured the government as an Islamic republic consisting of three branches, executive, legislative and judicial."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan#Government_and_politics

Anything there in their history resemble the type of government we are forcing on them at the end of a gun?
 
Last edited:
scottsoperson said:
rebuilding afghanistan will take a lot of money. we need a patriotic tax hike on the rich.
Click to expand...

"Since the War of 1812, higher taxes have essentially gone part and parcel with war--the two current wars being the exceptions. In fact, the Bush tax cuts are perhaps the only instance in our history of substantial tax cuts during a time of war."
The War Tax Precedent | The New Republic
 
Catawba said:

"Politics in Afghanistan has historically consisted of power struggles, bloody coups and unstable transfers of power. With the exception of a military junta, the country has been governed by nearly every system of government over the past century, including a monarchy, republic, theocracy and communist state. The constitution ratified by the 2003 Loya jirga restructured the government as an Islamic republic consisting of three branches, executive, legislative and judicial."
Afghanistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anything there in their history resemble the type of government we are forcing on them at the end of a gun?
Click to expand...

One king for 40 years prior to 1973 sounds like a central government to me.

I will put this site up against Wikki.


Afghanistan History
 
ptif219 said:
One king for 40 years prior to 1973 sounds like a central government to me.

I will put this site up against Wikki.


Afghanistan History
Click to expand...

I never claimed they did not have a king, I claimed they were not like Iraq in that they operated under a tribal system.

Having a ceremonial King does nothing to disprove the lack of central services available like education, as was provided in Iraq under Saddam and his central government.

From your own link - "The story of Afghanistan is in so many ways a very tragic one. Afghanistan is one of the most impoverished nations of the world. It is one of the most war-torn, most ravaged, and most beleaguered of nations. It is a nation that has been beset by invasion, external pressure and internal upheaval since before the time of Alexander the Great."
 
donc said:
That would work;I would soak crunch for twice that, unless I could con him out of where he gets them nice trout. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

LOL...... let me know the next time you are going to be in Lakeside, and I'll introduce you personally.

(last Tuesday I caught 7, kept 4...... 1 - 12", 1 - 13", and 2 - 15" :mrgreen:)
 
Objective Voice said:
I would soak Crunch for free! Have water hose, will dowse him good. (Just kidding...:mrgreen: )
Click to expand...

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink......... Oh wait...... Wrong metaphor. :doh
 
Catawba said:
It is true that neither our occupation nor our corrupt puppet government has done as good a job as Saddam did at keeping the sects at bay.

In Afghanistan they have a tribal leadership history, unlike with Iraq under Saddam. There has never been a central leader (dictator if you like) as a controlling central entity in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...


Catawba said:

I never claimed they did not have a king, I claimed they were not like Iraq in that they operated under a tribal system.

Having a ceremonial King does nothing to disprove the lack of central services available like education, as was provided in Iraq under Saddam and his central government.
Click to expand...


You may want to use a less definite term in the place of "never".
It's a pretty powerful word and it's an easy way to get called on something.
 
EpicDude86 said:
You may want to use a less definite term in the place of "never".
It's a pretty powerful word and it's an easy way to get called on something.
Click to expand...

Show me where the "King" provided as other central governments did. even as well as Saddam did and you would have a point that is relevant.
 
saddam was evil. so is bush. but he has a good wife.
 
i suppose bush thought he was doing the right thing. but maybe saddam thought that too.
 
Catawba said:
Show me where the "King" provided as other central governments did. even as well as Saddam did and you would have a point that is relevant.
Click to expand...

I wasn't doubting what you said so much as the wordage.

You said never, and then had to clarify a bit. You didn't mention what kind of government or services or whatever you're talking about, you just said Never had a King. :\
 
EpicDude86 said:
I wasn't doubting what you said so much as the wordage.

You said never, and then had to clarify a bit. You didn't mention what kind of government or services or whatever you're talking about, you just said Never had a King. :\
Click to expand...

I did not say they never had a king. Context is everything, which is provided in the thread. :)
 
i think we are going to need a draft which is wonderful. then it won't just be the middle class and poor fighting this war for the most part.
 
Catawba said:
Show me where the "King" provided as other central governments did. even as well as Saddam did and you would have a point that is relevant.
Click to expand...

So a 40 year reign does not show that?
 
scottsoperson said:
i think we are going to need a draft which is wonderful. then it won't just be the middle class and poor fighting this war for the most part.
Click to expand...

You just dated yourself..... do you know what happened last time we had a draft? Do you know what war that was?
 
Crunch said:
You just dated yourself..... do you know what happened last time we had a draft? Do you know what war that was?
Click to expand...

Pssst. He's trollin. or incredible lacking in the social skills and cognitive thinking departments.

Either way, just leave him alone and maybe he'll get bored and go back to his vidya games.
 
ptif219 said:
So a 40 year reign does not show that?
Click to expand...

So your claim is this 40 year reign made Afghanistan as well educated as the Iraqis? What other services did the 40 year reign provide that equaled that of the Iraqi government?
 
Crunch said:
You just dated yourself..... do you know what happened last time we had a draft? Do you know what war that was?
Click to expand...

How else do you propose we make the wealthy take a stake in this war? A war tax on the wealthy, or a draft.

Either or both are fine with me. :mrgreen:
 
scottsoperson said:
i think we are going to need a draft which is wonderful. then it won't just be the middle class and poor fighting this war for the most part.
Click to expand...

It would cause more poor kids to have to serve in the military. Unfortunately for all you rich folk haters, it would have the opposite effect that you're shooting for.
 
Catawba said:
How else do you propose we make the wealthy take a stake in this war? A war tax on the wealthy, or a draft.

Either or both are fine with me. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I know you're being sarcastic but it seems to me that many people are quick to pledge someone else's money and life...and that's just not cool with Brock's rules.
 
EpicDude86 said:
I know you're being sarcastic but it seems to me that many people are quick to pledge someone else's money and life...and that's just not cool with Brock's rules.
Click to expand...

:rofl It seems to me the real root problem is that many people are quick to pledge someone else's money and life in starting stupid wars.
 
EpicDude86 said:
Yeah, I was talking about Congress too. :D
Click to expand...


You get no argument from me, that is why we in Virginia voted in Jim Webb as Senator in 2006. He opposed our invasion of Iraq and supports a smaller military footprint for Afghanistan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom