• 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!

Report: Subcontractors in Afghanistan Do Crazy Things When They Don't Get Paid

tererun said:
If we wanted to win the hearts and minds of the people in the middle east we would not have sent soldiers. Soldiers are not trained to win the hearts and minds of people, they are trained for combat which is probably directly contradictory to winning the hearts and minds of people. It forces me to ask the question on whether or not the US people would accept an armed presence in their streets by their own military, or would they resent them? If we do not even want our military securing our streets, why would another country want it? The hearts and minds lie is something that allows the war mongers to pretend to be doing other people a favor by killing them. It works well because there are many who feel these other countries should be greateful for americans shooting them in their own streets. The fact that so many americans bought into that stupid BS shows me that I really overestimated their intelligence levels and compassion. That is really sad because i always have had a large negative overall opinion of the US populace.
Click to expand...

If we had been taken over by a Taliban'esq type government and a friendly nation came in to destroy that government and give us our freedom back? I don't think I would resent them much. Should the French, Italians, Germans and Dutch resent America for sending troops to their countries?
 
notquiteright said:
And you can keep attempting to justify thousands of dead and maimed soldiers, the trillions spent on the debacle of Iraq and the folly of nation building in Afghanistan as they was bad men when in most parts of the world you can't swing a dead cat and not hit a dozen very bad men.
Click to expand...

We should have just left Hitler alone, too. Huh?
 
apdst said:
If we had been taken over by a Taliban'esq type government and a friendly nation came in to destroy that government and give us our freedom back? I don't think I would resent them much. Should the French, Italians, Germans and Dutch resent America for sending troops to their countries?
Click to expand...

Yes, you would resent them. If russia came to save you from Obama I really doubt you would be happy with them.
 
tererun said:
Yes, you would resent them. If russia came to save you from Obama I really doubt you would be happy with them.
Click to expand...

Are you comparing honorable American troops to The Red Army? How insulting is that?
 
notquiteright said:
And you can keep attempting to justify thousands of dead and maimed soldiers, the trillions spent on the debacle of Iraq and the folly of nation building in Afghanistan as they was bad men when in most parts of the world you can't swing a dead cat and not hit a dozen very bad men.
Click to expand...
Dont have to 'justify' anything. Democrat and republican alike all seem to believe that taking out Al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan was the 'right' thing to do. People can disagree with taking out Saddam, but hey...they can also disagree about every president, every military action ever taken. Justify it? To you? Please. As if I give a **** about you. I have spent 7 trips to the middle east under the command of republican and democrat President alike. I sent young men and women into Bosnia to take out a guy that represented no threat to the US. Funny...I never heard many of the bleeding heart liberals bemoaning their evil neocon president Clinton, there or during the numerous attacks against Iraq during his presidency. I have a son in the ME now. I am fine with the war. I think Bush mishandled the post war ops and we should have been gone from both places a long time ago...but thats just me. Personally Im glad the Iraqis don't have to deal with Saddam or his sons and had the opportunity to create a government. I'm glad the Taliban isnt there in charge of Afghanistan pushing buildings on top of homosexuals burying them alive, stoning them for even ACTING effeminate (lord knows they would **** up a few people in this country given the chance, right?), killing women for the crime of teaching girls to read, etc. Perfect world? Doesnt exist. Make the best of what you have. Afghanistan and Iraq have 'opportunity'. Squander that opportunity...**** them...their problem. Dont like that opinion? **** you...thats your problem. Now you go ahead and keep on bleating and bemoaning the ouster of Saddam and the Taliban. Carry on.
 
apdst said:
Are you comparing honorable American troops to The Red Army? How insulting is that?
Click to expand...

See you wouldn't be happy with it. Despite the fact you think Obama is a horrible person who destroying the country you would be very unhappy if a country you perceive as aiding your enemies or as one of your enemies came in for your own good to rid you of obama and occupy the country. I wonder why you do not allow those people in afganistan to feel the same way?
 
apdst said:
We should have just left Hitler alone, too. Huh?
Click to expand...

'Conservatives' never bother learning history... Hitler declared war on the USofA. It was he seizing large chunks of Scandinavia and Europe that was seen as dangerous by FDR, most Americans didn't care one whit what was done to German Jews prior to the invasion of Scandinavia and the Low Countries. Even when France was over run most 'conservatives' just sneered and shrugged.

'Conservatives' fought becoming 'entangled' in Europe's wars like the Founding Fathers said back when we were a tiny agrarian nation.

So it seems as far as the 'conservatives' of that era were concerned, yes we should have left Hitler alone... :peace
 
tererun said:
See you wouldn't be happy with it. Despite the fact you think Obama is a horrible person who destroying the country you would be very unhappy if a country you perceive as aiding your enemies or as one of your enemies came in for your own good to rid you of obama and occupy the country. I wonder why you do not allow those people in afganistan to feel the same way?
Click to expand...

Now, you're comparing Obama to the Taliban? :rofl
 
notquiteright said:
'Conservatives' never bother learning history... Hitler declared war on the USofA. It was he seizing large chunks of Scandinavia and Europe that was seen as dangerous by FDR, most Americans didn't care one whit what was done to German Jews prior to the invasion of Scandinavia and the Low Countries. Even when France was over run most 'conservatives' just sneered and shrugged.

'Conservatives' fought becoming 'entangled' in Europe's wars like the Founding Fathers said back when we were a tiny agrarian nation.

So it seems as far as the 'conservatives' of that era were concerned, yes we should have left Hitler alone... :peace
Click to expand...

Oh, it was the Liberals that wanted to go to war?
 
VanceMack said:
Dont have to 'justify' anything. Democrat and republican alike all seem to believe that taking out Al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan was the 'right' thing to do. People can disagree with taking out Saddam, but hey...they can also disagree about every president, every military action ever taken. Justify it? To you? Please. As if I give a **** about you. I have spent 7 trips to the middle east under the command of republican and democrat President alike. I sent young men and women into Bosnia to take out a guy that represented no threat to the US. Funny...I never heard many of the bleeding heart liberals bemoaning their evil neocon president Clinton, there or during the numerous attacks against Iraq during his presidency. I have a son in the ME now. I am fine with the war. I think Bush mishandled the post war ops and we should have been gone from both places a long time ago...but thats just me. Personally Im glad the Iraqis don't have to deal with Saddam or his sons and had the opportunity to create a government. I'm glad the Taliban isnt there in charge of Afghanistan pushing buildings on top of homosexuals burying them alive, stoning them for even ACTING effeminate (lord knows they would **** up a few people in this country given the chance, right?), killing women for the crime of teaching girls to read, etc. Perfect world? Doesnt exist. Make the best of what you have. Afghanistan and Iraq have 'opportunity'. Squander that opportunity...**** them...their problem. Dont like that opinion? **** you...thats your problem. Now you go ahead and keep on bleating and bemoaning the ouster of Saddam and the Taliban. Carry on.
Click to expand...

Again you make an argument against a position I never stated. I NEVER said I wish the Taliban or Saddam had been left in power. I did say there are hundreds of very bad men around the world if that is the only benchmark. I said NATION BUILDING and attempting to 'give the people a choice' was a fool's errand in Afghanistan. but you can't agrue those facts, you have to make my position up... :doh

The sad fact is as soon as US troops pull out of Afghanistan the Taliban or some just like them will return to wipe out any trace of a USofA presence- so much for choice. Our soldier's deaths only delayed a return to the buildings being pushed down on gays or women being shot for reading in public.

Clinton wasn't a neo-con, Bosnia wasn't Iraq and we didn't preemptively attack Serbia. For a guy who sent young men and women to Bosnia you sure don't understand the situation, perhaps it is best you stayed behind.

Bosnia didn't cost us thousands of US troops. Those troops were not subject to hundreds of IEDs. The USofA went in rather reluctantly and only AFTER Europe had an epic fail there. you seem to be completely wrong on Bosnia, but I can understand a 'conservative's' strong need to find an equiv to BushII's Epic Blunders. But Bosnia is no cigar.

I don't mourn the squandered opportunity, I mourn the thousands of dead and maimed Americans who drove the streets and walked the patrols, many got 'the patch' so few walked the walk, all so a few neo-cons could gamble they have figured out Vietnam. they hadn't. :(

I regret the trillions spent so recklessly. But realistically there was never an opportunity for 'the people' to have a choice, we could never put enough troops in either place to allow the people to truly decide for themselves and are quite unwilling to stay the decades to ensure the bad guys don't come back.
 
apdst said:
Now, you're comparing Obama to the Taliban? :rofl
Click to expand...

no, now you are deflecting a truth of the situation you do not wish to see. The reality is most people do not want their country occupied even when it may be in their own interest, and you want desperately to cling to the idea that we should be considered heroes by the countries we invade.
 
apdst said:
Oh, it was the Liberals that wanted to go to war?
Click to expand...

FDR and his crowd saw the threat of a Europe dominated by Nazi Germany and fought the Isolationist Republicans to first supply France and England with weapons, then fought to extend our protective ocean patrols all the while the Republicans were spouting crap about foreign entanglements.... :roll:

It wasn't until after Pearl Harbor, dec 7th, that Hitler declared war on us, dec 11th.

But once again you attempt to twist history to fit a 'conservative' spin...
 
notquiteright said:
FDR and his crowd saw the threat of a Europe dominated by Nazi Germany and fought the Isolationist Republicans to first supply France and England with weapons, then fought to extend our protective ocean patrols all the while the Republicans were spouting crap about foreign entanglements.... :roll:

It wasn't until after Pearl Harbor, dec 7th, that Hitler declared war on us, dec 11th.

But once again you attempt to twist history to fit a 'conservative' spin...
Click to expand...

But...but...but...the Republicans were Liberals, back then.
 
tererun said:
no, now you are deflecting a truth of the situation you do not wish to see. The reality is most people do not want their country occupied even when it may be in their own interest, and you want desperately to cling to the idea that we should be considered heroes by the countries we invade.
Click to expand...

"Want", there country occupied? Of course not. Resent a foreign army for liberating their country? There are plenty of examples where the latter was welcomed with open arms.
 
apdst said:
But...but...but...the Republicans were Liberals, back then.
Click to expand...

You REALLY need to get your money back. The republicans fought hard against the New Deal, Social Security, Bank Reform, Stock Market Reform, Unions, Trust and monopoly reform....

IF the Republicans were liberals they would have been forcing the New Deal and Social Security down FDR's throat.... :peace
 
notquiteright said:
You REALLY need to get your money back. The republicans fought hard against the New Deal, Social Security, Bank Reform, Stock Market Reform, Unions, Trust and monopoly reform....

IF the Republicans were liberals they would have been forcing the New Deal and Social Security down FDR's throat.... :peace
Click to expand...

Yeah, but they were the Libbos. That's the story we keep getting from the Libbos. Isn't it?
 
apdst said:
Yeah, but they were the Libbos. That's the story we keep getting from the Libbos. Isn't it?
Click to expand...

No i do believe the story from the dems is once again repubs are on the wrong side of history and can't seem to recall history when it shows that error.
 
apdst said:
Hmmm! Ok!
Click to expand...

read more than the Cliff notes on the Isolationists that included the anti-Semitics like Lindbergh, Father Coughlin and Henry Ford.(no mention of them in the sanitized for your protection bit of history) The strongly Republican opposition kept beating the 'no foreign entanglements' drum that kept many mainstream Americans unwilling to face facts, war was coming. The Republican isolationists, and they were by far the largest group and the most powerful opponents to preparing for war, did our nation a HUGE disservice by attempting to apply 18th century theory to 20th century reality.

Opposition to the New Deal and Social security, which alone dismisses your claim of republicans were the liberals of that day, shows the poor understanding you have of history. :roll:
 
notquiteright said:
read more than the Cliff notes on the Isolationists that included the anti-Semitics like Lindbergh, Father Coughlin and Henry Ford.(no mention of them in the sanitized for your protection bit of history) The strongly Republican opposition kept beating the 'no foreign entanglements' drum that kept many mainstream Americans unwilling to face facts, war was coming. The Republican isolationists, and they were by far the largest group and the most powerful opponents to preparing for war, did our nation a HUGE disservice by attempting to apply 18th century theory to 20th century reality.

Opposition to the New Deal and Social security, which alone dismisses your claim of republicans were the liberals of that day, shows the poor understanding you have of history. :roll:
Click to expand...

The point I was making--very successfully--is that the isolationists weren't made up of a majority of any one group. Hence, claiming that Republicans--as a whole--were the isolationists is erroneous.
 
notquiteright said:
Again you make an argument against a position I never stated. I NEVER said I wish the Taliban or Saddam had been left in power. I did say there are hundreds of very bad men around the world if that is the only benchmark. I said NATION BUILDING and attempting to 'give the people a choice' was a fool's errand in Afghanistan. but you can't agrue those facts, you have to make my position up... :doh

The sad fact is as soon as US troops pull out of Afghanistan the Taliban or some just like them will return to wipe out any trace of a USofA presence- so much for choice. Our soldier's deaths only delayed a return to the buildings being pushed down on gays or women being shot for reading in public.

Clinton wasn't a neo-con, Bosnia wasn't Iraq and we didn't preemptively attack Serbia. For a guy who sent young men and women to Bosnia you sure don't understand the situation, perhaps it is best you stayed behind.

Bosnia didn't cost us thousands of US troops. Those troops were not subject to hundreds of IEDs. The USofA went in rather reluctantly and only AFTER Europe had an epic fail there. you seem to be completely wrong on Bosnia, but I can understand a 'conservative's' strong need to find an equiv to BushII's Epic Blunders. But Bosnia is no cigar.

I don't mourn the squandered opportunity, I mourn the thousands of dead and maimed Americans who drove the streets and walked the patrols, many got 'the patch' so few walked the walk, all so a few neo-cons could gamble they have figured out Vietnam. they hadn't. :(

I regret the trillions spent so recklessly. But realistically there was never an opportunity for 'the people' to have a choice, we could never put enough troops in either place to allow the people to truly decide for themselves and are quite unwilling to stay the decades to ensure the bad guys don't come back.
Click to expand...
Right. Blah blah blah neocon. Blahg blah blah My guy rocks your guy sucks. Blah blah blah I dont like Saddam or the Taliban but dont have the balls to do anything about it. Blah. Blah. Blah.
 
apdst said:
The point I was making--very successfully--is that the isolationists weren't made up of a majority of any one group. Hence, claiming that Republicans--as a whole--were the isolationists is erroneous.
Click to expand...

Oh you only proved there was more than just the republican leadership as isolationists... what you chose to ignore is the leadership of the Isolationist movement was a cabal of republican politicians and anti-Semites. That they influenced and lead astray many citizens is a very heavy stain on their history. you also claimed the republicans were the liberals of their era, another fail...

But nice try, you use a sanitized version of our history that ignores the fiery anti-involvement rhetoric of the republican party, their vicious fight against lend lease for instance, and the constant on the House and Senate floor 'no foreign entanglements' rants. and to top it off, you don't seem to know it was Hitler who declared war on us.
 
VanceMack said:
Right. Blah blah blah neocon. Blahg blah blah My guy rocks your guy sucks. Blah blah blah I dont like Saddam or the Taliban but dont have the balls to do anything about it. Blah. Blah. Blah.
Click to expand...

Laughing, well that response beats the profanity dribble of before and is as enlightening... :peace
 
notquiteright said:
Oh you only proved there was more than just the republican leadership as isolationists... what you chose to ignore is the leadership of the Isolationist movement was a cabal of republican politicians and anti-Semites. That they influenced and lead astray many citizens is a very heavy stain on their history. you also claimed the republicans were the liberals of their era, another fail...

But nice try, you use a sanitized version of our history that ignores the fiery anti-involvement rhetoric of the republican party, their vicious fight against lend lease for instance, and the constant on the House and Senate floor 'no foreign entanglements' rants. and to top it off, you don't seem to know it was Hitler who declared war on us.
Click to expand...

I proved that it wasn't just Republicans that made up the isolationionist ranks. You've given us nothing but lip service and more Libbo propaganda.

Ever hear of Joe Kennedy? Prolly not.
 
apdst said:
I proved that it wasn't just Republicans that made up the isolationionist ranks. You've given us nothing but lip service and more Libbo propaganda.

Ever hear of Joe Kennedy? Prolly not.
Click to expand...

What you proved is a cabal of 'conservatives' LEAD by the republicans in both parts of Congress instead of seeing the looming war and preparing the nation for it they launched a series of self serving partisan attacks on FDR that left our nation woefully unprepared when dec 7th came.

Instead of providing LEADERSHIP in defense of our nation they lead citizens on a fool's run in an attempt to bury their heads and pretend it wasn't coming for us.

You are typical of the partisan right, find a few who are not republicans and claim all is false! Hardly, what it proves is 'conservatives', Anglophobes, and anti-Semites work hard hand in hand to convince the citizens of a lie. one that when fully exposed helped put the republican party so far out of power it was decades before they recovered....

It was a nasty little bunch of collaborators that tried their damnest to help Hitler by convincing the American people the war would never come to our shores. Spin it anyway you want the Republican leadership in both houses were in sorry partnership for domestic partisan politics instead of the defense of our nation.

Go to any scholastic source on Isolationism and it reads like a who's who of the Republican leadership along with the 'conservatives' in other parties and not very political at all...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom