Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Simple Solution to Afganistan...

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
    Per Andersen
    Senior Member

  • Per Andersen
    replied
    Originally posted by Pego
    I am unclear on the concept of victory in Afghanistan. What does "win" mean?

    1. Removal of Taliban from power? Done.
    2. Elimination of top leaders of Al-Qaida? Not done, and they don't seem to be there any longer, anyhow.
    3. Establishment of western style democracy in a fractionated, tribal, fanatically religious, undereducated country? Dream on.
    4. Anything else?
    Agree totally.
    Had it not been for the Pakistan situation I would say; declare victory and get the hell out.

    Leave a comment:

  • richxx87
    Senior Member

  • richxx87
    replied
    Simple Solution to Afganistan...
    Didn't the U.S. already prove in field tests over in Hiroshima and Nagasaki that the A-bomb works quite efficiently? So,.... Afghanistan... what's the problem? Doesn't the U.S. still have a couple of old A-bombs laying around? I mean, they're just begging and pleading for for a few more field tests, it would seem. Fire up 'Enola Gay' (no relation to Tyson) and let 'er rip.

    Leave a comment:

  • Pego
    Senior Member

  • Pego
    replied
    I am unclear on the concept of victory in Afghanistan. What does "win" mean?

    1. Removal of Taliban from power? Done.
    2. Elimination of top leaders of Al-Qaida? Not done, and they don't seem to be there any longer, anyhow.
    3. Establishment of western style democracy in a fractionated, tribal, fanatically religious, undereducated country? Dream on.
    4. Anything else?

    Leave a comment:

  • jazzcyclist
    Senior Member

  • jazzcyclist
    replied
    He's damned is he does and damned if he doesn't.
    Consider. If there were no Americans in Afghanistan today, and the Taliban were on the verge of victory, how many of us would demand the dispatch of 68,000 troops to fight to prevent it? Few, if any, one imagines.

    What that answer suggests is that the principal reason for fighting on is not that Afghanistan is vital, but that we cannot accept the American defeat and humiliation that withdrawal would mean.

    Thus Obama's dilemma: Accept a longer, bloodier war with little hope of ultimate victory, a decision that could cost him his presidency. Or order a U.S. withdrawal and accept defeat, a decision that could cost him his presidency.
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=109304

    Leave a comment:

  • jazzcyclist
    Senior Member

  • jazzcyclist
    replied
    Originally posted by gm
    No, nothing to do with the Pascal quote.
    I'm guessing that my take on fundamentalism must have struck a nerve. Am I correct?

    Leave a comment:

  • gm
    Senior Member

  • gm
    replied
    No, nothing to do with the Pascal quote.

    Leave a comment:

  • catson52
    Senior Member

  • catson52
    replied
    Originally posted by rasb
    What, that brilliantly accurate quote from Pascal? How could anyone disagree with that? It's not anti-religion, it's anti-those who use religion as an excuse to do bad things, fundamentally.
    Pascal was one of the most brilliant, intelligent, people ever. For religious people who have problems with some of the things he wrote/said, please remember he was a devout Christian - a Jansenist. His scientific discoveries make him an all-time great, and as co-inventor of probability theory - and hence all statistics - he is way up there. Now if only the great minds of today (read financial genii) understood basic probability/statistics, the world economy would be in far better shape today.

    Leave a comment:

  • jazzcyclist
    Senior Member

  • jazzcyclist
    replied
    Originally posted by rasb
    What, that brilliantly accurate quote from Pascal? How could anyone disagree with that? It's not anti-religion, it's anti-those who use religion as an excuse to do bad things, fundamentally.
    Exactly! I believe in giving attribute to any quote that I use regardless of how I feel about the person. Even W on occasion has said things that still resonates with me. Don't reject the message because you don't like the messenger.

    Leave a comment:

  • rasb
    Senior Member

  • rasb
    replied
    What, that brilliantly accurate quote from Pascal? How could anyone disagree with that? It's not anti-religion, it's anti-those who use religion as an excuse to do bad things, fundamentally.

    Leave a comment:

  • Daisy
    Senior Member

  • Daisy
    replied
    Originally posted by IanS_Liv
    It was a series called Barbarians and I wondered whether it may have made it onto BBC America or not.
    Thanks, I'm sure I can find it somewhere. A lot of those programs make it here on DVD.

    Originally posted by jazzcyclist
    Originally posted by gm
    Wow, now I see why I hardly ever agree with you, mister cyclist! Ah, well...
    Please elaborate.
    I'm guessing that Pascal did you in.

    Leave a comment:

  • jazzcyclist
    Senior Member

  • jazzcyclist
    replied
    Originally posted by gm
    Wow, now I see why I hardly ever agree with you, mister cyclist! Ah, well...
    Please elaborate. We're all adults here and I can handle the truth.

    Leave a comment:

  • IanS_Liv
    Senior Member

  • IanS_Liv
    replied
    [quote=Daisy]
    Originally posted by IanS_Liv
    Daisy, you should visit Britain more often.
    No doubt.

    Originally posted by "IanS_Liv":2mb5l3kw
    One of the Pythons did a series about how Barbarians such as the Celts and Goths were probably more civilised than the Romans!
    Palin?[/quote:2mb5l3kw]

    It was Terry Jones. I couldn't remember when I posted. It was a series called Barbarians and I wondered whether it may have made it onto BBC America or not.

    Leave a comment:

  • gm
    Senior Member

  • gm
    replied
    Wow, now I see why I hardly ever agree with you, mister cyclist! Ah, well...

    Leave a comment:

  • Daisy
    Senior Member

  • Daisy
    replied
    Originally posted by IanS_Liv
    Daisy, you should visit Britain more often.
    No doubt.

    Originally posted by IanS_Liv
    One of the Pythons did a series about how Barbarians such as the Celts and Goths were probably more civilised than the Romans!
    Palin?

    Leave a comment:

  • jazzcyclist
    Senior Member

  • jazzcyclist
    replied
    Originally posted by proofs in the pudd'in
    Are you a fundamentalist anti-fundamentalist? :wink: It's ideas that have the undesired consequences not just the degree of ones commitment to those ideas.

    Then you still have to define 'undesired consequences.' So in otherwords you do not believe in anything strong enough to stand up for it nor anyone else. Everything is relative in your eyes is it not - then let the muslims justify thier killings and let the best stategist win the game of power and be silent on fundamentalism. Bottom line is everyone acts as if there are absolutes when they do not like the others ideas. You fundamentally disagree with fundamentalism - you fundamentalist.
    I'm not sure I follow you. Perhaps you and I are talking about different things when we use the word fundamentalism. I guess fundamentalism is a subjective word. However, I would definitely call a person a fundamentalist if he or she adhered to a literal and/or superficial interpretation of religious texts like the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, etc. Those aren't the only kinds of fundamentalists that I have a problem with, but those were the kinds I was referring to in the post you referenced.

    Originally posted by proofs in the pudd'in
    And by the way it was not Islam that made a great 'Muslim civilisation' but only when Islam invaded Europe and was coupled with European ideas. Also, the Middle Ages were not so backwards as everyone thinks.
    I guess we're all entitled to our opinions.

    Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. - Blaise Pascal

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X