06 May 09
Originally posted by dystoniacYou really need to start to educate yourself if you believe in that
The US didn't destroy anything in Afghanistan except some caves and camps harboring 7th-century cretins who admitted as much their part in 9-11. Now, women can go to school (if they aren't blinded by some well-intentioned fanatical Muslim).
The amount of US drones that have killed innocent people or building is in the hundreds now if not thousands
I don't agre with some of what the Taliban do such as stopping women from going to school, but the bottom line is that its there country (as in the Afgan people) and its up to them to deal with it
Ever heard of imperlism ?
06 May 09
Originally posted by AThousandYoungUS will not get rid of their nukes unless Russia don't. Russia will not get rid of their nukes unless US don't. So they will both never get rid of their nukes in fear for eachother.
MAD isn't. The Soviet conventional military failed, but the nukes are still there...
India will not get rid of their nukes unless Pakistan don't. Pakistan will not get rid of their nukes unless India don't. So they will both never get rid of their nukes in fear for eachother.
Iran will never stop trying to get nukes if not Israel will get rid of their nukes.
So, this means that every state on the world will eventually get nukes in fear for everyone else? Future looks dangerous...
If everyone get rid of their nukes at the same time, and I mean everyone, then we will live in a safer world.
07 May 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasuh...well...yeah, he's hard to find. Do you think the Swedish Army could find 'im....you guys are used to cold and snow...don't know if you have cave experience...give it a go....
Then "mini-me-bin-laden" is a criminal, as everyone else who has
thrown nukes / will be throwing nukes. Anyone throwing nukes making
other countries bow for them are criminals.
Why isn't anyone going to take him out of business? Thriw him in a
jail and throw away the key? Is he really so hard to catch? Is he really
so clever so he can avoid that?
07 May 09
Originally posted by FMFYou're mistaken. US forces have allowed Afghan women to pursue education, only to be blinded with acid tossed by some cowardly-cretin Islamofascist on motorbikes.
The Russians were not trounced in the 1905 war. They were beaten. As for Germany and Japan, they absolutely prove my point, and your comment confrirms the rightness of my point. The German and Japanese war machines were trounced and never made a comeback. Instead they grew peacetime economies. Thanks for your inadvertent help hammering home my point!
[i]Origi ...[text shortened]... ose as soon as the Taliban were temporarily evicted from Kabul and a handful of other cities.
Germany and Japan grew peacetime economies largely from US assistance, so who is to say whether or not both countries would have become economic dynamos if not assisted by the US?
07 May 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasI find that it's very easy to make a plan to make the world a much better place. The thing is, there's always one hard part. That's the part where everyone follows your plan. It's tough to implement that step. "If everyone..." is impossible.
US will not get rid of their nukes unless Russia don't. Russia will not get rid of their nukes unless US don't. So they will both never get rid of their nukes in fear for eachother.
India will not get rid of their nukes unless Pakistan don't. Pakistan will not get rid of their nukes unless India don't. So they will both never get rid of their nukes in ...[text shortened]... id of their nukes at the same time, and I mean everyone, then we will live in a safer world.
07 May 09
Originally posted by dystoniacIrrelevant. Our whole side-bar discussion here is about whether or not we share the same definition of "trounced". The U.S. did not trounce the Taliban. You American military types still want your opponents to stand in rows wearing red tunics with white leather straps across their chests, it seems. One day you'll understand 21stC warfare in a battlefield where the U.S. has bought itself total spectrum domination. The Taliban can't compete on that level. So they play by other rules and on a different time line too. You can kid yourself all you like saying you trounced them.
Germany and Japan grew peacetime economies largely from US assistance, so who is to say whether or not both countries would have become economic dynamos if not assisted by the US?
07 May 09
Originally posted by FMF'A suspicion of the United States in Pakistan outweighs opposition to the Taliban. Understand this and much else becomes clear, says Anatol Lieven.'
Irrelevant. Our whole side-bar discussion here is about whether or not we share the same definition of "trounced". The U.S. did not trounce the Taliban. You American military types still want your opponents to stand in rows wearing red tunics with white leather straps across their chests, it seems. One day you'll understand 21stC warfare in a battlefield where t ...[text shortened]... nd on a different time line too. You can kid yourself all you like saying you trounced them.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/pakistan-s-american-problem
07 May 09
Originally posted by dystoniacSo how do you do over there when finding the top-ten in your FBI list? http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/fugitives.htm
uh...well...yeah, he's hard to find. Do you think the Swedish Army could find 'im....you guys are used to cold and snow...don't know if you have cave experience...give it a go....
Go and bomb cities? No, you do your homework from your police academy. Then you grab them. Right?
What the Swedish army do? I don't know, it's a secret. 😛
07 May 09
Originally posted by AThousandYoungTrue. It's hard to make the Earth a nuclear free zone.
I find that it's very easy to make a plan to make the world a much better place. The thing is, there's always one hard part. That's the part where everyone follows your plan. It's tough to implement that step. "If everyone..." is impossible.
But letting those who once used atomic bombs on people, not only once but twice, be the ones dictating who's to have, and who's to wont have, I find repulsive.
We have to work to get rid of all nukes on this planet, every one. Not only in the hand of the 'bad' guys but also in the hand of the 'good' guys.
But of course I see the difficulties in that.
07 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI think I'd have to agree with FMF. The fact is, the Taliban have fled their headquarters and set up a new one in the Swat valley. In doing so, they've successfully used diplomacy and fighting skill to keep the US off it's back and avoid catastrophic losses to the Pakistanis and Predators. They're not in good shape, but they're not yet trounced.
Irrelevant. Our whole side-bar discussion here is about whether or not we share the same definition of "trounced". The U.S. did not trounce the Taliban. You American military types still want your opponents to stand in rows wearing red tunics with white leather straps across their chests, it seems. One day you'll understand 21stC warfare in a battlefield where t nd on a different time line too. You can kid yourself all you like saying you trounced them.
If they were, I wouldn't have said "Pakistan needs to trounce them or let the US do it."
07 May 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasThe thing is, as Tom Clancy pointed out in one of his books, if nobody had nukes, then it would be to a nation's tremendous advantage to build nukes.
True. It's hard to make the Earth a nuclear free zone.
But letting those who once used atomic bombs on people, not only once but twice, be the ones dictating who's to have, and who's to wont have, I find repulsive.
We have to work to get rid of all nukes on this planet, every one. Not only in the hand of the 'bad' guys but also in the hand of the 'good' guys.
But of course I see the difficulties in that.
ABM technology and Star Wars kind of stuff is the way to go in the long run.
07 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by dystoniacPlease get real. The people the U.S. allied itself with in order to er... "trounce" the Taliban - we liked to refer to them as the Northern Alliance: sounded noble and sophisticated - were not much different or better than the Taliban for all intents and purposes. They were all deeply traditional Islamic fundementalist warlords. Pure and simple. So the U.S. pulled the plug on the indigenous Afghan women's movement as soon as it reached Kabul. Oh ya,ya, there's a few schools in Kabul that U.S. military PR people take journalists to for a look at how things are "so much better now for women". These journalists serve up this puff in whatever newspapers people like you read.
You're mistaken. US forces have allowed Afghan women to pursue education, only to be blinded with acid tossed by some cowardly-cretin Islamofascist on motorbikes.
And then there's Iraq.