Republican Majority Leader Caves to Cave Dwelling Taliban
John Alway
Frist, a REPLUBLICAN, the MAJORITY LEADER, wants to cave to them. He
wants to compromise with them.
Link to story:
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20061002/D8KGQE780.html
excerpt:
[quote]
Frist: Taliban Should Be in Afghan Gov't
Email this Story
Oct 2, 7:56 PM (ET)
By JIM KRANE
QALAT, Afghanistan (AP) - U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said
Monday that the Afghan war against Taliban guerrillas can never be won
militarily and urged support for efforts to bring "people who call
themselves Taliban" and their allies into the government.
The Tennessee Republican said he learned from briefings that Taliban
fighters were too numerous and had too much popular support to be
defeated on the battlefield.
"You need to bring them into a more transparent type of government,"
Frist said during a brief visit to a U.S. and Romanian military base in
the southern Taliban stronghold of Qalat. "And if that's accomplished,
we'll be successful."
Afghanistan is suffering its heaviest insurgent attacks since a
U.S.-led military force toppled the Taliban in late 2001 for harboring
al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.
According to an Associated Press count, based on reports from U.S.,
NATO and Afghan officials, at least 2,800 people have been killed
nationwide so far this year. The count, which includes militants and
civilians, is about 1,300 more than the toll for all of 2005.
The top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. Karl
Eikenberry, told Pentagon reporters last month that while the Taliban
enemy in Afghanistan is not extremely strong, their numbers and
influence have grown in some southern sections of the country.
President Bush has been criticized for his handling of the war and is
trying to contain the damage ahead of midterm elections this fall. On
Friday, Bush acknowledged setbacks in the training of Afghan police to
fight against the Taliban resurgence but predicted eventual victory.
Frist said asking the Taliban to join the government was a decision to
be made by Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Karzai's spokesmen were not
immediately able to be reached for comment.
Sen. Mel Martinez, a Republican from Florida accompanying Frist on his
trip, said negotiating with the Taliban was not "out of the question"
but that fighters who refused to join the political process would have
to be defeated.
"A political solution is how it's all going to be solved," he said.
[/quote]
Are the democrats worse?
...John
Matt Barrow
"John Alway" <jal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159977836.4...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Here we are, dealing with a bunch of cave dwelling Talibaners, and
> Frist, a REPLUBLICAN, the MAJORITY LEADER, wants to cave to them. He
> wants to compromise with them.
>
>
> Link to story:
> http://apnews.excite.com/article/20061002/D8KGQE780.html
>
> QALAT, Afghanistan (AP) - U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said
> Monday that the Afghan war against Taliban guerrillas can never be won
> militarily and urged support for efforts to bring "people who call
> themselves Taliban" and their allies into the government.
Not quite!
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008195.php
John! Trusting the AP? I'm shocked, SHOCKED!!
--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)
John Alway
Matt Barrow wrote:
> "John Alway" <jal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1159977836.4...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Here we are, dealing with a bunch of cave dwelling Talibaners, and
> > Frist, a REPLUBLICAN, the MAJORITY LEADER, wants to cave to them. He
> > wants to compromise with them.
> > Link to story:
> > http://apnews.excite.com/article/20061002/D8KGQE780.html
> > QALAT, Afghanistan (AP) - U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said
> > Monday that the Afghan war against Taliban guerrillas can never be won
> > militarily and urged support for efforts to bring "people who call
> > themselves Taliban" and their allies into the government.
> Not quite!
> http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008195.php
> John! Trusting the AP? I'm shocked, SHOCKED!!
See, just another reason why you can't trust the press.
Here is Frist's statement as per your link:
[quote]
I'm currently overseas visiting our troops in Afghanistan, but I
wanted to take a moment to address an Associated Press story titled,
"Frist: Taliban Should Be in Afghan Gov't." The story badly
distorts my remarks and takes them out of context.
First of all, let me make something clear: The Taliban is a murderous
band of terrorists who've oppressed the people of Afghanistan with
their hateful ideology long enough. America's overthrow of the
Taliban and support for responsible, democratic governance in
Afghanistan is a great accomplishment that should not and will not be
reversed.
Having discussed the situation with commanders on the ground, I believe
that we cannot stabilize Afghanistan purely through military means. Our
counter-insurgency strategy must win hearts and minds and persuade
moderate Islamists potentially sympathetic to the Taliban to accept the
legitimacy of the Afghan national government and democratic political
processes.
National reconciliation is a necessary and an urgent priority ... but
America will never negotiate with terrorists or support their entry
into Afghanistan's government.
[/quote]
...John
Reggie Perrin
>>> QALAT, Afghanistan (AP) - U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said
>>> Monday that the Afghan war against Taliban guerrillas can never be won
>>> militarily and urged support for efforts to bring "people who call
>>> themselves Taliban" and their allies into the government.
>
>> Not quite!
>
>> http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008195.php
>
>> John! Trusting the AP? I'm shocked, SHOCKED!!
>
> See, just another reason why you can't trust the press.
Why do you assume that the reporter is lying and not the senator?
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Puppet_Sock
[snip]
> Why do you assume that the reporter is lying and not the senator?
Because I have more experience with reporters than with senators.
Socks
Chris Cathcart
On Oct 4, 12:04 pm, John Alway <jal...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> QALAT, Afghanistan (AP) - U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said
> Monday that the Afghan war against Taliban guerrillas can never be won
> militarily and urged support for efforts to bring "people who call
> themselves Taliban" and their allies into the government.
>
> The Tennessee Republican said he learned from briefings that Taliban
> fighters were too numerous and had too much popular support to be
> defeated on the battlefield.
The motherfuckers. When I see this "can't be won militarily"
horseshit, my thoughts turn to really big bombs. The really, really
big ones. It *can* be won militarily, in principle.
The U.S. has the technology to win any fucking war against any fucking
little insurgents. It just doesn't have the balls to, that's all.
We had the opportunity a couple weeks back to take out a group of 190
top-level Taliban, but the U.S. had so-called "rules of engagement"
that kept them from bombing the group, because they were gathered at a
cemetery.
Why that didn't preclude bombing the fuck out of the surrounding area,
or doing whatever the fuck was needed to prevent their being able to
*leave* without the fuck being bombed out of them, I can only wonder.
The U.S. is being hamstrung by whatever political correctness that is
keeping them from actually fighting this war, so no fucking wonder it's
looking like "another Vietnam."
I say that the U.S., if it believes this "can't win militarily any
other way" notion, can make a case for the really, really big bombs.
If that's the only way the war can be won, then so be it. If
Afghanistan has to be flattened in order to keep the Taliban out of
power, SO FUCKING BE IT, MOTHERFUCKERS!
I am sick and tired of this Mickey Mouse shit! Frist, Aschroft and
their related religious right-wing fucks can suck my cock. I wanna see
this war won. Every fucking time I see or read about those WTC towers
coming down, I wanna see this war won, expediently and decisively.
There is no fucking excuse for the U.S. to let up in this war. I'd
rather see all of Afghanistan fucking destroyed beyond recognition
before it gives up this war.
What the U.S. leadership needs is a good, hard dose of what SOLOists
call KASS. Frist is a KASSless, dickless little piece of shit, and
turning tail and running against a defeatable enemy is morally
treasonous.
BTW, Ken: these are your Schiavo vegephile chickens coming home to
roost. Frist is this same fuck who kowtowed to the religious right on
the Schiavo matter. And now he's kowtowing to other religious fucks.
What a fucking puke piece of shit.
Can you believe for one second that in the days following 9/11, this
"let's bring the Taliban back into government" shit would have flown
with anyone? The Taliban of all groups? YGBFKM. How is this kind
thing any better than if the Demopukes were running things?
Chris Cathcart
On Oct 4, 4:30 pm, John Alway <jal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here is Frist's statement as per your link:
>
> [quote]
> I'm currently overseas visiting our troops in Afghanistan, but I
> wanted to take a moment to address an Associated Press story titled,
> "Frist: Taliban Should Be in Afghan Gov't." The story badly
> distorts my remarks and takes them out of context.
> First of all, let me make something clear: The Taliban is a murderous
> band of terrorists who've oppressed the people of Afghanistan with
> their hateful ideology long enough. America's overthrow of the
> Taliban and support for responsible, democratic governance in
> Afghanistan is a great accomplishment that should not and will not be
> reversed.
>
> Having discussed the situation with commanders on the ground, I believe
> that we cannot stabilize Afghanistan purely through military means.
Ah, hah. So while Frist isn't a complete fuck, he's still pussying
out. This is horseshit. The U.S. can win any war it wants. It can
damn well stabilize any two-bit country it wants. The only question is
if it's going to exercise the will. Why doesn't Frist the fucking
pussy want to exercise the will?
> Our
> counter-insurgency strategy must win hearts and minds and persuade
> moderate Islamists potentially sympathetic to the Taliban to accept the
> legitimacy of the Afghan national government and democratic political
> processes.
The guy is delusional. The goal isn't to "win hearts and minds" by
whatever pussy-ass PC strategy he might cook up and try and implement.
The goal is to win the fucking war, period. "Winning hearts and minds"
is a euphemism for bad news in a military setting.
> National reconciliation is a necessary and an urgent priority ... but
> America will never negotiate with terrorists or support their entry
> into Afghanistan's government.
Oh, right. Already he's prancing gaily down the wimping-out path, and
the "we've got to back out like we did in Vietnam" concession is not
far behind.
John Alway
Reggie Perrin wrote:
> John Alway wrote:
> > Matt Barrow wrote:
[...]
> >> Not quite!
> >> http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008195.php
> >> John! Trusting the AP? I'm shocked, SHOCKED!!
> > See, just another reason why you can't trust the press.
> Why do you assume that the reporter is lying and not the senator?
The more I read this, the more I'm willing to give the reporter the
benefit of the doubt. Frist is talking out of both sides of his mouth.
...John
Bob Vogel
Yeah, politicians never lie. Of course when I say "never" I mean
"frequently."
But I'm not cantradicting myself, it's just, as politicians would call
it, "symantics."
.
.
.
Bob Vogel
Chris Cathcart wrote:
>
> I say that the U.S., if it believes this "can't win militarily any
> other way" notion, can make a case for the really, really big bombs.
> If that's the only way the war can be won, then so be it. If
> Afghanistan has to be flattened in order to keep the Taliban out of
> power, SO FUCKING BE IT, MOTHERFUCKERS!
>
Chris, calm down. You need a beer.
.
.
.
.
Ken Gardner
>Not quite!
>http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008195.php
>John! Trusting the AP? I'm shocked, SHOCKED!!
The AP is the unpaid but very willing propagandist for the DNC. They
no longer even attempt to hide this.
Ken
Ken Gardner
>> Why do you assume that the reporter is lying and not the senator?
>Because I have more experience with reporters than with senators.
Reporters have problems getting the most basic facts of their stories
right. Especially when the facts don't further their mostly left wing
agendas, as in this particular example. I am no fan of Senator Frist,
but I'll take his word over the AP any day.
Ken
Matt Barrow
"Ken Gardner" <kesga...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:jm59i2l1oa5dku3rc...@4ax.com...
That's good:
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015386.php (The AP Goes Over the Top for
the Democrats)
and
http://news.bostonherald.com/columnists/view.bg?articleid=159033 (Does AP
stand for Al-Qaeda Propaganda?)
.
.
.
Oh...BTW
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015399.php
Okay...put yer' tongue back in yer' face!
Matt Barrow
I agree with everything Frist said, and it's true; to win, you must win
"hearts and minds", just as Rand said the US will not change until it
changes philosophically. One must win over the sympathizers and the
fence-sitters.
You have a problem with that?
John Alway
[...]
> > The more I read this, the more I'm willing to give the reporter the
> > benefit of the doubt. Frist is talking out of both sides of his mouth.
> I agree with everything Frist said, and it's true; to win, you must win
> "hearts and minds", just as Rand said the US will not change until it
> changes philosophically. One must win over the sympathizers and the
> fence-sitters.
> You have a problem with that?
Yes. I believe in peace through victory. Don't fall for this "win
the hearts and minds" nonsense. We have no such obligation, and it's
almost undoable in the short term anyway. This is war, and in war you
simply defeat the enemy.
...John
Ken Gardner
>> Reporters have problems getting the most basic facts of their stories
>> right. Especially when the facts don't further their mostly left wing
>> agendas, as in this particular example. I am no fan of Senator Frist,
>> but I'll take his word over the AP any day.
>That's good:
>http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015386.php (The AP Goes Over the Top for
>the Democrats)
Powerline is one of my favorite Internet haunts. Those guys are
terrific. Incidentally, they first uncovered the Rathergate fraud
back in 2004.
>and
>http://news.bostonherald.com/columnists/view.bg?articleid=159033 (Does AP
>stand for Al-Qaeda Propaganda?)
That would be more Reuters (a/k/a Rooters for all causes left wing and
Islamofascists everywhere). But AP is starting to give them
competition.
>Oh...BTW
>
>http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015399.php
>Okay...put yer' tongue back in yer' face!
Another reason why I love Powerline. They regularly cover these types
of subjects.
Ken
Matt Barrow
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>> "John Alway" <jal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> [...]
>
>> > The more I read this, the more I'm willing to give the reporter the
>> > benefit of the doubt. Frist is talking out of both sides of his mouth.
>
>
>> I agree with everything Frist said, and it's true; to win, you must win
>> "hearts and minds", just as Rand said the US will not change until it
>> changes philosophically. One must win over the sympathizers and the
>> fence-sitters.
>
>> You have a problem with that?
>
> Yes. I believe in peace through victory. Don't fall for this "win
> the hearts and minds" nonsense.
He in now way takes the position that "hearts and minds" alone will win.
> We have no such obligation, and it's
> almost undoable in the short term anyway. This is war, and in war you
> simply defeat the enemy.
Building allies through persuasion sure cuts the effort, which is why we
dropped leaflets on the Germans in WW2, the North Koreans during that
conflict. It's all simply part of a larger strategy.
You're apparently reading in more than he said.
Matt Barrow
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>>Oh...BTW
>>
>>http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015399.php
>
>>Okay...put yer' tongue back in yer' face!
>
> Another reason why I love Powerline. They regularly cover these types
> of subjects.
>
A man's got to have his priorities.
Ken Gardner
>I agree with everything Frist said, and it's true; to win, you must win
>"hearts and minds", just as Rand said the US will not change until it
>changes philosophically. One must win over the sympathizers and the
>fence-sitters.
I agree with your basic point, but the expression "hearts and minds"
is misleading. It implies a false dichotomy between reason and
emotion that Rand most definitely disapproved in the strongest
possible terms. It also eggs on leftists to continue arguing that we
should base our foreign policy on whether it will make our enemies
hate us. This is the totally wrong standard.
Ken
John Alway
Matt Barrow wrote:
> "John Alway" <jal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1160066130.4...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Matt Barrow wrote:
[...]
> >> I agree with everything Frist said, and it's true; to win, you must win
> >> "hearts and minds", just as Rand said the US will not change until it
> >> changes philosophically. One must win over the sympathizers and the
> >> fence-sitters.
> >> You have a problem with that?
> > Yes. I believe in peace through victory. Don't fall for this "win
> > the hearts and minds" nonsense.
> He in now way takes the position that "hearts and minds" alone will win.
Sure, but the we don't need to win hearts and minds. Let me put
it to you this way, we were the ones who were attacked. We have the
right to defend ourselves, and if anyone needs to win anyone over, it
is they who need to win us over. That's the way it should work.
The only problem here is that this war has been drug out so long that
it's hard to connect cause to effect.
...John
Acar
> Reporters have problems getting the most basic facts of their stories
> right.
There are exceptions. Fox, for example.
> Especially when the facts don't further their mostly left wing
> agendas,
As opposed to "fair and balanced".
>as in this particular example. I am no fan of Senator Frist,
> but I'll take his word over the AP any day.
An open agenda of necessary spin vs. an alleged hidden agenda.
.
.
.
.
.
Pericles
Did anyone see Dr Hurd's comments on the Republicans today?:
http://www.drhurd.com/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1160056260&archive=&s
tart_from=&ucat=1&
I liked this comment:
"President Bush and the Republican Congress spent more on domestic
programs than probably any Democratic President would have done; "
Dr Hurd has been good at pointing the problems with the Republican
party, for these last few years especially. I should have archived
some of his better political columns. I think he is right on the mark
about the failure of Bush and the Republican leadership.
My thoughts are this: with the Republicans controlling all major
branches of government we get a really good idea of what they stand
for. These last 4+ years they haven't had to make deals with Democrats
to pass laws. Yet they continue to cave on terrorism, the budget, etc.
We need new ideas in the Republican party, and to get rid of some of
the longstanding cronies who hold office now. I can see that Hastert,
Frist, and many other lifetime members of Congress are ideologically
dead weight.
I intend to look seriously at the Republicans running for office this
coming election and consider voting against them just to get someone
fresh on the ticket next time.
Pericles
Did you see Dr Hurd's comments on the Republicans today as I posted in
my other reply to you earlier?
http://www.drhurd.com/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1160056260&arch...
tart_from=&ucat=1&
I liked this comment:
"President Bush and the Republican Congress spent more on domestic
programs than probably any Democratic President would have done; "
Dr Hurd has been good at pointing the problems with the Republican
party, for these last few years especially. I should have archived
some of his better political columns. I think he is right on the mark
about the failure of Bush and the Republican leadership.
My thoughts are this: with the Republicans controlling all major
branches of government we get a really good idea of what they stand
for. These last 4+ years they haven't had to make deals with Democrats
to pass laws. Yet they continue to cave on terrorism, the budget, etc.
We need new ideas in the Republican party, and to get rid of some of
the longstanding cronies who hold office now. I can see that Hastert,
Frist, and many other lifetime members of Congress are ideologically
dead weight.
I intend to look seriously at the Republicans running for office this
coming election and consider voting against them just to get someone
fresh on the ticket next time.
Matt Barrow
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>> "John Alway" <jal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1160066130.4...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>> > Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> >> I agree with everything Frist said, and it's true; to win, you must
>> >> win
>> >> "hearts and minds", just as Rand said the US will not change until it
>> >> changes philosophically. One must win over the sympathizers and the
>> >> fence-sitters.
>
>> >> You have a problem with that?
>
>> > Yes. I believe in peace through victory. Don't fall for this "win
>> > the hearts and minds" nonsense.
>
>> He in now way takes the position that "hearts and minds" alone will win.
>
>
> Sure, but the we don't need to win hearts and minds. Let me put
> it to you this way, we were the ones who were attacked. We have the
> right to defend ourselves, and if anyone needs to win anyone over, it
> is they who need to win us over. That's the way it should work.
And he in no way makes that we don't have the right to defnd ourselves.
>
> The only problem here is that this war has been drug out so long that
> it's hard to connect cause to effect.
If we don't wind "hearts and minds" we'll need to occupy the region in
perpetuity. Think of Japan from 1945-1950.
John, you're off on totally irrelevant tangents based on what Frist said in
hi corrections.
Bob Vogel
Ken Gardner wrote:
> I am no fan of Senator Frist,
> but I'll take his word over the AP any day.
You need to become a little more jaded. I don't take anyone's word for
it, much less a politician's.
.
.
.
John Alway
[...]
> > Sure, but the we don't need to win hearts and minds. Let me put
> > it to you this way, we were the ones who were attacked. We have the
> > right to defend ourselves, and if anyone needs to win anyone over, it
> > is they who need to win us over. That's the way it should work.
> And he in no way makes that we don't have the right to defnd ourselves.
My point is that he's charging us with a job that isn't ours, nor do
I agree that it's necessary. We just need a more powerful army. We
really put our troops at risk, btw, trying to do these sorts of things.
It's unnecessary.
> > The only problem here is that this war has been drug out so long that
> > it's hard to connect cause to effect.
> If we don't wind "hearts and minds" we'll need to occupy the region in
> perpetuity. Think of Japan from 1945-1950.
We don't have to win the hearts and minds.
I see little parallel between Japan and Afghanistan, or Iraq for that
matter.
We annihilated Japan militarily. We completely defeated the enemy so
that they had no desire to fight any longer, and then we changed the
government on *our* terms. We had little problem with the Japanese
fighting us after the war ended, as we are in Afghanistan and Iraq.
We didn't win the hearts and minds.
...John
Robert J. Kolker
>
> I see little parallel between Japan and Afghanistan, or Iraq for that
> matter.
>
> We annihilated Japan militarily. We completely defeated the enemy so
> that they had no desire to fight any longer, and then we changed the
> government on *our* terms. We had little problem with the Japanese
> fighting us after the war ended, as we are in Afghanistan and Iraq.
> We didn't win the hearts and minds.
Hearts and minds. Hearts and minds. First we rip out the hearts and then
the minds die.
Bob Kolker
Matt Barrow
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>> "John Alway" <jal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1160074065....@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> [...]
>
>> > Sure, but the we don't need to win hearts and minds. Let me put
>> > it to you this way, we were the ones who were attacked. We have the
>> > right to defend ourselves, and if anyone needs to win anyone over, it
>> > is they who need to win us over. That's the way it should work.
>
>> And he in no way makes that we don't have the right to defnd ourselves.
>
> My point is that he's charging us with a job that isn't ours, nor do
> I agree that it's necessary. We just need a more powerful army. We
> really put our troops at risk, btw, trying to do these sorts of things.
That's using the Soviet model....look how well THAT worked.
> It's unnecessary.
Au contrar, it's quite necessary if you ever want to have an end to the
occupation and build allies.
>
>
>> > The only problem here is that this war has been drug out so long that
>> > it's hard to connect cause to effect.
>
>> If we don't wind "hearts and minds" we'll need to occupy the region in
>> perpetuity. Think of Japan from 1945-1950.
>
> We don't have to win the hearts and minds.
>
> I see little parallel between Japan and Afghanistan, or Iraq for that
> matter.
>
> We annihilated Japan militarily. We completely defeated the enemy so
> that they had no desire to fight any longer, and then we changed the
> government on *our* terms.
If we crammed it down their throats and just changed the government, we'd
still be there.
When the Soviet Union fell in the early 90's, I told my wife, "It won't last
more than about ten years. They do not have the mindset to govern
themselves." By that I meant the proper attitude towards prosperity,
property right, etc. Not that this is what were trying to instill in the
Iraqis, but many organizations are trying to do just that. Without it, we'll
fail IN THE LONG RUN.
> We had little problem with the Japanese
> fighting us after the war ended, as we are in Afghanistan and Iraq.
> We didn't win the hearts and minds.
>
Yes, we did, which is why Japan is perhaps the most westernized nation
outside the western hemisphere.
Ken Gardner
There are degrees of unreliability and even downright dishonesty here.
And degrees of incompetence in getting even basic facts right.
Ken
Matt Barrow
>>You need to become a little more jaded. I don't take anyone's word for
>>it, much less a politician's.
>
> There are degrees of unreliability and even downright dishonesty here.
> And degrees of incompetence in getting even basic facts right.
And then mangling the "facts" to suit an agenda...
John Alway
[...]
> > My point is that he's charging us with a job that isn't ours, nor do
> > I agree that it's necessary. We just need a more powerful army. We
> > really put our troops at risk, btw, trying to do these sorts of things.
> That's using the Soviet model....look how well THAT worked.
I can't make sense of that. You know very well what I mean is we
have to squash the enemy and not wait around as we *have been doing*.
> > It's unnecessary.
> Au contrar, it's quite necessary if you ever want to have an end to the
> occupation and build allies.
We only need to defeat the enemy. Allies can be built through
being strong, decisive and just. We've been basically playing
around, building schools and killing a few bad guys.
...John
John Alway
Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Ken Gardner" <kesga...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:t6aei2p3ufsfvoukt...@4ax.com...
> >>You need to become a little more jaded. I don't take anyone's word for
> >>it, much less a politician's.
> > There are degrees of unreliability and even downright dishonesty here.
> > And degrees of incompetence in getting even basic facts right.
> And then mangling the "facts" to suit an agenda...
The reporter got it partially wrong, in that he didn't provide full
context, so far as we know. This is a bad job of reporting, and it
could well be because he had the mind set that this was the right way
to do things. But, Frist still said what he said, and even in full
context it's not a good thing, though not as bad as how it first
appeared.
He's a republican, and republicans are that way.
...John
Ken Gardner
>> > There are degrees of unreliability and even downright dishonesty here.
>> > And degrees of incompetence in getting even basic facts right.
>> And then mangling the "facts" to suit an agenda...
> The reporter got it partially wrong, in that he didn't provide full
>context, so far as we know.
This is perhaps my biggest complaint with lamestream media reporting.
You never get all of the relevant facts. You get only the facts that
support the reporter's particular agenda. They conveniently gloss
over or even omit altogether those facts that tend to contradict it.
>This is a bad job of reporting, and it
>could well be because he had the mind set that this was the right way
>to do things. But, Frist still said what he said, and even in full
>context it's not a good thing, though not as bad as how it first
>appeared.
> He's a republican, and republicans are that way.
Let he help you out here. Republicans are often bad, but sometimes
good. Democrats are always bad.
Ken
Ken Gardner
>> That's using the Soviet model....look how well THAT worked.
>
> I can't make sense of that. You know very well what I mean is we
>have to squash the enemy and not wait around as we *have been doing*.
Matt is making perfect sense. He is saying that military victory
ALONE will not get the job done. And he's right. Ultimately, we need
to transform their entire culture. Think Japan and Germany after
WWII, compared to what they were before then.
My problem with Matt (if any) here is that he uses "hearts and minds"
to express this notion. This suggests that we should be making
efforts to get them to like us more. I say it depends on the reasons.
If we are trying to get them to like us more for the wrong reasons, we
are making a huge mistake.
Ken
Matt Barrow
>
>
> But, Frist still said what he said, and even in full
> context it's not a good thing,
"Hearts and minds" is a figure of speech.
You might want to read up on what Douglas MacArthursaid about Caesar and
Napoleon as occupiers.
> though not as bad as how it first
> appeared.
If the reporter (deliberately) misquoted him (as is apparent) it doesn't
matter how bad it first sounded.
>
> He's a republican, and republicans are that way.
>
John, you're incredible; you stick your foot in your mouth and then the "pay
no attention to that man behind the curtain" shtick.
First Fred with his " I don't mind if someone sticks spyware on my computer"
to cover a quasi-objectivist (more like he liked "Atlas" and "Fountainhead")
and now your weaseling on Frist's statement.
Between these two, Bernstein's "Loyalty Oath", and ARI's _high schoolish_
editorials, I really beginning to have serious doubts. Not about Objectivism
per se, but Objectivists.
--
Matt
Matt Barrow
> John Alway wrote:
>
>>> That's using the Soviet model....look how well THAT worked.
>>
>> I can't make sense of that. You know very well what I mean is we
>>have to squash the enemy and not wait around as we *have been doing*.
>
> Matt is making perfect sense. He is saying that military victory
> ALONE will not get the job done. And he's right. Ultimately, we need
> to transform their entire culture. Think Japan and Germany after
> WWII, compared to what they were before then.
>
> My problem with Matt (if any) here is that he uses "hearts and minds"
> to express this notion.
No, Frist uses it; it's an old cliche but it generally means to show an
opponent that our way is better.
>This suggests that we should be making
> efforts to get them to like us more.
It doesn't take any effort; Americans are just the way we are. That's why so
many "normal" people like us and follow us, but the elite peckerheads are
intimidated by us.
> I say it depends on the reasons.
Push them gentily towards western ideals.
> If we are trying to get them to like us more for the wrong reasons, we
> are making a huge mistake.
We tried it and it didn't work, but isn't that exactly what the DEMOCRAPS
want to do?
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)
> Ken
Ken Gardner
>> My problem with Matt (if any) here is that he uses "hearts and minds"
>> to express this notion.
>No, Frist uses it; it's an old cliche but it generally means to show an
>opponent that our way is better.
Fair enough. But it ends up being an argument that we shouldn't do
anything that makes people mad at us. This is regardless of whether
that anger is for the right or wrong reasons. Emotionalism is not a
basis for conducting foreign policy.
[...]
>> If we are trying to get them to like us more for the wrong reasons, we
>> are making a huge mistake.
>We tried it and it didn't work, but isn't that exactly what the DEMOCRAPS
>want to do?
Yes. That and allowing other governments and especially the UN have a
veto on our foreign policy.
Ken
Ken Gardner
[...]
>First Fred with his " I don't mind if someone sticks spyware on my computer"
>to cover a quasi-objectivist (more like he liked "Atlas" and "Fountainhead")
>and now your weaseling on Frist's statement.
Excellent side point. Many people who like these books -- even
enthusiastically -- are definitely not Objectivists.
>Between these two, Bernstein's "Loyalty Oath", and ARI's _high schoolish_
>editorials, I really beginning to have serious doubts. Not about Objectivism
>per se, but Objectivists.
You are not alone.
Ken
John Alway
Matt Barrow wrote:
> "John Alway" <jal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1160234582....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > But, Frist still said what he said, and even in full
> > context it's not a good thing,
> "Hearts and minds" is a figure of speech.
Right, which means that we have to convince people that we are
right and good.
> You might want to read up on what Douglas MacArthursaid about Caesar and
> Napoleon as occupiers.
Why don't you let me know?
> > though not as bad as how it first
> > appeared.
> If the reporter (deliberately) misquoted him (as is apparent) it doesn't
> matter how bad it first sounded.
You're over parsing. You were the one who was discussing the
reporter.
> > He's a republican, and republicans are that way.
> John, you're incredible; you stick your foot in your mouth and then the "pay
> no attention to that man behind the curtain" shtick.
B.S. You attempted to make parallels to Japan, I pointed out how
that wasn't sensible, because we haven't defeated the enemy a crushing
blow as we did Japan. You made parallels to my position visa via the
old Soviet Union, and this was wrong, since I'm saying we have to
vanquish the enemy completely with our military might.
You're on this "hearts and minds" thing now saying it's only a
"figure of speech". It means what it says. It means win people over,
convince them we are right and good. We have no such obligation, nor
do we need to do it. I strongly disagree with Frist on that.
We have to take the war to the enemy, not change those areas of the
world into free republics. We should have made *swift* work of this
enemy.
> First Fred with his " I don't mind if someone sticks spyware on my computer"
> to cover a quasi-objectivist (more like he liked "Atlas" and "Fountainhead")
I haven't been following that thread, but I'm certainly against
spyware. The very name means it's being done sneakily and behind your
back. I am, however, disappointed that you would evaluate Fred
negatively based on that one thing.
> and now your weaseling on Frist's statement.
Apparently you don't understand, I consider Frist's view to be
wrong.
Now, your whole position visa via Bill Gates is pretty ridiculous.
> Between these two, Bernstein's "Loyalty Oath",
I believe you mean Binswanger's Loyalty Oath for his email list.
This is simply a matter of integrity. It means that you have certain
principles and you stand by them.
>... and ARI's _high schoolish_
> editorials, I really beginning to have serious doubts. Not about Objectivism
> per se, but Objectivists.
I like this quote
[quote]It is often said that we must win the "hearts and minds" of
supporters of totalitarian Islam. Indeed we must: their hearts must be
made to despair at the futility of their cause, and their minds must be
convinced that any threat to our lives and freedom will bring them
swift and certain doom.
[/quote]
That insightful statement was made in an ARI editorial here:
http://tinyurl.com/goex5
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=13281&news_iv_ctrl=1021
...John
John Alway
> John Alway wrote:
> >> That's using the Soviet model....look how well THAT worked.
> > I can't make sense of that. You know very well what I mean is we
> >have to squash the enemy and not wait around as we *have been doing*.
> Matt is making perfect sense. He is saying that military victory
> ALONE will not get the job done.
We didn't have a military victory against the Soviet Union.
> And he's right. Ultimately, we need
> to transform their entire culture.
No we don't. We just have to convince them that it's not worth it
to attack us. Changing a culture such as that is a monumental task.
>.. Think Japan and Germany after
> WWII, compared to what they were before then.
A few points:
1> We defeated those armies completely. We removed their spirit to
fight. We have not done that in this war.
2> Japan and Germany were much more advanced cultures, which seemed
to be in our favor when we forced system changes on them.
3> We forced system changes on them according to *our* terms, not a
multiculturalist agenda, which Bush is doing.
But, the big point is we have not yet crushingly defeated the enemy.
Iran still stands untouched. Syria still stands untouched. You
need to take away their will to fight.
> My problem with Matt (if any) here is that he uses "hearts and minds"
> to express this notion. This suggests that we should be making
> efforts to get them to like us more. I say it depends on the reasons.
> If we are trying to get them to like us more for the wrong reasons, we
> are making a huge mistake.
Or even if we are trying to get them to like us, it's a bad idea.
Here is my view on this, we are the good guys just by the nature of the
way we are. Americans generally have good values and apply them to
their lives. Our example establishes what we are. I don't think it
will take much for any of them to realize this.
...John
Matt Barrow
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>> "John Alway" <jal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1160234582....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>> > But, Frist still said what he said, and even in full
>> > context it's not a good thing,
>
>> "Hearts and minds" is a figure of speech.
>
> Right, which means that we have to convince people that we are
> right and good.
>
>> You might want to read up on what Douglas MacArthursaid about Caesar and
>> Napoleon as occupiers.
>
> Why don't you let me know?
When you get back from chasing your tail down Tangent Lane, give us a call.
(Trying to discuss things with John is like herding cats)
Reggie Perrin
> [...]
> You're on this "hearts and minds" thing now saying it's only a
> "figure of speech". It means what it says. It means win people over,
> convince them we are right and good. We have no such obligation, nor
> do we need to do it. I strongly disagree with Frist on that.
>
> We have to take the war to the enemy, not change those areas of the
> world into free republics. We should have made *swift* work of this
> enemy.
Coalition forces in Afghanistan are engaged in what is basically a
policing exercise. Effective policing relies on the cooperation of the
civilian population. Chanting "no-one likes us, we don't care" will not
work.
John Alway
Reggie Perrin wrote:
> John Alway wrote:
> > [...]
> > We have to take the war to the enemy, not change those areas of the
> > world into free republics. We should have made *swift* work of this
> > enemy.
> Coalition forces in Afghanistan are engaged in what is basically a
> policing exercise.
It's supposed to be a *war*.
>..Effective policing relies on the cooperation of the
> civilian population.
It's supposed to be a *war*.
>..Chanting "no-one likes us, we don't care" will not
> work.
"Chanting"? What the hell are you talking about? How does that
apply to my position of *vanquishing*, *annihilating* the enemy? Have
you not *read* what I've written?
...John
Reggie Perrin
> Reggie Perrin wrote:
>> John Alway wrote:
>
>>> [...]
>
>>> We have to take the war to the enemy, not change those areas of the
>>> world into free republics. We should have made *swift* work of this
>>> enemy.
>
>> Coalition forces in Afghanistan are engaged in what is basically a
>> policing exercise.
>
> It's supposed to be a *war*.
The two are not mutually exclusive categories. A guerilla war is much
like a policing exercise.
>> [...]
>> ..Chanting "no-one likes us, we don't care" will not
>> work.
>
> "Chanting"? What the hell are you talking about?
Calm down. It was a joke. Football fans in this country sometimes sing
it, but I believe it originated with the US army.
> How does that apply to my position of *vanquishing*, *annihilating*
> the enemy? Have you not *read* what I've written?
Of course I have. Unfortunately, what you've written takes little heed
of the relevant facts. How do you propose to "annihilate" an enemy that
is scattered across a vast country, that can blend in seamlessly with
the civilian population, that can retreat via porous borders and regroup
in safety? Do you have any idea of the resources it would take to
eliminate every Taliban fighter?
Realistically, there are only two strategies on the table: either we
continue to support the incipient Afghan government and hope that it
soon gets strong enough to take care of it's own house-cleaning, or we
get the hell out.
Reggie Perrin
> [...]
> Realistically, there are only two strategies on the table: either we
> continue to support the incipient Afghan government and hope that it
> soon gets strong enough to take care of it's own house-cleaning
Bleugh. "Its", not "it's".
[*eats, shoots and leaves*]
x
x
x
x
John Alway
Reggie Perrin wrote:
> John Alway wrote:
> > Reggie Perrin wrote:
> >> John Alway wrote:
> >>> We have to take the war to the enemy, not change those areas of the
> >>> world into free republics. We should have made *swift* work of this
> >>> enemy.
> >> Coalition forces in Afghanistan are engaged in what is basically a
> >> policing exercise.
> > It's supposed to be a *war*.
> The two are not mutually exclusive categories. A guerilla war is much
> like a policing exercise.
It's important to differentiate, because a policing action has to be
much more careful and lawful. A military action gives you much wider
latitude to fight.
[...]
> > How does that apply to my position of *vanquishing*, *annihilating*
> > the enemy? Have you not *read* what I've written?
> Of course I have. Unfortunately, what you've written takes little heed
> of the relevant facts. How do you propose to "annihilate" an enemy that
> is scattered across a vast country, that can blend in seamlessly with
> the civilian population, that can retreat via porous borders and regroup
> in safety? Do you have any idea of the resources it would take to
> eliminate every Taliban fighter?
This has been my basic idea for a while. The outline is:
1> Vanquish Iran
2> Vanquish Syria if necessary.
3> Take it to Afghanistan. Remember the gravy yard with all of the
Taliban fighters who were in military sites, but rules of engagement
were to not kill them? Those kind of rules make it almost impossible
to fight a war.
4> If you are going to re-institute a government, do it the same as
in WWII in Japan, where we dictate how the government will be. No
multiculturalism.
5> After the war, all governments would be on our side, and fight the
bad guys, put them on the run, unfunded, and unsanctioned, thus very
weak.
By completely defeating the enemy, we can take away their will to
fight, then we can go onto step 4 if necessary, and do it right.
> Realistically, there are only two strategies on the table: either we
> continue to support the incipient Afghan government and hope that it
> soon gets strong enough to take care of it's own house-cleaning, or we
> get the hell out.
I think we have more options than that. Maybe by realistically,
you mean politically that's all we can get out our current leadership.
That could be true, but that doesn't mean that one shouldn't argue for
a better course of action.
...John
Malrassic Park
wrote:
> This has been my basic idea for a while. The outline is:
>
> 1> Vanquish Iran
> 2> Vanquish Syria if necessary.
> 3> Take it to Afghanistan. Remember the gravy yard
Is that where the Taliban pour out their old gravy?
Malrassic Park
<bobvog...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Chris Cathcart wrote:
.
>> I say that the U.S., if it believes this "can't win militarily any
>> other way" notion, can make a case for the really, really big bombs.
>> If that's the only way the war can be won, then so be it. If
>> Afghanistan has to be flattened in order to keep the Taliban out of
>> power, SO FUCKING BE IT, MOTHERFUCKERS!
.
>Chris, calm down. You need a beer.
You mean "another beer."
John Alway
Malrassic Park wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 17:59:46 +0000 (UTC), John Alway <jal...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
[...]
> > 3> Take it to Afghanistan. Remember the gravy yard
> Is that where the Taliban pour out their old gravy?
Old dead gravy.
Yeah, pretty much. :)
...John