9 dead soldiers ... in Afghanistan

I'd like to thank old_tony for doing his best to raise the level of discourse around here.

 

Yeah, you're probably right that I shouldn't have done that. If you say to, I'll take it down.

 

Who's to say these kinds of things don't happen if we're not in Iraq?

The Afghans gave the Soviets hell too. Maybe now they're just settling into their comfort zone.

And who's to say the Taliban doesn't have a foreign version of Charlie Wilson supplying them with weapons?

 

As we've seen with Iraq, we certainly can't say it with any certainty. However, if we hadn't diverted critical resources to Iraq, we'd probably be better off there.

 

The Lakers without Kobe?

Try the Lakers without Kobe, Pau Gasol, Odom, Fischer and Phil Jackson.......

And exactly what "side" am I on?

Because I have consistently without hesitation ripped the shit out of George W. for this war as well as for almost all of his civil rights-destroying domestic policies designed to "figure out" who is a terrorist and who is not.

Please get your facts straight before you make ridiculous generalizations about who is on which "side" and who is not.

This was never a thread about the war -- it was another ridiculous thread started by a whiny lib who tried -- and failed -- to get creative to find another way to rip Bush and the Republicans.

As your former hero around here would say -- do better.....

 

I remember when we first went into Afghanistan, we were warned that we would be there at least 25 years. Say what you will about Bush & Co., but at least, they were somewhat honest about our presence there.

Now, if they hadn't promised such a cakewalk in Iraq .....

 

The Afghans gave the Soviets hell b/c the USA was funneling money and support to the Afghan fighters ... wait for it ... which included Bin Laden. No country of any significance was aiding the Taliban post Sept. 11.

But, it's been 7 years and like most Americans you must have forgotten about the soldiers and the fight in Afghanistan. I haven't.

Kind of like other Ronnie successes of selling arms to the Iranians and sending Rummy to give Sadamm WMD.

W then: Dead or Alive
W now: I got six months and I'm passing debt and destruction to the next fella. I'll be at my ranch clearing brush - cause that's what I raise on my "ranch" ... brush.

The media sucks.

 

I agree with your last statement. The media was so caught up in "Oh goody, we get to go cover A WAR," they forgot to properly question the government.

And the American people, who were still somewhat shell-shocked by 9/11, let themselves have the wool pulled over their eyes.

 

Oh, please.

You are against the war? Wonderful. Thanks for seeing the fucking obvious. You want a sticker?

It's not about political-party sides. It's about how political discussion usually progresses here.

Take this thread. Repub (oops, sorry Zag, non-liberal-mafia) posters made snarky comments ("Well, Afghanistan is where you liberal hippies said we should have been all along, right?)," called Lamar an idiot, and accused him of exploiting soldiers.

Now, you can have your feelings about the tone Lamar used. But the main assertion -- that things are going poorly in Afghanistan, and our presence in Iraq is the biggest reason -- has, as usual, not been touched.

It shouldn't be a surprise, really. The way politics are discussed on this board certainly mirrors the country as a whole, because if you think conservatives/Republicans have been winning elections on the issues, you for years have missed opinion polls saying the public agrees with liberals/Democrats on almost every one.

 

Not trying to bully you, Lamar. (Can that even be done on the Interwebs?) That's not my style. I just wanted to express my disappointment, once again (seems like this happens once a quarter, at least), because some resort to the "see, soldiers are dying; I told you Bush was a fuck up" argument.

If you want to throw a punch at Bush, Lord knows there's plenty of material out there without dragging us farther into it.

And, are you implying that we funded a bin Laden-led war? He obviously fought in the Afghan-Russian war, but was more like a lieutenant, learning his craft, but not calling any shots. He didn't form his network until (and here's where sources differ) very late in the war or after it.

 

Clearly. Too bad you're using their deaths to prop up your position.

 

*Standard anti-war talking points in bold. © The Democrat Party, 2003. All rights reserved.
As others have said, there's nothing wrong with dissent, being against the war, etc. God knows it's become a clusterfuck. But please, come up with something other than a rant that's been spewed forth more often than leftovers from a bad clam/Ipecac buffet.