What I concede is we're getting far too much of outcome #2 and not near enough of outcome #3, in both Afghanistan and Iraq. A lot is due to our failure to truly commit to helping those people - where are the social packages that win over the populous? In Iraq, most is due to their own populous and foreign involvement creating havoc. The people who are prepped to build an electrical outpost aren't going to go into that area if they're going to be shot at...so it's these people who are causing the slowdown in getting social aid to the general populous.Originally posted by: Lemon law
As Chucky2 so diplomatically puts it, the core of our disagreement lies here---No dumb@ss, addressing the problem doesn't always lead to outcome #3. Addressing the problem and doing it right will probably lead to outcome #3. We haven't been doing it right - or at least, not near as right as we could - and that's costing us in the goodwill and 'in good faith' department. We are literally failing the Afghani's, and seriously coming up short with the Iraqi's.
That doesn't mean you don't address the problem though.
Ok, we get back to the same page here. We both want outcome #3, you finally at least concede we got outcome #2 instead, so how do we know in advance if we will get outcome #2 or #3? Especially since the most probable out come is usually outcome #2. See recent history. See old saying, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
We don't know the outcome of these things before we get into them, that's why the calls to do this are hard. Anyone who's made decisions at the top of a project without having a magic crystal ball can tell you that - I do weekly and let me tell you, it's very difficult to consistently get it right. But decisions must be made...not making decisions is many time worse than making a wrong one. When you make the decision though, you have to carry through. P*ssyfooting around and hemming and hawing doesn't get things accomplished. Which is why once we went into Afghanistan and Iraq, that should have been the end of the b1tching. The time is over, whether people liked it or not, for the b1tching. At that point, it's time for the Get behind the goal and get it done.
We as a nation haven't done that. We've supported our troops - always something we should be doing - but we've failed in the real objective, which is winning over the populous we've gone into. We had initial goodwill, where even with the sh1t conditions people en masse were giving us a chance. Now we've squandered that because with the rediculous amount of resources available to the US, we haven't delivered to them tangible benefits to our being there.
If you want to rail against anything "Bush&Co" have managed, it would be this. Going into Afghanistan and Iraq, long term, is a good thing. Not delivering on programs - that actively use Afghani's/Iraqi's no less - that benefit to large degrees makes that good thing turn into a bad thing.
See above. The general populous of these countries LL would take the help. Their infrastructure is in shambles, their unemployment is high, they have fr3@king death squads killing people left and right. I don't care which country you're from: If you're in these conditions, and are just a normal person (not a death squad member or terrorist/insurgent), then you just want it to end. You don't care if AllahClause comes in and makes it right, you just want it made right.But you done put your unwitting finger on it with-------That does not mean you don't address the problem though.
Which is the other fallacy you have in assuming only we address the problem. I hate to tell you chucky2, that logic cuts both ways. When we shove, sometimes they sometimes feel they must shove back because we are the evil they must address. Maybe you don't feel that basing troops in Saudi Arabia during Gulf war 1 was any big deal, but to many that was a deadly insult that must be avenged. Maybe you are OK with the fact that the arabs ended up with losing hundreds of thousand compared to the less than 3000 we lost, but you should recognize the other side may not think thats a fair bargain especially since those that paid the price had nothing to due with the original grievance. But what is ignored in this whole so called GWB war on terror, is that we are creating more terrorists than we kill.
Death Squad/terrorist is going to push back? Fine. We'll push back to...generally (unless it's an IED) they loose those push backs. As far as 100k's of Muslim's dying...did we kill them? No? Well, then who did? Oh...other Muslim's. I'm not taking the blame for other Muslim's killing other Muslim's...you need to address your whining to al-Sadr, Iran, and everyone else over there causing unrest. It's very telling you don't though...you just have a 'It's the US's fault because I want it to be' streak in you, for whatever reason.
I'm surprised your 'stinking thinking' phrase took this long to come up...was it on vacation or something? As far as making you less safe? I'm not the one trying to undercut the US making long term committments to those we need help from. Your route is to 1.) do nothing, and then when that fails miserably 2.) whine and moan How could this happen? How could this happen? You come up with whatever not really catchy name you want for that...I'll just refer to it as short-sightedness and living in fantasy land.So bottom line chucky2, its your stinking thinking that is making me less safe. Believe me Chucky2, I don't like that one little bit, and if you are going to be running around making me less safe, we are going to come into conflict. And you are going to be the PROBLEM I MUST ADDRESS.
Half of me prays McCain looses and Obama gets the win...that way I can watch you and the other whiners here offer excuse after excuse on what will be perceived as weakness by the US and what that is going to entail. Either way, it'll be fun....We can differ in opinion, but we can't share our countries foreign policy. I look forward to seeing you and GWB being cast into the scrap bin of history.