[yt]VL2FxHcq8Ec[/yt]
Because clearly, at least three wars (Afganistan, Iraq, Libya) aren't enough...
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on October 15, 2011, 08:55:13 AM
Because clearly, at least three wars (Afganistan, Iraq, Libya) aren't enough...
Don't forget Pakistan and Yemen.
War breeds war; peace breeds posterity. http://wrights2012.com/2011/10/war-breeds-war-peace-breeds-prosperity-2/
Quote from: MrBogosity on October 15, 2011, 10:23:01 AM
War breeds war; peace breeds posterity. http://wrights2012.com/2011/10/war-breeds-war-peace-breeds-prosperity-2/
Read that this morning. Great read. Ended up posting it on Facebook also.
I guess Obama is doing all he can now before the next election comes up because he's about to have a press conference claiming that he will be taking all troops out of Iraq by the end of the year.
Let's see where this goes. Will post details once details come up.
Quote from: D on October 21, 2011, 12:48:41 PM
I guess Obama is doing all he can now before the next election comes up because he's about to have a press conference claiming that he will be taking all troops out of Iraq by the end of the year.
Let's see where this goes. Will post details once details come up.
Personally, if neither Ron Paul or Gary Johnson get the Republican nomination, and the libertarian candidate loses the election proper, I hope Obama wins. I haven't seen any equivalent to Paul/Johnson thus far on the Democrat side who would be in a position to win the primaries. I'd rather Johnson/Paul have another chance in 4 years rather than 8.
Edit: Just to be sure, I wouldn't vote for him. Im either voting for Paul/Johnson or Libertarian. Its just the outcome I'd prefer if both situations came to pass.
Quote from: Virgil0211 on October 21, 2011, 01:14:54 PM
Personally, if neither Ron Paul or Gary Johnson get the Republican nomination, and the libertarian candidate loses the election proper, I hope Obama wins. I haven't seen any equivalent to Paul/Johnson thus far on the Democrat side who would be in a position to win the primaries. I'd rather Johnson/Paul have another chance in 4 years rather than 8.
Edit: Just to be sure, I wouldn't vote for him. Im either voting for Paul/Johnson or Libertarian. Its just the outcome I'd prefer if both situations came to pass.
I'd pick nobody and would prefer nobody.
As Lee Wrights says, "Evil always begets evil." So even the lesser of two evils is still evil, and the enemy of my enemy is not my friend.
Quote from: D on October 21, 2011, 12:48:41 PM
I guess Obama is doing all he can now before the next election comes up because he's about to have a press conference claiming that he will be taking all troops out of Iraq by the end of the year.
Let's see where this goes. Will post details once details come up.
Given the 'skill' he's shown in the handling of really frickin' HARD international events (and removing your troops from a place where they're kind of a large part of what's keeping various groups of people from trying to slaughter each other has GOT to be one of the worst problems you can have) I expect that if he does that, the whole thing will have long since gone to hell before the election comes up, and this will be seen as his fault for screwing up the withdrawal.
IIRC, this is pretty much the problem that everyone who said going into Iraq was strategically unwise were saying: How do we get OUT again?
Quote from: D on October 21, 2011, 01:53:55 PM
I'd pick nobody and would prefer nobody.
As Lee Wrights says, "Evil always begets evil." So even the lesser of two evils is still evil, and the enemy of my enemy is not my friend.
I'm not saying he'd be good. I'm saying that it would be better for Paul/Johnson to have a shot in 4 years rather than 8. Remember, this requires that neither Paul nor Johnson get the nomination AND the libertarian candidate loses.
Quote from: D on October 21, 2011, 12:48:41 PM
I guess Obama is doing all he can now before the next election comes up because he's about to have a press conference claiming that he will be taking all troops out of Iraq by the end of the year.
Let's see where this goes. Will post details once details come up.
like my grandmom says:" from the b**** comes the puppy". he probably won't actually do what he promises-just like the other idiots (b******* in the parable) running this country the past 30-50 years. like them, he'll go down in history as just another worthless asshat who steered this country closer to total ruin.
As to Dr. Paul or Gary Johnson? well, Johnson is unlikely to win (he gets even less coverage than Dr. Paul, so who will know him), and Paul? he is covered, and stands a chance, but we all know how media bias can screw a man over. and they're doing that at the moment. I think many here must have heard about how the idiots at CNN didn't even give him a closing statement.
Quote from: Ibrahim90 on October 21, 2011, 08:06:54 PM
like my grandmom says:" from the b**** comes the puppy".
You know it's not actually a swear word in that context, right?
QuoteI think many here must have heard about how the idiots at CNN didn't even give him a closing statement.
I saw it. And it didn't get past the Reason.TV live-bloggers, either.
Quote from: MrBogosity on October 21, 2011, 08:19:04 PM
You know it's not actually a swear word in that context, right?
I saw it. And it didn't get past the Reason.TV live-bloggers, either.
yeah, but I know how people react to that word, even when used properly. they'll tolerate "Ass". "idiot", and a few others, but use "Fuck" and "Bitch", even in a correct and well meaning context, and they blow it out of proportions. I almost got kicked out of a forum for correctly using the word "Shit" to refer to its original meaning. As you can tell from my choice of words, language in RL for me is pretty...coarse/blunt. So as an adaptation, I tend to almost instinctually self-censor online.
by and by: I figured you would have seen it: glad Reason TV bloggers took notice of it. Let's hope the rest of the country does.
Yes, but even in the proper context (referring to sex and excrement, respectively) "fuck" and "shit" are still considered swear words. "Bitch" is a word properly used by dog trainers and breeders and other canine experts without a second thought; only the most ignorant of the ignorant would get on your case for using it that way.
Quote from: MrBogosity on October 22, 2011, 08:18:57 AM
Yes, but even in the proper context (referring to sex and excrement, respectively) "fuck" and "shit" are still considered swear words. "Bitch" is a word properly used by dog trainers and breeders and other canine experts without a second thought; only the most ignorant of the ignorant would get on your case for using it that way.
or the prudish or prudes?
Yeah, I'm starting to bet that these soldiers Obama claims are coming home will be shipped right back out less than a month later, if even that.
Source (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44998270)
QuoteISLAMABAD — Afghanistan would support Pakistan in case of military conflict between Pakistan and the United States, Afghan President Hamid Karzai said in an interview to a private Pakistani TV channel broadcast on Saturday.
The remarks were in sharp contrast to recent tension between the two neighbors over cross-border raids, and Afghan accusations that Pakistan was involved in killing the chief Afghan peace envoy, former Afghan president Burhanuddin Rabbani, by a suicide bomber on September 20.
"God forbid, If ever there is a war between Pakistan and America, Afghanistan will side with Pakistan," he said in the interview to Geo television.
"If Pakistan is attacked and if the people of Pakistan needs Afghanistan's help, Afghanistan will be there with you."
Such a situation is extremely unlikely, however. Despite months of tension and tough talk between Washington and Islamabad, the two allies appear to be working to ease tension.
In a two-day visit to Islamabad, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued stern warnings and asked for more cooperation in winding down the war in Afghanistan, but ruled out "boots on the ground" in North Waziristan, where Washington has been pushing Pakistan to tackle the Haqqani network.
The Haqqani are a group of militants Washington has blamed for a series of attacks in Afghanistan, using sanctuaries in the Pakistani tribal region along the Afghan border.
Pakistan is seen as a critical to the U.S. drive to end the conflict in Afghanistan.
Pressure on Islamabad has been mounting since U.S. special forces found and killed Osama bin Laden in May in a Pakistani garrison town, where he apparently had been living for years.
The secret bin Laden raid was the biggest blow to U.S.-Pakistan relations since Islamabad joined the U.S. "war on terror" after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.
Karzai said tensions between the United States and Pakistan did not have any impact in his country's attitude toward Pakistan.
The TV channel, Geo, did not say when the interview was conducted.
Afghans have long been suspicious of Pakistan's intentions in their country and question its promise to help bring peace. Karzai repeated that concern in his remarks.
"Please brother, stop using all methods that hurt us and that are now hurting you.
"Let's engage from a different platform, a platform in which the two brothers only progress toward a better future in peace and harmony," he said.
Following the death of Rabbani, Karzai said he would cease attempting to reach out to the Afghan Taliban and instead negotiate directly with Pakistan, saying its military and intelligence services could influence the militants to make peace.