@Dearest- Mankind needs to evolve past silly frustrations and realize that we're no better than anyone else as long as we're of equal physical and mental health.

The point of evolution is survival, not to better society.

Show me a killer and he'll act like a saint if you put him in a city with everything he wants. people only behave constructively when they feel there's enough food/whatever. When food/whatever is getting low they take it from who ever has it.

Securing Afghanistan is not impossible. It will be really difficult, but if you've learned anything from history (aside from the multiple invaisons of Afghanistan), it's that anything can be achieved with determination, and proper leadership.

And no matter what, I will support our troops, and the Afghan people who fight alongside them.

The US holds the ability to raze that country to the ground. One squad of B-2 stealth bombers in the night, and there won't be a living thing left when the sun rises.

Sometimes, I wish the US was more brutal. Brutal nations never make enemies, unless a bigger monster comes along.

The US holds the ability to raze that country to the ground. One squad of B-2 stealth bombers in the night, and there won't be a living thing left when the sun rises.

 

Sometimes, I wish the US was more brutal. Brutal nations never make enemies, unless a bigger monster comes along.

See; Nazi Germany, USSR, The Ottoman Empire, The British Empire, The Greek Empire, and The Mongol Empire.

All were brutal as anything and they had tons of enemies.

Also they have bunkers in the mountains, unless you want to nuke the place you'd only be killing civilians.

Over all the discussion in here has been rather civil, and that is the reason I'm going to let it continue for now. However, should it progress to something less civil, this entry will be locked.

Overall I'm impressed.

Your Loving Dearest, I would suggest that you make sure you don't swear or use words that are filtered, if I were you I would choose my wording carefully.

Kohaku

Over all the discussion in here has been rather civil, and that is the reason I'm going to let it continue for now. However, should it progress to something less civil, this entry will be locked.

 

Overall I'm impressed.

 

Your Loving Dearest, I would suggest that you make sure you don't swear or use words that are filtered, if I were you I would choose my wording carefully.

 

Kohaku

The word I used wasn't that bad but I edited it.

Necro...

See, the way I look at it, the US's original move in the Bush era was in retaliation for September 11. They chased out/killed/couldn't find Osama, and then went into Iraq for some silly reasons. Now, Obama may be president, but there is an incredible amount of opposition to him about. He can't just drag all the troops home and be done with it. He needs time and support to get into these opposing groups and weed them out or turn them into allies. But he can't show weakness just yet. So, he moves troops into Afganistan. Now, the difference between Iraq and Afganistan is that Afganistan is much easier to patrol, operate in, and already has a ton of strongpoints set up. I think Obama sincerely believes he can make things better there, even if this is part of a massive political game.

And all those leaders you mentioned? They had to deal with these sorts of political games too. The difference is that Obama is a leader who has way less assets then they did. He doesn't have insanely loyal troops, he's not King and therefore not to be slandered at by the people, he's no tough military man. He has to compete with the mass-media, his opponents who are a part of a bunch of industries he needs, and even people within his own organization. Obama is trying to do this with a major handicap compared to them. And he deserves a lot of respect for that.

...

Um...that actually makes a frightening amount of sense until I realize what's 4:30 AM here is 8:30 PM for you in Australia and that you're not as tired as I am when you typed that up.

I would think it'd still make a fair amount of sense regardless of tiredness.

Personally, I believe all great leaders, barring a few nuts, have the good of their country and people at the heart of the matter. At least, from their perspective. It may not always be the right way (Cao Cao's rampant militarism), it may be downright horrific and immoral (Stalin, etc), it may be a great idea that just doesn't work out (League of Nations after WW1), but they all at the very least want to keep their domains stable and strong, even if it's for their own benefit. That's why I don't believe in absolutes like "Political party is bad and Political party is good" or "going to war is always wrong" or "going to war is always good", or anything like that. I believe you should consider each person, organization, event, policy, all of it, on their own merits and understand what they are trying to do by doing this.

It's not about "That's wrong", it's about "Why do you do this?"

If that makes any sense.

Actually, that does make a fair bit of sense. It may be just because I hate extremes from either side and you seem to be fairly moderately in the middle, but I rather like your take on all this...

Also, it was less being tired while reading that makes it surprising it made sense, but more of the fact that until I remembered timezones, I thought you came up with something that well-worded and logical in a sleep deprived state much like mine that I will be abandoning soon.

I also know something about human nature: You get a little thrill from antagonizing a group you disagree with.

I believe that's why there's such a divide between Left and Right: They're having fun being enemies.

So I just smile and nod and let them fight. Besides, even if one side is worse then the other, their candidate most likely means well, plus the other party will be on their back through all their years of service, so they aren't going to be doing anything too crazy.

Politics has been so divisive, yet it totally doesn't have to be. All you need is a spirit of cooperation and a willingness to hear all sides. I think Obama's got that at heart. Most people really want the same basic things; they may simply disagree on how to achieve them.

I'm seeing some statements being made about evolution and survival etc. as a rationale for war. I would turn that around 180 degrees. Sure, it may make sense for, say, ant colonies to go on the war path, but I think we're beyond the level of ants by a fair bit. And if we're not, then the technology of modern warfare is such that taking that road will lead to self-destruction. Ever heard of MAD? There was a period when the planet was perpetually haunted by the looming spectre of nuclear war between two superpowers. That situation, thank goodness, is behind us now. But it was and should have been a huge wake-up call on the issue of war in general.

War destroys and squanders the fruits of human effort. It is simply maladaptive behaviour in a species as interconnected as humanity. There are those who say war between nations and blocs of nations will only end when we are faced with a common threat from outside. This fails to take into consideration the fact that all it takes to end any desire or perceived need for war is the realization that there is no "enemy." We are one family. To hate and murder anyone is to hate and murder ourselves.

A war of aggression is never a just war.

War stimulates the economy and increases technological advancements.

If it wasn't for the WW1, WW2 and the cold war you and her wouldn't be having this conversation.

Gah, I just want to take back my last comment. Snarkasm doesn't become me. I'm quitting this thread now, past the point where I should have. And no, not because of Your Loving Dearest's above comment. I came back to edit my last one and his happened to be there. Facts are facts, but we must agree to disagree on our philosophical grounds.

That's the kind of mindset I don't like though, the idea that America has to be the ones to step in and help everyone. There are times where there needs to be a mediator, and if nobody else steps up then sure, but there are times where we need to mind our own business and, as cruel as it sounds, worry less about what happens over there and how the citizens of those countries die, and worry about how our soldiers do.

Not gunna continue this, but I just saw that casually skimming in blogs and wanted to correct what I meant--I didn't want to imply that just America is this amazing country that can claim the be the best and all that, I meant any country that has the power to help a ailing one in times of need. And not just with war; helping those developing countries would be extremely powerful to stop wars in the first place. 'Cause sometimes we can't be selfish and hide behind our borders. It just makes me so sad how there are so many ways to help these people, and no one does.

And yes, we/others need to worry less about some things and to strengthen things in our own border so they don't crash. But there are those cases that if we do pull out, it actually would increase the risk of a attack on our own or other soil. 'Cause I sorta don't think that the view point of leaving them alone, and they leaving us alone really works out in the long run, thinking about it realistically again when living there/hearing from people that lived there. You really can't make any assumption until you've been in the others pair of shoes.

Also on a completely off topic note, there's one approval that you have that's stretching the screen, and the imbalance is making me crazay.

To be honest I agree here, although Iraq or Iran or whichever one we started with I'm fairly sure was a developed country and a member of the United Nations, so I consider taking a dictator there out of power different than aiding a third-world nation.

Hmm...I suppose I can see the merit in that, but we haven't succeeded in the goal that's kept us there all these years, I'm not so certain that spending a year or two more in Afghanistan is going to make us succeed, and even if it will be inviting an attack, we're both inviting and giving justification by continuing to attack them after all this time.

XD To be honest I've been hoping TPTI would resize that for a while...replacing with a link.

To be honest I agree here, although Iraq or Iran or whichever one we started with I'm fairly sure was a developed country and a member of the United Nations, so I consider taking a dictator there out of power different than aiding a third-world nation.

 

Hmm...I suppose I can see the merit in that, but we haven't succeeded in the goal that's kept us there all these years, I'm not so certain that spending a year or two more in Afghanistan is going to make us succeed, and even if it will be inviting an attack, we're both inviting and giving justification by continuing to attack them after all this time.

 

XD To be honest I've been hoping TPTI would resize that for a while...replacing with a link.

No opinion on the Iraq war, but with the whole war thing--yeah, it's getting dragged out, but it's really not anyone's fault. I feel that they're playing more of a peek-a-boo war and when we think we have some ground, something happens to unlevel the odds. Now though, it's a lot more complicated--we can't just be like "lulz i beat up the bad guys so we're leaving now kthxbai". Heaven forbid the red tape, paperwork, and who knows what else is behind the curtains. That's another thing anyway from me completely standing on either side of the debate. We really may not know what's going on and stuff since we get brainwashed by the media.

Yeah, Fox News is terrible at that.

XD To be honest I've been hoping TPTI would resize that for a while...replacing with a link.

Mneh. It doesn't stretch posts sizes, so I could never be bothered

In most cases, war does boost the economy and help technological advances. While the wars of this past decade have helped the development of new technologies, I have some trouble seeing many of them being applied in any field besides weaponry. Further, this is one of the few cases where war has actually managed to put the "winning" country in a recession.

This war, based on all evidence available to me, would probably be better off being over, yes - it is rather unfortunate that American politics has become such that a war cannot be ended in a timely manner, no matter the situation, because there will almost always be a large enough number of people who don't want the war to end "just yet" to keep it from ending.

Procrastination is a slippery slope, my friends, but it is the inevitable product of politics, and must be accounted for when judging a President.