Gates: 'A few years' of combat in Afghanistan

[DEDixon 39]

We broke it we bought it - simple as that really.

Regardless of the duplicity that got us into this position, the US has an ethical responsibility to stabilise those countries and repair the infrastructure that it has destroyed. If we weren't prepared to do that we should have never got involved in the first place.

Never really thought it would be possible for the US to pull out of either Iraq or Afghanistan overnight, regardless of how tired the general public are of paying for these wars.

Should be an object lesson of the need to think and ask questions before we start shooting - or at the very least be a bit better at scrutinising the people who want to run the country before we elect them into power and jump onto jingoistic band wagons.

When liberals were protesting Iraq war, they didn't care how the US left the country, they wanted the US out immediately. Doesn't anyone remember the protests outside of Bush's ranch lead by the anti-war protester who's son died in Iraq (forget her name).

Anyway, here is a list of protests (probably the short list), liberals didn't care how the US left Iraq:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War

The dems won 2006 congressional elections by campaigning against war and now they have a war of their own.

Afghanistan war is a stupid war - no way the US can win the Afghan war and so I wonder where are the liberal protesters as America soldiers are getting killed.

[Peikko 1,575]

If you keep using these stupid labels then you will never get to the truth. A lot of people apposed the idea of going to war with Iraq because they did not believe the government rhetoric that there was any justification for it - but a lot (I would say a majority) of those self same people also did NOT want to see the Americans pull out after they fvcked the country up. Seriously, no point in this discourse if you just use the term liberal to describe pacifists, completely useless and pointless.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

We broke it we bought it - simple as that really.

Regardless of the duplicity that got us into this position, the US has an ethical responsibility to stabilise those countries and repair the infrastructure that it has destroyed. If we weren't prepared to do that we should have never got involved in the first place.

Never really thought it would be possible for the US to pull out of either Iraq or Afghanistan overnight, regardless of how tired the general public are of paying for these wars.

Should be an object lesson of the need to think and ask questions before we start shooting - or at the very least be a bit better at scrutinising the people who want to run the country before we elect them into power and jump onto jingoistic band wagons.

When liberals were protesting Iraq war, they didn't care how the US left the country, they wanted the US out immediately. Doesn't anyone remember the protests outside of Bush's ranch lead by the anti-war protester who's son died in Iraq (forget her name).

Anyway, here is a list of protests (probably the short list), liberals didn't care how the US left Iraq:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War

The dems won 2006 congressional elections by campaigning against war and now they have a war of their own.

Afghanistan war is a stupid war - no way the US can win the Afghan war and so I wonder where are the liberal protesters as America soldiers are getting killed.

That's nice and all - but I really don't care for one-size-fits-all reductions of alleged "liberal" opinions. Has very little to do with my own.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Private Pike

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If you keep using these stupid labels then you will never get to the truth. A lot of people apposed the idea of going to war with Iraq because they did not believe the government rhetoric that there was any justification for it - but a lot (I would say a majority) of those self same people also did NOT want to see the Americans pull out after they fvcked the country up. Seriously, no point in this discourse if you just use the term liberal to describe pacifists, completely useless and pointless.

There were legitimate concerns about the decisions and the chain of events that got us into this position, but as soon as the US went to war those concerns really became irrelevant, save as a matter of hindsight and recrimination.

I don't understand the need to pull out red herrings about liberals, the only reason to do so is to avoid actually listening to the opinions of individuals.

[Peikko 1,575]

Exactly.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Of course whatsherface will probably show up in due course to explain how such stereotyping is justifiable and proper.

[nowhereman 1]

Remember when Cheney called anyone unpatriotic when they opposed Bush? Those same people are calling for Obama's head... wouldn't that make them unpatriotic given the same logic? I don't agree with this logic, but if you are in the aforementioned group you are a hypocrite. Pelosi recently called people opposing healthcare reform as unamerican, which is along the same lines as Cheney's remark. This is equally as hypocritical.

As long as you stereotype, label & disrespect other viewpoints no exchange of ideas or opinions can take place. The constant misuse of the "liberal" & "socialist" terms on VJ are a perfect example of this... they are labels that have been abused so often that the only purpose they serve is as an insult.

Please knock off the mindless rhetoric... if you are unable to make a point without degrading opposing views perhaps silence would be the better option.

[SMOKE 1,426]

Please knock off the mindless rhetoric... if you are unable to make a point without degrading opposing views perhaps silence would be the better option.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

Please knock off the mindless rhetoric... if you are unable to make a point without degrading opposing views perhaps silence would be the better option.

[nowhereman 1]

Please knock off the mindless rhetoric... if you are unable to make a point without degrading opposing views perhaps silence would be the better option.

Now Charles we went around & around on this topic with the Pelosi thread... you & your cronies attacked me & hid behind the (largely irrelevent) distinction between politician & pundit, but you can't attack the message (that rhetoric, whether from the left or right, brings no value to a debate).

Separate the message from the messenger (you think I'm on a high horse and I think you're passive-aggressive). Doesn't mean I'm wrong about this particular topic.

Edited August 19, 2009 by nowhereman

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

Please knock off the mindless rhetoric... if you are unable to make a point without degrading opposing views perhaps silence would be the better option.

Now Charles we went around & around on this topic with the Pelosi thread... you & your cronies attacked me & hid behind the (largely irrelevent) distinction between politician & pundit, but you can't attack the message (that rhetoric, whether from the left or right, brings no value to a debate).

Separate the message from the messenger (you think I'm on a high horse and I think you're passive-aggressive). Doesn't mean I'm wrong about this particular topic.

you're missing what many of us have been telling you - quite often, your posts are the pot calling the kettle black.

[nowhereman 1]

Please knock off the mindless rhetoric... if you are unable to make a point without degrading opposing views perhaps silence would be the better option.

Now Charles we went around & around on this topic with the Pelosi thread... you & your cronies attacked me & hid behind the (largely irrelevent) distinction between politician & pundit, but you can't attack the message (that rhetoric, whether from the left or right, brings no value to a debate).

Separate the message from the messenger (you think I'm on a high horse and I think you're passive-aggressive). Doesn't mean I'm wrong about this particular topic.

you're missing what many of us have been telling you - quite often, your posts are the pot calling the kettle black.

And you are missing my point... forget about the messenger & focus on the message.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Obama also talked about taking the war into Pakistan if I remember right. No the Socialists whined and moaned about Iraq to create divide and conquer is all. Now the great Socialist himself has only shifted forces from Iraq to Afghanistan and for what? Nothing, but it does give him the power he would have lost had he really been a dove and brought all our troops home.

We do not have to rebuild countries we break. Who is gonna make us? The UK? Hah. France? Now lets all laugh out loud at that one. Russia? Teehee. No one in the world is powerful enough.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Obama also talked about taking the war into Pakistan if I remember right. No the Socialists whined and moaned about Iraq to create divide and conquer is all. Now the great Socialist himself has only shifted forces from Iraq to Afghanistan and for what? Nothing, but it does give him the power he would have lost had he really been a dove and brought all our troops home.

We do not have to rebuild countries we break. Who is gonna make us? The UK? Hah. France? Now lets all laugh out loud at that one. Russia? Teehee. No one in the world is powerful enough.

You're not really a moral man are you.

[Danno 1,228]

Remember when Cheney called anyone unpatriotic when they opposed Bush? Those same people are calling for Obama's head...

one of the Problems with Libs is; They start to believe their own -made up stuff-

PLease, I have asked for this before... show me where Cheney said "anyone who opposes Bush is unpatriotic".

No really.