1

If victory is punishing those who committed and abetted the 9/11 attacks and ensuring that Afghanistan is not going to be used as a giant basic training base for similar attacks (and as a bonus, given the Afghans a chance to build a decent country), then I'd say our military and intelligence forces have won.

If you think victory amounts to subduing every anti-American tribesman who also opposes the Karzai government in Kabul and turning Afghanistan into a semi-modern country, then I think you are signing the US up for an even longer mission and commitment very few Americans actually support.

 

Son of a gun, I agree with Drew and Romney on something! Mark it down, doesn't happen often. Theres a group within the foreign policy establishment that hasn't yet figured out that the country is broke and cannot keep borrowing to put troops in every remote hellhole on Earth.

2 I think it's the part about bringing troops "home." As commander-in-chief, Romney would redeploy soldiers into homes, albeit their own homes, but it still raises some Third Amendment issues.

3 If victory is ...that Afghanistan is not going to be used as a giant basic training base for similar attacks ... our military and intelligence forces have won.

I think this is the key phrase, and if Romney is suggesting that it has been accomplished, he's wrong.  If we pull out now, the "training base" will be back up and running posthaste.  You either think that is worth preventing, or you pull out.  It isn't about the Afghans having a bright future as such, just that their government can control the territory.

4 Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no! And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the goin' gets tough... the tough get goin'!  What the fuck happened to the USA I used to know? Where's the spirit? Where's the guts, huh? "Ooh, we're afraid to go with you Obama, we might get in trouble." Well just kiss my ass from now on! Not me! I'm not gonna take this. Bohner, he's a dead man! Pawlenty, dead! Palin -

5 I felt weird with this answer too. The problem is that he IS a commander in chief, and he has to make military policy and dictate it to the generals, not vice versa. HE has the first and final say whether the war in A-stan a good straregy or not. Generals are advisors who have the knowledge, not the ones who make the decisions. It's like saying: I don't know whether I'll repeal Obamacare, I'll just do what my healthcare advisors tell me. Makes the same sense.

6 We must support all of our Republican candidates, but especially that dreamy Romney. Except for that Palin bitch, of course. Anyone supporting her is obviously a deranged ignoramus!

7 Dead! Bluto's right. Psychotic, but absolutely right. We gotta take these bastards. Now we could do it with conventional weapons that could take years and cost millions of lives. No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part. Unleash Hillary Clinton!

8
I'm familiar with Danielle Pletka from seeing her on CSPAN.

I don't know exactly what a neo-con is, but I'm pretty sure she is one.

These people, these a-hole yah-hoos such as Pletka and Bill Kristol never met a war they didn't want to prosecute. Enough is enough with this fake patriotic bullshit.

9 I have full faith in Romney to say whatever it takes to get the nomination and to correct himself when wrong.

10 Why couldn't he say: A-stan and P-stan are a hotbed for terrorism, and we will have to keep a certain amount of troops there for intelligence and bases for drone strikes? That's not controversial. That makes sense. Saying "I'll do whatever the generals say" makes no sense. What if the generals are uber-leftist cranks like Clark? Romney doesn't understand what being a CIC means.

11 I blame Sarah Palin and Charles Krauthammer and George Will for not being clear enough about their stance, thereby confusing Romney about what his stance should be.

Smart leaders like Romney lead from two internal polls ago. He's Bill Clinton in a Bill Clinton costume.

12 Posted by: pep at June 15, 2011 12:08 PM (GMG6W)

But there are other ways to ensure it doesn't become a training base again. You can move to a counter terror strategy where you are blowing up the bad guys when they gather in appreciable numbers.

You don't need tens of thousands of troops doing COIN for that.

Yes, it presents an ISR challenge but it seems that's easier (these things being relative) than trying to beat down every pissed off Pashtun tribesman.

Personally, I don't give two shits if the Tabliban comes back and rapes the country. So long as they don't play host to AQ, I'm good.

Now...can you separate the two? That's the question.

13 It's not a stupid answer. It's not as detailed as I like, but it's not stupid. I think people are just sensitive to the key words "ItÂ’s time for us to bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can," which the lefties have been using to mean "let's run away with our tails between our legs." All Romney is saying is that the commitment isn't open-ended.

14
AEI can go horsefuck, too

these turds are tied to the hip to lobbyists in DC

they don't give a rip about conservatism or small govt

15 Posted by: Lackluster Luke at June 15, 2011 12:09 PM (ltq3F)

Technically correct, while still completely missing the point.

Health care (more correctly: Health Insurance) is something with which almost all Americans have enough experience to have an informed opinion- and, therefore, the President shouldn't need any "advisers" to know that Obamnycare is bad and needs to be repealed.

A military engagement, however, is a different matter.  The answer is saying these things:
1) I want to bring our troops home and out of harm's way as soon as possible.
2) Possible will be defined by the generals on the ground and my military advisers based on our goals.

Given that the generals and military advisers will have a better idea of what is actually going on that Romney (at least until he starts getting the full briefings that nominated candidates get), that's the best answer we can really expect.

Any candidate who gives any answer that is more sure (Ron Paul: Bring 'em home! Candidate X: We're there until the last Taliban fighter is a puddle of grease!) is not admitting the simple fact that they don't have all the facts.

I don't like Romney.  I don't want him to be our nominee.  I also don't see anything actively wrong with this answer.

16 Posted by: gainsayer (soothsayer's evil twin) at June 15, 2011 12:11 PM (sqkOB) Oh, the return of "neo-con" aka "crypro-Jew". The 90's called and they want their antisemitic stereotypes back.

17 Now...can you separate the two? That's the question.

That is the question, but it's hard to fit everything you just said into a sound bite before the moderator starts having conniptions.  This was an unforced error by Romney. 

18

There are some in the GOP *cough*bill kristol*cough*, and some dems too, that basically want to go to war everywhere, all the time.

There is absolutely no such thing as 'too hawkish' for them.  

19 All hystericating aside, I do think we should get out of Afghanistan. We have won.

Cops don't root out all the criminals in a run-down, shitty housing project and then make all the cops rent an apartment there. Because it's still a run down, shitty housing project that good people wouldn't want to live in.

Ask the Special Ops guys what they need and where they need it.
Hand them a blank check.
Keep the Ops guys killing Taliban and Al Killya whenever and wherever the professionals decide it's a good idea.

20 Fuck Afghanistan.  We did our best but the Afghans are not ready to form anything close to what we would call a "nation".  Conditions on the ground there are going to suck, maybe forever. 

The test for me is would I send MY son there to possibly die in order for a corrupt Islamist government that is playing a double game and is instituting Sharia law to stay in power?  I have to answer no to that so how can I ask other Americans to make that sacrifice?

Once I saw Karzai visiting his buddy in Tehran that was enough for me, over and out.  Fuck him and fuck his people, they will never be allies of ours.

21 Keep the Ops guys killing Taliban and Al Killya whenever and wherever the professionals decide it's a good idea. Posted by: sifty at June 15, 2011 12:20 PM (2dbd9) THIS: An air base, some special ops bases, preposition some materiel so troops can be flown in quickly. If al Q sticks its head up, whack it manfully. Repeat as needed. That's the most we can hope for now.

22 Posted by: Entropy at June 15, 2011 12:19 PM (IsLT6)

Kristol was arguing for ground troops in Libya before we even got the "no fly zone" up and running.

The guy really is quick on the trigger.

23 Hamid Karzai would happily dance a jig on the ashes of America.

24

Oh, the return of "neo-con" aka "crypro-Jew".

The fact that a bunch of globalist neocons have never seen a war they didn't like has nothing to do with Judaism or Israel.

25 Health care (more correctly: Health Insurance) is something with which almost all Americans have enough experience to have an informed opinion- and, therefore, the President shouldn't need any "advisers" to know that Obamnycare is bad and needs to be repealed. Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at June 15, 2011 12:15 PM (8y9MW) A POTUS should be competent enough to understand both healthcare (which is not an easy subject), national security interests, military interests, and dozens of other top-tier subjects if not down to technical details, at least in strategic way. Deciding whether keeping troops in A-stan is needed for national security does not require to undertand the inner workings of M1 Abrams. It's in no way different than healthcare. Romney said he will submit POLICY to the hands of generals/advisors. This is as wrong as wrong can ever get.

26 Hamid Karzai would happily dance a jig on the ashes of America.

You betcha.

27 We should give Kristol a nice weapon with a full compliment of ammo and put him on the ground in Libya or Afghanistan.  Let him put his own ass on the line for a change.

28 Surrendering and running away in Afghanistan is no better than doing so in Iraq and I'm damned tired of alleged conservatives pushing for it.

29 We should've gotten out of both Iraq and Afghanistan 5 years ago.  Not even sure we should've gone into Iraq at all.  We could've simply put a hit out on Saddam.  But no, some people had the fantasy that we could re-make Middle East and central Asian Muslim countries like the West.  But for 19 guys with boxcutters, America would still be a superpower.

30 I am totally against nation building. We had a mission there to root out the taliban and el quada. After killing them all  we should have left.

Now that Obama is there and intends on withdrawing them anyway why wait. He has no mission or purpose, just saving his political ass. We have American troops dieing to cover his ass. Screw him,

31 28 Surrendering and running away in Afghanistan is no better than doing so in Iraq and I'm damned tired of alleged conservatives pushing for it.
///
That's utter bullshit. We won the war in both.  We can't rebuild those countries as modern, Western-style, capitalist republics.

Which theater did you serve in?

32 News flash for some of you guys.  You can train terrorists ANYWHERE, including right here in the US.  Remember 9/11?  Those fuckers were HERE and WE taught them how to fly.  If the mission is to wipe out all training camps for terrorists than we better increase our troop strength 10 times over and start miiltary operations in every country of the world. 

We could BE IN AFGHANISTAN for 20 fucking years more and they STILL would be training terrorists there.  I am not saying we shouldn't launch special forces ops to take out high value targets but we can't spend 100's of billions in every country to make sure a couple of hundred assholes don't set up a training camp somewhere.

33 This is the controversial part, since you missed it:

"weÂ’ve learned that our troops shouldnÂ’t go off and try and fight a war of independence for another nation"

It's as if he can't remember why we went there to begin with or what must be done to prevent us from having to return again.

34 wow, you guys know I'm not a romeny rah rah girl but I thought his answer was, well, the truth.  Guess he made a lot of republicans uncomfortable and the dems who are suddenly so quiet about him not exiting when he took office. 

I'm really beginning to think they buy their own press clippings, that they are the best and the brightest and ergo, the general public, wrapped up in American Idol, is a bunch of fat ass dolts watching and consuming mass amounts of junk food.  surprise, people are paying attention, he just said what everyone thinks.  sheesh.

35 I'm sick and tired of alleged conservatives telling our troops that they have to die trying to make the absolute rectum of the universe into a nice place to raise a family.

36 BTW, who's continuing to pay for all this crap?  Oh right, us morons.

37 Just talking about leaving a theater is enough to piss them off. 

Know how it is among the GOP rank and file?  Many ex-mil in the local activist groups.  And you don't breathe a word about withdrawal - until we're already doing it and then it's whew it's about time!   They're trained to back foreign adventures backed by Republican presidents no matter what.   It's because of Viet Nam, and shit. 

So Romney talking like this, even hinting at *turning tail and running* is letting down the side, doncha know.

38 did i read something about an audit not being about to find billions of bucks there?  or was that another of the four countries we're involved in now?

39 Posted by: Rod Rescueman at June 15, 2011 12:31 PM (HwE/1)

But let's not kid ourselves...the mission has changed.

We went there to get AQ and disrupt their base of operations. Remember that Bush was willing to let Taliban stay in power if they handed over bin Laden.

Punishing AQ and kicking the Tablian out of power for supporting AQ was done a long time ago. We simply can't commit to the idea of staying in Afghanistan as long as there are theocratic Pashtuns who want to run the country. That will be forever.

40 American nation building: HUD housing for the world.

41 Our military exists to kill, shock, and frighten armed enemies of the people of the United States of America who seek to do us or our allies harm.

Asking them to be blown apart by jihadis for the next thousand years trying to turn Afghastlystan into Disneyland is not right.

We won. Why can't we take YES for an answer?

42

We can't win in Afghanistan without defeating the ISI in Pakistan.  Obviously both al Qaeda and the Taliban are mainly in Pakistan.  So we're now entangled trying to build a nation out of illiterate tribal chieftans and religious freaks who hate us.  Call it a win and come home.

The entire world is beginning to look like a hot spot.  We need to reduce commitments now to prepare for (likely soon) future commitments.    

43 I declare shenanigans.  Can not believe that there are people out there who are unhappy with than answer, yet are perfectly happy with the ethanol subsidies, and the global warming, and the RomneyCare.

44

If we pull out now, the "training base" will be back up and running posthaste.  You either think that is worth preventing, or you pull out.  It isn't about the Afghans having a bright future as such, just that their government can control the territory.

The government controlled the territory when the government was the Taliban and that didn't stop AQ. There's no garauntee, really very very little, that Karzai (or whoever eventually succeeds him) won't play patty-cake with terrorists as well. In fact, I'd say it's almost certain and just a matter of time after we leave. Unless you want to stay, litterally FOREVER.

Those training bases still exist, and always will. Route them Afghanistan, they go to the same Pashtun/Taliban/Waziristan tribes down the block on the other side of the Pakistan border.

Even if you route them from Pakistan (which is, uh, quite problematic), you'll find them in Somalia too.

Root them from Somalia and you'll chase them to another craphole, Indonesia maybe, or Uzebekistan.

It does not end. You cannot kill all the cockroaches. You just need to keep them out of your house.

Do we hire exterminators to go track down cockroach breeding grounds and elimate them where ever they may roam in nature, to end cockroach infestations once and forever? No. Because that's ridiculous.

You just hire the exterminator to get them the hell out of your house and keep them out, and fuck all what they do when they're somewhere else.

45 I am totally against nation building. We had a mission there to root out the taliban and el quada. After killing them all we should have left. Posted by: Vic at June 15, 2011 12:27 PM (M9Ie6) Nation building is retarded and a waste of money, but AQ is still there. Taliban are not a direct threat, but as long as Arab operatives have free hand in planning attacks under the wing of Taliban or the ISI, there is a real threat of another 9/11. Without a viable base in A-stan, it would be harder and probably impossible to gather intel and execute drone attacks. Some generals who are far-left, like Wes Clark, will indeed call for immidiate withdrawal even if it costs us another 9/11. Generals are just men and they can be as deranged as your average non-fatigued lefty. Putting the decision in generals' hand is extremely bad idea for a rational POTUS.

46

It's partisan silly-season, Drew M.  Criticisms over nothing.

Romney gets it for this totally innocuous comment, just like Pawlenty got it for his completely fine response to the ObamneyCare question.

47

Taliban are not a direct threat, but as long as Arab operatives have free hand in planning attacks under the wing of Taliban or the ISI, there is a real threat of another 9/11.

To the extent our domestic security procedures will not stop it (and we have locked the cockpit and such) there is ALWAYS a real threat of another 9/11.

You cannot premanently remove such a threat, it's inherit to nature. It's like the threat of drunk drivers or something.

You trying to say if you got rid of the Pakistani ISI and the Taliban there would be NO POSSIBLE THREAT WHATSOEVER of another 9/11?

Of course not.

48

I really hate it when people wave around "another 9/11" as if it were dominos or something. Pull out of Afghanistan, get another 9/11. Don't, and don't.

That's BS on both counts.

49 It does not end. You cannot kill all the cockroaches. You just need to keep them out of your house. Do we hire exterminators to go track down cockroach breeding grounds and elimate them where ever they may roam in nature, to end cockroach infestations once and forever? No. Because that's ridiculous. You just hire the exterminator to get them the hell out of your house and keep them out, and fuck all what they do when they're somewhere else. Posted by: Entropy at June 15, 2011 12:47 PM (IsLT6) And what is your and Ron Paul's strategy for stopping criminals? Abolish the police who actively hunt home invaders, shut your door and hope they don't break through the window? You can't hermetically shut every security breach. So we just shut the borders, put on a fence and wait until the terrorists who will now have unopposed bases and think-tanks all over the world to find a breach. You are teh smart, aren't you?

50 I really hate it when people wave around "another 9/11" as if it were dominos or something. Pull out of Afghanistan, get another 9/11. Don't, and don't. That's BS on both counts. Posted by: Entropy at June 15, 2011 12:56 PM (IsLT6) Yeah, we're all neo-conish wingnut scaremongers. Exactly what far left loons and paleocons said before 9/11. You'd rather have our borders shut, have a police state that terrorizes Americans, but God forbid there is a single, small fucking base in A-stan that can take out AQ bases and distrupt their activities. Fuck you.

51 I guess it is unreasonable to hope we could kill every Taliban leader above the squad or team level before we left, or crush them so completely on the battlefield that the people who truly want better lives will no longer fear them after we're gone. My son plans to enlist next year after he graduates from high school, as I did. I don't want him caught up in a war where the word 'victory' is never spoken.

52

There are some in the GOP *cough*bill kristol*cough*, and some dems too, that basically want to go to war everywhere, all the time.

There is absolutely no such thing as 'too hawkish' for them. 

Exactly.

And often they're willing to sell out every single traditional domestic plank of Conservatism in the process.

53 The sad thing is, I really wish someone would come out and say we need a change of approach in Afghanistan.  It's obvious a win the populace approach isn't working, it's time to investigate other methods to pacify the region.

And no, that doesn't mean annihilating them either.  There's a wide range between the two extremes.  It's frustrating that if this one approach doesn't work, we have to give up.

54

AEI are neocon warmongers, any hint of not fighting everywhere all the time is traitorous to them.   

Romney's answer was a good, thoughtful one.  I'm glad to see a few of the candidates moving away from the neocon control of foreign policy that Bush2 suffered under.   I believe Palin replaced her Kristol-mole advisor with someone who isn't a part of the consnese.

55

And what is your and Ron Paul's strategy for stopping criminals? Abolish the police who actively hunt home invaders, shut your door and hope they don't break through the window?

Well, I can't speak for Paul. I don't often agree with him on foreign policy and he's often rather crazy.

But, this is important:

We don't stop criminals.

Police do NOT stop criminals.

They arrest and punish criminals after the crime. They do not prevent crime and cannot prevent crime.

And that is my point, vis-a-vis drunk drivers (or rapists or murderers), you cannot just prevent them all, no matter what you do.

You can't hermetically shut every security breach. So we just shut the borders, put on a fence and wait until the terrorists who will now have unopposed bases and think-tanks all over the world to find a breach. You are teh smart, aren't you?

That is the way we deal with crime.

You cannot, cannot, cannot totally remove the threat of terrorism. It's impossible. Occupying every country on the planet will not prevent it and I've yet to see anyone show why it would.

Terrorism is a reality we must deal with. We should make an example out of states that sponsor terrorism and respond with overwhelming force, in my opinion.

But it's just assinine to think we can prevent all this, or that being in Afghanistan in any way makes us safer, because it doesn't.

56 er, consensus.

57

You'd rather have our borders shut, have a police state that terrorizes Americans, but God forbid there is a single, small fucking base in A-stan that can take out AQ bases and distrupt their activities.

Fuck you.

Hey, fuck you too buddy. I don't like pedophiles.

Since we're just making up shit and beating on straw men here,...

You should really understand that people who rape children will never be welcome on this blog. You're a sick sick person and I hope you burn in hell for what you advocate doing to innocent little boys.

Probably because you think it'll convert them into more gays or something. I know how you said you were all about making everyone gay whether they liked it or not.

Really I don't know how you can even call yourself conservative when you go around saying you want to "outlaw breeding".

I mean, if we're just going to make other people's arguments up for them, I so no good reason why we must restrict ourselves to the plausible.

58 I didn't see a problem with Romney's answer.  And I thought he clearly won the debate despite Newt's strong performance.  I just don't think Romney has excellent credibility.

His entire mannerisms and perfectly lined out positions were presidential.  And perfect.  Not too perfect, just perfect.  This guy looks like a President, and he is currently the strongest candidate.  I suspect he worked very hard to figure this style out, because it's better than 2008 by some ways.

Anyway, he can't convince us that he really means what he's saying and isn't a weathervane.  This is  a perfect example.  I have to hope that if elected, Romney will do the right thing because of political pressure, but I worry that his easiest path to reelection is triangulation on many core issues, such as immigration or obamacare.  That's not a cheap shot at romneycare... he doesn't have those fundamental principles I want.

But he would beat Obama.  I'm practically 100% sure of it.  Cain would not.  I love Cain, but he's just not a politician.  It's sad, but he's not in the same league as Obama.  Pawlenty isn't going to attack Obama effectively.  He had his chance to show me otherwise, and now that worry is real.  Newt ain't got a chance.  Bachmann lacks the resume, and X factor.

And strangely, I think I'd vote for any of those latter four over Romney.  I KNOW I'd vote Perry or Palin over Romney.

Don't underestimate the deep problem Romney will have winning over Tea Partiers despite his obvious electability.  This may be less of a problem in a few months, because Romney probably won't make as many mistakes as the rest of the field, and his operation is much better.

59

 wait until the terrorists who will now have unopposed bases and think-tanks all over the world

It's gonna be a long long long wait, until Tuesday May 13th 1975.

Have you seen their "think tanks"? I don't think you should call them that.

Have you seen their "bases"? Kind of a liberal use of the word.

These people are not soviets. They fuck goats. They fuck goats when they're sober.

3 illiterate Pashtun tribesmen in a hut made out of bricks of dehydrated goat shit IS a taliban base/think tank.

You're not even being remotely serious unless and until you're willing to commit to total genocide.

Nothing else does - or can do - what you claim to want to do. You talk a big game about opposing terrorist bases... yet you cannot and do not actually do so in a meaningful way. You just want activity for activity's sake. To make a show of it.

Your strategy for combatting terrorism is so much Security Theater as the TSA. Bomb another bunch of illiterate imbeciles clinging to a barren rock in the belly of middle Asia, halfway between buttfuck and nowhere.

That's preventing 9/11?

60 We are in Afghanistan for a reason. If the reason no longer exists -- if the goal has been accomplished or has become impossible or impractical -- we leave. Otherwise we don't leave.

He did not say that. He just said we need to get out ASAP, as soon as the generals say the Afghans can defend themselves against the Taliban. Was that our goal? Does he know what our goal was? What is his goal there -- just to get out as quick as he can?

Yeah, it was a bad answer.

61

it's a bad answer because he was too cowardly to say what he really thinks, just playing politics, trying to be all things to all people.

Osma is dead, and the Taliban are all living in Paki.

there isn't one bit of good we can accomplish by staying there any longer, if the Afghans can't stand on their own two feet by now they are never going to.

bring them home.

62
I'm perfectly fine with an open-ended commitment to kill Islamic terrists, in Afghanistan or wherever else they pop up. Better to fight them over there than have to fight them over here, where collateral damage costs a whole lot more.

63 "

it's a bad answer because he was too cowardly to say what he really thinks, just playing politics, trying to be all things to all people."

That's true, Shoey.  It's also probably the smartest, most focus group proven way to handle the issue.  He both fails to lead and looks like a leader somehow.  It's very clever.  Mitt Romney is the class of the field as a politician.

And that's enough for my vote.

64

endless war - it's what tyrants & despots have for dinner.

65 He both fails to lead and looks like a leader somehow. It's very clever. Mitt Romney is the class of the field as a politician.

And that's enough for my vote.

Posted by: Dustin at June 15, 2011 02:12 PM (Q3nWV)

 

it's why I hate him with a passion.

66

Romney is everything I hate in a politician, a progressive who pretends to be a conservative, an insider who pretends to be an outsider, liar, flip-flopper, self-agrandizing-glad-hander, everything that he says and does is calculated to decieve his audience into thinking he is just like them when nothing could be further from the truth (insert impressively long string of expletives here)!

 

and Pawlenty is just like him!!!

67 3 illiterate Pashtun tribesmen in a hut made out of bricks of dehydrated goat shit IS a taliban base/think tank. You're not even being remotely serious unless and until you're willing to commit to total genocide. Posted by: Entropy at June 15, 2011 01:31 PM (IsLT6) Was I talking about the the goat fucking Taliban? If so, where? Oh, I actually said Taliban is not our concern. And yes, we know how AQ bases in A-stan looked. I can link to a fucking Youtube clip if you want. They were exactly what AQ needed to provide a small but sophsticated group of determined people the training and material support they needed to conduct a semi-complex terrorist operation. Your idea is that we can always assume they will fail because - A: our internal security apparatus (aka TSA) is so very competent, B: the adversary will always be stupid. If you believed that before 9/11, you were a dupe. If you believe that now, you are insane.

68 That was a bad answer? Seems there are almost as many dishonest partisan fringe hags on the right as there is on the left. Eh politics.

69 We don't stop criminals. Police do NOT stop criminals. They arrest and punish criminals after the crime. They do not prevent crime and cannot prevent crime. Posted by: Entropy at June 15, 2011 01:18 PM (IsLT6) Hmm...actually, they do. Tune to the news sometime, you may in fact hear about crimes prevented before they were committed. Live a day, learn a day.

70 I'm sick and tired of alleged conservatives telling our troops that they have to die trying to make the absolute rectum of the universe into a nice place to raise a family.

Better they die for nothing, having tried and surrendered, running away to allow the Taliban to build back up and hey, pull a 9/11 again! Why that's clearly the better, more conservative choice.

71

Better they die for nothing, having tried and surrendered, running away to allow the Taliban to build back up and hey, pull a 9/11 again! Why that's clearly the better, more conservative choice.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 15, 2011 02:47 PM (r4wIV)

This notion that pulling out of Afghanistan will lead to another 9/11 is tiring. The entire Middle East is a hotbed for terrorists, and even if we decided to bankrupt ourselves and put troops on the ground in every third-world shithole on earth we wouldn't end terrorism.

72 allow the Taliban to build back up and hey, pull a 9/11 again!
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 15, 2011 02:47 PM (r4wIV)

You do know "the Taliban" didn't pull 9/11 the first time, right?

73 I've got  problems with Romney because of his religion.

NO, not Mormonism. Anthropogenic Global Warming.

That RELIGION.

Until/unless he can delineate 3 changes that have provably occurred in regards to the global climate THAT CAN HAVE NO OTHER CAUSE and show that Humans have contributed to them, then it's a belief, a faith if you will. Other wise he's just repeating something someone else said and he 'believes' is true.

I don't want someone in office who will go along with the economic horror of cap and trade and green energy and other expensive and failed experiments in replacement sources for oil just because some folks believe global warming is happening.

They're not able to prove that their models are accurate and they leave out of their calculations the sun and sunspots. They can't prove that the Earth is undergoing an actual aberration in temperature or that we're just seeing the result of where the Earth and the Sun is in the Galaxy and the post glacier period we've been in for over 10,000 years.

He's a nice guy but he's trying for the MSM vote not mine. He's who they want to be the Republican candidate. It's plain to see. Or maybe Bachmann. Chrissie Matthews is saying nice things about her. I don't know if he's trying to sabotage her or thinks she's more beatable than Romney. Most likely he just wants her in the race thinking that'll keep Sarah out.

Who should we vote for: the person the Media hates or the ones they love?
(until they win the nomination and then the knives come out)

Me, I'm rooting for Sarah to run.

As for other races, I'm voting for anybody but a Democrat or a Republican if there's a third choice.

I am fed up with the Republicans and their lies and half-assed pussy-whipped dancing around with Obama and the Media.

The 2012 election isn't about Obama, it's about the MEDIA. They're the enemy and they have to be beaten or we're sunk. If the Republicans won't step up and stand for something other than the same sh!t the Democrats push, then I'm not voting for them.

Don't talk to me about how that's going to elect Obama. To my way of thinking, that'll be better than having the Republicans in doing similar stuff and taking constant flak for doing things half assed. They need to realize they're never going to be pals with liberals or  the Media. They're going to get called names and get lied about no matter how nice they are or how right they are.

The Republicans need to get mean and recognize that the Democrats are in it to win it and  they don't care how. The only way to counteract that is to play just as dirty and call them and those in the Media out on their bullsh!t.

74

Tune to the news sometime, you may in fact hear about crimes prevented before they were committed.

Do the cops lock people up before they become criminals?

No. You have to have already committed a crime in order for a cop to do squat.

It's irrelevant at any rate. You're intentionally side-stepping my point.

I hear not a peep from you addressing the root of my concern which is, occupying afghanistan does dick all to protect us from a dozen Yemeni's coming over on visas and fucking our shit up. DICK ALL.

Absolutely NOTHING about Afghanistan, regardless of what we do there, precludes another domestic terrorist attack (if we stay forever and send all the little chillins to school), nor mandates it (if we pull out).

Whether or not any given act makes it "more likely" is entirely subjective because it's basically non-quantifiable and you can bicker back and forth all day either way. Anyone claiming to know this is demagoging it because they can't possibly know this. It's basically dishonest, whether you want to claim that we'll get attacked if we pull out, or claim that we're 'creating more terrorists' and 'chickens roosting' and we'll be attacked if we don't.

allow the Taliban to build back up and hey, pull a 9/11 again!

Got to call it like it is. Spade is a spade.

That is just blatant scaremongering. Waving the bloody shirt of 9/11 around. You don't want the terrorists to win do you?

It's like "for the children" but the warmongering neocon version.

75

"I also think weÂ’ve learned that our troops shouldnÂ’t go off and try and fight a war of independence for another nation."

I don't care what else got said, that was his message, and if the rest of you missed it, let me be clear: he's saying Bush had no business going there in the first place, essentially the left's position on Iraq, one they were never willing to apply to Afghanistan.  Here's mittens, taking a position to the left of the left.

76

I'm pretty sure that's the overwhelming sentiment of the American people. 

So was electing Preznit Fuckknuckles - see where that got us?  

It all comes down to how you define victory. 

Exactly.  How about "victory" defined as, Afghanistan stable enough that we don't have to go back in there in five or ten years to fix the same problems that got us into this situation in the first place.  (CF: Haiti, Iraq)

77

Here's mittens, taking a position to the left of the left.

To be fair, that's dishonest as well.

Beyond the bit about your interpretation of Romney even, I mean.

We're supposed to buy that democrats are all like Kucinich?

Barry's bombing Libya on the whim of the French and basically told Congress to fuck itself, he won't even ASK, not even if they gave consent.

He isn't pulling out of Afghanistan or Iraq either. (Not that I even think he should just bug out of either - Iraq is basically a runaway success, and even in Afghanistan a drawdown would occur over time). That was election-year BS for the moonbats.

Don't you remember Bosnia? Kosovo? Somalia? The leftists can be every bit as interventionist as the Weekly Standard, they just do it for different reasons.

78 I don't like Romney, but I like that answer.  It's very measured and reasonable.

79 That is just blatant scaremongering. Waving the bloody shirt of 9/11 around. You don't want the terrorists to win do you? Posted by: Entropy at June 15, 2011 04:01 PM (IsLT6) Oh noes! If we don't retreat like scared kittens teh terrizt won, you rethauglican warmonger scaremongers!!!!1 !11eleventy

80

we don't have to go back in there in five or ten years to fix the same problems that got us into this situation in the first place.  (CF: Haiti, Iraq)

Iraq was in fact a success...

But why the hell did we 'have to' go back there?

You do realize that whole WMD business turned out to basically be bullshit, eh? Dude had no WMD program. Dude was, by most any objective metric, less of a developing threat than Libya (at that time) or Iran, both then as well as now and today.

As for "the problems" that got us into this, I doubt you can actually define them so succinctly. The problem was also our own domestic security procedures (not locking the cockpit, NOT resisting hijackers but submitting and expecting to be let out 30 hours later in Cuba or Lebanon as was usually the case prior to 9/11), our visa programs that let these assholes in for no good reason, Clinton's fecklessness with OBL and AQ years before the attacks.

I'd seriously love to have an HONEST conversation about this.

Is the problem with Afghanistan and the Taliban, or Iraq and the Baath dictatorship of Hussein, that they allowed terrorist training to occur in their country?

If you really think we can forceably reform Afghanistan in such a way that no future Afghani government will ever allow Wahabbists to train or gather in their territory....

What the fuck do we do about Britian? London England? Malmo Sweden?

What the fuck do we do about Dearborn Michigan?

Is this even a remotely realistic goal for Afghanistan when we have problems closing all the wahabbist training camps in rural Virginia and/or shutting down the charities (like CAIR) and stolen tax-free cigarettes that fund them, on our OWN fucking sovereign, not to mention 85% Christian and 99% 20th-21st century modern turf?

And is this a viable goal even if it literally takes 25 years to reform Afghanistan in such a way?

Especially considering - if it takes 25 years, wtf difference does it make as we blatantly haven't the ability to make a dent in it on the global stage. What about the camps in Somalia, in Yemen, in Saudi Arabia, in Indonesia, in Pakistan?

What about the Shi'ite strain terrorists like Hezbollah in Iran, in Syria, in Lebanon, in fucking Brazil and Columbia? And the Palestinian nutters?

If Afghanistan takes 25 years.... do you figgure they are all next, 1 by 1 like dominos, in the grand 1100-year strategic vision of the War on Terror?

81

Oh noes! If we don't retreat like scared kittens teh terrizt won, you rethauglican warmonger scaremongers!!!!1 !11eleventy

Very substansive.

I'm making serious points, you have straw-men and ad-hominems and just general jackassery. You have made no serious points. Rah rah rah, jingoistic bullshit. The muslims are stealing your precious bodily fluids or something. FUCK YEAH AMURICAH!

The stone-age paleolithic indians would do a little dance until it rained. Then when it rained, they figgured it was cuz of the dance.

These terrorists have been around in the current form, unrevised, for 30 years. Their track record makes them less of a serious threat - statistically, mathematically, factually, undisputably (except by obsfucating jackasses who do nothing but toss insults and red herrings around) - than white-tailed deer.

They get lucky once - and we respond amply. We change our procedures to prevent another similar attack, and we blow the fuck out of 2 countries, topple their regimes, and kill their leaders.

Because we went to war, and there hasn't been an attack since then, you're juvenile brain makes the Rain Dance connection. We have not been attacked BECAUSE we bomb the fuck out of rocks and rubble. If we stop invading muslim countries, why, they'll regroup and come back to get us! There gonna getcha!  Mooslims! Booo! Mooslims! Gonna getcha!

They never pulled off anything like the aberition of 9/11 in 30 years of trying before hand, and they haven't pulled it off since.

That doesn't mean they never will pull another off. It also doesn't mean they will either.

It does mean that Bush's wars are not reason they haven't - it was an aberrition anyway. And logically speaking I'm not a blind jingoistic moron who fails to realize the idea that occupying Afghanistan precludes domestic terrorist attacks is fucking retarded on it's face.

Tell me, do you avoid convienence stores altogether, or do you just wear diapers and a bullet proof vest when you go to one?

82

Your points are well-taken, Entropy, and I appreciate the clarification of my statement.  I was referring to the Kucinich/Kos Krowd left, not necessarily all of the left, but of course that was the mainstream left's position leading into the '04 elections (i.e. Bush was right going into Afghanistan, but not Iraq).

If Mitt didn't mean we shouldn't have "gone into" Afghanistan at all, but instead meant we should be clearer with our objectives, I've got no problem with that, but I do have a problem with the way he worded it.  The burden is on him to clarify, and right now he's not getting any benefit of the doubt from me.

83 There's nothing wrong with his answer, if you believe he means it.  The answer is different because it came from Romney, if you're someone who sees Romney as tailoring himself to the political winds.

It's legitimate to talk about lessons learned in A'Stan or even leaving under good advice.  Nothing really crazy at all in his statement.

But why pretend this statement stands on its own?  It's a different thing from, say, Rubio than it would be from Romney or other cynical politicians.  When you look at it from Romney, the surgical way it's formed is a little disturbing.  It pleases, sounds like leadership, is not leadership but politics.  Romney isn't taking stands that are bold, he's saying something that is what you want to hear, and that only reinforces the idea he doesnt mean it.

Why does this make me a 'political hag'?

84 I wondered why people were making an issue of this myself. I thought he sounded like a pretty straight forward national security hawk Republican..it was Michelle Bachmann whose national security answers kind of scared me..I like her, I think she is a very talented politician, but I was taken aback by some of her responses in this area.

85 I wondered why people were making an issue of this myself. I thought he sounded like a pretty straight forward national security hawk Republican.

Call me old fashioned, but the executive branch needs to set policy, not the military. So if Romney believes the best thing for America is to pull out, the he should say so. If he thinks we should stay, then say we should stay. If he has no clue, then say I need to study this further.

Pushing that decision off on the military (and that's what he's doing), is weak.

Go big or go home Mitt.

86 If Mitt didn't mean we shouldn't have "gone into" Afghanistan at all, but instead meant we should be clearer with our objectives, I've got no problem with that, but I do have a problem with the way he worded it.

I think his answer did not have much substance at all to be honest. It was as if he wanted to have his cake and eat it to. He tried to offer something to both sides, and botched it, so that now either side can find reason to be pissed at it.

In truth, I don't claim to know what he meant (or really care, because I hates him), but by that answer, I think you could take that to mean pretty much anything at all really. Or nothing at all. It's vague and sort of platitudinous.

I wondered why people were making an issue of this myself.

Because they can and he left himself open. Other people besides me also hates him. Still others would attempt to brow-beat or 'pressure' him into what they would view as a more appropriate answer.

Anything that can be an issue, will be an issue, to whomever it benefits for it to be an issue.

sounded like a pretty straight forward national security hawk Republican

Alls the more reason to hate the bastard before he gets us into a 4th or 5th war. I'm starting to think this is like the deficit problem - it doesn't stop, we just keep invading more and more countries without leaving any until it becomes untenable and breaks us, and then we get our asses kicked and suffer horrific bloodshed.

87

Iraq was in fact a success... 

In a lot of ways, 1991 was a historical ass-whipping.  We destroyed Hussein's army, owned his territory, and had an opposition movement rising up to dethrone him.  Then we left.  He crushed his opposition, rebuilt his army, and consolidated power. 

But why the hell did we 'have to' go back there?

We didn't have to (GWB's opinion differs from mine) - but, if we had finished the job in 1991, we would not be there now. 

You do realize that whole WMD business turned out to basically be bullshit, eh? Dude had no WMD program. 

Not true.  We found enough pieces of it that I believe it was there, including Sarin artillery shells that were repainted and ended up in IEDs in 2007. 

As for "the problems" that got us into this, I doubt you can actually define them so succinctly. . . our visa programs that let these assholes in for no good reason, Clinton's fecklessness with OBL and AQ years before the attacks.

Aviation security wasn't the problem - terrorism was the problem.  If aviation security had been better, they would have come up with a different method.  OBL specifically cited Clintion's fecklessness as an inspiration for his plans. 

I'd seriously love to have an HONEST conversation about this. 

Rock 'n' roll.  If you have SIPR, drop me a line on there and we can converse freely.  If not, I'll be on here. 

Is the problem with Afghanistan and the Taliban, or Iraq and the Baath dictatorship of Hussein, that they allowed terrorist training to occur in their country? 

That's a symptom, not the problem.  We need to find some way to develop a less homocidal government there.  Foster economic development, political development, ties with the West, all that stuff that hasn't worked so far.   There's a way, somewhere, some mix of carrots and sticks that will pull the Middle East into the twentieth century.  Some of the Iraqis and Afghans I have worked with have been sincerely interested in making a better future for their children.  Those are the key to the future, and we need to help them succeed. 

 

88 On the Fox News Roundtable tonight, Stephen of Hayes of the Weekly Standard said the Romney campaign refused to take back the comment at the debate about pulling the troops out of Afghanistan.  Walter Mondale's former speech writer Charles Krauthammer looked liked he was going to have a heart attack!!! Maura Liasson went on about the isolationism in the Republican party now.   Krauthammer then said it was always the right, conservatives that were isolationist.   Krauthammer is so dumb he doesn't even know what isolationism means.  

ACE ACE, ACE ACE ACE.   the debate is over

RON PAUL HAS WON THE DEBATE

http://tinyurl.com/3qfcafd


Bachmann, Pawlenty, Gingrich Join Gold Standard Tour

http://tinyurl.com/3rgyr5f



Ace, you and Allah are losers in this game we call life. That's all you've ever been, and that's all you'll ever be.  Nothing more, nothing less.