# Surge Part Deux



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> Tonight, after months of conferences with top advisors, President Obama has settled on a new strategy for Afghanistan. CBS News correspondent David Martin reports that the president will send a lot more troops and plans to keep a large force there, long term.
> 
> The president still has more meetings scheduled on Afghanistan, but informed sources tell CBS News he intends to give Gen. Stanley McChrystal most, if not all, the additional troops he is asking for.


https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/09/world/main5592551.shtml


----------



## harvey_birdman (Mar 10, 2008)

Well, that can't possibly end badly, can it?


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

I guess Candidate Obama's criticism of the surge in Iraq is now to be purged from official state press?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Honestly, I think we need to re-institute the draft. There would be a lot less waffling around. If it's worth going; it's worth having to go. Elections would mean more. If McCain looked you in the eye and said you had to go to Afghanistan I think you'd tend to believe he knew what it meant and that it was necessary. I don't know how our military does it, but I couldn't go to war with or for our current President at this point. Maybe six months ago, but not now. God bless our soldiers! How they look past the man in the office I will never understand. Really humbling to think about what many are doing for the fourth or fifth time. I've got a friend who leaves three little girls behind to go. At least he is in a relatively safe job, but still it's heart-breaking to think about it. He's 38; only a few years younger than me.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Pentheos said:


> I guess Candidate Obama's criticism of the surge in Iraq is now to be purged from official state press?


I think you can even give him a pass on the stuff he said as a Candidate.


----------



## nick.mccann (May 3, 2009)

harvey_birdman said:


> Well, that can't possibly end badly, can it?


It worked well for the Russians.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

nick.mccann said:


> It worked well for the Russians.


We definitely don't pay enough attention to the lessons the Russians have learned and could teach us in a variety of areas.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> We definitely don't pay enough attention to the lessons the Russians have learned and could teach us in a variety of areas.


There goes the ironymeter. Wow, off the scale again.

How many of us remember the 1980 Olympics, and how many of us supported our boycott?

Wait, don't tell us. Red Menace. Domino Theory. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan because they were bored and had nothing better to do.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

ksinc said:


> We definitely don't pay enough attention to the lessons the Russians have learned and could teach us in a variety of areas.


well they taught us communism doesnt work


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

ksinc said:


> .... I don't know how our military does it, but I couldn't go to war with or for our current President at this point. Maybe six months ago, but not now. God bless our soldiers! How they look past the man in the office I will never understand. Really humbling to think about what many are doing for the fourth or fifth time. I've got a friend who leaves three little girls behind to go. At least he is in a relatively safe job, but still it's heart-breaking to think about it. He's 38; only a few years younger than me.


I would have no problem serving as a member of the military under the orders of this President. While I do not agree with his handling of the economy, he is doing what is necessary at this juncture, in Afghanistan. International terrorism represents the seeds of the next global conflict and Afghanistan is presently representing the fields in which those seeds are being cultivated; right next to the 'poppy' crops. The approach President Obama and General McCHrystal seem to be following, is our best hope for a long term fix for a real threat to a relative state of world peace.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

ksinc said:


> We definitely don't pay enough attention to the lessons the Russians have learned and could teach us in a variety of areas.


Was the Russian invasion part of an Internationally sanctioned overthrow of a terrorist sponsoring government responsible for the murder of nearly 3k citizens in a coordinated terror bombing??

ic12337:


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

ksinc said:


> I don't know how our military does it, but I couldn't go to war with or for our current President at this point.


But you could go to war for that slimy, draft dodger that just left the White House?


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Was the Russian invasion part of an Internationally sanctioned overthrow of a terrorist sponsoring government responsible for the murder of nearly 3k citizens in a coordinated terror bombing??
> 
> ic12337:


does it matter if the end results are the same?


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Honestly, I think we need to re-institute the draft.


Only if we start with the politicians.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

young guy said:


> does it matter if the end results are the same?


I'll just write you down as a "no" then. The Russian invasion was not part of an Internationally sanctioned overthrow of a terrorist sponsoring government responsible for the murder of nearly 3k citizens in a coordinated terror bombing!!

And while the result of the Russian invasion was ultimately a terrorist sponsoring government responsible for the murder of nearly 3k citizens in a coordinated terror bombing, the results of the more recent occupation remains to be seen.

Tell me, do America's universities offer advanced degrees in Useful Idiocy??


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> And while the result of the Russian invasion was ultimately a terrorist sponsoring government responsible for the murder of nearly 3k citizens in a coordinated terror bombing, the results of the more recent occupation remains to be seen.


oh you mean the taliban, the guys we trained and gave the guns to?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

young guy said:


> oh you mean the taliban, the guys we trained and gave the guns to?


I'll just write you down as "yes, America's universities do offer advanced degrees in Useful Idiocy."


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Was the Russian invasion part of an Internationally sanctioned overthrow of a terrorist sponsoring government responsible for the murder of nearly 3k citizens in a coordinated terror bombing??


That's some amazingly contorted logic, but not at all surprising. Most of us were far too busy waving our little American flags to understand why the Soviets "invaded" Afghanistan.

The fact is, the Soviets went in at the formal request of their new government (the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan), who were implementing the EXACT SAME REFORMS we are now (freedom of religion, women's rights, etc). The more conservative Islamic factions in the country objected to these reforms, and that's when the terrorism started in that country. For God's sake, our own ambassador to Afghanistan was kidnapped and killed by these goons in February 1979.

Instead of supporting the Soviets, our CIA put Osama bin Laden on their payroll and helped him organize a mujihadeen that eventually became the core of al Qaeda, who was responsible for 911.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saur_Revolution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_civil_war


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

FrankDC said:


> The fact is, the Soviets went in at the formal request of their new government (the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan), who were implementing the EXACT SAME REFORMS we are now (freedom of religion, women's rights, etc).


After the assassination the Soviet army swept into Afghanistan, while the Soviet government forced Babrak Karmal to leave Czechoslovakia, where he was Afghan ambassador, to return to Afghanistan as its new leader. Karmal's leadership was seen as a failure by the Soviet Union because of the rise of violence and crime under his leadership. He was replaced with Mohammad Najibullah, who was able to cling to power until 1992, three years after the withdrawal of the Soviet army.

(Your link.)

So Karmal and Najibullah "asked" the Soviets to invade while Karzai is an American installed puppet I take it??

You must be the Professor!! :teacha:


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

WouldaShoulda said:


> After the assassination the Soviet army swept into Afghanistan, while the Soviet government forced Babrak Karmal to leave Czechoslovakia, where he was Afghan ambassador, to return to Afghanistan as its new leader. Karmal's leadership was seen as a failure by the Soviet Union because of the rise of violence and crime under his leadership. He was replaced with Mohammad Najibullah, who was able to cling to power until 1992, three years after the withdrawal of the Soviet army.
> 
> (Your link.)
> 
> ...


The request was from the government. Here's a longer but more comprehensive account:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I'll just write you down as "yes, America's universities do offer advanced degrees in Useful Idiocy."


thank you, from you - the expert in this field - i'll take the compliment


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

FrankDC said:


> The request was from the government. Here's a longer but more comprehensive account:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan


Former Prime Minister Daoud seized power in a military coup on July 17, 1973, after charges of corruption and poor economic conditions against the King's government. Daoud put an end to the monarchy but his time in power was widely unpopular. Intense opposition from factions of the PDPA was sparked by the repression imposed on them by Daoud's regime and the death of a leading PDPA member, Mir Akbar Khyber.[8] The mysterious circumstances of Khyber's death sparked massive anti-Daoud demonstrations in Kabul, which resulted in the arrest of several prominent PDPA leaders.[9]
On April 27, 1978, the Afghan army, which had been sympathetic to the PDPA cause, overthrew and executed Daoud along with members of his family.[10] Nur Muhammad Taraki, Secretary General of the PDPA, became President of the Revolutionary Council and Prime Minister of the newly established Democratic Republic of Afghanistan.

(Your link)

Gee, when does the story of glorious Russian Afghan Liberation get better??


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

young guy said:


> thank you, from you - the expert in this field - i'll take the compliment


Back to school for you, Sonny!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Back to school for you, Sonny!!
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot


In debates, ad hominems are the last resort of the losing side.

Concession noted.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Was the Russian invasion part of an Internationally sanctioned overthrow of a terrorist sponsoring government responsible for the murder of nearly 3k citizens in a coordinated terror bombing??
> 
> ic12337:


No. Save your fish! That was just stupid.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

agnash said:


> Only if we start with the politicians.


Ha! Well McCain has a couple sons that have gone IIRC.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Ha! Well McCain has a couple sons that have gone IIRC.


and so does Webb


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> *I would have no problem serving as a member of the military under the orders of this President.* While I do not agree with his handling of the economy, he is doing what is necessary at this juncture, in Afghanistan. International terrorism represents the seeds of the next global conflict and Afghanistan is presently representing the fields in which those seeds are being cultivated; right next to the 'poppy' crops. *The approach President Obama and General McCHrystal seem to be following, is our best hope for a long term fix for a real threat to a relative state of world peace.*


I can agree or at least defer with your last sentence, but after the fiasco/lying March 27th I wouldn't have any respect for him anymore.

As for the first sentence, I respect you for being able to do that. I just couldn't or don't think I could. Perhaps if I was in the military culture I would understand.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

ksinc said:


> As for the first sentence, I respect you for being able to do that. I just couldn't or don't think I could. Perhaps if I was in the military culture I would understand.


Serving under Carter was chore enough.

At least he was a Navy man.


----------



## nick.mccann (May 3, 2009)

young guy said:


> does it matter if the end results are the same?


My sentiments exactly. Afghanistan is a war that cannot be won and we are wasting lives and money on it. We are only making our enemy stronger with every bomb we drop. The real solution to this is to withdraw from our bases and leave our empire and let people live their lives without our interference. If we didn't have bases in so many countries these terrorist groups would have a hard time getting funding and recruiting. It's a new kind of war we can't fight it with the old ways.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

nick.mccann said:


> The real solution to this is to withdraw from our bases and leave our empire and let people live their lives without our interference. If we didn't have bases in so many countries these terrorist groups would have a hard time getting funding and recruiting.


How does this "strategy" differ greatly from out pre-9/11 policies??

Does "interference" include all of the ME including Israel??


----------



## nick.mccann (May 3, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> How does this "strategy" differ greatly from out pre-9/11 policies??
> 
> Does "interference" include all of the ME including Israel??


We are not fighting an Army that is organized we are fighting people who do not fear death. We have to stop their recruiting and funding. We can never fully defeat terrorist but our empire causes people to hate us and join, support or donate to terrorism. We stop being the world police, propping up dictators and trying to control everyone they will have less recruits, funding and support from the people of Islam.

Interference is propping up a military dictator who overthrew a democratically elected government in Pakistan, Musharraf. We have a history or propping up the worst people and it makes the masses hate us, and support/join/fund terrorism.

I don't know how I feel about Israel, the world wants to kill them and would have no problem with that. But as far as our empire all around the world, that must come to an end for economic reasons and because it creates enemies and gives them strength.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

WouldaShoulda said:


> How does this "strategy" differ greatly from out pre-9/11 policies??
> 
> Does "interference" include all of the ME including Israel??


Theocracies are stupid, even the Jewish one that was chartered by the UN. And before anyone pipes in with a charge of anti-Semitism, I'm saying the problem is theocracy itself, not any specific religion.

The merging of church (mosque or synagogue) and state always results in the wholesale corruption of both. Always. It was true for the Roman Catholic Church, it's true for Islam and Judaism as well. The solution is the same for all of these countries: drop the pretense of theocracy.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Have any of you sought to understand WHY the Russians lost? And what they learned from it? And how that is similar or different with what we are doing in Afghanistan?


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Have any of you sought to understand WHY the Russians lost? And what they learned from it? And how that is similar or different with what we are doing in Afghanistan?


after alexander the great, who from outside the area has been able to win there?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Serving under Carter was chore enough.
> 
> At least he was a Navy man.


Yes; I think I could do that one. IMHO a big argument is being made by the current example for President's that have served. Even though W was in the Air Guard (was it?) I think a huge difference between GHWB and GWB was GHWB's service.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Have any of you sought to understand WHY the Russians lost? And what they learned from it? And how that is similar or different with what we are doing in Afghanistan?


was it for the same reason the british lost in the 1800's?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

young guy said:


> after alexander the great, who from outside the area has been able to win there?


So, that's a "No; you haven't sought to understand it?"

The question was Why the Russians lost there? Do you know what Alexander the Great did completely differently than the British and the Russians? Do you know which model we are following?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

young guy said:


> was it for the same reason the british lost in the 1800's?


Yes; it was largely for the same reasons. Very Good. :idea:

So, how is our effort like any of those that have failed; or succeeded?


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

ksinc said:


> So, that's a "No; you haven't sought to understand it?"
> 
> The question was Why the Russians lost there? Do you know what Alexander the Great did completely differently than the British and the Russians? Do you know which model we are following?


alexander said submit or die and slaughtered thousands, british and russians fought insurgants, isnt that what were doing?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

young guy said:


> alexander said submit or die and slaughtered thousands, british and russians fought insurgants, isnt that what were doing?


No. And that's not all the relevant things Alexander did.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

ksinc said:


> No. And that's not all the relevant things Alexander did.


what else did alexander do before they submitted? how did alexander win hearts and minds then?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

young guy said:


> what else did alexander do before they submitted? how did alexander win hearts and minds then?


Ah! Good questions! You should definitely go read about that.

If you can answer these questions you will know: When was the time of Alexander? What was 'Afghanistan' at that time? Who is Rokhsana? When did 'Afghanistan' become Islamic? What's the best place to eat if you study at the University of St. Petersburg?


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Ah! Good questions! You should definitely go read about that.
> 
> If you can answer these questions you will know: When was the time of Alexander? What was 'Afghanistan' at that time? Who is Rokhsana? When did 'Afghanistan' become Islamic?


helenestic greece just before rome, rokhsana was the daughter of a tribal chieften in Bactria who married alexander after he subdued the area, and this has to do with our fighting insurgents how? we will end up leaving just like the russian and the british because in our civilized age we dont fight like alexander, submit or die that is


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

ksinc said:


> Have any of you sought to understand WHY the Russians lost?
> 
> And what they learned from it?
> 
> And how that is similar or different with what we are doing in Afghanistan?


1) They had a reputation for brutal occupation and intollerence for any religion besides Statism.

1a) A resistence was well funded by an opposing superpower.

2) Intollerent Statism/Communism = Bad.

3) 1, 1a and 2 tell the story in my book.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

young guy said:


> helenestic greece just before rome, rokhsana was the daughter of a tribal chieften in Bactria who married alexander after he subdued the area, and this has to do with our fighting insurgents how? we will end up leaving just like the russian and the british because in our civilized age we dont fight like alexander, submit or die that is


You didn't read and answer the questions really. You only tried to go directly and get a quick answer. So, you still don't understand and don't know. I mean spend at least an hour reading about Alexander and his experiences in 'Afghanitan.'

What you're looking to understand is *When*? And in what sequence things occured in 'Afghanistan.' As in what years was he in 'Afghanistan?' Do you know that he went, left, and then went back? You didn't answer the Islamic question.
When you understand the lightbulb will go off ... I promise. :idea:


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) They had a reputation for brutal occupation and intollerence for any religion besides Statism.
> 
> 1a) A resistence was well funded by an opposing superpower.
> 
> ...


RE 1a, if we supported the resistence(sic) then, why are they fighting us now?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) They had a reputation for brutal occupation and intollerence for any religion besides Statism.
> 
> 1a) A resistence was well funded by an opposing superpower.


When they fought the Soviets, it was called a "resistence", but when these same people fly airplanes into our buildings, you call them terrorists.

Don't you ever get dizzy?


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

ksinc said:


> You didn't read and answer the questions really. You only tried to go directly and get a quick answer. So you still don't know. I mean spend at least an hour reading about Alexander and his experiences in 'Afghanitan.'
> 
> What you're looking to understand is When? As in what years was he in 'Afghanistan?' Do you know that he went, left, and then went back?
> When you understand the lightbulb will go off ... I promise. :idea:


it was called bactria then, then as now it was a loose confederation of warlord states


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) They had a reputation for brutal occupation and intollerence for any religion besides Statism.
> 
> 1a) A resistence was well funded by an opposing superpower.
> 
> ...


Those are true of 1980.

Let me try this another way. HINT: between Alexander, the British, and the Russians all of them lost in Afghanistan at least once, but only one of them lost only once. Perhaps that will wide the lens of history and broaden the scope of answers. :teacha:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

young guy said:


> it was called bactria then, then as now it was a loose confederation of warlord states


back when? :icon_headagainstwal


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

never mind


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

young guy said:


> never mind


FAIL. :teacha:


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

FrankDC said:


> Theocracies are stupid, even the Jewish one that was chartered by the UN. And before anyone pipes in with a charge of anti-Semitism, I'm saying the problem is theocracy itself, not any specific religion.


I'm not aware that Israel is a Theocracy.

Even your favorite source of knowledge, Wikipedia doesn't list it as an example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy

Otherwise, I would have agreed with your statement.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

FrankDC said:


> When they fought the Soviets, it was called a "resistence", but when these same people fly airplanes into our buildings, you call them terrorists.
> 
> Don't you ever get dizzy?


No.

I am immune to the rhetoric of Newspeak and Revisionism.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Those are true of 1980.
> 
> Let me try this another way. HINT: between Alexander, the British, and the Russians all of them lost in Afghanistan at least once, but only one of them lost only once. Perhaps that will wide the lens of history and broaden the scope of answers. :teacha:


I'm going to guess here but are you referring to Alexander's army not staying in one place for long, getting in and getting out rather than trying to establish a base? Genghis Khan did the same.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I'm not aware that Israel is a Theocracy.
> 
> Even your favorite source of knowledge, Wikipedia doesn't list it as an example.
> 
> ...


Israel is most definitely a theocracy. It was created by the UN specifically as "the Jewish State".

If you're an Arab, you are legally prohibited from buying land in 96% of Israel. Etc. This is and has been the root of the problem all along with Israel.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> No.
> 
> I am immune to the rhetoric of Newspeak and Revisionism.


dont let the facts get in the way


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

ksinc said:


> You didn't read and answer the questions really. You only tried to go directly and get a quick answer. So, you still don't understand and don't know. I mean spend at least an hour reading about Alexander and his experiences in 'Afghanitan.'
> 
> What you're looking to understand is *When*? And in what sequence things occured in 'Afghanistan.' As in what years was he in 'Afghanistan?' Do you know that he went, left, and then went back? You didn't answer the Islamic question.
> When you understand the lightbulb will go off ... I promise. :idea:


I have a PhD in Classics and even I don't know what you're getting at. You keep saying "when?", "when?" I hope that whatever answer you have in mind doesn't have anything to do with Christianity.

Please send me a PM explaining why Alexander's timing matters.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> I'm going to guess here but are you referring to Alexander's army not staying in one place for long, getting in and getting out rather than trying to establish a base? Genghis Khan did the same.


Partially Yes; and that after four years of war he went to conquer other territories first to get 100,000 reinforcements and then he was successful.

And I'm also still looking for an answer as to whether Islam played a role.

Also, I am refering to the wars of ~1840 and ~1880. Which seem to be found in the pages of history, but lost in the mind.

:icon_smile_big:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Pentheos said:


> I have a PhD in Classics and even I don't know what you're getting at. You keep saying "when?", "when?" I hope that whatever answer you have in mind doesn't have anything to do with Christianity.
> 
> Please send me a PM explaining why Alexander's timing matters.


Oh crap, I thought this was YoungGuy.... no wonder my brain exploded... Sorry Pentheos. honest mistake. I didn't read the name and knew 1+1 didn't equal 2 there. I was trying to figure out how YoungGuy's posts were coming from a PhD in Classics! LOL 

I'll send YOU a PM.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

FrankDC said:


> Israel is most definitely a theocracy. It was created by the UN specifically as "the Jewish State".
> 
> If you're an Arab, you are legally prohibited from buying land in 96% of Israel. Etc. This is and has been the root of the problem all along with Israel.


1) What is the equivelency of Sharia Law that is practiced in Israel?? Do Courts seek references from the Talmud or Old Testament in "the Jewish State" before they Stone Gays for instance??

2) That Rights and Priviliges are granted by citizenship, and that citizenship itself has certain qualifications should not be so difficult a concept to understand. Do you know of a nice Jewish neigborhood in Riyadh to invest in??


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Oh crap, I thought this was YoungGuy.... no wonder my brain exploded... Sorry Pentheos. honest mistake. I didn't read the name and knew 1+1 didn't equal 2 there. I was trying to figure out how YoungGuy's posts were coming from a PhD in Classics! LOL
> 
> I'll send YOU a PM.


oh so that makes it all ok - LOL - i dont have a phd and i fail but someone who has a phd and also doesnt understand what you're trying to teach - well thats ok

cheers to you mate - you win - feel good about yourself


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

young guy said:


> oh so that makes it all ok - LOL - i dont have a phd and i fail but someone who has a phd and also doesnt understand what you're trying to teach - well thats ok
> 
> cheers to you mate - you win - feel good about yourself


I'm actually refusing to teach. You are refusing to go teach yourself and demanding to be taught. I gave you clues and hints and you still remain stuck on wiki.

Pentheos didn't argue instead of going and reading. He simply asked. That's the difference.

There's no Win or Lose here. Maybe that's what is wrong with our perspectives - you're trying to "win?" Sheesh. Now I'm really under pressure


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) What is the equivelency of Sharia Law that is practiced in Israel?? Do Courts seek references from the Talmud or Old Testament in "the Jewish State before they Stone Gays for instance??"


Read the decisions of their Supreme Court. There's your answer.



WouldaShoulda said:


> 2) That Rights and Priviliges are granted by citizenship, and that citizenship itself has certain qualifications should not be so difficult a concept to understand. Do you know of a nice Jewish neigborhood in Riyadh to invest in??


If 4 out of 5 people living in Riyadh were Jewish, laws which prevent Jews from buying property in Riyadh would be ludicrous. This was the exact situation with Arabs when Israel was created: the area was populated 80% by Arabs. And then the Jewish government started bulldozing the homes of Arab people and building Jewish "settlements", something they're still doing today.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

ksinc said:


> I'm actually refusing to teach. You are refusing to go teach yourself and demanding to be taught. I gave you clues and hints and you still remain stuck on wiki.
> 
> Pentheos didn't argue instead of going and reading. He simply asked. That's the difference.
> 
> There's no Win or Lose here. Maybe that's what is wrong with our perspectives - you're trying to "win?" Sheesh. Now I'm really under pressure


silly me and i thought we were having a discussion, an exchange of ideas, until your only reply was go read a book - as in - i know something you dont so look it up because i wont tell you, if you didnt want to exchange ideas you could have saved a whole lot by telling me up front, - no pressure to "win" or anything from me - as i said cheers to you mate


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I can agree or at least defer with your last sentence, but after the fiasco/lying March 27th I wouldn't have any respect for him anymore.
> 
> As for the first sentence, I respect you for being able to do that. I just couldn't or don't think I could. Perhaps if I was in the military culture I would understand.





WouldaShoulda said:


> Serving under Carter was chore enough.
> 
> At least he was a Navy man.


For many of us serving in our country's military services, this was a very real dilemma we had to come to closure with when Bill Clinton was elected President...he had not only dodged the draft but, had actively demonstrated, in Red Square, against America's involvement in Southeast Asia. While in retrospect some might argue that Bill Clinton was right to resist induction and demonstrate against American troops fighting in Vietnam, many in the military questioned why he had never been charged with treason for his actions in the Soviet Union and we struggled with the reality that this draft dodger was now our Commander in Chief!

Many chose to leave the service. However others of us, realizing the Oaths we took did not provide the option for us to select our own leadership but rather, serve at the pleasure of those "appointed over us," elected to stay and continue carrying out the peoples business. If I could serve under President Clinton, I could certainly serve under President Obama!


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

eagle2250 said:


> For many of us serving in our country's military services, this was a very real dilemma we had to come to closure with when Bill Clinton was elected President...he had not only dodged the draft but, had actively demonstrated, in Red Square, against America's involvement in Southeast Asia. While in retrospect some might argue that Bill Clinton was right to resist induction and demonstrate against American troops fighting in Vietnam, many in the military questioned why he had never been charged with treason for his actions in the Soviet Union and we struggled with the reality that this draft dodger was now our Commander in Chief!
> 
> Many chose to leave the service. However others of us, realizing the Oaths we took did not provide the option for us to select our own leadership but rather, serve at the pleasure of those "appointed over us," elected to stay and continue carrying out the peoples business. If I could serve under President Clinton, I could certainly serve under President Obama!


Clinton's position on SE Asia was in line with the majority of the American people. The unfortunate rank and file of our military have been victims of military adventurism since the end of WWII.

It's also possible that many Americans respect Clinton for taking a stand, compared to what others (GWB, Cheney et al) did to avoid combat duty.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

young guy said:


> silly me and i thought we were having a discussion, an exchange of ideas, until your only reply was go read a book - as in - i know something you dont so look it up because i wont tell you, if you didnt want to exchange ideas you could have saved a whole lot by telling me up front, - no pressure to "win" or anything from me - as i said cheers to you mate


I would love to exchange ideas. Ideas go beyond teaching someone basic facts of history. I tried to give you hints because as you saw there are very few people that have any idea about much of history in Afghanistan. I don't feel that knowing the years Alexander was in Afghanistan is an unconscionable barrier to entry to a conversation of our involvement there. You disagree. You seem like a smart, if uninformed person, and I was hoping that armed with some basic facts you would have interesting ideas to share or at least question the position you were arguing. Unfortunately, you are unwilling to dedicate the resources to enable that conversation. I am not upset.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

ksinc said:


> I would love to exchange ideas. Ideas go beyond teaching someone basic facts of history. I tried to give you hints because as you saw there are very few people that have any idea about much of history in Afghanistan. I don't feel that knowing the years Alexander was in Afghanistan is a unconscionable barrier to entry to a conversation of our involvement there. You disagree.


the exact dates BC what ever (or if you prefer BCE) dont really matter, was it 330 BC to 327 BC or was it 325 BC- doest matter specifically, he warred there several years then moved on to india and later died back in persia and then his empire fell apart - or was subdivided among his gererals. theres your basic facts or close to it - why are these dates important? I think what he did is more important that exactly when - do you agree?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

FrankDC said:


> Read the decisions of their Supreme Court. There's your answer.
> 
> If 4 out of 5 people living in Riyadh were Jewish, laws which prevent Jews from buying property in Riyadh would be ludicrous.


1) Was their SC upholding a ruling of a lower court to stone gays??

2) But since it's only 1 to several hundred Jew/Arab in other parts of the ME, it's OK!!


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

*What's the point?*

Alexander the Great had a Troop Surge, George Bush had one too, and now Obama has his own.

What I think we're not hearing about in the media is what the point is---I mean, how do we now define victory in Afghanistan. Alexander wanted to retain the lands for his grand empire, and I think Bush wanted to prevent the use of the country as a safe haven for terrorists and maybe smoke out some bad guys too. Alexander was successful, for a while; Bush has been successful as well (the Taliban are no longer in control, many of them are dead, it's unlikely that Al Qaeda could maintain training camps there anymore).

So what is victory now?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) Was their SC upholding a ruling of a lower court to stone gays??


Uh, because they don't stone people to death for eating shellfish doesn't mean Israel is not a theocracy.

Read what they themselves, and their Supreme Court has said on this matter:

"There is no Israeli nation separate from the Jewish people."


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

young guy said:


> the exact dates BC what ever (or if you prefer BCE) dont really matter, was it 330 BC to 327 BC or was it 325 BC- doest matter specifically, he warred there several years then moved on to india and later died back in persia and then his empire fell apart - or was subdivided among his gererals. theres your basic facts or close to it - why are these dates important? *I think what he did is more important that exactly when - do you agree?*


OMG! Fantastico! :icon_cheers:

No. I definitely do not agree. What he did is a function of When he did it. As those who followed him found out all too well.

I think understanding the cultural environment is important to understanding tactics that Alexander employed. As is understanding the arrival of the Arabs (in the 7th Century.) <- I'll give you this one.

There are lessons the British and Russians learned from their multiple failures in Afghanistan in the 1800s. As there are from understanding what happened from 1200 to 1700.

You want an interesting exchange of ideas, sit and have tea with a Russian historian and ask him what was the largest lesson the Russians didn't learn from the 1800s in Afghanistan?

When is important because as eras influence the cultural environment it goes through several significant changes that not are not what we face today. We suffer from oversimplification. The British, the Russians, and Alexander where both in there more than once. Alexander was frustrated in his first campaigns too; left and went back with 100,000 reinforcements. Alexander's armies conquered the world; yet almost imploded in Afghanistan.

Also, Alexander (and the Khans as LAX points out) actually governed. How he did it is also a function of When he did it. But, how is important. And How did they? Did they unify the districts or keep them separate? And Why? How succesful were Alexanders governors? What changes did they make after the first 50 years? These are questions that have to be answered and understood before one can create a new strategy for occupying Afghanistan.

This is what that guy that resigned was writing about in the news article we discussed a few weeks ago.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Pentheos said:


> What I think we're not hearing about in the media is what the point is---I mean, how do we now define victory in Afghanistan. Alexander wanted to retain the lands for his grand empire, and I think Bush wanted to prevent the use of the country as a safe haven for terrorists and maybe smoke out some bad guys too. Alexander was successful, for a while; Bush has been successful as well (the Taliban are no longer in control, many of them are dead, it's unlikely that Al Qaeda could maintain training camps there anymore).
> 
> So what is victory now?


I think one lesson from Alexander is that Yes his governors were successful for a while, but quickly learned that Afghanistan can barely be unified and governed internally without heavy occupational forces; and it definitely can't be governed externally (from Greece.) And that was before the Arabs, the Mongols, and the Islamic influences made Afghanistan even more fragmented that it was at Alexanders' time. Afghanistan is not one country and cannot be governed like one. The Russians looked at it and thought Afghanistan had so little sense of nationalism that it could be remade. They misread the lack of unity as a people with a lack of personal identity and cultural resistance to outsiders. In other words they thought fragmentation was a weakness as it was in Western Europe.


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

This has been interesting to follow.

The viable options in Afghanistan are only two-fold: (1) withdraw; or (2) subjugate. The U.S. seems unwilling to do either.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

smujd said:


> This has been interesting to follow.
> 
> The viable options in Afghanistan are only two-fold: (1) withdraw; or (2) subjugate. The U.S. seems unwilling to do either.


The longer we go ... and I know this is heresey ... I am thinking Cheney is crazy like a fox ... cherry-picking the achievable goals ... topple the Taliban ... move on to Iraq where something is at least achievable after we toppled Saddam.

VP Biden is probably finally right about something related to foreign policy for once. It had to happen sooner or later. And now no one will listen to him.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

FrankDC said:


> Uh, because they don't stone people to death for eating shellfish doesn't mean Israel is not a theocracy.
> 
> Read what they themselves, and their Supreme Court has said on this matter:
> 
> "There is no Israeli nation separate from the Jewish people."


Are you deliberately providing links (three times now) with data that supports my position??

Your link...

By blurring the distinction between nationality and religion, Israelis find themselves frequently accused of living in a theocratic state and in many ways it would seem Israel fits the mold of a sacred state. Gutmann presents the following refutation to this charge:
The organs of government and state power neither derive their legal authority from religion or church nor their legitimation from any divine source. It cannot be claimed with any semblance of realism that state and church are coequal partners in the governance of the state. Indeed, all legal powers of the religious institutions and organs are ultimately devolved upon them by the state. (Emanuel Gutman, AReligion in Israeli Politics,@ in Jacob Landau, ed., Man, State, and Society in the Contemporary Middle East, NY: Praeger, 1972, p. 123.)

THANKS!!
​


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

smujd said:


> This has been interesting to follow.
> 
> The viable options in Afghanistan are only two-fold: (1) withdraw; or (2) subjugate. The U.S. seems unwilling to do either.


How long were the Germans and Koreans International pushovers before being occupied and subjugated by the American military for over 50 years?? :crazy:


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Are you deliberately providing links (three times now) with data that supports my position??


Absurdly selective editing of a link accomplishes nothing except to make you look foolish and desperate.

The claim that Israel isn't a theocracy is beyond silly. It's the precise reason "the Jewish state" was created in the first place. But your abysmal ignorance serves as a good reminder that no amount of education can inform a closed mind.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

FrankDC said:


> Absurdly selective editing of a link accomplishes nothing except to make you look foolish and desperate.


Let's just say that in this case I prefer to be on the side of the obvioulsy enlightened and learned Emanuel Gutman cited in your link than you.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Absurdly selective editing of a link accomplishes nothing except to make you look foolish and desperate.


You pulled a one sentence quote out of 3 paras. He quoted one para in its entirety. And you accuse _him_ of "absurdly selectively editing?"


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> You pulled a one sentence quote out of 3 paras. He quoted one para in its entirety. And you accuse _him_ of "absurdly selectively editing?"


Read the webpage in its entirety, and/or find other references, and tell us whether the Israeli government considers itself to be a theocracy.

I quoted thier own Supreme Court. WouldaShoulda quoted some guy who's trying to dance around the question. The fact is, Arabs and all other non-Jews are legally barred from buying land in 96% of Israel. That and a host of similar laws are precisely what defines the country as a theocracy.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

FrankDC said:


> Read the webpage in its entirety, and/or find other references, and tell us whether the Israeli government considers itself to be a theocracy.
> 
> I quoted thier own Supreme Court. WouldaShoulda quoted some guy who's trying to dance around the question. The fact is, Arabs and all other non-Jews are legally barred from buying land in 96% of Israel. That and a host of similar laws are precisely what defines the country as a theocracy.


With the exception of the title to ther article you refrenced, how have you derived your assersion that Israel is a theocracy??

Not by this article I hope??

*Israel & Theocracy*

*By Mitchell Bard*

Israel is confronted with the dilemma of how to exist as a pluralistic, democratic state and, simultaneously, retain its Jewish character. Although there is now a growing sentiment in Israel that an Israeli nationality can be distinguished, no such distinction has been acknowledged to exist in the past. In a landmark Supreme Court decision, Justice Agranat ruled against a man who wanted to have his nationality registration changed from "Jewish" to "Israeli" saying: "There is no Israeli nation separate from the Jewish people." He asserted further that "the Jewish people is composed not only of those residing in Israel but also of Diaspora Jewry.@ (Oscar Kraines, The Impossible Dilemma: Who is a Jew in the State of Israel, NY: Bloch Publishing, Co., 1976, p. 67) This conception of nationality does not fit with the conventional understanding of the term as Menachem Begin explains:
In Western Europe or the United States, "nationality" is synonymous with "citizenship." A national of a given state is a citizen of that state, or at least one born under its jurisdiction. In Central and Eastern Europe citizenship and nationality are distinct. We have Israeli citizens of diverse religions. on the other hand, Jewish nationality and religion must always go together. (In Eliezer Goldman, Religious Issues in Israel=s Political Life)​By blurring the distinction between nationality and religion, Israelis find themselves frequently accused of living in a theocratic state and in many ways it would seem Israel fits the mold of a sacred state. Gutmann presents the following refutation to this charge:
The organs of government and state power neither derive their legal authority from religion or church nor their legitimation from any divine source. It cannot be claimed with any semblance of realism that state and church are coequal partners in the governance of the state. Indeed, all legal powers of the religious institutions and organs are ultimately devolved upon them by the state. (Emanuel Gutman, AReligion in Israeli Politics,@ in Jacob Landau, ed., Man, State, and Society in the Contemporary Middle East, NY: Praeger, 1972, p. 123.)​The situation in the Arab world is very different. While, for example, Turkey was a major power for centuries and had extensive dealings with the Western European states and Russia and underwent a gradual Westernization process, most Arab states had no such secularizing experience. Instead, Arab nationalism has been tied to the early Islamic revolt against Western imperialism. In addition, the relationship of religion and politics in Islam allows for no distinction. According to Lewis: "In Islam religion is not, as it is in Christendom, one sector or segment of life regulating some matters while others are excluded; it is concerned with the whole of life--not a limited but a total jurisdiction...a community, a loyalty, a way of life." (Robert Lacey, AThe Kingdom, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1981, p. 516.) 









​


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

As usual this has decayed into reductio ad absurdum.

Ok guys, have it your way. Israel is not a theocracy. Arabs can buy land anywhere in Israel, their homes are not being bulldozed, one can display chametz in Israel during Pesach without breaking federal law, etc etc etc.

Simply astonishing ignorance. Educate yourselves for chrissakes.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> As usual this has decayed into reductio ad absurdum.
> 
> Ok guys, have it your way. Israel is not a theocracy. Arabs can buy land anywhere in Israel, their homes are not being bulldozed, one can display chametz in Israel during Pesach without breaking federal law, etc etc etc.
> 
> Simply astonishing ignorance. Educate yourselves for chrissakes.


How many times have you been there?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> How many times have you been there?


I've already answered that question. Think about it a while.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

FrankDC said:


> Simply astonishing ignorance. Educate yourselves for chrissakes.


I try, I really do.

I read the articles and links you provided and found no backing for your assertions.

The anecdotal evidence you cite my show that you feel the Jewish State of Israel is unfair to some Arab residents, but that's a whole 'nuther issue!!

But for now, let's skip it and accept your thesis.

If Israel IS a theocracy, is the point that all theocracies are equally as corrupt??

Arab=Good

Jew=Bad??

Or is it just a semantics thing with you??


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

WouldaShoulda said:


> If Israel IS a theocracy, is the point that all theocracies are equally as corrupt??


Bingo. They vary in brutality, but it doesn't make that form of government any less stupid.



WouldaShoulda said:


> Arab=Good
> 
> Jew=Bad??


No. Theocracy = BAD


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

FrankDC said:


> Bingo. They vary in brutality, but it doesn't make that form of government any less stupid.
> 
> No. Theocracy = BAD


Ah, Some theocracies are more bad and less stupid than others. Agreed!!

(Finally)


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Ah, Some theocracies are more bad and less stupid than others. Agreed!!
> 
> (Finally)


That's not what I said.

The only path to long-term stability in the Middle East is for all countries to do what Turkey has already done: decouple their religion from their government. But as long as the United States, Russia, China etc continue to support some theocracies and fight against others, instead of attacking the root of the problem (theocracy itself), this separation won't be possible.


----------

