Who does this guy think he is?!

[GoldenRivet]

Did i wake up in some strange twilight zone episode???

W T F?

http://news.aol.com/article/obama-afghanistan-taliban/373693

he just bitch slapped every dead American soldier across the face.

nice.

:nope:

[Sea Demon]

Perhaps this is a reason we can see this reality....

Different Presidents, A Different Corps. Speaks volumes. These people know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIHz5tevLAw

[surf_ten]

Perhaps this is a reason we can see this reality....

Different Presidents, A Different Corps. Speaks volumes. These people know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIHz5tevLAw

I wonder how many military members wonder if the Obama administration itself classifies as a domestic threat to the constitution.

[antikristuseke]

he just bitch slapped every dead American soldier across the face.


In what way?

[Kapt Z]

"The idea of cooperation with some in the Taliban has been talked about for many months by American military commanders including Gen. David Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command."


"Last month, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that Washington could accept a political agreement between the Afghan government and the Taliban if the insurgents will lay down their arms and accept the government's terms."

Sounds to me like it's hardly just Obama's idea.

Whether it will work? Who knows. In order for us to get ourselves out of both Iraq and Afghanistan deals are going to have to be struck and struck with some unsavory characters. Like it or not we may have little choice in the long run.

[CaptainHaplo]

"deals must be struck"

See - this is the definition of defeatism - instead of WINNING - which is imposing the conditions of peace upon your enemies - its now "lets talk about what they want so we can leave."....

If you think this is victory - or even a draw, you have NO understanding of the Arab mind. Their SURVIVAL and our withdrawal under condtions are all they need to claim victory.

Look at the history of Israeli withdrawals that have been agreed to, then placed under fire at the last minute so that the terrorist militias could and did claim that the enemy was "driven" away.

This is what so many said would happen. If it happens - it once again gives the impression of the US tucking its tail and running.

To be clear, no sane person likes battle - much less those of us who have been in one. But we are in one - and the sad thing is - we are not in it to win.... Between the image this could create, and the fact that "treaties" with terrorists never are followed through by them - this is going to truly create the biggest mess in known history before its over. Elements like this don't want peace, they want to fight, and only look for a ceasefire when they are getting their asses kicekd. Once they get one, they rebuild for another fight.

[Schroeder]

And what would the alternative be? Send more troops? Good, but where to? The Taliban are already regrouping in Pakistan so victory can't be achieved by actions in Afghanistan alone.:dead:

[antikristuseke]

"deals must be struck"

See - this is the definition of defeatism

No, it is the definition of diplomacy. This problem is not a nail that can just be hammered, a biger hammer will not help in this case.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

"deals must be struck"

See - this is the definition of defeatism
No, it is the definition of diplomacy. This problem is not a nail that can just be hammered, a biger hammer will not help in this case.

:yep:

[CaptainHaplo]

Schroeder,

For an alternative - feel free to read the foreign policy discussion in the following thread:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=147353

Its a couple of pages in when it starts I believe. Effective, safe and cheap. VERY few US casualties and eradication of the problem.

Now - KapitanPhillips and Antikristuseke - you both seem to want to ignore the reality. How many times has "diplomacy" been tried with terrorists and been successful long term? Both of you totally ignored the WHY diplomacy wont work in my post above.

I am for diplomacy - coming to a reasonable agreement between reasonable people or countries or groups is a wonderful thing - and should be encouraged. However, when you make an agreement - BOTH sides should respect and live up to the terms stipulated, and to date there has not been one single instance where terrorists have done so, for any length of time longer than they needed to rearm and prepare to renew the conflict.

How quickly people forget their history. The name Cordell Hull ring a bell with you? He was negotiating with Japan when their bombs were falling on Pearl Harbor. A fanatical control structure in Japan, and a nutcase in Europe, caused us to be in world war 2. How many times did Hitler make an agreement and then break it? Its one thing to be diplomatic - its another to close your eyes to reality and think that if you hope long enough, the bad things will go away.

Sooner or later, history shows that those who cannot be trusted to live up to their agreements - must be dealt with in a very.... FINAL ... manner.

[fatty]

The Japanese case study is good for that time period but ignores the modern realities of fourth generation warfare. The Japanese government and state were/are a cohesive decision-making body; the Taliban is a fractured non-state actor with varying elements and levels of extremism.

The moderate splinters of the Taliban are interested in ceasing their attacks in exchange for political inclusion and being given a permanent seat at the table with Karzai. If you think this is defeatism then you're in for a very long war.

[CaptainHaplo]

Fatty, you have a very good point. I would agree that the moderates just want a seat at the table. However, you can't make a different agreement with every splinter - and how would you be able to tell if/when a violation occured who did it? You have to remember - your point of it not being a central controlling body is both right and wrong. There still is a heirarchy. Who do you make an agreement with, and then how do you know when things go to heck in a handbasket, which faction screwed it up for everyone? You surely don't expect them to police their own do you? After all - the entire Islamic religion has shown its incapable - or unwilling - to do so.

Therefore - any agreement made already has "deniability" for any violation by the terrorists build in. Not the right move.

[Kapt Z]

Schroeder,

For an alternative - feel free to read the foreign policy discussion in the following thread:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=147353

Its a couple of pages in when it starts I believe. Effective, safe and cheap. VERY few US casualties and eradication of the problem.

Now - KapitanPhillips and Antikristuseke - you both seem to want to ignore the reality. How many times has "diplomacy" been tried with terrorists and been successful long term? Both of you totally ignored the WHY diplomacy wont work in my post above.

I am for diplomacy - coming to a reasonable agreement between reasonable people or countries or groups is a wonderful thing - and should be encouraged. However, when you make an agreement - BOTH sides should respect and live up to the terms stipulated, and to date there has not been one single instance where terrorists have done so, for any length of time longer than they needed to rearm and prepare to renew the conflict.

How quickly people forget their history. The name Cordell Hull ring a bell with you? He was negotiating with Japan when their bombs were falling on Pearl Harbor. A fanatical control structure in Japan, and a nutcase in Europe, caused us to be in world war 2. How many times did Hitler make an agreement and then break it? Its one thing to be diplomatic - its another to close your eyes to reality and think that if you hope long enough, the bad things will go away.

Sooner or later, history shows that those who cannot be trusted to live up to their agreements - must be dealt with in a very.... FINAL ... manner.

Wait a minute. You're not talking about bombing holy cities again are you?

[Enigma]

He slapped every dead American soldier in the face? Someone else asked, but I have to, also. In what way??

It has been a successful tactic of special forces units for decades, to hook with local forces and deal with them to America's advantage. I'm not sure I understand the outrage here.....

[Tribesman]

Did i wake up in some strange twilight zone episode???
No , its just what the pentagon was saying before the invasion and what the new Afghan puppet/president has been saying for the past 4 years .
The twilight zone was back in the days of Bush where this sort of stuff was ignored. That was the bitch slap to the dead (and living)servicemen ....well that and the starving them of men and resources to go and play silly buggers in Iraq for Irans benefit.

See - this is the definition of defeatism - instead of WINNING - which is imposing the conditions of peace upon your enemies - its now "lets talk about what they want so we can leave."....
If you can't win then it isn't defeatism its realism.

Look at the history of Israeli withdrawals that have been agreed to, then placed under fire at the last minute so that the terrorist militias could and did claim that the enemy was "driven" away.
Sorry you will have to refresh my memory . What agreements ?
Israel has only had two agreements and they have both been stuck to , I think you are confusing that with unilteral declarations which don't mean bugger all and joint declarations where neither party has complied with the arrangements which makes them null and void

and the fact that "treaties" with terrorists never are followed through by them
Are you entirely ignorant of history ?

[GoldenRivet]

he just bitch slapped every dead American soldier across the face.

In what way?

basically by saying we have lost, and taking the position of "War in Afghanistan?... oh never mind that, we will just reverse our policy and make nice with the enemy now..."

[Schroeder]

Wait a minute. You're not talking about bombing holy cities again are you?
I hope not, that would just be such a nice thing for the radicals to happen. Finaly they would have the means for an all out war with plenty of support.

[Enigma]

basically by saying we have lost, and taking the position of "War in Afghanistan?... oh never mind that, we will just reverse our policy and make nice with the enemy now..."
He didn't, though. He said we are not winning, not that we lost. I also don't see where the article suggests he wants to make nice with the enemy.

He says...

"The national government still has not gained the confidence of the Afghan people," he said. "And so it's going to be critical for us to not only, get through these national elections to stabilize the security situation, but we've got to recast our policy so that our military, diplomatic and development goals are all aligned to ensure that al-Qaida and extremists that would do us harm don't have the kinds of safe havens that allow them to operate."
He also says (bold mine)

There may be opportunities to reach out to moderates in the Taliban, but the situation in Afghanistan is more complicated than the challenges the American military faced in Iraq, Obama said.
U.S. troops were able to persuade Sunni Muslim insurgents in Iraq to cooperate in some instances because they had been alienated by the tactics of al-Qaida terrorists.

The article also says that Gen. David Petraeus has discussed this as his own idea for months, Robert Gates is on board, etc.

So, I'd have to say with respect, the twilight zone, wtf, and Obama slapping dead soldiers in the face? Come on, maaaan.....

[Tribesman]

basically by saying we have lost
Would that be like the pentagon studies from the 50's& early60's where the US military said indo-china couldn't be won .
hey you're right the politicians and generals proved them studies wrong didn't they.
Stupid bloody can-do attitude...bloody and stupid being the important words.

But hold on didn't the measures to temporarily solve the problem in Iraq to facilitate the hand over involve paying the sunni insurgents to stop attacking the coilition ? Did Bush bitch slap every dead serviceman by doing that ?

[GoldenRivet]

I live in a military family... and from all accounts i have heard so far, this Obama guy is full of sh*t.

but... your right guys

i was wrong and i apologize

we should give up, turn tail and run and hope our civilian centers never get attacked on the scale of 9/11 again.

because hope is enough right?

we should turn several years of combating evil into a single moment of "never mind.. forget we were ever mad at you"

we should also dump trillions of our hard earned dollars into a big federal bucket and just hand it over to the poor crack heads, and irresponsible welfare mothers while we are at it.

i suppose we should kill unborn children too.

I guess the leftist policies are the best policies after all?

am i the only person who takes issue with this stuff???

[fatty]

am i the only person who takes issue with this stuff???

Unfortunately, no, you have an army of morons right behind you determined to connect abortion and negotiating with moderate cells of the Taliban insurgency.

Are you for real? Goddamn.

:damn:

[GoldenRivet]

am i the only person who takes issue with this stuff???
Unfortunately, no, you have an army of morons right behind you determined to connect abortion and negotiating with moderate cells of the Taliban insurgency.

Are you for real? Goddamn.

:damn:
wow dude

anger much?

Im not connecting the two issues.

im calling out multiple leftist issues.

thanks for the good laugh though

:O:

besides cannuck... what difference should it make to you what my views on the political stance of my nation are?

[joegrundman]

So what would you say are the key differences between this proposed strategy in Afghanistan and the policy Petraeus followed in Iraq (of making deals with various groups that were formerly united in opposition)?

[joegrundman]

Im not connecting the two issues.

im calling out multiple leftist issues.

and what's the point of that apart from demonstrating your "anger much", if you aren't trying to connect issues?

[Enigma]

So, your saying that the President (or, "this Obama guy") Secretary Gates and Gen Patreus believe:

we should give up, turn tail and run and hope our civilian centers never get attacked on the scale of 9/11 again.

Your posts have simply been a blatant mis-characterization of an article you posted.


Whatayagonnado. :doh:

[antikristuseke]

I live in a military family... and from all accounts i have heard so far, this Obama guy is full of sh*t.

but... your right guys

i was wrong and i apologize

we should give up, turn tail and run and hope our civilian centers never get attacked on the scale of 9/11 again.

because hope is enough right?

we should turn several years of combating evil into a single moment of "never mind.. forget we were ever mad at you"

we should also dump trillions of our hard earned dollars into a big federal bucket and just hand it over to the poor crack heads, and irresponsible welfare mothers while we are at it.

i suppose we should kill unborn children too.

I guess the leftist policies are the best policies after all?

am i the only person who takes issue with this stuff???

Strawman much?

For the first part, NOONE is claiming that all troops should pull out imediately and we should hope that they do not attack, whoever says that is an idiot. Allso those who think that just by keeping the fight going, without looking for possible diplomatic solutions, it can be won is an idiot, want to see evidence of that, look at Israel.
As for abortion, which is an act of grater cruelty, aborting a fetus or bringing an unwanted child into this world?
Sidenote to this, abstinance only sexual education does not work, demonstrably so. It is like communism in that regards, nice idea, **** in practice.

[GoldenRivet]

So let me get this straight.

By exercising my right to disagree with the president I'm an idiot and a strawman?

The Taliban is the enemy... Why take 30 years of non-negotiation policy and just reverse it ?

[GoldenRivet]

which is an act of grater cruelty, aborting a fetus or bringing an unwanted child into this world?

There is no such thing as an unwanted child.

Someone - Somewhere wants a child in their life

[antikristuseke]

So let me get this straight.

By exercising my right to disagree with the president I'm an idiot and a strawman?

The Taliban is the enemy... Why take 30 years of non-negotiation policy and just reverse it ?

Thats not what I said. The strawman was your misrepresentation of the article posted, instead of arguing what was written you constructed a position that was not expressed and argued against that and I never called you an idiot. As to why change the position, 30 years of just fighting clearly has not worked, alternatives have to be sought.

There is no such thing as an unwanted child.

Someone - Somewhere wants a child in their life

While this is probably true that someone somewhere wants a child in their life, it is completely irrelevant to the point of having the right to abort an unwanted pregnancy.
If everything was that simple there would'nt be loads of children living under government care.

[CaptainHaplo]

GR - take a moment here mate. I understand the frustration - but you kind of implied a connection between other left wing issues and this - which isn't connected other than it being hard left agenda items. I understand where your coming from, but the post kind of appeared to be throwing things out there that aren't relevant to the topic you started. While I can probably agree with you on most of the issues - lets try to keep it on one so we can have a serious discussion. Otherwise it turns into a shouting match between ideologies - when it should be a discussion of specific ideas.

As a former wearer of a funny green suit for too many hours a day, for too many years, I don't agree with the policy. BUT - I don't see it as a slap in the face to the brave men and women who have given up life, limb or time to fight for the interests of this country. As a soldier, your duty is to carry out your oath to the country, and as long as your not violating that oath, follow the directives of the duly elected President. The President has changed, in a valid election, and thus the directives have changed. That does not reduce the sacrifice already given.

Tribesman - am I ignorant of history? Not on your life. I am a student of it. If you would like a little insight on the middle east and how terrorists cannot be trusted - here are a few links for you to review.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mitchell-bard/hamas-is-largely-to-blame_b_154021.html

Hamas breaking an Egyptian brokered ceasfire.

http://olehgirl.com/?p=1867

Also - from a witness at the time....

And lastly.....

http://www.peacewithrealism.org/pdc/niceguys.htm

A historical view of a hudna and its true purpose - confirmed by the actions of Mohammed himself, as well as a more modern leader, Yasser Arafat in his stated intent to NOT abide by the Oslo peace accord.

I could give you links all day long. No, Israel is not blamesless, but the vast majority of duplicity is not perpetrated by them, but upon them. This is using one single group as an example, though I could do the same for others.

If you want a bit more on the history of the "honor" that Mohammed showed - check here:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-hudaibiya.htm

The end states it all - if your dealing with a muslim - their RELIGION says its ok for them to make an agreement and break it if its expedient, as long as the other person is a non-muslim.

That means any treaty or truce you make - is sure to be broken as soon as the follower of Islam feels its expedient. When you figure this out, you realize that open agreements, openly arrived at, are useless when dealing with the people of the middle east.

And just to keep some here from blowing off the sources, I even avoided putting anything in from foxnews.com. :har:

[GoldenRivet]

GR - take a moment here mate. I understand the frustration - but you kind of implied a connection between other left wing issues and this - which isn't connected other than it being hard left agenda items. I understand where your coming from, but the post kind of appeared to be throwing things out there that aren't relevant to the topic you started. While I can probably agree with you on most of the issues - lets try to keep it on one so we can have a serious discussion. Otherwise it turns into a shouting match between ideologies - when it should be a discussion of specific ideas.

As a former wearer of a funny green suit for too many hours a day, for too many years, I don't agree with the policy. BUT - I don't see it as a slap in the face to the brave men and women who have given up life, limb or time to fight for the interests of this country. As a soldier, your duty is to carry out your oath to the country, and as long as your not violating that oath, follow the directives of the duly elected President. The President has changed, in a valid election, and thus the directives have changed. That does not reduce the sacrifice already given.

Tribesman - am I ignorant of history? Not on your life. I am a student of it. If you would like a little insight on the middle east and how terrorists cannot be trusted - here are a few links for you to review.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mitchell-bard/hamas-is-largely-to-blame_b_154021.html

Hamas breaking an Egyptian brokered ceasfire.

http://olehgirl.com/?p=1867

Also - from a witness at the time....

And lastly.....

http://www.peacewithrealism.org/pdc/niceguys.htm

A historical view of a hudna and its true purpose - confirmed by the actions of Mohammed himself, as well as a more modern leader, Yasser Arafat in his stated intent to NOT abide by the Oslo peace accord.

I could give you links all day long. No, Israel is not blamesless, but the vast majority of duplicity is not perpetrated by them, but upon them. This is using one single group as an example, though I could do the same for others.

If you want a bit more on the history of the "honor" that Mohammed showed - check here:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-hudaibiya.htm

The end states it all - if your dealing with a muslim - their RELIGION says its ok for them to make an agreement and break it if its expedient, as long as the other person is a non-muslim.

That means any treaty or truce you make - is sure to be broken as soon as the follower of Islam feels its expedient. When you figure this out, you realize that open agreements, openly arrived at, are useless when dealing with the people of the middle east.

And just to keep some here from blowing off the sources, I even avoided putting anything in from foxnews.com. :har:

Your approach is much appreciated and refreshing sir :salute:

[joegrundman]

then now that you are calm again, i repeat my question

What would you say are the key differences between this proposed strategy in Afghanistan and the policy Petraeus followed in Iraq (of making deals with various groups that were formerly united in opposition)?

[GoldenRivet]

Lets look at it this way.

If in ww2 there were Nazi sects that opposed some of Hitlers views - tactically you should try and take advantage if the rift.

But it doesn't change the fact that they are Nazis.

Same thing with the Taliban.

Unless you can form a strong and long term alliance with these "sects" (which given their nature I don't think you can) then ten years after we leave Afghanistan these guys are no less likely to go back to their old tricks.

It just seems like such an abrupt 180 in policy in my opinion.

I'm no general or head of state but I'm entitled to my opinion no less... And everyone here is free to agree or disagree as they please but for one member to call me a "moron" and another to call me a "strawman" because my views differ... That brings my piss to a boil rather quickly.

EDIT:

I would describe myself as "right of center" - whether thats a republican or not in some peoples eyes i dont really care. i have called out Bush on some of his shenanigans in the past - i dont follow the right blindly. I dont think McCain could be doing any better right now either.

im frustrated with politics in America as a whole... and the topic often stirs me to anger depending on the subject. Im frustrated with the left and im dissilusioned with the right.

it is an interesting place to be politically speaking

[Onkel Neal]

which is an act of grater cruelty, aborting a fetus or bringing an unwanted child into this world?

There is no such thing as an unwanted child.


Ha, I have to agree, just because a parent does not want the child, I'm sure the child wants itself, and will express this sentiment when it gets older, if given a chance.

[antikristuseke]

I'm no general or head of state but I'm entitled to my opinion no less... And everyone here is free to agree or disagree as they please but for one member to call me a "moron" and another to call me a "strawman" because my views differ... That brings my piss to a boil rather quickly.


Thats not what I said. The strawman was your misrepresentation of the article posted, instead of arguing what was written you constructed a position that was not expressed and argued against that and I never called you an idiot.

In reclarification. Your post used a strawman argument, a logical fallacy, I never called you a strawman. That would be silly.

[GoldenRivet]

Ill repost me edit so it doesnt get missed :yep:

I would describe myself as "right of center" - whether thats a republican or not in some peoples eyes i dont really care. i have called out Bush on some of his shenanigans in the past - i dont follow the right blindly. I dont think McCain could be doing any better right now either.

im frustrated with politics in America as a whole... and the topic often stirs me to anger depending on the subject. Im frustrated with the left and im dissilusioned with the right.

it is an interesting place to be politically speaking

[joegrundman]

Lets look at it this way.

If in ww2 there were Nazi sects that opposed some of Hitlers views - tactically you should try and take advantage if the rift.

But it doesn't change the fact that they are Nazis.

Same thing with the Taliban.

Unless you can form a strong and long term alliance with these "sects" (which given their nature I don't think you can) then ten years after we leave Afghanistan these guys are no less likely to go back to their old tricks.

It just seems like such an abrupt 180 in policy in my opinion.

I'm no general or head of state but I'm entitled to my opinion no less... And everyone here is free to agree or disagree as they please but for one member to call me a "moron" and another to call me a "strawman" because my views differ... That brings my piss to a boil rather quickly.


boiling piss notwithstanding, i think you still don't contrast the proposed strategy in Afghanistan with the one in Iraq that it was consciously modeled on. That also was a significant turn about in policy, when Petraeus decided to cut deals with those former adversaries that wanted something you could afford to give, and it seems to have been tolerably successful. Was it also a "bitch-slap to dead americans" in Iraq? If not, why is it in Afghanistan? Or you can at least show why your nazi analogy applies in Afghanistan but not Iraq.

I'm not tellling you that you are wrong, just asking you to explain your opinion.

[Tribesman]

Tribesman - am I ignorant of history? Not on your life. I am a student of it. If you would like a little insight on the middle east and how terrorists cannot be trusted - here are a few links for you to review
Well done , not only do you demonstrate your ignorance of history you post links that back up what I wrote too.
So is it a reading problem you have Halo ?

[SteamWake]

Sorry to interrupt the bickering here but I have to ask..

Where was this 'outrage' when Harry Reed stood on the senate floor and declared "This war is lost" ?

[AVGWarhawk]

Sorry to interrupt the bickering here but I have to ask..

Where was this 'outrage' when Harry Reed stood on the senate floor and declared "This war is lost" ?


There was no outrage, Pelosi agreed with Reed. After all, no one wants to cross Pelosi:nope:

[Enigma]

Where was this 'outrage' when Harry Reed stood on the senate floor and declared "This war is lost" ?

Speaking personally, yes.

Whats the point?

[Oberon]

How do you win a war against an ideology anyway? :hmmm:

[AVGWarhawk]

How do you win a war against an ideology anyway? :hmmm:

That is easy. Discuss it at the SS General Topics forum :03:

[GoldenRivet]

Lets look at it this way.

If in ww2 there were Nazi sects that opposed some of Hitlers views - tactically you should try and take advantage if the rift.

But it doesn't change the fact that they are Nazis.

Same thing with the Taliban.

Unless you can form a strong and long term alliance with these "sects" (which given their nature I don't think you can) then ten years after we leave Afghanistan these guys are no less likely to go back to their old tricks.

It just seems like such an abrupt 180 in policy in my opinion.

I'm no general or head of state but I'm entitled to my opinion no less... And everyone here is free to agree or disagree as they please but for one member to call me a "moron" and another to call me a "strawman" because my views differ... That brings my piss to a boil rather quickly.

boiling piss notwithstanding, i think you still don't contrast the proposed strategy in Afghanistan with the one in Iraq that it was consciously modeled on. That also was a significant turn about in policy, when Petraeus decided to cut deals with those former adversaries that wanted something you could afford to give, and it seems to have been tolerably successful. Was it also a "bitch-slap to dead americans" in Iraq? If not, why is it in Afghanistan? Or you can at least show why your nazi analogy applies in Afghanistan but not Iraq.

I'm not tellling you that you are wrong, just asking you to explain your opinion.
you misunderstand my argument i think.

Obviously the strategy applies to both theaters of conflict... however, this is not forming a strong, lasting, firm alliance with any one party which is what i think - if we are going to "reach out to them" is exactly what needs to be done - but i think one would have a hard time forming such an alliance with such people as the Taliban

the most radical reversal of policy IMHO - is taking 30+ years of "we dont negoatiate with terrorists" and spinning it around to "ok we will talk"

the slap in the face of it the way i see it is - i think in the article Obama should have been less quick to jump on the "we are losing the fight" band waggon.

look back to prior wars, i cant think of many leaders who have put forth such a defeatist attitude.

policies change and adapt... but what im referring to as a slap in the face is the defeatist attitude we have seen from the white house the past couple of months. not only defeatist on the economy but the war as well.

EDIT:

about leadership, an airline captain i am good friends with who also happens to be a former Air Force LC and Marine - his words are spot on about Obama and they include:

"Never dilute the hopes of your followers no matter how dire the situation."

"As a leader, people look to you whether you realize it or not, and whether they realize it or not... the attitude of a single man or a group of men can be radically changed by the characteristics he sees in his leader."

[CaptainHaplo]

Tribesman,

You asked me to give you specific agreements where terrorists have been the ones to break the agreement - I gave you one as an example, with 2 links to it.

You asked if I was ignorant of history regarding my statement that treaties with terrorists cannot be trusted, as if history indicated that my view was wrong. I provided two links to documented history demonstrating why my view is based on a knowledge of history.

Now you ask me if I have a problem reading? Apparently your intent on ignoring what the links stated - as each backs my point of view and refutes yours. Your posts indicate that this is a good move - showing you place a level of trust in the terrorists to abide by their agreements. History, as demonstrated by my posts, prove you wrong.

You can posture, but anyone actually reading - with some ability to comprehend what they read - will see that the links provided did NOT substantiate your view. Nice try though....

[Aramike]

How do you win a war against an ideology anyway? :hmmm:Sure you can. Nazism was by-and-large defeated ... and that's just one example.

But I do see what you're saying. In the sense of ideology based in religion, I hold the view that it cannot be defeated short of genocide. The fight itself undoubtably causes issues such as martyrism and the easy rise of personality cults. This is part of the reason I maintain that the (formerly known as) War on Terror calls for an unending vigilance. While I believe that Islam is very much responsible for this war, I also don't think that attacking the religion itself does any good in fighting terrorism - short of genocide.

And genocide is completely out of the question, as far as I'm concerned.

[Tribesman]

Haplo , you don't get it do you , there was no agreement in that case there was unilateral declarations .
The unilateral declarations were conditional and the conditions were never met so they don't mean anything.
Try reading what I wrote again .
Sorry you will have to refresh my memory . What agreements ?
Israel has only had two agreements and they have both been stuck to , I think you are confusing that with unilteral declarations which don't mean bugger all and joint declarations where neither party has complied with the arrangements which makes them null and void

The joint declarations would cover the Lebanon situation and the unilateral the Hamas one , so by posting a link to the Hamas situation you are proving my point .
The only actual agreements have been between Israel/Egypt and Israel/Jordan , thougn both contain conditions that call for a final settlement of the Palestinian question so while they have both been stuck to so far they have not been completed.

[rubenandthejets]

Divide and conquer-the same tactic employed in Iraq to finally gain some headway against the insurgents, is being mooted for Afganistan. Get the moderates on side, isolate the hard core, more of the "hearts and minds" approach in the relatively secure areas.

Sounds like a reasonable idea.....

[CaptainHaplo]

Oh I see - you apparently either don't understand the term BROKERED - or simply wish to ignore the fact that there was an AGREEMENT made between Hamas and Israel - Egypt being the go between. At no point was the ceasfire unilateral and conditional.

Ok- lemme see if I get this right....Which side called for the unilateral - meaning independant side - ceasefire? Was it the Israeli's who were getting blown up with rockets, mortars and suicide bombs? I am sure that sat well with the average citizen - their government saying "ok we won't retaliate, we are calling a cease fire even though its unilateral - so it only applies to us.".... hmmm - kinda doubt it huh? Ok - lets flip the coin - musta been Hamas then right? So the Hamas leader goes in and says "ok - I know those filthy jews are targetting us with their helicopter missiles, artillery and whatnot, but you know - I am getting kinda tired. We are all going to take a break from killing the jews for a while...." Well mate - I just don't see that happening either....

However, a third party coming in and saying - ok - they wont shoot at you if you dont blow them up - lets calm down and take a break - is reasonable. Both sides then say - ok if they lay off, we will - but just for 6 months. During that time we can talk and maybe work something out, but if nothing is solved by then, there are no futher guarantees...

This is a very simplified version of it - but both sides DID agree to the ceasefire. Hamas - an ISLAMIC TERRORIST organization - broke the agreement. It is what it is, and you can spin it however you want, but facts are facts.

I also noticed that you didn't dare touch the historical facts regarding Mohammed and his breaking of treaties - nor did you address Yasser Arafat's speech in which he told his followers that he had no intention of following through on the Oslo peace accords.

Lemme guess - that wasn't any agreement either was it? *For the record - both sides broke that one - though again it was the palestinian authority that did so first.

[CaptainHaplo]

Joegrundman - you asked what is the difference between this policy and the one used in Iraq.

I will answer as clearly as I can.

In Iraq, the insurgency was, for a very long period, sustained by support for local chieftans who were swayed to the side of the terrorists. However, those terrorists tried to control those chieftans and warlords the same way they do everything else, through bullying threats and violence. Recall that these warlords were there before the war on terror.... So they are indigenous people that are not part of the root problem - merely locals caught up in the war itself. They lent their aid to one side, and often got kicked in the teeth for it. So they switched sides. Which actually is not an uncommon occurance in that part of the world, or for that matter anywhere that local warlords are emplaced.

In the case of Afghanistan, the policy is radically different. Your not talking about local leaders who predate the conflict as "simply" local leaders - your talking about talking directly to elements of a terrorist organization. Sure they may be "moderate" elements - but they are still PART of the problem.

Let me give you a totally different example. On one hand you have a sickness in your body. You take a b-12 shot or whatever to boost your immune system - basically "convincing" a bunch of white blood cells to support the call and go fight and help kill whatever is wrong. Thats what was done in Iraq - get a bunch of people to turn on the problem.

However, in the proposal for Afghanistan, your not going to get the sickness to turn on itself. Cancer won't kill cancer friend. In Iraq you were dealing with outside parties - in Afghanistan, your talking about dealing directly with the sickness.

And if you read the links I provided to Tribesman, you will see why diplomacy with the root problem isn't going to work - because they WILL violate the terms as soon as its expedient.

[Tribesman]

Oh I see - you apparently either don't understand the term BROKERED - or simply wish to ignore the fact that there was an AGREEMENT made between Hamas and Israel - Egypt being the go between. At no point was the ceasfire unilateral and conditional.

There was no agreement , following the PLO conference in Cairo Hamas made a declaration , part of that declaration made its terms conditional on an end to Israeli military operations and the opening of the crossings , the same terms for a potential agreement they are putting forward today...plus of course the prisoner exchange .
If it was an agreement like you claim , where is the Israeli part of the agreement ?
Come on its simple , an agreement involves agreed declarations between two or more parties in dispute . All you are showing is a declartion by one party with nothing from the other, that is not an agreement its a unilteral decaration .
But hey if you want to focus on the wider Palestinian declaration from that time insted of just the Hamas one , what conditions are set out in article 2?

I also noticed that you didn't dare touch the historical facts regarding Mohammed and his breaking of treaties - nor did you address Yasser Arafat's speech in which he told his followers that he had no intention of following through on the Oslo peace accords. :rotfl:
The peace accords ?:har:
Remind me again , what were the main sticking points that meant the accords could never be followed through on ? Would it be that the main problems were never addressed ?

[SteamWake]

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh312/UlteriorModem/LOF.jpg

[heartc]

he just bitch slapped every dead American soldier across the face.

In what way?
In ways of defeatism indeed.

America - together with its allies - destroyed Nazi-Germany in Western Europe and Imperial Japan in Asia and the Pacific. Don't tell me they can't deal with a bunch of ragheads in the desert. It is only because of the "international pressure" - rather bickering - of "Allies" who are not willing to commit effective force to the fight because they taught "World Peace" to their people for decades. They could afford to do that because the US took care of the Soviet threat for all those decades, while being lectured they would threaten this "World Peace" by a bunch of moronic hippies in Europe and the US itself.
Now, these days the Western mindset is dominated by them, and the recent US election may well have made the last bastion of determined and effective resistance disappear, which the enemy feared the most.

The Taliban / Islamic extremists cannot ever dream of winning their jihad against the West and free societies close to what they claim their own lands by military means. In a sound world, they would be crushed and destroyed, totally. But while the enemy stands no chance against the military might of the West, their only hope is to engage the West through terrorist acts and propaganda, it hopes to win on the battlefield of Western policy against weak minds and defeatists.

And now the President of the US considers to negotiate with them. One of the greatest world powers in human history, being embedded in one of the strongest military alliances ever, NATO, cannot deal with the ragheads and wants to talk with them. Give me a break.

The demise of the Roman Empire against a bunch of barbarians came about mostly from slow but steady decay from within. The same can happen to the great free societies of the West. Never before has there been such a grand alliance of free people as today. We don't have to and should not give in to a bunch of 5th century radicals.

[Enigma]

In ways of defeatism indeed.

America - together with its allies - destroyed Nazi-Germany in Western Europe and Imperial Japan in Asia and the Pacific. Don't tell me they can't deal with a bunch of ragheads in the desert. It is only because of the "international pressure" - rather bickering - of "Allies" who are not willing to commit effective force to the fight because they taught "World Peace" to their people for decades. They could afford to do that because the US took care of the Soviet threat for all those decades, while being lectured they would threaten this "World Peace" by a bunch of moronic hippies in Europe and the US itself.
Now, these days the Western mindset is dominated by them, and the recent US election made the last bastion of determined and effective resistance disappear.

The Taliban / Islamic extremists cannot ever dream of winning their jihad against the West by military means. In a sound world, they would be crushed and destroyed, totally. But while the enemy stands no chance against the military might of the West, their only hope is to engage the West through terrorist acts and propaganda, it hopes to win on the battlefield of Western policy against weak minds and defeatists.

And now the President of the US considers to negotiate with them. One of the greatest world powers in human history, being embedded in one of the strongest military alliances ever, NATO, cannot deal with the ragheads and wants to talk with them. Give me a break.

The demise of the Roman Empire against a bunch of barbarians came about mostly from slow but steady decay from within. The same can happen to the great free societies of the West. Never before has there been such a grand alliance of free people as today. We don't have to and should not give in to a bunch of 5th century radicals.

Every comparison you made per the enemy was an organized, uniformed military backed by a state or government. Terrorists are not. It's a big difference. No hill to take, no government to topple, etc, etc. A war on terrorism, while in good intention, is like a war on jealousy. You can't stamp it out completely, especially using the military to do so.
You also clearly didn't read the article, either. And, the same question applies to you: Do you suppose that Secretary Gates, Gen. Petreus, and President Obama are all weak minded defeatists?

[Schroeder]

@Heartc

And your suggestion is what?
Nuke them all?
We are not facing a country here that can be brought down like Nazi-Germany.
You would have to kill the entire islamic population to get rid of terrorists.

Or shall we continue what we did over the last 8 years?
Did not really get us anywhere, did it?

I don't like to talk to these idiots too, but something in our strategy has to be changed and military power alone can't win this since the terrorists have a safe haven in Pakistan. Unless of course we would flatten Pakistan as well but then they would go to.....

[heartc]

Every comparison you made per the enemy was an organized, uniformed military backed by a state or government. Terrorists are not. It's a big difference. You also clearly didn't read the article, either. And, the same question applies to you: Do you suppose that Secretary Gates, Gen. Petreus, and President Obama are all weak minded defeatists?

"Terrorists" are terrorists because they engaging their enemy in a conventional way would see their demise quickly, while in earlier times they might have still been able to do that. Instead they learned to exploit the weaknesses of inter-Western relationships and its domestic policy by engaging in acts of terror. It is their most effective and only way to fight. That shouldn't stop us though from destroying them on open battlefields if they or their allies are foolish enough to go there, and neither from identifiying them as a hostile force against us that and whose sponsors must be destroyed / stopped / bullied.

To your second point: A military member, such as a General, can only act within the realms, limits and conditions set by the politicians. It is the politicians (and in a free society, also their voters) responsiblity to make sure that an effective campaign can be fought. If the military is constraint by politics, it might have to consider options it might not consider otherwise.
Anyway, if the General's ideas of talks are about "divide and conquer", I'm all for it.
But what Pres. Obama said was "No, we are not winning in Afghanistan" and "I would like to talk to them, but it's so difficult". **** that. If you figure you can't do it and achieve anything with it, then don't think aloud about it, because it's a sign of weakness for them. Oh, and saying "No, we are not winning" to international press is just that, too.

Oh, and btw:

""If you talk to Gen. Petraeus, I think he would argue that part of the success in Iraq involved reaching out to people that we would consider to be Islamic fundamentalists, but who were willing to work with us," said Obama.""

I thought there was no success in Iraq? Surely that was the notion that Pres. Obama built half his campaign on?

The US lost South-Vietnam because of the nuclear threat from the Soviet Union and because of the hippies back home. They might lose against the radical Islamic / Islamist threat for the same reasons, minus the nuclear threat, and this time with much worse implications for the West, especially Europe with her ever growing Muslim minorities.

[heartc]

Or shall we continue what we did over the last 8 years?
Did not really get us anywhere, did it?

It did.

1. There were no more attacks on the US during all that time.

2. The attacks on Madrid and London were EXACTLY designed to exploit the weakness of Western societies and make them vote for governments that would reduce the military threat against the enemy by withdrawing from the fight, and at least in Spain it worked.

3. The West is sitting in Afghanistan, and at least some members of the NATO alliance are engaging the Taliban in earnest, which makes it harder for them to recruit and train in what was an undisturbed safe heaven prior to the invasion. It would make it even harder for them if some of the other NATO members would get off their asses.

4. An enemy of the West with the potential to develop WMDs - maybe falsely identified as being in possession of them, since he was in the past - has been removed, and replaced with further presence of the West in the general area of where the threat originates, which again makes it harder for the enemy to operate, network and rally. The notion that Saddam Hussein was indeed an asset these days because of his secular government style is ridiculous. He might have been in the 80s, but later he was an outspoken enemy and it is ridiculous to believe he did not and would not conspire with other enemies of the West because of their religious background. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". Saddam kept them at arms length, but that sure didn't stop him from lending a hand and he sure didn't stop them from conducting their operations. He handed out money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers for Christ sakes.

I think the West was on the right track. Naturally the road is rocky, mistakes happen and there might always be better ways to tackle the threat. Wishing to talk with them because "No, we are not winning" is not one of those.
Meeting over a coffee with him while only a fool would believe that his scientists are not busy building a nuclear bomb meanwhile, is not either.

[Tribesman]

1. There were no more attacks on the US during all that time.

Wow no attacks in a whole 8 years , errrrrr......how many years was it between the bombing of the World Trade Center and the next attack on the world Trade Center ?

2. The attacks on Madrid and London were EXACTLY designed to exploit the weakness of Western societies and make them vote for governments that would reduce the military threat against the enemy by withdrawing from the fight, and at least in Spain it worked.

Hold on , the Spanish vote was going to be very close anyway , as far as the population was concerned there was an overwhelming majority against involvement in Iraq from the start , the only real impact the Madrid bombings had on the election was the government supporters abandoning them when the government lied about the bombings and continued to lie even after the lies were thoroughtly exposed .
Plus of course Spain is still in Afghanistan , while Canada and Holland who didn't get bombed have said they are pulling out .
It appears your point doesn't fly very well .

Oh and ....The US lost South-Vietnam because of the nuclear threat from the Soviet Union and because of the hippies back home.
:har: too funny

[CaptainHaplo]

Ahh once again we get the "ridicule because I can't refute" arguement from le' tribesman on the Vietnam war...

Not suprising since he has done the same regarding historical proof of duplicity by muslims that I pointed out.

HeartC- a word of advice. Don't respond with intelligence or fact, it won't be understood....

Good points though - and your right BTW - the "home sentiment" has been why things have changed. That is how we as a people and government are setup, and while I don't necessarily agree with this, at least its being done in accordance within the constitutional road laid out by our founders - an election bringing a new leader.

[Tribesman]

Ahh once again we get the "ridicule because I can't refute"
Errrrr.....Haplo have you had any luck finding a ceasefire agreement signed by the two parties who needed to sign it for your claims to be true ?
Is the answer NO because the agreement you claim existed never existed:up:

Don't respond with intelligence or fact,
Do you understand the meaning of the word "fact"?
Obviously not .

So America couldn't win vietnam because of hippies and Russians , no mention of the Chinese or Vietmanese , or the American government and military ....it was the hippies and russians that done it:rotfl:
Anyone with even half a brain would first consider the American pre-war studies of the situation in Indo-China before they made a silly claim about hippies and Russians , then they would look at the the situation as it developed in South Vietnam before they made a silly claim about hippies and Russians , then they would look at other foriegn involvements in indo-china and perhaps mention Rusisa among others as part of the geo-political situation , then they might add hippies as an irrelevant little foot note in the later stages when the war was already unwinnable .
But only a muppet would attempt to claim it was the Russians and hippies that done it as that is such a shallow thoughtless claim that doesn't even scratch the surface of the topic .

[heartc]

Oh, you surely will not object to the fact that the US military refrained from attacking certain key targets such as air defense networks and C3 networks, because they knew that Russian "advisors" were in place, where the killing of which might have lead to an escalation of the conflict beyond South-East Asia? And you surely will not object, that, because of that reality, Washington put strong limits on what the military could do and not do, thus crippling any sound military campaign against what would otherwise be a "military" that mostly lived on tactics build in the early AD centuries, or living from shooting form the trees and pitholes.
And you surely cannot object to the fact, that because of the prolongment of the conflict, which was brought about by exactly those POLITICAL limits in the face of potential nuclear escalation against the supportive nation which was the Soviet Untion, and whithin which those unhealthy limits were put on the US military which resulted in a lot of deaths of US soldiers, was the REASON of why the people of the US could no longer accept the war and pushed their politicians to get out of it.

Back then, they pulled out because they could not run an effective campaign without risking nuclear war. They ran a political - not a military - campaign, and that is what caused the high number of losses for them. And that again was why their people demanded them to pull out (well, in fact they made a peace treaty, but as soon as they were out, the North Vietnamese burned that piece of paper and went into South Vietnam). And that is why they lost.

Now, these days, we do not face the nuclear threat right now, which would stop us from fighting in an effective and earnest way against those stone-age minded ****ers. These days, all that stops us is pussies like those who are posting here every ****ing day, who deem themselves as superior intellectual beings by putting forward a bunch of "I'm so smart, if the world was me, there would only be peace" dumb****, who sabotage their own civilization in the fight against radical, uneducated and hatefull barbarians. Oh, and the radicals being radicals is not our fault, btw. Them being hatefull, racist, uneducated barbarians is their own choice. It's what their leaders build their power on. They have to change their leaders, and they have to change their idea of politics and of the individual. But it is NEVER OUR fault when they drive ****ing airplanes into OUR HOMES. THEY ALONE have to take the responsiblity of their stupid barbarism. And indeed they DO. They are ****ing PROUD of it. That is NOT our fault or problem. It is THEIRS.
All WE have to deal with is securing our safety by destroying their hostile leaders and systems if they cannot stop it themselves.

Many people nowadays in the West have high respect for those underdeveloped countries, run by dictators through fear and hatred. Well, that might seem great, in a way, because it shows how far we have come in terms of tollerance, intellectual freedom and analysis. But I think we make a mistake when in the process of granting respect to THEM, we give up all respect for OURSELVES, and what the grandfathers of at least SOME of us FOUGHT FOR.
If we start deeming ourselves as so SMART from the comfortable fireplace in our living room - which is not the battlefield we send our soldiers on to fight on, btw - and deem radical and barbaric murderers as "victims" of ourselves, then we are comitting what is nothing other than collective suicide and we in fact no longer DESERVE to exist against those ****ING BARBARIANS who got stuck in some pre-medival mindset.
Let them have us, if YOU are more busy with defending and rationalizing their SICK WAYS, instead of RALLYING for us and OUR SOLDIERS.
**** your defeatism. **** it.

Be aware that your enemy KNOWS NO DEFEATISM. And he really doesn't need a foreign propaganda ministry, or foreign agitators, because he knows that there are enough people in our own lines which take care of that.

[GoldenRivet]

:salute:

absolutely right

I have had it with the white house we have seen so far this year.

they can, will and HAVE sold us all up the river:nope:

[Tribesman]

Oh, you surely will not object to the fact that the US military refrained from attacking certain key targets such as air defense networks and C3 networks, because they knew that Russian "advisors" were in place, where the killing of which might have lead to an escalation of the conflict beyond South-East Asia?
And still you miss it , its Asia so the Russain were a little side note , the amount of russian advisors was miniscule compared to the chinese presence . After the screw up in Korea America had learnt to not risk pissing the Chinese off too much .
Vietnm was a prime example of a country not following its own advice and fighting a stupid needless war for all the wrong reasons when they already knew it was futile , but hey if you want to blame the russians and the hippies for the American failure all you are doing is showing you have a very low level of understanding concerning that conflict .

**** your defeatism. **** it.

isn't that a quote from Lord Haw Haw in one of his last drunken rants from Berlin ?

[CaptainHaplo]

Tribesman -Since you are unable or unwilling to comprehend what a brokered ceasefire is - its a waste of time to even discuss the middle east situation with you. They say ignorance is bliss - at least I am pleased to see your a happy man.

Heatc - your entirely correct in that the both the korean and vietnam conflict were politically waged. This is further demonstrated when "high value" targets were finally allowed to be hit. When we did hit those high value targets - it brought the vietnamese to the bargaining table. When we called off the strikes - they refused to discuss peace.

Ultimately to win a war - you do have to have the mindset of them or us. War may be started by politicians - but its won by the military. Sun Tzu said it best when he stated that a faithful and able general are the sideguard of the nation.

Politicians do not know how to wage war - yet they insist on trying to run it anyway.

[joegrundman]

Lets look at it this way.

If in ww2 there were Nazi sects that opposed some of Hitlers views - tactically you should try and take advantage if the rift.

But it doesn't change the fact that they are Nazis.

Same thing with the Taliban.

Unless you can form a strong and long term alliance with these "sects" (which given their nature I don't think you can) then ten years after we leave Afghanistan these guys are no less likely to go back to their old tricks.

It just seems like such an abrupt 180 in policy in my opinion.

I'm no general or head of state but I'm entitled to my opinion no less... And everyone here is free to agree or disagree as they please but for one member to call me a "moron" and another to call me a "strawman" because my views differ... That brings my piss to a boil rather quickly.

boiling piss notwithstanding, i think you still don't contrast the proposed strategy in Afghanistan with the one in Iraq that it was consciously modeled on. That also was a significant turn about in policy, when Petraeus decided to cut deals with those former adversaries that wanted something you could afford to give, and it seems to have been tolerably successful. Was it also a "bitch-slap to dead americans" in Iraq? If not, why is it in Afghanistan? Or you can at least show why your nazi analogy applies in Afghanistan but not Iraq.

I'm not tellling you that you are wrong, just asking you to explain your opinion.
you misunderstand my argument i think.

Obviously the strategy applies to both theaters of conflict... however, this is not forming a strong, lasting, firm alliance with any one party which is what i think - if we are going to "reach out to them" is exactly what needs to be done - but i think one would have a hard time forming such an alliance with such people as the Taliban

the most radical reversal of policy IMHO - is taking 30+ years of "we dont negoatiate with terrorists" and spinning it around to "ok we will talk"

the slap in the face of it the way i see it is - i think in the article Obama should have been less quick to jump on the "we are losing the fight" band waggon.

look back to prior wars, i cant think of many leaders who have put forth such a defeatist attitude.

policies change and adapt... but what im referring to as a slap in the face is the defeatist attitude we have seen from the white house the past couple of months. not only defeatist on the economy but the war as well.

EDIT:

about leadership, an airline captain i am good friends with who also happens to be a former Air Force LC and Marine - his words are spot on about Obama and they include:

"Never dilute the hopes of your followers no matter how dire the situation."

"As a leader, people look to you whether you realize it or not, and whether they realize it or not... the attitude of a single man or a group of men can be radically changed by the characteristics he sees in his leader."

OK, so basically when asked "If the US was winning in Afghanistan" instead of answering "no" with the implication, not without adopting the petreaus strategy, he should instead have said "we are achieving a sub-optimal level of success"

With regard to haplo's statements, while clearly written and debate-worthy if i was inclined to get into debates on this forum, this surely is in the category of argument that comes under the heading "why the petreaus strategy is less likely to succeed in Afghanistan", rather than the category "how obama bitch-slapped dead americans"

you'll be interested to know that the afghan opposition also doubts the applicablity of the petreaus plan to afghanistan, pointing out that a key event at the time in iraq was the emergence of al-maliki, a strong and effective leader able to reach out across many of the factions as well as do business with the occupier, whereas Karzai is at the end of his political cycle with very low credibility and little leverage left. Yet for the americans to simply fire him, wouldn't do much for the loya jirga's credibility within the country as a whole.

@heartc et les autres

maybe we can relive the vietnam war, and transmogrify it into a conservative victory, in another thread?

[Tribesman]

Tribesman -Since you are unable or unwilling to comprehend what a brokered ceasefire is - its a waste of time to even discuss the middle east situation with you. They say ignorance is bliss - at least I am pleased to see your a happy man.

So are you are finding it impossible to find a joint agreement then ?
Not surprising really since it was a unilateral declaration .:yep:
Hold on maybe you are on to something ...a broker , thats like a gobetween isn't it, someone that goes between two parties and gets them both to agree with something right .
Yet there was no resulting ageement between two parties just a declaration by one , so that attempted brokering didn't result in an agreement it resulted in a UNILATERAL DECLARATION .
Still maybe you learnt something else as you are clearly having real difficulty understanding something that simple , like perhaps you learnt what were the conditions set out in the unilateral declaration ?
Oh sorry you said there were no conditions didn't you :rotfl:

[August]

Apparently Obama is intending to move ahead with this plan:

He's making a big mistake.

http://ourvoice.legion.org/story/1448/legion-white-house-dont-bill-our-heroes