Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 They have? We start every season TIED with every other team, at 0 and 0.
Lori Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 ... which sidesteps the main question. Again, how many are deployed for active forward combat? You will always have combat-related casualties when the troops are deployed anywhere in a hostile environment. However, despite the nicey nice talk by he world how Afghanistan is a global responsibility, the dirty job of forward combat has been shouldered by US & Britain (again). On behalf of our neighbors to the north, I'd like to respectfully request an addition to your list: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanis...lties/list.html
IDBillzFan Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Are you serious? Yes. And this just in from the DNC; if you criticize Obama receiving this award "You're a terrorist." You can't make this stuff up.
erynthered Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Sensitive. No just annoyed with people always being negative. Coming from YOU? Thats fuucking hilarious!!!!
DC Tom Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 well shouldn't the goal be political stability, democracy and peace for the afghan people? First of all, that's not necessarily a practical goal for the west. The real purpose is to "combat terrorism"...i.e. to supress or eliminate those forces that would fight a protracted low-intensity war with the west. The goal - the end-state by which that purpose is fulfilled - can be one of a few options, including the one you suggest. Your option, however, presumes on treating the "Afghan people" as though they have Western values and ideals, which is not true. Second, that's not a realistic goal - it's fighting three thousand years of history, and requires the willing cooperation of the "Afghan people" themselves (side note: there are no "Afghan people". There's Pashtuns, Tadjiks, Uzbeks, Arabs, Kurds, and various other Persian and Turkic tribes, most of whom owe no allegiance to the concept of "Afghanistan", much less the actuality of it). Literacy rates are pitifuly low, and will stay that way because there's no common language. There's no economic base - everyone who's ever ruled Afghanistan in recent history has promised the elimination of the poppy industry, and ultimately turned to it for income because the poppy industry is the ONLY source of revenue Afghanistan has. So economically, socially, and culturally there is no "Afghanistan"...and we're going to bring stability to that mess?
Wacka Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Nobels are not given posthumously. In 2007 Manbearpig won over a woman who rescued hundreds of Polish Jews in WWII. She died this year. She deserved it over ANY politician.This prize has been a joke.
DC Tom Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Best justification of this award I've heard so far this morning was "Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for not being George W Bush."
olivier in france Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 First of all, that's not necessarily a practical goal for the west. The real purpose is to "combat terrorism"...i.e. to supress or eliminate those forces that would fight a protracted low-intensity war with the west. The goal - the end-state by which that purpose is fulfilled - can be one of a few options, including the one you suggest. Your option, however, presumes on treating the "Afghan people" as though they have Western values and ideals, which is not true. Second, that's not a realistic goal - it's fighting three thousand years of history, and requires the willing cooperation of the "Afghan people" themselves (side note: there are no "Afghan people". There's Pashtuns, Tadjiks, Uzbeks, Arabs, Kurds, and various other Persian and Turkic tribes, most of whom owe no allegiance to the concept of "Afghanistan", much less the actuality of it). Literacy rates are pitifuly low, and will stay that way because there's no common language. There's no economic base - everyone who's ever ruled Afghanistan in recent history has promised the elimination of the poppy industry, and ultimately turned to it for income because the poppy industry is the ONLY source of revenue Afghanistan has. So economically, socially, and culturally there is no "Afghanistan"...and we're going to bring stability to that mess? well the key is to restore order first and then put emphasis on education. of course a western democracy there is not realistic but afghanistan could become a more stable land like other central asian countries (uzbekistan, tadjikistan...). One you have stability you can think about the economy... it's one of the most beautiful country on Earth... It should be a top touristic destination you know!
olivier in france Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Best justification of this award I've heard so far this morning was "Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for not being George W Bush." well THAT is the justification!
GG Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 HA! Nice spin idiot! Just for kick, I scanned the posts on the first page of this thread. My comment still stands, which makes you dummer than pBills. Besides what are you doing in this thread? Sarah Palin is not involved in it, or it's not your hour to watch her?
GG Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 On behalf of our neighbors to the north, I'd like to respectfully request an addition to your list:http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanis...lties/list.html Not to take crayonz' talking points from him, but Canada is not a real country, so I automatically attribute 50% of them to US and the other half to UK. (Quebec can go to hell for all I care)
DC Tom Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 well THAT is the justification! So now we've got the Nobel "Not George W. Bush" Prize? Where's Kim Jong Il's?
John Adams Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Just for kick, I scanned the posts on the first page of this thread. My comment still stands, which makes you dummer than pBills. Besides what are you doing in this thread? Sarah Palin is not involved in it, or it's not your hour to watch her? He hasn't forgotten Palin, he's pre-ording the Levi Playgirl.
olivier in france Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 (Quebec can go to hell for all I care) u're really a moron u know?
olivier in france Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 So now we've got the Nobel "Not George W. Bush" Prize? Where's Kim Jong Il's? LOL!!!
Magox Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Yes. And this just in from the DNC; if you criticize Obama receiving this award "You're a terrorist." You can't make this stuff up. Then according to this idiots logic, BO is aligning himself with Chavez, Ortega and Zelaya who all support who? Zelaya
GG Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 u're really a moron u know? Yeah, let's celebrate the province that's holding the others back. Whoopie.
olivier in france Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Yeah, let's celebrate the province that's holding the others back. Whoopie. One more "kid" you'd like to educate Daddy!! i hope you'll never tame them, they're very important for North america as a whole IMO
DC Tom Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 One more "kid" you'd like to educate Daddy!! i hope you'll never tame them, they're very important for North america as a whole IMO Oh, c'mon...if you can't make fun of the Quebecois, who can you make fun of?
Recommended Posts