US Election 2008

[Happy Face 29]

(also are you saying Afghanistan should have been left how it was? )

 

Given how instrumental Afghanistan was in the US plan to bankrupt the Soviet Union, I'd have tried the best I could to steer well clear.

 

So you'd have just left the Taliban in charge and allowed them to continue training ad infinitum then?

 

Or would you have just nuked Afghanistan to a glass wasteland?

 

 

 

(this is exactly what I mean by Obama probably not being able to sort things out tbh)

Insofar as no one ever can? Agreed.

 

 

Agreed.

 

After all war and tribal conflict is a way of life and money making.

 

...but enough about America.

 

[Park Life 71]

(also are you saying Afghanistan should have been left how it was? )

 

Given how instrumental Afghanistan was in the US plan to bankrupt the Soviet Union, I'd have tried the best I could to steer well clear.

 

So you'd have just left the Taliban in charge and allowed them to continue training ad infinitum then?

 

Or would you have just nuked Afghanistan to a glass wasteland?

 

 

 

(this is exactly what I mean by Obama probably not being able to sort things out tbh)

Insofar as no one ever can? Agreed.

 

 

Agreed.

 

After all war and tribal conflict is a way of life and money making.

 

...but enough about America.

 

[spongebob toonpants 3996]

So a canvasser goes to a woman's door in Washington, Pennsylvania. Knocks. Woman answers. Knocker asks who she's planning to vote for. She isn't sure, has to ask her husband who she's voting for. Husband is off in another room watching some game. Canvasser hears him yell back, "We're votin' for the n***er!"

 

Woman turns back to canvasser, and says brightly and matter of factly: "We're voting for the n***er."

 

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/on-...nnsylvania.html

 

I think McCain may be in a bit of trouble when the rednecks are voting for the black bloke

[Park Life 71]

A good guide to poll closing times is here: http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/10/15/173426/57

 

If the public polls are right, you will all know by 12.30am - 1.00am UK time because if Obama wins Indiana, Virginia and/or Georgia then that will be the sign that it is a landslide. Realistically, you will know well before that because unofficial exit polling and turnout figures will probably indicate the size of Obama's national lead in the late afternoon, 10pm-ish UK time.

[Meenzer 15526]

And the Beeb have got this up for those of us who are too lazy to work out the time differences.

[Park Life 71]

Looking at the BBC thing we'll know by Ohio.

 

 

Obama.

[spongebob toonpants 3996]

unless of course the Republicans steal the election

 

http://www.truthout.org/110308A

[Tom 14011]

Any news?

[Ketsbaia 0]

Any news?

 

Aye. Polls are still set to close in 24 hours

[The Fish 10857]

Any news?

 

Aye. Polls are still set to close in 24 hours

You'll let us know if that changes though... right?

 

 

[Tom 14011]

Nice one.

[The Fish 10857]

Nice one.

fuck you Thomas... fuck you.

[Tom 14011]

[Fop 1]

No problem Obama is a Muslim so he will be able to sort out the Taliban

 

 

No he's not, but how strongly he denies this or lets it flow depends on the target audience.

 

 

(also are you saying Afghanistan should have been left how it was? )

 

Given how instrumental Afghanistan was in the US plan to bankrupt the Soviet Union, I'd have tried the best I could to steer well clear.

 

So you'd have just left the Taliban in charge and allowed them to continue training ad infinitum then?

 

Or would you have just nuked Afghanistan to a glass wasteland?

 

 

 

(this is exactly what I mean by Obama probably not being able to sort things out tbh)

 

 

Amongst other things it's the nuking that motivates evermore suicide bombers to give their lives.

 

The notion that wiping out afghanistan would bring an end to islamic extremism I find hard to go along with.

 

 

That's complete ASS though.

 

The issues with Afghanistan built up in the Clinton era, if anything it was a lack of interference that allowed them to build up and set the foundation for the 9/11 attacks, so in an indirect way those attacks are laid directly at Clinton's door (and without Afghanistan being what it was in the late 90's there'd not only likely not have been any 9/11 attack, but probably no Madrid attack, Bali attacks, London attack, nor many of the attacks in Iraq).

 

 

 

 

No President could have just left Afghanistan as it was post-9/11, and if they did they would have simply encouraged more and more extreme attacks coming from there.

 

There was no diplomatic solution (the complete disregard for diplomatic issues there was largely what lead to the Taliban being able to take over in the first place).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So again what would have been the solution?

 

Leave Afghanistan as it was, ignore the 3000 dead, and turn the other cheek, and allow them to continue to train people and spread hate across the world? (that worked SO will in the 1990's didn't it )

 

Or nuke Afghanistan into a glass wasteland, killing millions, just to remove a threat that should never have been allowed to develop in the first place?

 

Or something in between? Which is what is happening now, which is not, and could never be anything but a very long term problem that would cost a lot of lives.

 

 

 

So what was, or is, the "magic" solution? Or will you just continue to whinge without accepting there is none?

[Fop 1]

I seriously think we need to look at Pakistan, especially the border areas. One of the highest amount of 'madrassa' money from SA is going to Pakistan. The Govt is shaky and these actually do have nukes (mad mullahs in the wings).

 

Yup that's the current big issue within Afghanistan (same with Syria with Iraq, although that's a different kettle of fish)...... but again would Obama go in there? (would McCain?)

 

And indeed should they, because they may solve some problems, but cause more.

 

But then not going in will allow issues in Afghanistan to drift on and on.

 

 

[Park Life 71]

No problem Obama is a Muslim so he will be able to sort out the Taliban

 

 

No he's not, but how strongly he denies this or lets it flow depends on the target audience.

 

 

(also are you saying Afghanistan should have been left how it was? )

 

Given how instrumental Afghanistan was in the US plan to bankrupt the Soviet Union, I'd have tried the best I could to steer well clear.

 

So you'd have just left the Taliban in charge and allowed them to continue training ad infinitum then?

 

Or would you have just nuked Afghanistan to a glass wasteland?

 

 

 

(this is exactly what I mean by Obama probably not being able to sort things out tbh)

 

 

Amongst other things it's the nuking that motivates evermore suicide bombers to give their lives.

 

The notion that wiping out afghanistan would bring an end to islamic extremism I find hard to go along with.

 

 

That's complete ASS though.

 

The issues with Afghanistan built up in the Clinton era, if anything it was a lack of interference that allowed them to build up and set the foundation for the 9/11 attacks, so in an indirect way those attacks are laid directly at Clinton's door (and without Afghanistan being what it was in the late 90's there'd not only likely not have been any 9/11 attack, but probably no Madrid attack, Bali attacks, London attack, nor many of the attacks in Iraq).

 

 

 

 

No President could have just left Afghanistan as it was post-9/11, and if they did they would have simply encouraged more and more extreme attacks coming from there.

 

There was no diplomatic solution (the complete disregard for diplomatic issues there was largely what lead to the Taliban being able to take over in the first place).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So again what would have been the solution?

 

Leave Afghanistan as it was, ignore the 3000 dead, and turn the other cheek, and allow them to continue to train people and spread hate across the world? (that worked SO will in the 1990's didn't it )

 

Or nuke Afghanistan into a glass wasteland, killing millions, just to remove a threat that should never have been allowed to develop in the first place?

 

Or something in between? Which is what is happening now, which is not, and could never be anything but a very long term problem that would cost a lot of lives.

 

 

 

So what was, or is, the "magic" solution? Or will you just continue to whinge without accepting there is none?

 

 

There is only one solution. Bring down the House of Saud for that is where the cash is coming from. Oh wait.....

[Meenzer 15526]

I seriously think we need to look at Pakistan, especially the border areas. One of the highest amount of 'madrassa' money from SA is going to Pakistan. The Govt is shaky and these actually do have nukes (mad mullahs in the wings).

 

Yup that's the current big issue within Afghanistan (same with Syria with Iraq, although that's a different kettle of fish)...... but again would Obama go in there? (would McCain?)

He knows how to get Bin Laden, you know. He just hasn't told anyone yet.

[Fop 1]

No problem Obama is a Muslim so he will be able to sort out the Taliban

 

 

No he's not, but how strongly he denies this or lets it flow depends on the target audience.

 

 

(also are you saying Afghanistan should have been left how it was? )

 

Given how instrumental Afghanistan was in the US plan to bankrupt the Soviet Union, I'd have tried the best I could to steer well clear.

 

So you'd have just left the Taliban in charge and allowed them to continue training ad infinitum then?

 

Or would you have just nuked Afghanistan to a glass wasteland?

 

 

 

(this is exactly what I mean by Obama probably not being able to sort things out tbh)

 

 

Amongst other things it's the nuking that motivates evermore suicide bombers to give their lives.

 

The notion that wiping out afghanistan would bring an end to islamic extremism I find hard to go along with.

 

 

That's complete ASS though.

 

The issues with Afghanistan built up in the Clinton era, if anything it was a lack of interference that allowed them to build up and set the foundation for the 9/11 attacks, so in an indirect way those attacks are laid directly at Clinton's door (and without Afghanistan being what it was in the late 90's there'd not only likely not have been any 9/11 attack, but probably no Madrid attack, Bali attacks, London attack, nor many of the attacks in Iraq).

 

 

 

 

No President could have just left Afghanistan as it was post-9/11, and if they did they would have simply encouraged more and more extreme attacks coming from there.

 

There was no diplomatic solution (the complete disregard for diplomatic issues there was largely what lead to the Taliban being able to take over in the first place).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So again what would have been the solution?

 

Leave Afghanistan as it was, ignore the 3000 dead, and turn the other cheek, and allow them to continue to train people and spread hate across the world? (that worked SO will in the 1990's didn't it )

 

Or nuke Afghanistan into a glass wasteland, killing millions, just to remove a threat that should never have been allowed to develop in the first place?

 

Or something in between? Which is what is happening now, which is not, and could never be anything but a very long term problem that would cost a lot of lives.

 

 

 

So what was, or is, the "magic" solution? Or will you just continue to whinge without accepting there is none?

 

 

There is only one solution. Bring down the House of Saud for that is where the cash is coming from. Oh wait.....

Maybe the credit crunch was a cunning plan after all.

[Happy Face 29]

No problem Obama is a Muslim so he will be able to sort out the Taliban

 

 

No he's not, but how strongly he denies this or lets it flow depends on the target audience.

 

 

(also are you saying Afghanistan should have been left how it was? )

 

Given how instrumental Afghanistan was in the US plan to bankrupt the Soviet Union, I'd have tried the best I could to steer well clear.

 

So you'd have just left the Taliban in charge and allowed them to continue training ad infinitum then?

 

Or would you have just nuked Afghanistan to a glass wasteland?

 

 

 

(this is exactly what I mean by Obama probably not being able to sort things out tbh)

 

 

Amongst other things it's the nuking that motivates evermore suicide bombers to give their lives.

 

The notion that wiping out afghanistan would bring an end to islamic extremism I find hard to go along with.

 

 

That's complete ASS though.

 

The issues with Afghanistan built up in the Clinton era, if anything it was a lack of interference that allowed them to build up and set the foundation for the 9/11 attacks, so in an indirect way those attacks are laid directly at Clinton's door (and without Afghanistan being what it was in the late 90's there'd not only likely not have been any 9/11 attack, but probably no Madrid attack, Bali attacks, London attack, nor many of the attacks in Iraq).

 

 

 

 

No President could have just left Afghanistan as it was post-9/11, and if they did they would have simply encouraged more and more extreme attacks coming from there.

 

There was no diplomatic solution (the complete disregard for diplomatic issues there was largely what lead to the Taliban being able to take over in the first place).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So again what would have been the solution?

 

Leave Afghanistan as it was, ignore the 3000 dead, and turn the other cheek, and allow them to continue to train people and spread hate across the world? (that worked SO will in the 1990's didn't it )

 

Or nuke Afghanistan into a glass wasteland, killing millions, just to remove a threat that should never have been allowed to develop in the first place?

 

Or something in between? Which is what is happening now, which is not, and could never be anything but a very long term problem that would cost a lot of lives.

 

 

 

So what was, or is, the "magic" solution? Or will you just continue to whinge without accepting there is none?

 

What exactly was complete Ass?

 

If you're going back to the root of the problem, there were 6 years between Russia initiating a withdrawl from Afghanistan and Clinton getting into office. Reagan and Bush had already spent a lot of time doing sweet fuck all to help the country that helped them kick captain communisms arse. It was that complete abandonment that allowed the Taliban to get a foothold.

 

It's that kind of failure that makes it such an almighty fuck up with no easy solutions now. Doing the wrong thing at a pivotal moment.

 

I never mentioned Afghanistan though why's it up to me to come up with a magic solution?

 

I've only claimed that the Bush response to 9/11 has been excessive (Iraq, civil liberty erosion, homeland security spending etc). Are you saying it was proportionate?

[Park Life 71]

No problem Obama is a Muslim so he will be able to sort out the Taliban

 

 

No he's not, but how strongly he denies this or lets it flow depends on the target audience.

 

 

(also are you saying Afghanistan should have been left how it was? )

 

Given how instrumental Afghanistan was in the US plan to bankrupt the Soviet Union, I'd have tried the best I could to steer well clear.

 

So you'd have just left the Taliban in charge and allowed them to continue training ad infinitum then?

 

Or would you have just nuked Afghanistan to a glass wasteland?

 

 

 

(this is exactly what I mean by Obama probably not being able to sort things out tbh)

 

 

Amongst other things it's the nuking that motivates evermore suicide bombers to give their lives.

 

The notion that wiping out afghanistan would bring an end to islamic extremism I find hard to go along with.

 

 

That's complete ASS though.

 

The issues with Afghanistan built up in the Clinton era, if anything it was a lack of interference that allowed them to build up and set the foundation for the 9/11 attacks, so in an indirect way those attacks are laid directly at Clinton's door (and without Afghanistan being what it was in the late 90's there'd not only likely not have been any 9/11 attack, but probably no Madrid attack, Bali attacks, London attack, nor many of the attacks in Iraq).

 

 

 

 

No President could have just left Afghanistan as it was post-9/11, and if they did they would have simply encouraged more and more extreme attacks coming from there.

 

There was no diplomatic solution (the complete disregard for diplomatic issues there was largely what lead to the Taliban being able to take over in the first place).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So again what would have been the solution?

 

Leave Afghanistan as it was, ignore the 3000 dead, and turn the other cheek, and allow them to continue to train people and spread hate across the world? (that worked SO will in the 1990's didn't it )

 

Or nuke Afghanistan into a glass wasteland, killing millions, just to remove a threat that should never have been allowed to develop in the first place?

 

Or something in between? Which is what is happening now, which is not, and could never be anything but a very long term problem that would cost a lot of lives.

 

 

 

So what was, or is, the "magic" solution? Or will you just continue to whinge without accepting there is none?

 

What exactly was complete Ass?

 

If you're going back to the root of the problem, there were 6 years between Russia initiating a withdrawl from Afghanistan and Clinton getting into office. Reagan and Bush had already spent a lot of time doing sweet fuck all to help the country that helped them kick captain communisms arse. It was that complete abandonment that allowed the Taliban to get a foothold.

 

It's that kind of failure that makes it such an almighty fuck up with no easy solutions now. Doing the wrong thing at a pivotal moment.

 

I never mentioned Afghanistan though why's it up to me to come up with a magic solution?

 

I've only claimed that the Bush response to 9/11 has been excessive (Iraq, civil liberty erosion, homeland security spending etc). Are you saying it was proportionate?

 

 

The CIA and Pakistani secret services funded and trained the Taliban Nicos.

 

 

In Steven Bauers book he observes that at one point there were so many stinger and anti-tank weapons in Afghanistan, the CIA was offering

$1,000 a piece to buy them back.

Edited November 4, 2008 by 13 Kane

[Fop 1]

No problem Obama is a Muslim so he will be able to sort out the Taliban

 

 

No he's not, but how strongly he denies this or lets it flow depends on the target audience.

 

 

(also are you saying Afghanistan should have been left how it was? )

 

Given how instrumental Afghanistan was in the US plan to bankrupt the Soviet Union, I'd have tried the best I could to steer well clear.

 

So you'd have just left the Taliban in charge and allowed them to continue training ad infinitum then?

 

Or would you have just nuked Afghanistan to a glass wasteland?

 

 

 

(this is exactly what I mean by Obama probably not being able to sort things out tbh)

 

 

Amongst other things it's the nuking that motivates evermore suicide bombers to give their lives.

 

The notion that wiping out afghanistan would bring an end to islamic extremism I find hard to go along with.

 

 

That's complete ASS though.

 

The issues with Afghanistan built up in the Clinton era, if anything it was a lack of interference that allowed them to build up and set the foundation for the 9/11 attacks, so in an indirect way those attacks are laid directly at Clinton's door (and without Afghanistan being what it was in the late 90's there'd not only likely not have been any 9/11 attack, but probably no Madrid attack, Bali attacks, London attack, nor many of the attacks in Iraq).

 

 

 

 

No President could have just left Afghanistan as it was post-9/11, and if they did they would have simply encouraged more and more extreme attacks coming from there.

 

There was no diplomatic solution (the complete disregard for diplomatic issues there was largely what lead to the Taliban being able to take over in the first place).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So again what would have been the solution?

 

Leave Afghanistan as it was, ignore the 3000 dead, and turn the other cheek, and allow them to continue to train people and spread hate across the world? (that worked SO will in the 1990's didn't it )

 

Or nuke Afghanistan into a glass wasteland, killing millions, just to remove a threat that should never have been allowed to develop in the first place?

 

Or something in between? Which is what is happening now, which is not, and could never be anything but a very long term problem that would cost a lot of lives.

 

 

 

So what was, or is, the "magic" solution? Or will you just continue to whinge without accepting there is none?

 

What exactly was complete Ass?

 

All of it.

 

If you're going back to the root of the problem, there were 6 years between Russia initiating a withdrawl from Afghanistan and Clinton getting into office. Reagan and Bush had already spent a lot of time doing sweet fuck all to help the country that helped them kick captain communisms arse. It was that complete abandonment that allowed the Taliban to get a foothold.

 

Taliban grabbed power in the mid-90's right in Clinton territory, yup others could have done more, but so could he.

 

It's that kind of failure that makes it such an almighty fuck up with no easy solutions now. Doing the wrong thing at a pivotal moment.

Indeed, Clinton's failure.

 

I never mentioned Afghanistan though why's it up to me to come up with a magic solution?

 

I've only claimed that the Bush response to 9/11 has been excessive (Iraq, civil liberty erosion, homeland security spending etc). Are you saying it was proportionate?

 

 

Again what should have been done about Afghanistan after 9/11 then?

 

Left alone and allowed to train and brainwash more and more hate filled fanatics?

 

Nuked to a glass desert?

 

Or what was done (which is clearly "wrong")?

 

 

 

If you've got the answers by all mean state them, if you haven't...... shush.

Edited November 4, 2008 by Fop

[Happy Face 29]

 

Amongst other things it's the nuking that motivates evermore suicide bombers to give their lives.

 

The notion that wiping out afghanistan would bring an end to islamic extremism I find hard to go along with.

 

 

That's complete ASS though.

 

 

So you believe that terroristas aren't in some way motivated by the murder of their family and friends and that nuking Afghanistan on 9/12 would have sorted this whole mess?

 

 

 

 

Again what should have been done about Afghanistan after 9/11 then?

 

Left alone and allowed to train and brainwash more and more hate filled fanatics?

 

Nuked to a glass desert?

 

Or what was done (which is clearly "wrong")?

 

 

 

If you've got the answers by all mean state them, if you haven't...... shush.

 

Again, I have no qualms with going into Afghanistan and getting anyone involved with 9/11. But that's nothing whatsoever to do with the overreaction I'm talking about. I'd like to know where I said that was "wrong"

 

Keep making assumptions and building straw men though.

[Fop 1]

 

Amongst other things it's the nuking that motivates evermore suicide bombers to give their lives.

 

The notion that wiping out afghanistan would bring an end to islamic extremism I find hard to go along with.

 

 

That's complete ASS though.

 

 

So you believe that terroristas aren't in some way motivated by the murder of their family and friends and that nuking Afghanistan on 9/12 would have sorted this whole mess?

 

 

I don't know about terroristas , but 9/11 or the 1998 or 1993 attacks (or any of the others) had sod all to do with anyone's family (terrorists or otherwise) being murdered.

 

It did have a lot to do with the rise of islamofacism which broadly came from a sudden lack of an enemy to fight.

 

 

 

Again what should have been done about Afghanistan after 9/11 then?

 

Left alone and allowed to train and brainwash more and more hate filled fanatics?

 

Nuked to a glass desert?

 

Or what was done (which is clearly "wrong")?

 

 

 

If you've got the answers by all mean state them, if you haven't...... shush.

 

Again, I have no qualms with going into Afghanistan and getting anyone involved with 9/11. But that's nothing whatsoever to do with the overreaction I'm talking about. I'd like to know where I said that was "wrong"

 

Keep making assumptions and building straw men though.

 

 

Keep backing away from arguments you know you cannot win, after getting yourself in way over your head, and you might make a decent politician one day.

 

Until then:

Edited November 4, 2008 by Fop

[Park Life 71]

Fop handing it out?

[Happy Face 29]

The CIA and Pakistani secret services funded and trained the Taliban Nicos.

 

Indeed. They threw millions at Afghanistan to defeat the Russians. And then nothing whatsoever to rebuild the country after the ravages of war. I don't see how Clinton could have forced this through 2 presidents before he even got into office. The Taliban were just a symptom of this root failure that grew and fed on the anger of US abandonment.

 

In Steven Bauers book he observes that at one point there were so many stinger and anti-tank weapons in Afghanistan, the CIA was offering

$1,000 a piece to buy them back.

 

 

They made a similar mistake in Iraq with debaathification. Sacked an entire nations army and hoped they'd give the weapons back and go home quietly.

 

Nice move Bemmer, created an armed militia in one fell swoop.