Dumb Question- - Page 4 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

JB3 · #46 07-30-2012, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panZZer

Yup churchhill was the best example of a double edged sword there ever will be-- The bad on his part all happened after the war--- creating israil and pakistan was a double Monkey fuc that the world has been trying to deal with ever since.

One cannot go back--------- but if he could, knowing what the 21st century is like having delt with his actions...............???

Its amazing how these solutions at the end of WW2 end up being issues way later.

The USSR and the USA divided and made north and south Korea after WW2 as well, breeding the conflict in that region within 5 years of the war.

It had previously been under Japanese rule since 1910

cullennewsom · #47 07-30-2012, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HoustonM3

well, how can you tell if they are terrorists? seems like the media wants me to believe that anyone with a diaper on their head is a terrorist.

Is this a joke?

There was maybe a touch of sarcasm in my post; and a pink pig, if that counts for anything.

cullennewsom · #48 07-30-2012, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

1. if you don't understand the rrelationship of the tiff I cannot explain it to you.
2. Nuclear winter.

I know what nuclear winter is supposed to be. What I don't understand is the mental gymnastics that one has to do to correlate the many-years long "tiff" as you put it between Pakistan and India in reply to the original question of this thread. One of these things is not like the other.

Botnst · #49 07-30-2012, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by benhogan

This is coming from the most politically naive person in this forum (me).

If the purpose of the war was to get Osama and since they got him already, shouldn't the war be over?

What am I missing?

It's always exciting to thrust deeply into new territory and totally captivate the other party. Not much fun to pull out until the act is completed. Withdrawal early always leads to complications with the other party and lack of satisfaction.

t walgamuth · #50 07-30-2012, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cullennewsom

I know what nuclear winter is supposed to be. What I don't understand is the mental gymnastics that one has to do to correlate the many-years long "tiff" as you put it between Pakistan and India in reply to the original question of this thread. One of these things is not like the other.

I believe one of the main concerns with our military presence in Afganistan is keeping the Pakistanis and Indians from attacking each other. Pulling out is thought to create a possible vacuum which might attract the pakistanis or Indians or both and since they are both nuclear powers and since India has many times the population of Pakistan if they are to get into a scuffle Pakistan is thought to want to play the nuclear card against India if they start getting the worst of it (very likely) which in turn would no doubt likely cause India to do the same.

A nuke war there could cause a nuclear winter world wide.

Its serious business and since we are there we need to watch out what we do that might upset the precarious balance.

cullennewsom · #51 07-30-2012, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

I believe one of the main concerns with our military presence in Afganistan is keeping the Pakistanis and Indians from attacking each other.

Ah, I don't share that belief.

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

Pulling out is thought to create a possible vacuum which might attract the pakistanis or Indians or both and since they are both nuclear powers and since India has many times the population of Pakistan if they are to get into a scuffle Pakistan is thought to want to play the nuclear card against India if they start getting the worst of it (very likely) which in turn would no doubt likely cause India to do the same.

I see, you're trying to rationalize our presence there with the let-us-be-big-brother-to-the-world argument. I don't buy it. We're there for resources, either to steal them, or to keep someone else from stealing them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

A nuke war there could cause a nuclear winter world wide.

Or it might not be any worse than what we did to Nevada

and New Mexico during the cold war.

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

Its serious business and since we are there we need to watch out what we do that might upset the precarious balance.

I'm not buying it, and I don't think anyone else is either.

SwampYankee · #52 07-31-2012, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by benhogan

This is coming from the most politically naive person in this forum (me).

Consider yourself lucky! You aren't missing anything. I'm much more relaxed after actively disengaging from the political circus.

MS Fowler · #53 07-31-2012, 08:42 AM

Global Warming + nuclear winter= balanced state?

t walgamuth · #54 07-31-2012, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cullennewsom

Ah, I don't share that belief.

I see, you're trying to rationalize our presence there with the let-us-be-big-brother-to-the-world argument. I don't buy it. We're there for resources, either to steal them, or to keep someone else from stealing them.

Or it might not be any worse than what we did to Nevada

and New Mexico during the cold war.

I'm not buying it, and I don't think anyone else is either.

You may not buy it but you are not the one responsible for making the decisions about it. I recently read Bob Woodward's book "Obamas wars".

In it was a long description of the discussion within the administration about why we are there and what is hoped to be accomplished and how to bring it to an end. This is the source of many of the ideas I presented.

In it the military leaders in general were pressing for more troops with no thoughts of an end game (how to get us out). Secretary Clinton pretty much aligned herself with them.

It was Biden and the President who pressed for plans using less troops and with a definate plan for getting out.

One small bomb tested in Nevada is no comparison to a nuclear exchange in which multiple warheads of (presumably) much larger capacity are exploded.

t walgamuth · #55 07-31-2012, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Global Warming + nuclear winter= balanced state?

I would not want to experiment with that.

Air&Road · #56 07-31-2012, 08:54 AM

Passivists ALWAYS ask for fewer troops. Not having sufficient strength in a war theater is a good way to suffer more casualties.

t walgamuth · #57 07-31-2012, 09:31 AM

Who you calling a pacifist? And is that supposed to be a bad thing?

JB3 · #58 07-31-2012, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

Who you calling a pacifist? And is that supposed to be a bad thing?

This is actually a very interesting thread, I wouldn't even respond to Larry, because within one page, we all know it will turn into a thread about him being persecuted and his dislike of Obama.

This sounds like an interesting book, im all for the US getting out of Afghanistan as soon as practical, but it has to be done properly. From the standpoint of having not read the book though, id be curious at how we arrived at the assumption that the presence of US troops on the ground is more of a deterrent than before.

After all, India tested their first nuclear device as far back as 1974. With Pakistan following, and supposedly having nuclear capability in 1984, though they didn't test anything till the 90s.

So my question is that India and Pakistan have had the ability to nuke each other since before the Russians got out of Afghanistan. When the Russians withdrew in 89, it didn't happen then, so how much more different are the circumstances now, as far as a power vacuum created?

Why would we naturally assume that the absence of US ground forces would make that much difference?

JB3 · #59 07-31-2012, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cullennewsom

Ah, I don't share that belief.

I see, you're trying to rationalize our presence there with the let-us-be-big-brother-to-the-world argument. I don't buy it. We're there for resources, either to steal them, or to keep someone else from stealing them.

I don't agree that this was the reason for our involvement in Afghanistan, BUT, it would be a reason to stay involved long term.

Mining in Afghanistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

quote from the link- "Afghanistan's resources could make it the richest mining region on earth"

I totally agreed with the toppling of the Taliban from a perspective of the obvious terror threat and just the general evil nature of the Taliban anyway, and so far have been a supporter of the US presence in Afghanistan, as it was a job worth doing.

Since our involvement though, the mining riches of that region have been more clearly mapped and estimated.

This is a real possibility for the basis of a strong, wealthy Afghan nation based on mining activities, similar to Saudi Arabia with oil fields.

That could potentially be an attraction for either India of Pakistan now that I read more deeply into it, so maybe thats one of the arguements in the book?

Air&Road · #60 07-31-2012, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Global Warming + nuclear winter= balanced state?