Heartbreaker

Posted by: Lea

Heartbreaker - 12/01/09 04:31 PM




xxxxxxxxx



Posted by: MacBozo

Re: Heartbreaker - 12/01/09 05:18 PM

Yeah.

Damned/if/you/do/and/damned/if/you/dont.

Not/a/position/that/I/would/like/to/be/in.
Posted by: Mike

Re: Heartbreaker - 12/01/09 05:39 PM

Hmmm....What would you do?
Posted by: Lea

Re: Heartbreaker - 12/01/09 05:40 PM


The speech was good, there's no doubt that this weighs heavy. I pray that this ends and ends well. Wish I were more optimistic.



Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Heartbreaker - 12/01/09 07:23 PM

Quote:
I pray that this ends and ends well. Wish I were more optimistic.

Amen to that. I felt the same way at the beginning of the Iraq war ...

Unfortunately, this is probably the most adult, sensible way to go forward it seems to me, given the situation Obama was handed ...

But still, I don't have a great feeling about this ...
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Heartbreaker - 12/01/09 07:48 PM

I don't think it can end well. It has never ended well for any country that's gotten mired in that area, AFAIK. It's the graveyard of empires.
Posted by: Lea

Re: Heartbreaker - 12/01/09 07:50 PM


My post is an illustration of fact. I don't know what the solution is, I don't believe anybody does.

Doesn't change the fact.



Posted by: keymaker

Re: Heartbreaker - 12/01/09 08:55 PM

Quote:
I don't know what the solution is, I don't believe anybody does.

I do - pull out without delay... all Obama's doing is sending more soldiers to an early grave.

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Heartbreaker - 12/01/09 10:18 PM

That's what's so tough -- you're THERE already. The initial motive may have had merit, but the fact of going there and then languishing instead of trying to do what was needed puts the US in a situation that unless it REALLY COMMITS to something the outcomes are rather limited from its point of view ...

The previous administration's half-assed commitment really limits the positive outcomes at this point, and there really is no graceful outcome, or even that of "winning," unless there's a total national mobilization to actually control the region ...

Which of course opens up an entirely different set of Pandora's boxes ...
Posted by: garyW

Re: Heartbreaker - 12/01/09 11:44 PM

Originally Posted By: Lea

My post is an illustration of fact. I don't know what the solution is, I don't believe anybody does.
Doesn't change the fact.


Here's some help with your original post (... the url image link changes daily.)





and something new.







Posted by: steveg

Re: Heartbreaker - 12/02/09 04:12 AM

The only positive I could find in last night's address is that it was -- finally -- a sober, carefully considered presentation of a strategy (and I use that term somewhat loosely), as opposed to another overt and disgusting swaggerfest.

My first reaction was that Obama should have positioned this as an ultimatum for the "Afpakistan" leadership: "We'll give you an 18-month push, and then it's on you." But then, it's not as if we were asked to drop in and kick the Taliban out in the first place. The original mission was, to a degree, justifiable and right. But once abandoned -- thankyouverymuch, George W. Cheney -- there is no going back for another shot at it. We're not going to find Bin Laden. Neither Afghanistan nor Pakistan give a crap about stability. Just pick up your toys and go home.

Maybe we should have elected Palin after all. She's so good at quitting! smirk
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Heartbreaker - 12/02/09 06:34 AM

Quote:
it was -- finally -- a sober, carefully considered presentation of a strategy

Not really, there was a logical flaw in his presentation that:

1. the surge was justified on grounds of national security, but

2. national security wouldn't matter after the evacuation.

Either there's an issue of national security worth dying for or there's not - he can''t have it both ways I'm afraid. wink

km
Posted by: MikeSellers

Re: Heartbreaker - 12/02/09 06:56 AM

Originally Posted By: steveg
The only positive I could find in last night's address is that it was -- finally -- a sober, carefully considered presentation of a strategy (and I use that term somewhat loosely), as opposed to another overt and disgusting swaggerfest.


Yeah, I want the smartest person in the room calling the shots and we certainly didn't have that for the previous eight years. But it's still depressing. We know Obama inherited a sh!t sandwich but I'm guessing we have no idea just how piled high it really was.

There's a PBS documentary on Herbert Hoover that ran a few weeks ago. I didn't realize how immensely popular he was when he was elected. Came from nothing, self-made millionaire by the age of forty, organized a relief effort that fed thousands of starving people during WWI. He really was the smartest guy in the room when he was elected and won by the biggest landslide ever. And lost by the biggest landslide ever. If the smartest people can't undo the mess we're in, where do we go from here?
Posted by: garyW

Re: Heartbreaker - 12/02/09 07:07 AM

Quote:
where do we go from here?


... and the GOP will most likely obstruct and stall any appropriations to fund this new strategic effort because making sure Obama fails the cost will be their new primary concern. We'll see soon enough.


Posted by: Lea

Re: Heartbreaker - 12/02/09 07:14 AM


Thank you, Gary.

I've linked NIck Anderson lots, but this time I didn't go that extra tab back. Sigh. No, worser than sigh ~ Double Duh.

Thanks again.







Posted by: Lea

Re: Heartbreaker - 12/02/09 07:20 AM


There were Dems threatening the same thing yesterday.


Many Democrats are skittish about escalating the war - and how to pay for it



Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Heartbreaker - 12/02/09 07:44 AM

Quote:
... and the GOP will most likely obstruct and stall any appropriations to fund this new strategic effort because making sure Obama fails the cost will be their new primary concern. We'll see soon enough.


I'm not so sure. Hawkish Republicans are going to have a hard time denying funding lest they look soft on defense ... for example, I was listening to a Republican Senator on NPR this morning basically saying that ensuring the safety of our country and our children is of more concern than the budget ...

One discussion we're going to have to have in this country at some point is how much were willing to continue paying for our security. Is it really worth spending more money we don't have invading every possible location AQ might use as a base? That seems like a sure road to bankruptcy to me (to say nothing of the geopolitical / moral issues) ...

Are we willing to accept a bomb going off in a train station or something if it means recovering some of those unproductive resources and using them for domestic things instead?

Tough call ...
Posted by: garyW

Re: Heartbreaker - 12/02/09 08:21 AM

Originally Posted By: Lea

There were Dems threatening the same thing yesterday.


I know, that's why the GOP could easily succeed ... very few break ranks when their leadership calls for a party-line vote, particularly if they frame the appropriations debate as "a new tax".


Hawkish republicans have nothing to fear because the media will completely ignore their part in the vote and will focus on the failure of the Dem's leadership ... it will be Pelosi's fault.

Posted by: steveg

Re: Heartbreaker - 12/02/09 09:05 AM

The GOP or at least McStain are smiling on the buildup and frowning on a draw-down schedule. Freakin' dipsticks.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Heartbreaker - 12/02/09 09:14 AM

And speaking of dipsticks, would someone ask our resident solicitor or barrister or whatever why he continues to reply to someone who has blocked his posts? I know he's convinced himself that I still peak. But he would be very much mistaken. It just seems really really silly. Or enormously egocentric. sick

Having said that, he can bloody well reply 'til his fingernails crack, because I am in blissful ignore-ance. smirk
Posted by: steveg

Re: Heartbreaker - 12/02/09 09:18 AM

If we just declared Abbastanza! on both wars, we could probably fund a single payer health insurance program that wold cover every living organism in the country twice over!
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Heartbreaker - 12/02/09 09:28 AM

But are we as a country willing to accept the (perceived if not actual) security risk of leaving AQ alone to maybe plot an attack here? In exchange for getting our troops out and taking care of domestic business, are we prepared to accept living with a certain amount of risk?

I'd like to think we are, since a world of being 100% safe doesn't exist, and it seems more damaging to bankrupt ourselves (morally, geopolitically and economically) in an effort to achieve it ...

But I'm afraid the jingoistic parts of our society won't accept that view (and certainly the military-industrial complex would hate it) ...
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Heartbreaker - 12/02/09 09:31 AM

If you've blocked him, why do you care?

Sounds a little like you're protesting too much ;-)
Posted by: steveg

Re: Heartbreaker - 12/02/09 09:37 AM

It's like punching a bruise. The more risk we think we see, the more belligerent we tend to become (although the previous schmucministration elevated belligerence to an art form), and the more belligerent we are, the more risk we bring on ourselves.

I agree, we need to stop flinching at every backfire we here and get on with taking care of bidness right here at home.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Heartbreaker - 12/02/09 10:42 AM

Quote:
would someone ask our resident... barrister... why he continues to reply to someone who has blocked his posts?

Because it's a public forum laugh. I was drawing attention to your mistake that Obama's speech was a "carefully considered presentation of a strategy" when it clearly wasn't. If it was that well-considered it wouldn't have been self-contradictory. Others will understand the point whether you want to shut it out, read it or re-construct it.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Heartbreaker - 12/02/09 11:02 AM

Maybe. However, it just perpetuates an annoying pattern of not ever accepting what anyone else says, and assuming that people will always pay attention to his perpetual "last word". And of course, there he is again.

But you're absolutely right, why do I care? In fact I don't, and it's silly of me to let him irritate me -- any more than a cranky toddler on a long flight. grin
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Heartbreaker - 12/02/09 11:34 AM

Quote:
it just perpetuates an annoying pattern... why do I care? In fact I don't...

Self-contradictory - If you don't care it can't be annoying. cry
Posted by: carp

Re: Heartbreaker - 12/02/09 01:02 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
it was -- finally -- a sober, carefully considered presentation of a strategy

Not really, there was a logical flaw in his presentation that:

1. the surge was justified on grounds of national security, but

2. national security wouldn't matter after the evacuation.

Either there's an issue of national security worth dying for or there's not - he can''t have it both ways I'm afraid. wink

km


I agree with that one laugh

You either Do or Do Not - There is no Try = Yoda
Posted by: steveg

Re: Heartbreaker - 12/02/09 01:23 PM

Well, carp, we average John Q's may have our own ideas and opinions on what should or should not be done. But then, none of us have access to the volumes of data and intel that the President does. Certainly not the classified stuff. And none of us Failimg are in a position to know all of the pressures and conflicting influences at play when you're the Commander in Chief.

To insist that a decision like this is as simple as "Do or Do Not" is a bit naive.

I'd rather have heard a message about getting out ASAP. Failing that, I'd have preferred a clearer rationale for this surge before the draw-down. But my guess is that we'll learn a bit more each day. Not that it will pacify those of us who don't support this buildup. But if we can't support the buildup, we can still support the President. Criticize him, but support him. I doubt you'd want to be saddled with this decision.
Posted by: carp

Re: Heartbreaker - 12/02/09 03:01 PM

Steve , even in a simple statement like mine - people over read into it a novel laugh

You Do ; ; As in get in and win with in 3 years or 20 years , whatever it takes

You Do Not ; ; As in you get out now = cut and run

There is No Try ; ; A half arse measure is just wasting lives and goes nowhere

Kinda simply on the simplistic side - I can take the time to write a book if thats what you want laugh Should I post up many links to it ? which some will call blowhards or idiots or just simply over look everything for their own agendas ?
Posted by: DLC

Re: Heartbreaker - 12/02/09 03:06 PM

Originally Posted By: garyW
Quote:
where do we go from here?


... and the GOP will most likely obstruct and stall any appropriations to fund this new strategic effort because making sure Obama fails the cost will be their new primary concern. We'll see soon enough.


I think they'll support the $ for the war, if they don't they'll be seen as weak on Natl Security !!

BUT what they'll stall or cut appropriations on is everything else... no Health care reform, no infrastructure funding, no $ for education, ... anything domestic.... like 9-11, it's their "godsend" excuse for their agenda... feed the rich, scrap the middle class, enhance their foreign military desires, and destroy every social program in Govt they can !... oh they'll say they're for Medicare, but they'd love to see it die just like they would SS.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Heartbreaker - 12/02/09 03:32 PM

Global warming. Obama's Afghan plans, and gawd knows what other topics to come, you're just not going to wrong, are you?

Ok. Stick with simple if it makes you happy. With just black and white, there's not a helluva lot of thought required. Go for it.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Heartbreaker - 12/02/09 03:39 PM

Quote:
you're just not going to wrong, are you?

Not when you're always right, no.

km
Posted by: carp

Re: Heartbreaker - 12/02/09 03:54 PM

Steve Steve

I can get into the complicated as well - as notice with members they do all the complication them selves and never look at what is really in front of their faces , sadly .

Sure we can win this if;

1 - Pakistan takes care of the cross boarder regions <-- which is the Southern bases of the Taliban - Ahh do you think that will really happen

2 - Pakistan is in battle with the northern tribes , only because they were a threat to Pakistan it self but the larger south Taliban is untouched

Sooooo really if the Coalition can run off the Taliban from Afghanistan - where do you think their gonna run ? Yep back into their bases inside Southern Pakistan

What are your battle plans ? ? If none shut up laugh just kidding

I heard from the address.

1 - Send more troops
a) - Clean up some activity and train more afghans to take over
b) - Short timeline - sorta gives the Afghan government to get their shiit together or bye-bye

Option;
Pay off the war lords essentially buying their security against the Taliban - worked in Iraq to a point they are now killing each other , instead of American troops , well they been doing that before the invasion anyway
Posted by: Lea

Re: Heartbreaker - 12/02/09 03:55 PM


He still can't hear you.



Posted by: keymaker

Re: Heartbreaker - 12/02/09 03:57 PM

I dealt with that non-point last time you made it. smile

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Heartbreaker - 12/02/09 04:12 PM

carp, carp.

You're so intent on coming out on top of a wright or wrong argument that you've completely missed my point -- which is despite what's out there in plain sight, there are influences and pressures, internally and externally that we are not aware of or do not have an intimate understanding of. Iraq was less complicated because we simply had no business being there in the first place. So finding a clear rationale for getting out was relatively easy (once the adults took charge, that is).

Afghanistan is incredibly complex because at first we had a clear mission that was then abandoned. And then there's Pakistan. It's like a huge game of Topple. One tiny wrong move, and the whole thing comes down around your ears. One shift this way creates many other shifts another way. Shift one of those back, and something else moves elsewhere. There's almost no totally right decision. At least not today.

I asked you before if you'd want to have this responsibility? Instead of an answer, I get "What are your battle plans ? ? If none shut up laugh just kidding" I wouldn't begin to know what should be done. And what are your battle plans? If none, shut up. Not kidding.

I don't think we should be escalating. I think we should cut our losses and leave the region entirely. But aside from what I get from the news, and how I feel, I don't have a clue to the real situation and the real consequences either way.
Posted by: Lea

Re: Heartbreaker - 12/02/09 04:14 PM


I remember. You wrapped yourself around a pole claiming you weren't responding to steve.


Jesus, that one's still funny.



Posted by: keymaker

Re: Heartbreaker - 12/02/09 04:37 PM

Quote:
claiming you weren't responding to steve.

Oh you mean the thread where he admitted piecing my posts together from available clues? grin

km
Posted by: carp

Re: Heartbreaker - 12/02/09 04:45 PM

Right Lea

Quote:
You're so intent on coming out on top of a wright or wrong argument that you've completely missed my point


I think Steveg was either responding to himself or maybe to "KM" laugh
Posted by: steveg

Re: Heartbreaker - 12/02/09 06:26 PM

carp, I think you've finally lost it. Completely. Irretrievably. Gonzo for goodzo.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Heartbreaker - 12/02/09 06:34 PM

The Prince of Denial is still trying to float that barge-load, eh? I wonder if there's a clinical term for that condition. sick
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Heartbreaker - 12/03/09 01:13 AM

Obama: "national security matters but it doesn't matter".


Steve: "I'm annoyed but I'm not annoyed because I don't care" smirk

km