Tim Pawlenty: The Rule Needs to Be, When the United States Goes to War, the United States Wins
By Heather Monday Sep 07, 2009 4:00pm
Tim Pawlenty apparently has a new rule. When the United States either goes to war with or invades another country, we or they depending on where you live, never lose. Sorry Tim but reality has a way of biting that sort of revisionist history right in it's ass. I would say why didn't John King bother to point out that obvious fact to you, but we are talking about John King here...lol. That man hasn't found a Republican he couldn't give a softball interview to since he made Wolf Blitzer's show Sunday into more of a joke than it was before he took it over.
KING: Let me move on to another issue, another big issue on the president's plate, where, in Congress, he's largely getting more Republican support than Democratic support, and that's Afghanistan.
George Will, a very influential conservative columnist wrote this earlier in the week, "Forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy. America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, air strikes, and small potent special forces units concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters."
Is it time for the United States to pull almost all of its troops from Afghanistan?
PAWLENTY: No. I recently returned from my fourth trip to Iraq and my second trip to Afghanistan. The administration has defined the mission in Afghanistan as to to disrupt and destroy the Taliban and Al Qaida and other terrorist forces that represent a threat to the national security interests of the United States.
We need to make sure that mission is successful. And the rule needs to be, when the United States goes to war, the United States wins, and so we need to make sure we do those things to complete that mission successfully, and that includes putting more troops into Afghanistan if needed.
Login or Register to post comments.
If you go to war you've already lost.
And the only way to win a war is genocide. And then you still lose (like Rome, Germany, etc.).
Afghanistan has a long history of invasions, none of which have been successful. It wasn't that long ago that the Soviet Union (remember them) had a Vietnam there. And what about Vietnam? Is our memory really that short?
Many of the Republicans hate or don't trust the US Government while wondering why the rest of the world doesn't.
So stupid!
that is news to me
you know, your point is very simplistic
this country had every right to invade afghanistan...but it didnt finish the job when it needed to, because the bush crime family only saw war as a cover for their other illegal enterprises
Every right to invade Afghanistan!
Were we attacked by Afghanistan?
We have had perpetual war since the advent of the National Security State in 1947.
Afghanistan is just another chapter for the war mongers and war profiteers.
was Canada or Britain? Why do you think Canada is in Afghanistan? To help our ally who was ATTACKED on September 11th, masterminded by people with safe haven in Afghanistan and given support by its "government". If all the money that was spent on Iraq was spent on Afghanistan instead, and from the get go had a plan to grow their economical base. (like given them a new crop to grow other than poppies, or buy it for our own pharmaceuticals) then we'd might have seen some progress there.
Afghanistan WAS the right war. But for 8 years? It is a failure, but it didn't have to be. Can it still be corrected? Now that I don't know. Is it even still necessary for our own sake to be there? Probably not.
Fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. Two were from the UAE, one was Egyptian and one was Lebanese. NONE were Afghanis.
The purported mastermind of the attack is a Saudi, whose family were quickly and quietly flown out of the US when ALL civilian air traffic was suspended after the attacks.
If logic were guide, Saudi Arabia would have been a better target. But we already had a beneficial business relationship with them, so there was no need to intervene. Afghanistan, however, had the only economic route for gas pipelines from Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. It is a matter of fact that there were existing plans to intervene in Afghanistan (justified for various reasons including humanitarian intervention!) in order to establish a US presence and get the pipeline built. As if we gave a shit about their economic base.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHI203A...
Clenis put Azarbaijan on a do not deal with list due to Ilham Aliyev's attempt at genocide of the Nagorno-Karabakh.
Literally, the day after booshco was appointed by the activist conservatives on the supreme court, chainey on his own took them off the list to gain access to Caspian Sea oil.
i have no problem with that
the fact remains, al quiada was given haven in afghanistan
but according to you...we should have done nothing
Dude, read the post below…
here
have no problem with that .
nuff said
Congratulations, you have been completely brainwashed without one single contrary brain cell remaining.
Al Qaeda was creation of the CIA.
The CIA was NEVER going to actually CATCH them.
Al Qaeda knows where the CIA bodies are buried.
This is all propaganda.
As Noah contributes, there were and still are BUSINESS interests at work.
You sound like Donald Swanson, the leading investigator of CID, denouncing the idea of a "Jack the Ripper," single murderer in Whitechapel, and claimed it was a press attempt to embarrass the Crown.
Go away!
America has a habit of creating our own enemies Sadddam Hussein was one who we armed for his Iran/Iraq war since he was fighting our official boogy-man the Ayatollah Khomeini.
We could've easily did it again with arming the the mujahadeen in their war against the USSR.
Will we know for sure, within our own lifetimes? Maybe not.
It wasn't until the late eighties, early nineties that we learned that the Germans were right about the Lusitania, it was carrying weapons for sale, but had tourists too as we claimed.
If you ever provided links to anything you write I would be more impressed.
Instead the only links I ever see are worthless Hollywood and YouTube tripe.
It is well documented that the CIA set al Qaeda up with an elaborate network and hardware which included stinger missiles.
The Russian helicopters were dropping like flies.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/...
Also John Dean's Worse Than Watergate covered it very thoroughly, but you can't link to e-text of books still under copyright, but here's:
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/4/6/worse_th...
Thank you for links.
Democracy Now is a long time known treasure, as is the book by Dean although I have yet to read it.
GlobalSecurity.org I am still researching. At first I was suspicious it was a propaganda mouthpiece but I have found redeeming information. I will keep at it.
Was it not the Mujahideen that the CIA armed with stingers and trained during the time when "Russian helicopters were dropping like flies"?
They're the ones. But after the USSR left, they fell to fighting among themselves. So there is a possibility one cell could've turned against us and spawned the Al Qaeda movement. Even their rationale sounds plausible. Their objection to the American military presence throughout the Middle-East, particularly near Holy sites.
I'd be interested to see if they have any connection to the Egyptian Brotherhood. But alliances are so fluid in such movements, I wouldn't know how to sort that out.
But such things tend to remain clasiified, until people of that period, such as ourselves, are no longer alive, hence my Lusitania example.
I should mention that as someone stated above, we were attacked by Saudis, however the official story was that OBL was present in Afghanistan during that period of war with the USSR.
And like Saddam Hussein a former ally that could have turned against us.
The problem is all these stories about OBL having kidney problems, so it would be incredible that he could still be at large.
Three part epic on GWOT and its roots, the link between OBL and the Egyptians is there.
DUDE…
Zbigniew Brzezinski spilled the beans in 1998. Where have you been.
Here
Carter set the Soviets up to enter Afghanistan up by supporting the Mujahideen (a generic term for jihadist) in advance of their invasion.
The Soviets claimed at the time that we were interfering with Afghanistan but no one believed them.
It was true and Brzezinski admitted it in 1998.
An additional piece by Michel Chossudovsky from 1/20/08 c/o Global Research is here
Ironically, Al Qaeda --the "outside enemy of America" as well as the alleged architect of the 9/11 attacks-- is a creation of the CIA.
Read on
most of the conflicts that have occured post cold war have to do with cold war strategies
doesnt change the fact that we had every right to go into afghanistan
Therefore what?
Therefore you are a war monger.
Don't you get it, the COLD WAR ITSELF was manufactured for the war mongers and war profiteers.
It has been perpetual war since your namesake the original Joe McCarthy was running loose and amuck.
If your name is really Joe McCarthy you should change it.
If it isn't, what is your excuse for using such a vile name.
please tell me how potsdam was manufactured by war mongers and war profiteers
i dont like followers of chomsky
oh...and i am not a war monger
there are times that war is necessary though
except to people like chomsky
who thinks that war from countries like the united states is all evil, but has no problem sucking tongue with terrorists in the mideast
War is a racket.
Smedley Butler War is a Racket here
Dr. Jacques R. Pauwels, Global Research here
I am not at all surprised that someone with the absolute bad taste to call themselves Joe McCarthy would not like Chomsky or anyone associated with him.
Or a socialist like me.
War Monger!!!!
The bombing and invasion of Afghanistan is illegal. As is that of Iraq.
The UN Charter says all member states must settle their international disputes by peaceful means; no state can use military force except in self-defense or when authorized by the Security Council. After the 9/11 attacks, the Council passed Resolutions 1368 & 1373, which condemned the September 11 attacks; but neither authorized use of military force in Afghanistan.
Our Afghanistan invasion was not self-defense per article 51 of the Charter. The 9/11 attacks were criminal attacks, not "armed attacks" wrought by another state — another national government or national military. Afghanistan did not attack the United States. Of the nineteen 9/11 terrorists, 15 were Saudis.
After 9/11, the US did not face an imminent threat of an armed attack of Afghanistan or any other state. Just so, Bush waited three weeks before starting to bomb Afghanistan. And the reason was just that Afghanistan’s Taliban government would not turn over bin Laden, not that the Taliban government made any threat of attacking the US or any of its territories.
The UN-Charter-required self-defense NECESSITY must be "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." This long-standing principle of self-defense was affirmed not only by the U.N. General Assembly, but also by the Nuremberg Tribunal.
Well, we also created Saddam Hussein to a certain extent by arming him, set up the Kurds to rebel in 1988 saying we had their backs, and then let them get gassed without saying a word, only to use that as one of our pretexts to invade in 2003, so we were then facing our own arms, but only because booshco wouldn't negotiate with the guy who was trying to stop the invasion.
The war itself was very brief, but some of our weapons may have then fall into the hands of the insurrectionists, since we seemed more interested in preserving oilfields than security military sites.
Sure one can "create" something, only to have it turn out all wrong. Alfred Nobel invented dynamite for mining operations only to see it used in war. Robert Oppenheimer headed the invention of the hydrogen bomb only to to be shocked at it's power. To him it was more like a mathematical problem to be solved. When he actively worked against the hydrogen bomb project that followed, he lost position and prestige by being called a Communist. Vladimir Zworykin essentially invented the TV as a medical device, who shortly before he died regularly denounced TV as entertainment.
But I also remember booshco flip-flopping over whether Al-Qaeda was actively planning and carrying out plots, or only financing them.
And the fact that we have literally thousands of documents, supposedly, written in Middle-Eastern languages and a shortage of translators makes one wonder how much they actually know for a fact about this group.
another failed cold war strategy
we also helped to create (along with britain) what is now seen as radical islam
doesnt change what we should and shouldnt have done post 9/11
Failure to understand the cause precludes the ability to solve the problem.
Cause and effect go hand in hand. 9/11 did not happen in a vacuum, there is a long history of US intervention in the Middle East (among other places) that is very much responsible for 9/11.
Iraq War I was not a failed cold war strategy, it was a war to serve the military industrial complex, which was scared to death of the "Peace Dividend" (much like the insurance industry is scared to death of a public option).
Iraq War II is a war of resources, economics and opportunity. So is Afghanistan. It has nothing to do with Bin Laden, he was just the excuse.
I think you hit the nail on the head. Most ignorant wrongwing americans don't understand the concept of blowback, even if they do they are such assholes to pretend it doesn't exist.
Specifically:
The insurgency against the Soviet-backed communist (PDPA) government began in 1978, and the struggle between the factions inside the PDPA began in March of 1979. The winner of that struggle, the former Deputy Prime Minister, Amin, remained friendly with the Soviets.
But the Soviets accused Amin of having CIA ties (he made some approaches to the US and Pakistan in order to end the insurgency), invaded the country and assassinated him because of these ties. But the Soviets never proved the ties and Brzezinski never admitted to them.
Brzezinski has a big ego, and it wouldn't surprise me that he tried to take the credit for the downfall of the USSR. But I don't think that those initial deals made with Islamic fundies inside of Afghanistan in July of '79 had as much to do with causing the Soviet invasion as you do.
It was Robert Gates that spilled the beans first.
Robert Gates, former head of the CIA and current Secretary of War Mongers, next to the Commanding War Monger in Chief.
They all have enormous egos, they couldn't be in there if they didn't.
The interview here
The Islamic insurgency against the PDPA began in 1978 (well, 1975, really, but it ramped up in '78 after then-President Taraki rounded up and executed 27,000 of the traditional elite, secular and religious leaders both).
The Soviets claimed that the US was backing President Amin, a communist, when they assassinated him. They were afraid they'd lose their hegemony over Afghanistan (which went back to the Tsars- those Soviet leaders were always Russians before they were Marxists, even when they were Georgians) to the US, Pakistan or the PRC. And again, that was never proven by the Soviets or admitted by anyone from the US.
The Soviets blundered into Afghanistan in much the same way the US blundered into Vietnam. Where the US had far too few specialists on Southeast Asia to inform of the nationalist tendencies of Vietnam, the Soviets had far too few experts on Islam to inform them that if they propped up an anti-Islamic government in Kabul that it would bite them in the ass. The Soviets allowed the pre-PDPA, nominally neutral Afghan government to begin to modernize against the will of its Islamic populace; it actively backed the communist PDPA when that government started executing Muslims. If no one had backed the Islamic insurgents, the Soviets would have been in over their heads. If it hadn't been the US giving the support, it would have received aid from the PRC and/or Pakistan.
I will do more research to decipher what you have written.
Thank you!
1973- Mohammed Daoud Khan leads bloodless coup, declares Republic, becomes first President of Republic.
1974- Daoud receives military aid from Soviet Union. Tensions rise along Pakistan border.
1975- Islamic/traditionalist insurgency begins along Pakistan border.
1976- Rift opens between Daoud and the Marxist PDPA. Daoud looks for trade partners in Islamic world. Criticized by Soviets.
1977- Daoud goes to Moscow, discussions with Brezhnev because Soviets are trying to unite factions of PDPA. Daoud signs military treaty with Egypt, 3 years since that country left Soviet fold. Also established further ties with Iran, India, Saudi Arabia.
1978- Leader of PDPA's Parchami faction, Mir Akhbar Khyber, murdered. Parchami loyalists, led by Karmal, blame Daoud, Daoud blames Islamists. To this day it's still unknown who was responsible, but there's a distinct possibility it was carried out by PDPA (Khalq faction) member Amin. Daoud orders arrest of PDPA members after rifts in the party appear healed at the April 19 funeral. PDPA launches successful coup on April 27. New President, Taraki, leader of Khalq, begins Marxist reforms, imprisons, tortures and murders members of traditional elite, religious leaders and intelligentsia. Islamic insurgency strengthens. Later in year Taraki initiates purge of Parcham faction of PDPA. Karmal flees to Moscow.
1979- March 20, Taraki goes to Moscow asking for troops against Islamic insurgency but is denied full support. Moscow does, however, grant helicopter gunships and pilots, 500 advisers and 700 paratroops. March 28, Amin becomes Prime Minister, post formerly held by Taraki. Later, Brezhnev advises Taraki to lighten up on reforms to appease insurgents. Insurgency continues to grow. July 3, Carter signs documents funding insurgency. Brezhnev warns Taraki of assassination plots by Amin. Taraki followers make attempts on Amin's life. September 14, Amin assassinates Taraki. Amin escalates purge of PDPA. Frightened PDPA members flee to Pakistan and Iran, join forces with insurgents. Amin lightens reform process to win over insurgents. Distrusting Soviets, who still protect Parcham leader Karmal, approaches US, Pakistn, and, possibly PRC for aid. Returns to Soviets who decide to help, but also decide to take out Amin and replace him with Karmal. They do this on December 27, later accusing Amin of being an CIA agent, a fact belied by his families willing move to Moscow following his death.
So what I'm saying, Alice, is that the small amount of support that the US gave for about six months added little to the mess that the Soviets had made supporting various governments in Afghanistan in the 6 1/2 years leading up to the invasion. The Soviets had a huge problem on their hands, of their own making. And, imo, they would have had as hard a time winning the war they conjured up had the US not been involved at all. The insurgency could still have gone to Pakistan and/or the PRC (no friend of the USSR at the time) and gotten what they needed to win that war.
This was bound to happen in a country that still wishes to live centuries in the past. It's a bad idea to impose Democracy on a people who aren't asking for it, it's probably worse yet to tell them that they're fighting to control the means of industrial production when they aren't producing anything. But that's another argument for another time.
It is not just our involvement for the six months before they invaded, but our involvement overall.
The Soviets went bust and they went home.
We helped them go bust.
Now we have been in there since 2001, our population at large is being sold the bill of goods that this is 'the good war'.
There are no good wars. The public has not been told all of the facts.
All of the facts of the CIA's activities are not even generally known.
War is a racket. This one is no different.
it was the CIA who armed the Mujahideen against Russia.
You are right it happened. But the principals as we know them now weren't all aligned the way they are now (or even the way they were on 9/11). Sure the Saudi's were in on it, our CIA and Pakistan.
Read Ahmed Rashid's books (Taliban & Descent into Chaos) both recommended to me by Pakistani's from that area. By the time you finish them both, you'll have the timeline down.
Thank you for the book reference. I will look it up.
That the alignment has changed is obvious. By definition.
The Soviets invaded, they went bust and they went home.
Now we are in there, we will go bust and we will go home.
The CIA wants the poppies for trafficking.
.
...when the US goes to war it's for the right reasons. The right reasons being, incontravertible proof that a country is a direct threat. I believed in going after Bin Laden in Afghanistan but clearly the Iraq war is a complete lie when it comes to motivations.
we lost ww2?
We firebombed every major city in Japan except for the two the we nuked. We had to carefully pick charges on which to prosecute at the Nuremberg trials because we were guilty of some of the same abuses as the Germans, including targeting civilians.
reference: Robert S. McNamara, Fog of War
we did to the german and japanese people what we had to do
war is dirty
Which goes right back to my original point:
You have to be prepared to commit genocide if you want to win a war.
Now that we've come full circle you can pull your head out of
your assthe sand. BTW, Joe McCarthy is an apt name for you....the Rape of Nanking. Literal rapes, along with torture and murder. 260,000 to 300,000 dead Chinese in the time frame of December,1937 and January 1938. And in the four years before they bombed Pearl Harbor, they did that in smaller scale all over China. Then, when the war is unwinnable for them, they still don't offer surrender, nor does the citizenry offer any resistance, unlike some of the Germans.
Upwards of 2.5% of the Iraqi civilian population was killed by the war (2006 numbers, Lancet survey). US troops have been convicted of rape, torture and murder. Sounds to me like you are justifying the nuking of the US by Iraq.
We were attacked by Saudi Arabia that day. I don't think that is in dispute.
Aren't they just guessing that's what happened? I'd like to see the trail of evidence again, as to who dunit...
anyway, after that the bin laden gang headed east under the declared protection of the Taliban leaders. [as far as we could tell - haven't seen the evidence of that myself - have you?]
I tell you what ape-man. 15 of the 19 hijackers were saudis. Bin Laden is from saudi arabia (we could have at least taken it out on his family, right) and a saudi princess wired 100K to Atta (a hijacker) just before the attacks.
Its not like the afghanistan government financed and engineered the attacks.
If a plane full of North Koreans flew planes into landmarks and killed 3000 people, who would we invade?
to attack Afagnistan , really why please tell me why me had EVERY RIGHT to attack Afaganistan , or Irag , why not Saudi Ariba or Israel .
Simplistic or power/money driven ? .
oh yea....the dancing israeli thing again
the only people who were or are against us going into afghanistan are troofers
troofers and followers of shit disturbers like chomsky and nader
Most people that post to this board.
you are just seeing a vocal minority
most progressives supported afghanistan
most did not support iraq
and we were right on both fronts
and bush was wrong...and fucked them both up...and let the murderer of 3k walk away
which is what we need to keep reminding people...and why your fucked up party must never be in power again
for you have fucked up the world enough
I presume you mean, "why your f****d up party must never be in power again," to be a reference to the republicans.
then yes
of course, i am including the blue dogs in that statement too
Agreed.
Well what I have seen here is that most posts in regards to Both wars are simply labled un-just and I resent you calling it my fucked up party. I never voted for a Bush. Most progressives supported it in that "why are we hear instead of there" and now that we are there guess fucking what? I think you may be wrong about this one Joe. It seems that most people that post here which is what I said in the first place are opposed to any war that's not knocking on their front door.
Was this site even around in 2001?
The Afghanistan war had large support across the board, but I wondered why Special Ops couldn't be used.
But I agree most of us are against going back.
or get osama bin laden
he wasnted to make a show and drive up blood lust until he could talk the american people into supporting his iraq war
it is why afghanistan is a complete failure...and why we now must get out
well at least im in company that tells the truth , which is so unlike your israeli dancers , inc rahm .
The US has no buesiness being in any country , least of all led by a nose ring from israel , fuck israel let them be the bully with out big brothers guns or weapons , total wimps , whats going on in Gaza is a war crime , genocide , apartheld , war on children .
I will stop now , from now on it gets nasty , and far be it for me to point out the obvious .
And ungrammatical.
and ungrammatical ysb , its not the study of words that concern me rather ideas and logic , you to are caught up in this web , are you not a seeker . YSB in no way do i think of you as a lite weight , your words inspire many here , because you have a vast knowledge and like me we use humor as a weapon , you have the floor , carry on .
Besides the money thing, which is always a possibility so is diplomacy, which is more more likely to be useful with someone considered friendly.
Out of curiosity, does anyone know if we had Saudi military support, air fields etc. in Iraq or now Afghanistan?
If I recall correctly, at first they offered it, but we had to use alternatives because of the protests of its citizens and radicals.
remember our troops stationed in the Kobar tower bombings?
The Saudis don't like us, save a few royalty who want to kiss our ass so the money keeps flowing.
"The Saudis don't like us, save a few royalty who want to kiss our ass so the money keeps flowing."
I think it's the other way around, to keep the oil flowing ...
Here's the man who ignored a bus strike while the disable sat at home instead of getting to the doctor and the poor walk five miles, ten miles to their jobs so that they could put food on the table. He finally got his ass to the bargaining table when the graffiti comments got ugly on the bus benches.
He doesn't give a frick about the common man and never has.
I thought the war had shifted to Pakistan. The Taliban has always had a strong hold there. So what do we do now?
Either capture OBL or go home!
Accept both Russian & Chinese overtures to add ground troops to Afghanistan, and then go home.
Or, if the above is deemed unworkable, just go home.
OBL will either turn up when it stabilized, or if Afganistan stays unstable it will likely pull Pakistan and at least one other -istan down with it (unless Russia intervenes), making OBL not the worst problem.
.
E X C E P T I O N A L I S M !
.
.
Of Course the USA NEVER...
... LOSES!
... TORTURES!
... STARTS WARS!
... FIXES ELECTIONS!
YES?
.
No.
new ways to insure we can "kick ass".
Introducing the new HULC Exoskeleton by Lockheed Martin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZ_qR8zCLDc
I'd refer one of these:
http://www.legalmoviesdownloads.com/still-fra...
.
Q U E S T I O N:
Did Tim Pawlenty explain how one wins an unjust war?
.
Get your ass to basic training, get a uniform on and get back on over to Afghanistan and join the troops on the ground!!!!
No fair getting a cushy job with Blackwater just "guarding State Dept. higher ups".
No, we want your ass in the mountains....walkin' up close and personal to those IED's that are blowing our troops legs off and killing them.
Don't just talk the talk Tim.
Get your ass over there and WIN THIS ONE FOR....THE GIPPER?!!
so, only fight the fights you know you can win? something like that? real useful there Pawlenty, is that all you got?
how about only fighting the fights that are nessesary? like just about none!
.
Q U E S T I O N:
Does Tim Pawlenty have any ideas as to where THAT Mission Accomplished banner should be hung from?
.
on another war that bush already lost
but does have a prob spending billions right here at home
amazing
and will is an idiot too
if we pull out of afghanistan without rebuilding its infrastructure, in 20 years we are gonna be very sorry...however, that supposes that there will be a usa in 20 years
was one of those governors who took money out of education and health care and let the stimulus cover it. It's all about money for his friends. He has an agenda. The man doesn't look at history as something to study but use for his own agenda.
besides, poppies grow best on battlefields.
"destroy the Taliban" Tim says.....
Direct quote from Bush ---- For Immediate Release --- Office of the Press Secretary --- November 24, 2003 --- ''Working with a fine coalition, our military went to Afghanistan, destroyed the training camps of al Qaeda, and put the Taliban out of business forever.'' (Applause.)
When the US goes to war, what are we winning?? And, what does fighting 'em over there have anything to do with protecting our freedom back at home??
It reminds me of either a politician or a pundit (forget who) who once said where KO noted him as one of the WPW, "winning the war in Iraq is more important than helping the hearts and minds of the Iraqis."
Get your ass over there and show us how it's done!
Invade Grenada again.
A sure winner!
If Lebannon kills a bunch of your marines, retreat immediately!
LOL
What planet is Pawlenty living on? Does he not realize that the "glory" days of WWII (and I put glory in quotes because those that fought it know it was NOT glorious) are over? That the enemy no longer wears a uniform and is not distinguishable from civilians? That the terrain of Afghanistan is unrelentingly desolate? That the civilian population is not uniformly in favor of our being there?
And now, Gov. Pawlenty, please explain the reasoning behind why this rule should exist in the first place. What makes the United States so special, when it is No. 37 in health care, when citizens of some of its "united" states actually want to secede and others pack firearms when the President addresses them? Why should it win wars when its way of life and underlying philosophies are flawed to begin with?
define win for me gov. pawlenty. don't forget to include consequences/"blowback". this country is almost always in conflict. don't give me the "they don't like our freedom(s)" it's all about Capitalistic Imperialism/nation building. the military industrial complex and oil imperialism.
With the US getting involved in so many conflicts at home and abroad, I would wonder "What Would Eisenhower Do?" - Since he was the last smart Republican that doesn't seem to get enough credit for the last one in the GOP to tell the truth with his MIC warning.
that's an interesting question since he warned us about the military industrial complex. the question today would be could he stand up to special interests/K-street? could he stand up to the religion of capitalism?
What would either Eisenhower or the Founding Fathers say about the Capitalist Industrial Complex - filled with mindless advertising and consumerism?
This is a site for progressives and Democrats. I don't think we should be holding Eisenhower up a role model. Try FDR or Kennedy.
Also called the Sweedish Jew , and was quilty of sending millions of germans to their deaths after ww2 , what was the name of the plan the " Morganthul plan ( sp ) " . Just asking .
Eisenhower appears to be a RINO. I don't imagine he is resting too easily these days, seeing what we have become.
Well Vietnam was lost by republicans.
And we haven't been to war since WWII which is the last where Congress declared war as per Article I.
The rest have been political wars, that could be "ended" politically.
I like to think of them as "Security Missions".
Attack the dominoes before they attack us!
Quick break out the bazookas!!!!:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6glFPLcSag
!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMU__BBMMKw
It ain't new, General Smedley Butler wrote of it in War is a Racket.
what about the pizzas , hey WTF hey
But that's not to be taken as me advocating "political" wars.
Seems to me we have to enforce the Police Powers rules, which were abandoned during the Iraq war, and appears to be with Afghanistan.
The rule needs to be, when a piggy gets busted for lying, stealing, soliciting cheap sex in an airport toilet, or invading another country on false pretexts - and that piggy is a Republican - then that piggy must fly; and so we need to rearrange the time-space continuum to complete that porcine aeromobile mission successfully.
@ 15,000 ft , all smokers outside , u dont smoke , try this happy landings .
Should be "its ass"
And Pawlenty is a first class Ass.
*
pawlenty is a weaselly little bitch gop
sucka$$ gop. when did he volunteer for his
military service to this country? NEVER.
like all the gop who claim to leaders, they
all ducked out of service.......
He has no credibility to talk about war. The rule needs to be we only go to war for self defense. What an asshole Pawlenty is.
"when the United States goes to war, the United States wins, and so we need to make sure we do those things to complete that mission successfully, and that includes putting more troops into Afghanistan if needed."
Whoa, spoken like a true
patriotchickenhawk! Sure, let's keep sending troops to Afghanistan -in fact, let's start with any draft-age relatives of yours, Tim.
Tim looks young enough to volunteer himself...after all, I'm pretty sure he can shoot a gun as well as shooting off his mouth.
No one has ever beaten the Afghans in Afghanistan. It's not that they're so tough, but their will and the terrain are. Alexander couldn't, the Brits couldn't the Russians couldn't....
Now - had the previous administration, a Republican one I believe, not been so effing cheap that they outsourced the capture or killing of our reason for attacking Afghanistan in the first place - we'd have the troops home by now.
Rummy and L'il Dubya decided to contract out the final assault on Tora Bora and guess what, the mercs they hired had been co-opted by the bad guys. To paraphrase Kipling, "Here lies a pair of fools who tried to hustle the east." Sadly Dumb and Dumber have their place taken in that grave by a lot of good people while they smirk and dissemble here in the safe USA.
The rule needs to be, when the United States goes to war,it is because there is a legitimate reason, not because someone wants to be a war president.
Or Somebody has a vice president who wants to steer a lot of profitable business to his old company.
That too.
Pawlenty needs a short re-briefing in reality...The US DOES HAVE THE MONEY OR THE BRAINS to win everything...Pawlenty is a complete moron if he thinks differently..The math, even if manipulated can never lead you to another answer.
My guess since he never strapped on a uniform cause his daddy had some pull or his left big toe nail grows straight up versus normal he had time to study all the wars that the US (VERY young comparatively) has been in versus ones we could have been in OR the ones we were never in because we didn't exist. This makes him the expert in claiming all other countries/cultures should agree with him.. That may get more laughs in diplomatic circles for it's stupidity - even as a concept...
Timmy and his Minnesota rethuglican pals (remember that huge intellect Bachmann is also from Minnesota) get all the input they need from the rubber-chicken circuit they work during the winter..When spring arrives they come out 'fully loaded' for any and all comers to challenge their rethuglican brilliance... uugghh... wonder what happens when they realize their world has changed without them and all they can do now is whine and go hide with Palin in a snow drift...
i'm not convinced it's about winning. it's about occupation/prolonging conflict. this strategy is pro-capitalist. it weakens safety nets and weakens "we the people". stagnant wages and unemployment
provide warm bodies for war/ imperialism.
"the rule needs to be, when the United States goes to war, the United States wins"
What an effing idiot. That IS the rule. Maybe somebody should clue him in. Maybe this guy could do it:
http://backspace.com/notes/images/mission-acc...
...when people want us out of Afghanistan so badly that they're willing to allow the Taliban back into power.
Go ahead, keep pressing for a pullout, but keep in mind that the blood of those who will be killed by the Taliban and the warlords we've pushed out by force is going to be on all our hands, much as it was in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.
Pulling out only makes sense if we are sure that we cannot attain the goal of bringing a reasonable level of safety and security to the Afghans.
Also, I'd like to point out that the Vietnam comparisons are horseshit. The Taliban does not have the support of a superpower as the Viet Cong or Mujahideen did.
Also, George Will is a tool who is simply trying to position the reich wing to argue that every U.S. death from here forward is all Obama's fault, because it's okay to call a war an unwinnable failure if there's a Dem in the Whitehouse.
That would tie it around Obama's neck.
republicans to this day will insist they pulled out with honor after Vietnam, and it later went bad since we weren't there. But that's ignoring:
http://cla.calpoly.edu/~lcall/204/8-10/fall_o...
Darfur, Sudan (among others). Like we give a crap about genocide or who kills who. It's just business. In Vietnam it was Tungsten. In Afghanistan it is pipelines, in Iraq it is oil and the military industrial complex. Remember the Peace Dividend?
We fight to safeguard this shite regime !!??
Economic ones in fact, the Saudis are rather fond of their Taliban, so are the Pakistanis, and any other country coughChinacoughRussiacough who wants to see the US fail in Afghanistan or central Asia.
The war in Afghanistan and the overspill is really NATO vs the rest of the world, it can almost be said to be the start of WW3.
Actually most wars end with peace talks, where some give and take Victors have rarely made exorbitant demands anymore since WWI, which led to extensive re-drawings of maps and boundary lines, the creation of new countries, and the crippling costs the Treaty of Versailles put on the Germans, that may have led directly to World War II.
Gen. Bradley or Gen. Pawlenty, 'the right place, the right time, the right enemy' !?
I remember in a Top Secret meeting I had to attend while in the Air Force seeing a map of the area, and realizing without the presenter saying so, that the CIA was likely in Iran before it's take-over to spy on the USSR, and when we could no longer use that location another will be needed, so I was anticipating the Russian invasion of Afghanistan to prevent the CIA setting up any listening posts there before it actually occurred.
Two Dutch Soldiers died the last two days because of this fucking mess. Are you forgetting about all the other countries that got lied into this BS war?
GTFO of Afghanistan!
Wave your fucking flag and choke in it.
http://magicstatistics.com/wp-content/picture...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...
As y'all can see Iran was nestled up to part of the Warsaw pact (I said USSR earlier), countries like Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and others.
What initiated my thoughts in the meeting I was in, was the presenter mocking Iranian concerns that the CIA was spying on them. But he did not deny that the CIA was there, it just went unspoken.
Odds are they were after Project Ajax, but mostly to spy on Warsaw Pact Countries.
then victory is whatever we say it is.
my guess is getting the hell out of the middle east.
Where are the Crooks and Liars editors to catch a completely inappropriate meme in the body text by the poster? Why would Heather even use it in the first place? The English language is a rather basic and primary skill to grasp properly before journalism.
Is Heather a teenage journalist? That's what the use of "lol" conveys. It's ridiculous and laughable.
Please. Let the language decay in peace. Resistance is futile.
IDK. OMG. NK?
*** lurk moar!
Edit: that's a weird censor o.O
not another grammer queen , sorry they didnt cross the I's or dot the tees , so fucking what . It is not about dots or commas it is about subject matter , as in logic , to dismiss someone for grammer is at best a weak position , do you play poker ? , sorry dumb question , bridge perhaps my open is a 2 no trumph .
Put'em up , Put'em up .
and lol!
;)
bridge players here i take it , or pinochle either , bidding starts at 20 name the trumph suit before seeing the kitty .
I could care less if anyone else spells correctly or uses proper grammar. But someone who purports to be a professional? If someone wants to be seen as an unprofessional twit, not to be taken seriously, they will use ridiculous, non-serious language. Why? Because it's so fucking easy to use proper language. If the writer can't get something basic and easy right, what else is wrong with the content that isn't as easy to authenticate as language?
What professional journalist laughs out loud while they're writing and finds it necessary to inform all viewers that they did, in fact, laugh out loud? This isn't journalism. It's editorialization. It's mockery. It's a joke. It's pathetic.
So are you! So what? If you want fucking journalism go watch the fecking MSM! Pffft!
Baw baw baw!
Call the "Profesional journalist" police!
It's a blog ya twit!
So you're saying blogs are informal, unprofessional, and shouldn't be held to any standard at all? Or are you saying they should be held to a lower standard than the MSM?
You seem to be inferring they shouldn't be taken seriously at all. Amato will definitely disagree with you there. He rants regularly about the disrespect blogs and bloggers get. He can start with having his people learn to write proper English instead of using crackpot memes that will be dead in another 2 years.
punctuation. also you only used "fucking" once. it is better to use it several times to better promote the fucking point.
Those words of wisdom have been brought to you by a man who never once served in the military. lol
I wish Pawlenty would define "win". If your stated goals for starting a war are to achieve abstract concepts or some ideological vision then you can never "win" because each has an infinite number of possible outcomes. One person's vision of a "win" is anothers person's "loss". This is and always has been an exercise in futility.
Tim Pawlenty, the great white hope of the GOP.
Get ready for...
Paw-lenty of war
Paw-lenty of unemployment
Paw-lenty of collapsing bridges
Paw-lenty of poverty
Paw-lenty of disease
Paw-lenty of ignorant kids
And he'll do it all with that nice hair, that nice smile, and that polite way of speaking which tells you that he's really just a nice fellah with some sensible stuff he wants government...not to do.
Just Brilliant!
Cudos to you bud for coming up with that one. There ain't no way in hell they'll be able to run that asshat.
His simplistic beliefs on war sound like a rebranded version of Gen. Curtis "Bomb Them Back to the Stone Age" Le May. You know, the genius that thought it was such a great idea to firebomb civilian targets like Dresden. 235,000 civilians, mostly women and children died from the collective efforts of this needless campaign to which there is no credible evidence that it shortened the war one day. Sure war is hell. But we don't have to become like our enemy, either.
And Tim, thoughts like yours on war without a credible action plan to implement are called hallucinations.
the dead know the end of war
Bush when asked if America can when the war on terror said, I don't know if there is winning it".
He never define winning Iraq.
And if Pawlenty ever had his chance, he would personally define "winning" to meet his own agenda.
I guess pawlenty would not have left Vietnam. Spend the nation's economic security at all costs? Now the other thing, what is his reasons that he would send others to die?
because he does not have too , just a wild guess , so many chickenhawks , what will they " do " when they have to send their children to war . Ah we know that outcome .
What the HELL is in the water up there???
perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS)
perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA)
For starters. Almost all of the lakes contain amounts of mercury, pcb's and other crap at levels high enough for the MPCA to issue consumption warnings. Fucking lovely ain't it......
Login or Register to post comments.