BS: Afghanistan

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 Sep 12 - 12:58 PM

What is left of what is proposed as Palestine is no longer viable; essentially cut in half and Israeli settlements expanding every day.

Israel will only stop its expansion and bullying if faced with a strong deterrent; Iran could perform this function.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 27 Sep 12 - 02:40 AM

"What Iran keeps asking why the international community (the UN and the west) not concerned about the Israeli nukes, and send in inspecters to look at their nuclear program? Why is it one sided?
Is this not a good question? If not, why not?"

Iran is a signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty - Israel is not.

Iran got "its foot on the nuclear ladder" through the auspices of the UN "Atoms for Peace" programme which forbids use of the assistance and technology provided to gain or develop nuclear weapons.

Israel's nuclear programme, which considering its lack of natural resources, particularly fossil fuels is totally rational, is about one year younger than that of the UK. Israel's nuclear programme pre-dates the UN Nuclear NPT by about 13 years.

So not one-sided at all, the circumstances are completely different.

Most advocating the necessity of Iran to acquire nuclear weapons (You all now have retreated from supporting the rather ludicrous Iranian contention that they do not have a weapons programme) and indeed the desirability of them having nuclear weapons forget one thing - the Iranian nuclear weapons programme was supposed to be secret - the Libyan nuclear weapons programme was secret - the Syrian nuclear weapons programme was secret

Post nuclear NPT there is only one reason that you build a secret nuclear weaon - you intend to use it. Those weapons were not meant to be delivered conventionally (aircraft, rocket or missile) they were meant to be delivered component by component and assembled at their target. If anyone dismisses that possibility then take a look at the time line and events:

- 2002 US defence and intelligence agencies define greatest threat as an anonymous, asymmetric terrorist attack involving nuclear, chemical or biological weapons backed by a "rogue state". A list of candidates for the role of "rogue state" is drawn up both Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria and North Korea appear as potential candidates.

- 2003 Action is taken to remove Iraq from that list, a dissident group in Iran reveals the existence of Iran's "secret" uranium enrichment facilities, the US National Intelligence Evaluation is of the opinion that Iran has suspended its nuclear weapons programme.

- 2003 the illegal nuclear weapons proliferation network of Pakistani Dr A.Q.Khan is uncovered, along with Libyan and Syrian secret nuclear weapons programmes.

- From 2003 Iran puts massive energy into missile development as now having been caught out instead of them having an offensive weapon it now must be reconfigured so that it can now serve as a deterrent. The Iranians can now hit anywhere in Europe and can send ballistic missiles into Russia, a fact that was not lost on either French President Jacques Chirac (who reconfigured the missile payloads on French Submarines) or on Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 27 Sep 12 - 02:49 AM

"What is left of what is proposed as Palestine is no longer viable; essentially cut in half and Israeli settlements expanding every day."

Great pity that the Arabs of Palestine did not accept the 1947 UN Plan isn't it? There would have been no loss of life, none of the Arab Israeli wars, and guess what Q? Palestine and Israel would have both been cut in half and both over the years both would have expanded.

But having been betrayed and played as "political pawns" by their so-called leaders, friends and allies, the Arabs of Palestine have thrown away opportunity after opportunity time after time since 1947.

If you chose war and violence (which the Arabs of Palestine most certainly did in 1948) then at least have the guts and the integrity to accept the consequences of your decisions and actions. If you do believe that any Palestinian State is now no longer viable does that mean the efforts and motives of those claiming to strive for it are somewhat suspect and that any agreement made is only a stop-gap, a breathing space, before the next war? That after all is what the Arab side has always proclaimed.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Sep 12 - 07:00 AM

""Iran is a signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty - Israel is not...""

Yes, signed by a USA-backed regime (I did not say puppet), which was overthrown and many of the former policies rejected. The fact that Israel did not sign the treaty does not limit their weapons impact in the region and lesson the resons for the International community to be concerned and investigate - if one side in a dispute has surperiour military power then it is likely the other will want them.

Israel's nuclear programme, which considering its lack of natural resources, particularly fossil fuels is totally rational, is about one year younger than that of the UK. Israel's nuclear programme pre-dates the UN Nuclear NPT by about 13 years....
""

Seems like you talked yourself around a circle on this one, (foccused on Israel's nuclear power, much like Iran does) and provided no reason why Israel needs Nuclear weapons (or that the possession of was not the factor that created the current situation) - There is little doubt Israel has a nuclear weapon, and as you state ""there is only one reason that you build a secret nuclear weaon - you intend to use it.""

Because of poor government and industry management, santions, exports and declining oil production (and increasing domestic power demand, partly fueled by energy subsidies), Iran is also facing domestic energy issues. My understanding is that they are refinery poor and actually import refined product.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Sep 12 - 07:26 AM

Of 123 poll votes on this site, 50 felt that of all nine countries with nuclear bombs, Israel is the most likely to use them. USA comes in second.   Pakistan comes in third. Foof for thought.

Most likely to use "the bomb"

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 27 Sep 12 - 12:07 PM

WOW to be taken as absolute Gospel - DEMOCRATICUnderground.com - F**kin' Hell who wud of thunk it.

But instead of polls let us look at fact, borne out by track record.

If Israel had nuclear weaposn and had an inkling to use them they would have done so in 1967 - THEY DIDN'T

If Israel had nuclear weaposn and had an inkling to use them they would have done so in 1973 - THEY DIDN'T

OK then Ed T tell under what circumstance Israel would be so ready to use its nuclear weapons. For that matter show me any substantive proof that they even have them.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Sep 12 - 12:19 PM

Teribus,

Why would they use nukes in a wars that they won without them?

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 27 Sep 12 - 12:51 PM

Hey Jack don't know if you were around in June 1967 but no-one in the run up to that one gave the Israelis a cat in hell's chance of survival. In 1973 the israeli's were caught completely off guard and for the first 48 hours things looked decidedly shakey for them.

Fact remains that when under tremendous pressure and very real threats they did not resort or threaten the use of nuclear weapons they may or may not have had. If you believe otherwise then please offer substanive evidence to prove it.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: pdq
Date: 27 Sep 12 - 01:32 PM

People who cannot get their way by using facts will often resort to polls and/or predictions.

Both polls and predictions are usually junk.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Sep 12 - 01:47 PM

""Both polls and predictions are usually junk.""

As are many opinions, buased or not:)

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Sep 12 - 01:52 PM

""Fact remains that when under tremendous pressure and very real threats they did not resort or threaten the use of nuclear weapons they may or may not have had. If you believe otherwise then please offer substanive evidence to prove it""

Where is the credible and verifiable proof that anyone in this dispute used "the threat of nuclear weapons"? If you have it, put it forward - and I did say credible and verifiable and not the fabricated stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Sep 12 - 02:30 PM

Proof? Teribus? Surely you jest.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Sep 12 - 03:13 PM

A review of this shows Iran is no military match for Israel alone or with the support of others. So, where is the threat?

Even if they had a nuclear weapon (which they don't), surely using one would result in, as Ahmadinejad recently said, hundreds of Nuclear weapons used against Iran in retaliation (inside military sources have reporter Israel has quite a few of it's own, and the with the support of others the use of more).


Iran's options to an Israeli attack

Israel attack capability


""Doesn't Israel have a nuclear bomb?

Israel, is not a party to the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), so is not obliged to report to it. Neither are India or Pakistan, both of which have developed nuclear weapons. North Korea has left the treaty and has announced that it has acquired a nuclear weapons capacity.

On 18 September 2009, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) called on Israel to join the NPT and open its nuclear facilities to inspection. The resolution said that the IAEA "expresses concern about the Israeli nuclear capabilities, and calls upon Israel to accede to the NPT and place all its nuclear facilities under comprehensive IAEA safeguards... "

Israel refuses to join the NPT or allow inspections. It is reckoned to have up to 400 warheads but refuses to confirm or deny this.""

Source

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Sep 12 - 03:45 PM

Here are clips of ahmadinejad on Cnn- Piers Morgan.

He is in his last term and seems to be having issues with the supreme religious leader at hime (who seems to hold the real power).

Not quite sure of what to make of it. Has he been demonized, has he been mis-understood, is he playing a strategy game or both sides, has he "come around", or is he just being a polition? Beats me. History will tell. Regardless, his shelf life seems to be nearer to it's end.


Clips of ahmadinejad on Piers Morgan

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Sep 12 - 03:57 PM

Am I being asked to prove that Israel did not use Nuclear weapons in wars which they won because the news reports that Teribus say at the time that they might have been losing?

Also who has said the Israel even had nukes in 1967 and 1973? They could have stockpile them in the 39 years since then.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 01:30 AM

The timing for when Israel may or may not have built its own nuclear weapon comes from their big bust up with France in the 1960's. Most likely period would have been between 1963 and 1966.

With regard to Iran's nuclear weapons programme, because their secret uranium enrichment facilities were uncovered, they have had to, rather embarrassingly, rejig their entire set up. My contention has always been that the secret nuclear weapons programmes of Iran, Libya and Syria were geared to produce small "tactical" nuclear weapons and that these weapons were to be smuggled into either Israel, the West Bank or Gaza and detonated. The greatest damage would be done if they targeted Tel Aviv and Haifa, however "politically" they could inflict a great deal of damage on Israel were they to detonate their weapons in the West Bank or Gaza. The Palestinians?? No Arab State has ever given a flying f**k about the Arabs of Palestine, so why should Persian Iran?? The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not end the "lives" of those cities, the tactical nukes smuggled in and used against Israel would "wipe Israel from the map" and "eradicate the stain from Muslim lands" leaving those lands free to be reclaimed.

"Where is the credible and verifiable proof that anyone in this dispute used "the threat of nuclear weapons"? "

I am not the one introducing "poll" results to support the contention that Israel would be first most likely to use nuclear weapons am I? In actual fact on the 11th March 1965 they gave the US a solemn promise that - "The Government of Israel has reaffirmed that Israel will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the Arab-Israel area." (Source - "Office of the Historian - Historical Documents - Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XVIII, Arab-Israeli Dispute, 1964–67 - Document 185". History.state.gov.)

"Iran is no military match for Israel alone or with the support of others. So, where is the threat?"

The threat to Israel emanating from Iran?? Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in South Lebanon ans Syria.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 07:11 AM

Get real terribus, you can do better than that!

The challenge to you was to provide proof of your alegartions that one of the parties in the discussion (either Israel or Iran) threatened to use a nuclear bomb (BTW, I dont see anyone that believes Iran now has one to use) - not opinions in a thin internet poll. You are talking around in circles.


""The threat to Israel emanating from Iran?? Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in South Lebanon ans Syria.""

So, that is why Israel needs the nukes they have - to bomb Gaza, South Lebanan and Syria - (it was you who said ""there is only one reason that you build a secret nuclear weapon - you intend to use it."" I expect if used in this manner, Israel could feel some "nuke blowback" from using one of their 40 or so so close to home?

?

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 07:22 AM

You are right.
They could not use them unless they were facing extinction anyway.
The Samson option.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 11:25 AM

Israel is heavily armed, not in dispute, and the willingness of Netanyahu to pre-emptive
invasion of Iran is well documented. This is madness and the possibility of Israel
causing another world war.

In the meantime, apartheid exists in Israel's oppression of the Palestinians, voiced by
commentators such as Desmond Tutu, Alice Walker and others.

Afghanistan has minerals and exportable energy resources and this is why the US is invading.
The proof of this is that the US policy in Iraq was about claiming oil.

Instead of military actions, the US would win "hearts and minds" by building hospitals and schools instead of military contractors.

Israel and the US share a hegemonic view of the Mid-East that is a built-in failed policy.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: gnu
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 03:45 PM

"Instead of military actions, the US would win "hearts and minds" by building hospitals and schools instead of military contractors."

It is being done as I post. By my government and others while they don't have the money to do it here at home.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 01:46 AM

apartheid exists in Israel's oppression of the Palestinians

I dispute that.
Of all the countries with Palestian communities, none have a better existance than those in Israel.
Oppressed people leave countries.
No Palestinians choose to live in an Arab regime.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 02:14 AM

Independent 2009
a second Palestinian "Nakba", or catastrophe – this one at hands of the Arab governments. "Marginalised, deprived of basic political and economic rights, trapped in the camps, bereft of realistic prospects, heavily armed and standing atop multiple fault lines," a report by the International Crisis Group (ICG) in Lebanon recently observed, "the refugee population constitutes a time bomb."

The fact that the divided Palestinian political leadership is silent about the mistreatment of the refugees by Arab states does not make such behaviour any less reprehensible – or less dangerous. Some 250,000 Palestinians were chased out of Kuwait and other Gulf States to punish the Palestinian political leadership for supporting Saddam Hussein. Tens of thousands of Palestinian residents of Iraq were similarly dispossessed after the second Gulf war.

In 2001, Palestinians in Lebanon were stripped of the right to own property, or to pass on the property that they already owned to their children – and banned from working as doctors, lawyers, pharmacists or in 20 other professions. Even the Palestinian refugee community in Jordan, historically the most welcoming Arab state, has reason to feel insecure in the face of official threats to revoke their citizenship. The systematic refusal of Arab governments to grant basic human rights to Palestinians who are born and die in their countries – combined with periodic mass expulsions of entire Palestinian communities – recalls the treatment of Jews in medieval Europe

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 07:08 AM

""Oppressed people leave countries"".


I am not sure if this statement is broadly true, if so intended?
One noted contrary example to this would be the North American Aboriginal peoples?

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 07:35 AM

When considering the history of the Palestinians it is also interesting to consider the plight of the Kurdish people:


Wiki:
Kurds


Kurds in Syria
Kurds in syria

Brief history of Kurdistan

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 07:45 AM

The North American aboriginal peoples did not have a choice of countries they could get to before lunch.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 10:46 AM

Palestinians are second class citizens in Israel and are not even recognized. Instead they are referred to as "Arabs". I dispute that they are happy in that status there.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 11:07 AM

They are not citizens at all in Arab countries.
For all that you say, they have a better existence inside Israel than their brethren in surrounding states.
Small cheer for Israel?

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 11:37 AM

""The North American aboriginal peoples did not have a choice of countries they could get to before lunch.""

Ummmm???

There were options (in historic phases) for Aboriginal peoples to move throughout North America, to go to areas with less opression. Those in Canada and the USA had (and now have freedom) to move from one country to the other - if they feel opressed in their home area. Yet, most tended to "stay put" - regardless of the greater or lesser opression, as it changed historically.

Also, most blacks in the USA tended to also stay past slavery, even though there were some options open.

I feel that your general statement is too broad and there are far too many confounding factors to offer much for reflection - at least beyond the local point you raised it to reinforce. It is just more complex than that. For this reason, I hold in "suspect" most general statements of a similar nature put out to make a specific point.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: bobad
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 11:43 AM

"Palestinians are second class citizens in Israel and are not even recognized. Instead they are referred to as "Arabs"."

From Wikipedia:

How to refer to the Arab citizenry of Israel is a highly politicized issue and there are a number of self-identification labels used by members of this community.[11][12] Generally speaking, supporters of Israel tend to use Israeli Arab or Arab Israeli to refer to this population, while critics of Israel (or supporters of Palestinians) tend to use Palestinian or Palestinian Arab without referencing Israel.[13] According to the New York Times, most prefer now to identify themselves as Palestinian citizens of Israel rather than as Israeli Arabs.[14] The New York Times uses both 'Palestinian Israelis'[15] and 'Israeli Arabs' to refer to the same population.

Common practice in contemporary academic literature is to identify this community as Palestinian as it is how the majority self-identify (See Self-Identification below for more).[16] Terms preferred by most Arab citizens to identify themselves include Palestinians, Palestinians in Israel, Israeli Palestinians, the Palestinians of 1948, Palestinian Arabs, Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel or Palestinian citizens of Israel.[5][11][12][17][18][19] There are, however, individuals from among the Arab citizenry who reject the term Palestinian altogether.[11] A minority of Israel's Arab citizens include "Israeli" in some way in their self-identifying label; the majority identify as Palestinian by nationality and Israeli by citizenship.[6][12]

The Israeli establishment prefers Israeli Arabs or Arabs in Israel, and also uses the terms the minorities, the Arab sector, Arabs of Israel and Arab citizens of Israel.[5][17][20][18][21] These labels have been criticized for denying this population a political or national identification, obscuring their Palestinian identity and connection to Palestine.[20][18][21] The term Israeli Arabs in particular is viewed as a construct of the Israeli authorities.[20][18][21][22] It is nonetheless used by a significant minority of the Arab population, "reflecting its dominance in Israeli social discourse."[12]

Other terms used to refer to this population include Palestinian Arabs in Israel, Israeli Palestinian Arabs, and the Arabs inside the Green Line (or the Arabs within Arabic: عرب الداخل‎).[5][17][20] The latter appellation, among others listed above, are not applied to the East Jerusalem Arab population or the Druze in the Golan Heights, as these territories were occupied by Israel in 1967. As the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics defines the area covered in its statistics survey as including East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, the number of Arabs in Israel is calculated as just over 20% of the Israeli population (2010).[1]

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: bobad
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 11:53 AM

"I dispute that they are happy in that status there."

From Wikipedia:

"In a 2006 patriotism survey, 56% of Israeli Arabs were not proud of their citizenship and 73% were not ready to fight to defend the state, but 77% said that Israel was better than most other countries and 53% were proud of the country's welfare system. Eighty-two percent said they would rather be a citizen of Israel than of any other country in the world"

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 01:21 PM

Digression, like mold on old bread, has taken over. How many mudcat threads on the Israeli-Palestinian problem?

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: bobad
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 01:44 PM

Don't you know that the Jews are the cause of all the problems in the Middle East and if they can only be made to disappear the place would be a paradise.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: gnu
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 01:56 PM

Q... agreed.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 02:26 PM

OK gnu and Q, why not contribute something on the topic to bring the drift back, as most threads drift?
Complaints alone is a fruitless path:)

Here is a start, from me:
How could it be different?

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 02:35 PM

Where the Soviets, USA and Nato may have failed to "reign Afghanistan in to the sphere" could China succeed through Pakistans influence?

Pakistan-China

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 02:38 PM

I do not see a partition in the future of Afganistan, do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 02:44 PM

""Despite trading barbs on the campaign trail, President Obama and his challenger Mitt Romney don't differ that much on U.S. strategy in Afghanistan.""




Obama-Romney on Afghanistan

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: gnu
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 02:48 PM

Well, Ed T, I am not as well read on the subject as you are and I don't think there is anything wrong with appreciating a centralized discussion and NOT appreciating such thread drift when there are lots of other threads in which to discuss other topics which have been done to death.

Sounds like you are about as cranky as I am at this moment... but that is thread drift. My apologies. >;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Sep 12 - 07:48 AM

I get where you are coming from gnu. And, I agree that many (even most) threads drift, some for the good, some for the bad. What is worse, the death of a thread or a drift that keeps it alive and interesting for the few participating, nomatter that what has been said, may have been said by others before? It may be interesting to those folks, and they may have not felt comfortable entering into earlier discussions, for one reason or another.

My point is "if you dont like it, bring it back, don't just complain about what others are doing and saying. And, if you don't care for like the topic or drift - just pass it by, and move on to what interests you.

In this case, some folks seem to suggest it be brought back to the orgginal intent. But, where are they to participate in it now? Was the actual intent to kill-silence the drift discussion that was happening between other folks? If so, that was odd? It makes me wonder, is some topic drift better (less anoying to know it is happening) than other thread drift?

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Sep 12 - 08:10 AM

A few months ago I saw a parent of a solder who did not make it back alive from Afganistan. The parent, in his sorrow, was concerned that if NATO left Afghanistan, and it goes back to the way it was his son would have died for nothing. I sympathise with that parent, (additionaly so, as my son is in the military and my dad was a war vetran).

But, I am also concerned for the lives of other military folks who could be put in harms way for what seems to be little gain.

I learned as a youngster to carefully choose your battles, to know when the odds are against you- and when it is wise to "back off, evaluate, and consider another course". As the old gambling line goes "Don't throw good money after bad" (not refering to the brave fallen solders, of course).

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Stringsinger
Date: 30 Sep 12 - 10:34 AM

Bringing the thread back to reality, the Afghan people are being oppressed by US military
analogous to the Palestinians by Israelis. The "check points" are obvious.

Wikipedia is not necessarily reliable about the facts in the Palestine/Israel case.
The stats they present should be viewed with skepticism.

The fact remains that Israel is not the best country in the world for Palestinians who reside there. There was similar propaganda offered in the Southern US that claimed that black people were happy there, also in South Africa with the same B.S.

The only solution that makes sense to ensure peace in the region is for Israel and Palestine to be one state with equal representation for both parties, perhaps on a socialist model.

Attending both Afghanistan and Israel/Palestine, propagandistic information clouds the picture of what's going on in either place.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: bobad
Date: 30 Sep 12 - 11:20 AM

"Wikipedia is not necessarily reliable about the facts in the Palestine/Israel case."

The facts are not Wikipedia's. If you bother to look you will see that the statistics are referenced to the survey from which they sre derived. But that doesn't support your bias, does it?

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: pdq
Date: 30 Sep 12 - 01:56 PM

"...perhaps on a socialist model."

That is some people's solution for everything.

Russia and China have given up the failures of the past and are heading toward prosperity.

Most Socialists can't even explain whether their beloved sysyem is economic, social or political.

Marxist economics? He was a philosopher and didn't know squat about economics which is why all Marxist countries can't even feed their people, much less thrive economically.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Sep 12 - 07:22 PM

""The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.""
John Maynard Keynes

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Sep 12 - 07:31 PM

Possibly off the mark, as I believe Karl Marx was an economist, as well as a political scientist.

Adam Smith, considered the founder of modern economics
was actually a philosopher.

I welcome you to correct me if I am wrong:

Source

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: gnu
Date: 30 Sep 12 - 09:05 PM

Oh, well, now you guys are just too smart for a backwoods Kent County good ol boy.

We shoot straight and we can shoot them there Eh-rabs from further away than anybody else and ya can U Tube that shit.... but we still don't really know why. Just dumb country folk earnin a paycheque on accounta the grocery bill went up about 350% in the past few years.

We good ol boys ain't so good at figures but ya gotta figure somethin ain't right.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Oct 12 - 07:30 AM

"It does not matter a jot what whichever Iranian leader said"

I submit it indeed does matter.

"if that statement was misinterpreted it is encumbent upon the leadership of Iran to clarify what it both said and meant""

Do you know that this was not done, but not as widely reported. How so?

What could be the purpose of some leaders and media repeating "a know falsehood" of this significance for years(Nations involved have translators and do use them on significant matters, like this , and continuing to do so when there is ample evidence (for example, an elementary Google search, and msome media reports) that it was a significant falsehood?

Could the purpose be to contribute to "constructive dipolomatic dialogue", leading to a resolution of some, or all of the issues? Just wondering?

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Oct 12 - 07:49 AM

Interesting stuff to figure out which type of deception one is facing:)

Truth and lies


Gnu, are you are trying to deceive, that you are just a "simple, good 'ol country boy"? The Shadow Knows:)

BYW, Kent County, NB is not that remote. I have been there many times and have found it to be kinda a "garden variety" Maritime area, not much different from amny other east coast areas. I have seen remote areas, with "good ol' boys, and this rated low on my "ol' boy" scale. Never saw any folks playing banjos sittin' outside on car seats,no moonshine stills or "revenuers chasing them - but I did see a fella decked out in hunting gear and wearing ski-doo boots (odd, as it was a hot day in July). The only difference I noted was the pretty girls in the Bouctouche area. ))))

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Oct 12 - 11:03 AM

"We have been obsessed with quantity over quality," said a Special Forces major who worked alongside Afghan soldiers for a year. "You can only build so many troops to a certain standard. At some point — and we're long past that — you get to diminishing returns."




US military's rapid expansion in Afghanistan called into question