MDresden

[MDresden]

1) We are the real American heroes
2) There are baddies out there that are all evil and we are 100% good
3) We dont do bad things
4) They decided to hate and attack us because they want all our sweet stuff and hate Britney Spears

So then you decided to build your belief narrative based on these goals. Can you prove to me otherwise? Let me guess, you are not here to prove anything, but to learn. OK, so show me you have learned. Explain to me why Mr. Bin Ladin hates us.

Oh come on...that drivel is meant for a little kids' bed time story.

[faye]

no4 looks like you are supporting interventionism.

[MDresden]

I can make big words too: Fayvism.

[MDresden]

Being a Soldier, I can't speak objectively about what goes on or policies or any reason for anything. I do my own part in the grander puzzle.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

This is where you are wrong "and teach them how to be better Afghans modeled off the American-Afghan paradigm."

We are providing the basic necessities...education, food, water and sustainability (agricultural and security.)

You provide it with the price tag that they adopt a secular democratic model of government that is not native to their way of life. And you dispense it through a phenomenally corrupt group of men who had such little regard for the suffering of their own people against the Russians that they basically let the poor rural religious man (the equivalent of the Southern Alabaman man) lead the way while they munched on sugared almonds in Quetta, watching and waiting to come back to power in just such a set up. So basically the money comes with the caveat that they do what you want versus what their natural inclinations are.

I refer you to Dr. Kakar's text (an anti taliban Afghan historian) regarding how the rural Afghans functioned under the Taliban:

http://www.institute-for-afghan-stud...ntro_kakar.htm

"Although taliban have never been, until recent times, at the pinnacle of military and political power, they are not new to Afghanistan. They have been a component of the religious establishment and have always ways lived in the shadow of other military, political, and economic groups. Mullah Shor Bazar, an Afghan fighter known for inflicting heavy losses on the British during the Third Anglo-Afghan war of 1919, was also a talib, as were Mirwais Khan Hotaki, and Mullah Mushki Alam, who fought against the British occupation of Afghanistan. During the national struggle against the Soviet invaders, taliban fought alongside the Mujahideen mainly under the leadership of Mohammad Nabi, one of the seven sanctioned Mujahideen leaders in Pakistan (also known as "Peshawar Tanzeem" Leaders)."

"In reality, the traditional way of life in villages has changed little by Taliban's rule. The situation of Afghans in the countryside controlled by the Taliban has improved because of increased peace and security, giving them the opportunity to rebuild after two decades of war."

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Oh come on...that drivel is meant for a little kids' bed time story.

You say below that as a soldier you are not allowed to comment on policy. That is not true at all. Being a soldier does not at all mean that you cannot discuss why you, Matt Dresden, think Mr. Bin Ladin did what he did, and why you appear to have so much glee at having killed someone that hated our government for legitimate reasons that anyone would hate a foreign government for had they done what we did. Take a look at how much of an uproar there was when our close ally and bosom budy Dubai was working out a civilian contract to manage the ports:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/10/politics/10ports.html

Americans were up in arms, not about someone screwing with our way of life, not about someone doing anything to civilian life here, not about someone imposing a tyrant on us... Americans were pissed because some brown guys were going to do manage our ports and potentially affect our national security. We made a hooplah.

Yet you dont afford the same decency to people abroad to whome we have done worse Matt. And that is a tragedy. General Washington was our military commander he felt free enough to comment on our goals of war, how we could manage not replicating the British mistakes of empire, and other ways of ensuring that the Republic stood strong against becoming an Empire.

It is sad that you feel you cannot at least define for us what you think leads people from Latin America to the middle east to oppose our interventions.

[MDresden]

"The situation of Afghans in the countryside controlled by the Taliban has improved because of increased peace and security, giving them the opportunity to rebuild after two decades of war."

Exactly...extorting the populace in return for security...they could have provided excellent security but from who and what exactly? If you have one attacker a year and you fend of that attacker you are just as "good" as 400 attackers with all 400 being fended off.

[MDresden]

You say below that as a soldier you are not allowed to comment on policy. That is not true at all. Being a soldier does not at all mean that you cannot discuss why you, Matt Dresden, think Mr. Bin Ladin did what he did, and why you appear to have so much glee at having killed someone that hated our government for legitimate reasons that anyone would hate a foreign government for had they done what we did. Take a look at how much of an uproar there was when our close ally and bosom budy Dubai was working out a civilian contract to manage the ports:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/10/politics/10ports.html

Americans were up in arms, not about someone screwing with our way of life, not about someone doing anything to civilian life here, not about someone imposing a tyrant on us... Americans were pissed because some brown guys were going to do manage our ports and potentially affect our national security. We made a hooplah.

Yet you dont afford the same decency to people abroad to whome we have done worse Matt. And that is a tragedy. General Washington was our military commander he felt free enough to comment on our goals of war, how we could manage not replicating the British mistakes of empire, and other ways of ensuring that the Republic stood strong against becoming an Empire.

It is sad that you feel you cannot at least define for us what you think leads people from Latin America to the middle east to oppose our interventions.

You use "we" so interchangeably you have lost it's value...I'm done here.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

"The situation of Afghans in the countryside controlled by the Taliban has improved because of increased peace and security, giving them the opportunity to rebuild after two decades of war."

Exactly...extorting the populace in return for security...they could have provided excellent security but from who and what exactly? If you have one attacker a year and you fend of that attacker you are just as "good" as 400 attackers with all 400 being fended off.

Obviously bolding seems lost on you:

"In reality, the traditional way of life in villages has changed little by Taliban's rule..."

whereas you seek to force the locals to change their ways of life and impose a secular democratic system that is laced with fraud to the hilt.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

You use "we" so interchangeably you have lost it's value...I'm done here.

There are wes and uses and yous everywhere. The republicans refer to the democats as "you" etc. It demonstrates that you have hogtied a huge contingent of the American public to run alongside of you with your farcical nation building strategy. Americans had no choice regarding how much of their tax dollars they want to go toward building a girls school or a dog kennel in Kandahar versus investing it in crumbeling Detroit. Their only choice, Dr. Paul was quickly silenced, and then you had Mr McCain gauranteeing a ramp up in iraq and you had Mr. Obama guaranteeing a ramp up in Afghanistan. Its like telling a diabetic: Here is Coke and here is Cherry Coke and not offering water as another option.

[faye]

I can make big words too: Fayvism.

wasn't talking to you dredzy. that was for b.a.

[MDresden]

There are wes and uses and yous everywhere. The republicans refer to the democats as "you" etc. It demonstrates that you have hogtied a huge contingent of the American public to run alongside of you with your farcical nation building strategy. Americans had no choice regarding how much of their tax dollars they want to go toward building a girls school or a dog kennel in Kandahar versus investing it in crumbeling Detroit. Their only choice, Dr. Paul was quickly silenced, and then you had Mr McCain gauranteeing a ramp up in iraq and you had Mr. Obama guaranteeing a ramp up in Afghanistan. Its like telling a diabetic: Here is Coke and here is Cherry Coke and not offering water as another option.

alright, we're done here. next.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

alright, we're done here. next.

You mean you are so dismayed by reality and truth that you choose to belief in the Superman narrative? My friend, superman is a story that is fictional.

Why do you get so upset and emotional about this? As I stated, 9/11 was an emotional issue for you just as for an Iraqi, the Shock and Awe you did on them was an emotional event for them.

You basically deny people the right to be humans and get pissed when they react in predictable ways.

[faye]

well if it had been up to you idol, m scheuer, they would have been more shocking and more aweing, b.a.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

well if it had been up to you idol, m scheuer, they would have been more shocking and more aweing, b.a.

As I said Faye, Scheuer writes like a scientist. He gets flak from both sides because they do not understand him as they channel his works through an emotional view.

As an example, if you posed Scheuer a question about how to build a road with a large hill in the way he would offer you two options were he an engineer:

1) Build the road as an incline with its foundation on the hill
2) Blow up the hill with TNT and build through it.

The hill may be were you picked strawberries as a kid, or where you met your first love, or a whole host of other things. However, the question you asked him... the one about building roads was answered the way a scientist answers a question, based on data and analysis.

Its the same deal. When you read his work Marching Through Hell he writes:

"I will leave it to the American people to decide whether they believe the Founders would have, for even a moment, endorsed the federal government taking money from its own citizens'c pockets to massive annual bribe toa Muslim dictatorship to pretend to be friends with the near-theocracy in Israel that the American taxpayers are also funding."

He does not prefer any involvement. But he makes sure that the American public understands that if it decides it wants to continue on its collision course with the Islamic world ala its policies and interventionalism, that it has to go Go Roman or Go Home. So he is saying: Dont build the road on that hill... earthquakes occur here. The American elite and interventionists are answering with: No way Jose, we are building that road Mr. Scheuer... what are our options. And the options above are the only ones then.