redlegphi

So what you're saying is GWB wants to kill Palin's grandchild? Interesting.

Comparing the US to all of Europe is kinda dishonest since you get countries like England and France that are comparable to the US lumped in with Eastern European countries that aren't. Also, while the US does best with breast and prostate cancer survival, Japan does better with colon and rectal cancer among men while France does better with colon and rectal cancer among women. Finally, I think it's interesting how the article also points out the wide variety of cancer survival rates in the US based around race and geographic location and how these are at least partially tied to unequal access to health care.

You'll see some Taliban stand and fight. These are typically religious zealots who've been trained in a madrassa and who are all too willing to die (and more power to them). But they only make up a small part of the Taliban structure. You've also got the leadership cadre who usually don't fight and often aren't even in the country. You've got the more permanent fighting cadre who have been fighting us for years and in that area for decades who are far too smart and well-trained to launch attacks against us in a fight that they aren't sure they'll win. And you've got the locals who will either join up with the permanent cadre as they swing through an area or will at least offer logistical support. Beating all of these groups will take much more than just convincing the Taliban to fight us in a straight up "fair fight" which they'd be idiots to do. As for Pakistan, we don't need our troops in that country. We need to get the Pakistani troops to do their job while we try to build support for the non-fanatical Pakistani government through aid.

I seem to recall reading in Kilcullen's book that well over half of the Taliban's funding is coming from opium being grown, processed, and sold out of Afghanistan. More important than the cash is the land that gives the AQ a place to recruit from and train without interference from the West. It also could potentially act as a gateway to Pakistan's nuclear weapons in the future.

Yes, assuming they can pull together a plan that makes sense with clear goals and enough money/support to accomplish those goals. Also, increase State Department funding and send more of those folks over there too so I can stop worrying about how to fight the Taliban AND how to get a school financed.

Which threat is that? 1) Taliban establishing control over a larger portion of Afghanistan and allowing AQ to continue using it as a base of operations to stage attacks against the US/rest of the world. 2) Taliban and AQ building the insurgency in Pakistan to a large enough level where they can gain control of the Pakistani government and/or their nuclear weapons. Take your pick.

>You don't need cable. Agreed. >You don't need Internet. Agreed, though you probably do need some kind of access to internet from time to time if you're looking for a job. Public libraries tend to cover that need though. >You don't need a cell phone. Once again, if you're looking for a job, you need a phone number. If you can't afford a landline, a pay as you go cell phone can be a cheap way to make sure that your potential employer can call you back.

I'm not following your thought. I was in the USAF, stationed at a special operations base, now USAF Special Operations HQ. you were a government employee - paid for from taxpayers hard earned dollars

Shockingly, I have actually read Marx. Since you apparently have also, it shouldn't be too hard for you to point out a couple of ways that the Obama government is acting in ways that fall under the definition of Marxist/Communist. I would love to hear those examples. And as far as gaining popularity among our enemies (aka, winning hearts and minds), that is the current strategy we're using in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq, it appears to be working, at least to some extent. Short-term or long-term, it's the only way to fight a war on a non-linear battlefield. If we can't get the population on our side, then all we're doing is playing defense, which is a sure way to lose.

In a counterinsurgency fight, our popularity among the people is the primary benchmark used to determine if we're "winning" or not. We can't win our War on Terror by just killing people who want to kill us. It's much more important that we build our popularity among the people who might want to kill us in the future and convince them that we're not such bad people and that their interests and ours aren't in conflict. That is what leads to increased safety for the American people. And that seems to be the path that Obama is following on foreign policy.

Those are the two most common definitions of communism. Please pick which of those you think the President fits and then please give examples of why. For example, show how the President has taken all property and made it communally-owned by the state. Or, describe how the President is the head of a totalitarian state that controls all economic and social activity. See also: Socialism

You initially stated that people who wanted to kill us would always want to kill us because of their breeding, implying that there was no point in trying to increase our popularity among those people. That is obviously false, given that there are nations that were previously committed to killing us that are now allies. That is the entirety of my point. While there are no doubt people in those nations that may not like us and possibly a very small minority that would like to harm us, as far as I know, nobody from those countries has been a threat to the security of the United States for decades. Therefore, it is in the interests of the safety and security of the people of the United States to increase our popularity on the world stage. Particularly among those who don't like us or might wish us harm. It's basically modern counterinsurgency strategy on a global scale.

That would be because our national press corps almost universally sucks, regardless of left or right bias.

The liberals study their history and know that there's more to gaining allies than kicking their ass in a previous war. The Marshall Plan comes to mind. Also, I'd point out that the original statement starting this sub-thread, that the people who want to kill us will always want to kill us, remains untrue.

I heard on the radio awhile back, we have a generation of folks that no longer associate money with work. we call them bankers

I can assure you that we are no where near the peak of socialism, to say nothing of communism or marxism. Perhaps you should better learn what these terms actually mean before just throwing them about willy-nilly.

Also because it's ethically and morally reprehensible to attempt to kill an entire people.

Which is why there have been so many British, German, Japanese, and Italian terrorist attacks on Americans recently? And as bill pointed out, does this mean that you want to kill all of those people as well? After all, it's part of your breeding.

I disagree. As far as I know, the vast majority of Germans, Italians, and Japanese do not currently want to kill us. See also: The British

You do realize that if there are less people around the world who want to kill us and if there are more people who like us and will therefore help us accomplish our foreign policy goals, the American people's safety and security will be increased, correct?

More on the Republican Civil War I'm really starting to like this Schmidt guy.

Also, whatever you do, do not respond at the door when the census-taker comes. They are gathering information that will be used to put you in re-education camps. Those who can't be re-educated...well...you know.

Just found this rebuttal of Carlin's paper. Who knew science could be so mean? From RealClimate

I don't know how important #1 and #2 were overall to people in this election. I'd wager that they weren't nearly as important as the McCain camp was betting on. As for #3, while I know the "religious right" was doing all sorts of wailing and moaning about not voting for McCain, I think in the end they probably would have still come out in the same numbers they did. I can't believe they'd just say "fuck it" and let a Democrat win out of spite.

By the way, thought you right-wingers on the forum might want to know that Red State is demanding that you prove that you didn't talk to Vanity Fair about Gov. Palin lest they blackball you with "the base" forever and ever infinity squared plus one. Please note that, according to Red State, silence implies that you're a Vanity Fair snitch.