Do you believe we can win in Afghanistan?

Oggie · #41 06/28/10, 07:55 PM

We need to find this Stan guy and get him to clean up his own messes.

Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan . . .

Is there a single one of them that isn't screwed up?

Let's find him and make him fix it.

Cornhusker · #42 06/28/10, 08:31 PM

Obama doesn't want us to win, he's doing everythign he can to keep it from happening.

bowdonkey · #43 06/29/10, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klapton

If "we win" means that some really rich white guys will end up owning a pipeline and/or the recently discovered mineral wealth of the country, then yes... "we" will "win" in Afghanistan.

This will most likely require that the US military remain there, however. So "we" will most defnintely NOT "win" in Afghanistan.

Two groups of people will definietley LOSE:

The typical Afghan peasant, and the American Taxpayer (peasants with nicer toys.)

Klapton this is so right. It may start out as a noble cause [rarely though]but then the war profiteers raise their ugly heads

NoClue · #44 06/29/10, 06:19 AM

Every American should read the book by the great American hero USMC General Smedley Butler entitled War is a Racket and then critically examine our foreign policy and vote accordingly.

wwubben · #45 06/29/10, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JuliaAnn

Because, as Obama points out, "No one country should dominate another'. "American has been guilty of being arrogant", and 'we have made a lot of mistakes'.

Nope, never going to win anything as long as this dolt is in office.

Who is in office has nothing to do with it.NO ONE has ever dominated these people and no one ever will.Their will is what will rule.

watcher · #46 06/29/10, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ in WA

When liberals stretch the meaning of the Constitution to get welfare programs, conservatives scream and cry. But when the Constitution gets circumvented to justify endless war - no problem!

If the Constitution was not meant to put limits on anything, what is it for?

The president can do whatever he wants to any nation he wants for as long as he wants?

That's a declaration of war???? If we don't know who the war is against, then when will it end?

Why even mention in the Constitution that the congress shall declare war? Why not just say the president can wage war whenever he wants? Write it so he can wage war as long as a single person on earth is an enemy of the United States. That would make the whole thing meaningless.

Huh? Check your history and you will see that President Bush not once but TWICE got congressional approval for his military action. IIRC, there was some guy from congress who told the world he voted against the use of military force before he voted for it.

Do you even know what the USC says? Here you go:

Article I
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To. . .

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Now just what is Constitutionally required from congress for a declaration of war? Does it have to say "WAR!"? Is it required by the USC to declare war on each individual nation and/or state?

You will see there is no specific wording for a declaration of war. So could not a congressional "authorization for the President to use military force" be considered a declaration of war?

watcher · #47 06/29/10, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwubben

Who is in office has nothing to do with it.NO ONE has ever dominated these people and no one ever will.Their will is what will rule.

Hum. . .seems like the Taliban did a fair job of it. Of course letting people know who is the boss by chopping off a few heads, beating a few young girls and the like tends to make people tow the line.

Randy Rooster · #48 06/29/10, 11:37 AM

Win?

win what?