From: Larry G on
On Jul 6, 10:01 am, Rich Piehl
<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
> On 7/6/2010 8:23 AM, Larry G wrote:
>
>
>
> >>> Rich - the CIA says there are "at most", 100 Al Queida in a country
> >>> the size of Texas that has not had a central govt in hundreds of years
> >>> and has a literacy rate of 24%.
>
> >> Cite the CIA fact please.
>
> \
> BTW, where's the cite for this?


CITE:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/06/cia-at-most-50100-al-qaeda-in-afghanistan.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> You have the right strategy " Capture or kill the leaders - yes.
> >>>    Disrupt their
> >>>> command and control structure " but it has to happen on a world-wide basis and the military is the wrong tool ... the military is a chainsaw when what is needed is Stilettos - that go after them wherever they go.
>
> >>> We cannot beat Al Queida by  trying to nation-build failed states. All
> >>> we do is kill ourselves financially and use our young for cannon
> >>> fodder.
>
> >> So you would rather we do nothing and have Al Qaeda come here and use
> >> the whole population for cannon fodder?
>
> >> Cute metaphor but it didn't work prior to 9/11.  The threat of Al Qaeda
> >> wasn't taken seriously for the decade prior to 9/11, and what did it get
> >> us?  Obama campaigned for President talking like you.  He gets to office
> >> and sees the scope of the problem and guess what...the rhetoric and cute
> >> metaphors go out the window.  Do you think that was by accident?
>
> > Rich - did you read what I said:?
>
> Which leaders?  Taliban who protected AlQaeda?  And who do they get
> replaced with?
>
> It's easy to say something like
>
> >> " Capture or kill the leaders - yes.
> >> ...................................... go after them wherever they go.
>
> but there's a whole series of things tied to that you can't just dismiss.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I'm opposed to dumb and ineffective nation-building strategies that
> > drain our country of financial resources and treat our young as IED
> > cannon fodder.
>
> > The NeoCons don't give a rat's behind about our kids nor Al Queida...
> > they are all about "saving" ... the "failed" nation-states - in the
> > middle East ... the Islamo-Fascist jihad ..
>
> > This is nothing more than an alternate strategy of establishing puppet
> > regimes like we did before with the Shah or Iran - and look at what it
> > has accomplished.
>
> > "National-building" is stooge-talk for - "let take them over and show
> > them how to run a country".
>
> > If you support this - then admit it - okay?
>
> > I do not think most folks who think about what we are really doing -
> > support it.
>
> > Our goal ought to be to get Al Quieda not taking over countries with
> > our military on flimsy pretexts....
>
> Which country have we "taken over" on a long term basis (several
> decades).  Name one.

We had a pretty good run guy with the Shah of Iran ... as I recall ...
and more than a few runs at it in Central and South America and
Southeast Asia.

We have a long history of interfering with govts we don't like - guy -
all kinds of reasons and we try to put in place a "better" govt and it
simply does not work - no better than if someone came to this country
and tried to tell us that we needed to adopt their way of governing..
pretty damn arrogant if you ask me.

and now days.. we don't even have enough money to take care of our own
folks back home... to say nothing of the young people who are coming
home missing arms and legs - for the rest of their lives - over a big
lie...

From: Rich Piehl on
On 7/6/2010 6:23 PM, Larry G wrote:
> On Jul 6, 9:48 am, Rich Piehl<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net>
> wrote:
>> On 7/6/2010 8:23 AM, Larry G wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 6, 9:04 am, Rich Piehl<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 7/6/2010 4:58 AM, Larry G wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jul 5, 11:28 pm, Rich Piehl
>>>>> <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/5/2010 8:44 PM, Larry G wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Jul 5, 9:34 pm, Rich Piehl<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/5/2010 1:51 PM, Brent wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2010-07-05, Rich Piehl<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/5/2010 12:58 PM, Brent wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2010-07-05, Rich Piehl<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter whether you create 10 solar panels or 10 million. For
>>>>>>>>>>>> every green job created you eliminate 2.2 existing jobs.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The very same can be said of military spending. Why? because it is
>>>>>>>>>>> government allocation of resources. Resources taken from the private
>>>>>>>>>>> sector and consumed in the political sector. The same mechanisms are at
>>>>>>>>>>> work.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> But that's the different discussion I mentioned. It has nothing to do
>>>>>>>>>> with green jobs or solar panels produced or jobs lost because of green
>>>>>>>>>> jobs created.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Government consumption of our wealth.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Actually military spending is only equal to the destruction of 'green'
>>>>>>>>>>> spending if what is produced is never used. If it is used, then it
>>>>>>>>>>> destroys lives, capital equipment, buildings, etc and so forth
>>>>>>>>>>> increasing the negative economic impact. (also see broken window falacy)
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Your statement assumes military spending is only for aggression, which
>>>>>>>>>> isn't true.
>>
>>>>>>>>> If a factory is bombed into rubble wether the nation it is in attacked
>>>>>>>>> someone else or was attacked is irrelevant. The factory and its
>>>>>>>>> productive capacity has been destroyed.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> By that statement you are saying you want a country with zero military
>>>>>>>>>> spending. none.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Nice strawman. I stated nothing about what I want. It's a simple fact
>>>>>>>>> that military spending an economic drain on a society.
>>
>>>>>>>> As opposed to the economic drain on our society that occurred after
>>>>>>>> 9/11, and would occur again if we got another 9/11 type attack? Ar
>>>>>>>> numerous 9/11 type attacks?
>>
>>>>>>> except the military cannot stop 9/11 type attacks to start with if the
>>>>>>> enemy is mobile and not state-sponsored.
>>
>>>>>>> It's a new kind of guerrilla warfare and we're fighting like the Brits
>>>>>>> did in the Revolutionary War - trying to go around the world nation-
>>>>>>> building failed states in a futile effort to turn them into Al Quieda-
>>>>>>> hating American-style Democracies.
>>
>>>>>>> We are so stupid about this it would be laughable if it were not for
>>>>>>> the fact that we hypocritically deficit-fund the war and our young
>>>>>>> people are literally turned into cannon (IED) fodder.
>>
>>>>>>> We wen through this very same stupidness in Vietnam and all we are
>>>>>>> doing now is a thinly-veiled effort to install puppet govts in a part
>>>>>>> of the world where that strategy has only earned us more and more
>>>>>>> hostility.
>>
>>>>>>> The way to beat Al Queida is NOT with the military.... it's dumb.
>>
>>>>>> Stop them, no. Reduce the possibility - yes. Destroy the Al Qaeda
>>>>>> infrastructure - yes. Capture or kill the leaders - yes. Disrupt their
>>>>>> command and control structure - yes.
>>
>>>>>> I don't consider that stupid.
>>
>>>>> Rich - the CIA says there are "at most", 100 Al Queida in a country
>>>>> the size of Texas that has not had a central govt in hundreds of years
>>>>> and has a literacy rate of 24%.
>>
>>>> Cite the CIA fact please.
>>
>>>>> You have the right strategy " Capture or kill the leaders - yes.
>>>>> Disrupt their
>>>>>> command and control structure " but it has to happen on a world-wide basis and the military is the wrong tool ... the military is a chainsaw when what is needed is Stilettos - that go after them wherever they go.
>>
>>>>> We cannot beat Al Queida by trying to nation-build failed states. All
>>>>> we do is kill ourselves financially and use our young for cannon
>>>>> fodder.
>>
>>>> So you would rather we do nothing and have Al Qaeda come here and use
>>>> the whole population for cannon fodder?
>>
>>>> Cute metaphor but it didn't work prior to 9/11. The threat of Al Qaeda
>>>> wasn't taken seriously for the decade prior to 9/11, and what did it get
>>>> us? Obama campaigned for President talking like you. He gets to office
>>>> and sees the scope of the problem and guess what...the rhetoric and cute
>>>> metaphors go out the window. Do you think that was by accident?
>>
>>> Rich - did you read what I said:?
>>
>>> " Capture or kill the leaders - yes.
>>> ...................................... go after them wherever they go.
>>
>>> I'm opposed to dumb and ineffective nation-building strategies that
>>> drain our country of financial resources and treat our young as IED
>>> cannon fodder.
>>
>>> The NeoCons don't give a rat's behind about our kids nor Al Queida...
>>> they are all about "saving" ... the "failed" nation-states - in the
>>> middle East ... the Islamo-Fascist jihad ..
>>
>>> This is nothing more than an alternate strategy of establishing puppet
>>> regimes like we did before with the Shah or Iran - and look at what it
>>> has accomplished.
>>
>>> "National-building" is stooge-talk for - "let take them over and show
>>> them how to run a country".
>>
>>> If you support this - then admit it - okay?
>>
>>> I do not think most folks who think about what we are really doing -
>>> support it.
>>
>>> Our goal ought to be to get Al Quieda not taking over countries with
>>> our military on flimsy pretexts....
>>
>> Do you think the government of Afghanistan prior to 2002 was separate
>> from AlQaeda? Do you think the Taliban weren't in control of the
>> country? Do you not think the Taliban weren't harboring AlQaeda?
>>
>> And after we eliminate Al Qaeda and the governments that protect them we
>> have to make sure there isn't a power vacuum when we leave. Otherwise
>> you end up with what happened in Cambodia and Somalia (remember
>> Mogadishu?) and several others. And we would be absolute IDIOTS to go
>> through all the time, treasure and blood only to have a government
>> installed that is just going to restore the same structure that was
>> there before the whole thing started. I don't call that nation
>> building. I call that protecting ourselves.
>
> Jeeze Rich. there are power vacuums in a dozen or more countries
> including Somalia, Yemen and solid anti-American rulers in others that
> would harbor and support anti-American insurgents.
>
> You won't fix this by "winning" in Afghanistan guy. You cannot create
> a central govt in a country that has not had one in hundreds of years
> and 80% who cannot read or write.
>
> What do you want to do - go take over countries like that so we can
> keep out anti-American insurgents?
>
> Are you going to do that for every failed state that exists ?
>
> Where does it end?

No, only the ones that are the result of us getting rid of the ones that
are protecting the Taliban and AlQaeda that want to kill us

>
> You are all over Obama for the deficit. Well guy. THIS IS THE DEFICIT
> not only in money we do not have and cannot afford but young people's
> lives that are being wasted on a bad strategy that is about a whole
> lot more than 100 Al Queida folks.
>
> This is American Imperialism guy... this is what it looks like and
> this is why much of the world thinks we are a bunch of cowboys and
> jerks.

No it's not imperialism. Imperialism would be running roughshod over
countries that aren't harboring AlQaeda. Show me where we've done that.


>
> If we really were ....actually.. "protecting ourselves" - you'd have a
> leg to stand on but we are not... this won't protect us... Al Queida
> can and will come to get us from the Netherlands, Canada...Indonesia,
> Somalia... Yemen.. etc.. what are you going to do about protecting
> us from those sources of Al Queida? send in more troops?

I find it difficult to believe the Canadian government or the Dutch
government would -EVER - harbor and protect AlQaeda. That's a BIG
difference.


From: Rich Piehl on
On 7/6/2010 6:31 PM, Larry G wrote:
> On Jul 6, 10:01 am, Rich Piehl
> <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
>> On 7/6/2010 8:23 AM, Larry G wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> Rich - the CIA says there are "at most", 100 Al Queida in a country
>>>>> the size of Texas that has not had a central govt in hundreds of years
>>>>> and has a literacy rate of 24%.
>>
>>>> Cite the CIA fact please.
>>
>> \
>> BTW, where's the cite for this?
>
>
> CITE:
> http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/06/cia-at-most-50100-al-qaeda-in-afghanistan.html
>>

From that interview:
> There�s no question that the main location of Al Qaeda is in the tribal areas of Pakistan.�

Where do you think they would go if we left Afghanistan? They would run
right back in to Afghanistan to get away from the pressure being applied
from the East. They have to be addressed from east and west. That's
how they escaped 8 years ago. We went after from the west and they ran
in to Pakistan.

C'mon, Larry. Use your head.


>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> You have the right strategy " Capture or kill the leaders - yes.
>>>>> Disrupt their
>>>>>> command and control structure " but it has to happen on a world-wide basis and the military is the wrong tool ... the military is a chainsaw when what is needed is Stilettos - that go after them wherever they go.
>>
>>>>> We cannot beat Al Queida by trying to nation-build failed states. All
>>>>> we do is kill ourselves financially and use our young for cannon
>>>>> fodder.
>>
>>>> So you would rather we do nothing and have Al Qaeda come here and use
>>>> the whole population for cannon fodder?
>>
>>>> Cute metaphor but it didn't work prior to 9/11. The threat of Al Qaeda
>>>> wasn't taken seriously for the decade prior to 9/11, and what did it get
>>>> us? Obama campaigned for President talking like you. He gets to office
>>>> and sees the scope of the problem and guess what...the rhetoric and cute
>>>> metaphors go out the window. Do you think that was by accident?
>>
>>> Rich - did you read what I said:?
>>
>> Which leaders? Taliban who protected AlQaeda? And who do they get
>> replaced with?
>>
>> It's easy to say something like
>>
>>>> " Capture or kill the leaders - yes.
>>>> ...................................... go after them wherever they go.
>>
>> but there's a whole series of things tied to that you can't just dismiss.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I'm opposed to dumb and ineffective nation-building strategies that
>>> drain our country of financial resources and treat our young as IED
>>> cannon fodder.
>>
>>> The NeoCons don't give a rat's behind about our kids nor Al Queida...
>>> they are all about "saving" ... the "failed" nation-states - in the
>>> middle East ... the Islamo-Fascist jihad ..
>>
>>> This is nothing more than an alternate strategy of establishing puppet
>>> regimes like we did before with the Shah or Iran - and look at what it
>>> has accomplished.
>>
>>> "National-building" is stooge-talk for - "let take them over and show
>>> them how to run a country".
>>
>>> If you support this - then admit it - okay?
>>
>>> I do not think most folks who think about what we are really doing -
>>> support it.
>>
>>> Our goal ought to be to get Al Quieda not taking over countries with
>>> our military on flimsy pretexts....
>>
>> Which country have we "taken over" on a long term basis (several
>> decades). Name one.
>
> We had a pretty good run guy with the Shah of Iran ... as I recall ...
> and more than a few runs at it in Central and South America and
> Southeast Asia.
>
> We have a long history of interfering with govts we don't like - guy -
> all kinds of reasons and we try to put in place a "better" govt and it
> simply does not work - no better than if someone came to this country
> and tried to tell us that we needed to adopt their way of governing..
> pretty damn arrogant if you ask me.
>
> and now days.. we don't even have enough money to take care of our own
> folks back home... to say nothing of the young people who are coming
> home missing arms and legs - for the rest of their lives - over a big
> lie...
>

The Shah was complicit in that situation, and that was not the result of
the military intervention. That was the result of peaceful diplomacy.

Interfering is not military intervention. You're changing the
parameters. Interfering is not taking over a hostile country by force
and putting in a "puppet government" (as you called it) to operate for
years.

You failed to cite one case.
From: Otto Yamamoto on
http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html

Having Tom Tancredo, Boortz and Duncan Hunter glomming onto this doesn't
do much for it's credibility.

--
Otto Yamamoto
From: Brent on
On 2010-07-06, Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 5, 11:42�pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 2010-07-06, Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 5, 9:53 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> On 2010-07-05, Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > here's some real world prices of gasoline and last time I check none
>> >> > of these countries went broke:
>>
>> >> > Netherlands Amsterdam $6.48
>> >> > Norway Oslo $6.27
>> >> > Italy Milan $5.96
>> >> > Denmark Copenhagen $5.93
>> >> > Belgium Brussels $5.91
>> >> > Sweden Stockholm $5.80
>> >> > United Kingdom London $5.79
>> >> > Germany Frankfurt $5.57
>> >> > France Paris $5.54
>> >> > Portugal Lisbon $5.35
>> >> > Hungary Budapest $4.94
>> >> I don't think you would like the standard of living in many of those
>> >> countries. A standard of living that is what it is thanks to a very high
>> >> tax rate. The standard of living based on material goods, home size, etc
>> >> is probably about equal or below to that of the USA's 'poor'.
>> > well.. everyone in those countries has health care.
>>
>> Um, government provided/controlled health care is nothing more than the
>> control freaks manipulating/shaping society here or there.
>>
>> > They have a longer life expectancy and less infant deaths,
>>
>> That's a question of diet and taking care of themselves. Plus foods in
>> europe aren't as poisoned with things like HFCS and various chemicals
>> (thanks to the FDA, tax laws, etc) and GMO is essentially banned. Why?
>> Because the people didn't rely on an FDA like government entity. They
>> rejected them in the market.
>>
>> > they usually have shorter work weeks and longer vacations...
>>
>> The reason France has shorter work weeks is so that more people would be
>> employed. Or that's the logic behind it. Trying to limit what any one
>> person can do productivity wise so others can get jobs.
>>
>> Now the US is backwards in that it culturally demands a 40+ hour work
>> week (and often little vacation) regardless of a person's productivity.
>> It's a slowest-ship-in-the-fleet approach where people are measured
>> by time present instead of their output that is destructive for both
>> workers and the economy but good for those who aren't very productive.
>>
>> > almost no gun deaths...
>>
>> The US would have far fewer too if certain things were attended to. Like
>> the war on some drugs.
>>
>> > they don't starve to death or freeze to death either.
>>
>> Neither do americans. Both have underclasses of people who for whatever
>> reason choose to live on the streets. The rest is the difference in
>> climate.
>>
>> > I think it is us that is living above our means as recent events are
>> > showing.
>>
>> Which is irrelevant because it is possible to live far under one's means
>> in the USA and still have more than a european working the same job
>> could have.
>
> They don't do badly in comparisons at all and all your "explanations"
> don't change those facts. They are among the most happiest and
> healthiest populations on Earth compared to most other nations...

I'm sorry, being limited to a tiny apartment without modern appliances
like clothes washer/dryer and numerous other limitations doesn't sound
very 'happy' to me.

> and
> they are better off because they are not the wanton prolifigate
> consumers of energy that we are.

Consuming 'energy' is not a sin. Yes, I know our rulers tell us it is,
but it is just a tool they use for their own ends.