Monday May 28, 2012

Anodyne's past comments

  • 0

    Anodyne

    Taka313 ...

    Yes, some people seem to think that the same acts that were wrong and stupid under bush are now O.K. under Pres. Obama. I don't and never stated so; so I'll move on to the part where you addressed me: Yes, in the short term, Pres. Obama is carrying on some of bush's incompetent policies.

    Glad to see that you recognize the hypocrisy I've described and sorry to lump you in with those engaged in it. In addition, please understand that that I (and many others) don't feel that Bush's policies in regards to Afghanistan were categorically incompetent or stupid, that I was merely pointing out - "in the vernacular", as it were - what I perceived to be inconsistencies on the part of those who suddenly weren't so incensed by civilian casualties.

    Did you ever think that maybe....JUST MAYBE, the status quo is being maintained while a solution to bush's handler's failures is devised. To do something right, you don't go in in with the plan you have, you go in with the plan you need, in order to be successful, and more often than not, that takes time.

    But the Afghanistan status quo was constantly derided by Obama and Co. throughout the campaign - why continue with something you are quite plainly and quite frequently on record as saying is wrong once you are in a position to rectify it? Why not the quick action in regards to Afghan missile strikes a la his aggressive moves re closing Gitmo?

    Bush's handler's failures? Given Obama's inexperience and non-existent record, you can be sure that he's got 10 handlers for every one of Bush's (if Bush has any, which I doubt).

    It's not like there's a failure faucet that bush left running in the White House that Pres. Obama can just turn off.

    I'll take lowering expectations for $1000, Alex! Wasn't the very earth itself going to begin to heal upon The One's election? What's cleaning up Afghanistan compared to THAT?!?

    One of the big problems that has plagued our troops in Afghanistan is that too much money, too much equipment and too many troops were pulled away from that mission in order to participate in bush's folly in Iraq.

    Not so. The Soviets threw tons of men (they had about 110,000 in country at one time compared to the US's current 30,000 or so) and resources at Afghanistan and that (and their ruthlessness) didn't work for them. No, the US problems (and there ARE problems and these are a result of unsatisfactory Bush administration policies) in Afghanistan are more COIN ("counter-insurgency") doctrine-related than solvable by merely throwing more men, equipment and money at the problem. In other words, please do yourself a favor and examine the history of the conflict in question more thoroughly rather than parroting "eye off the ball" talking points.

    And since were talking about intellectual stones, how about admitting that purposely starting a war (and a poorly planned one at that) against a country that was not an imminent threat to the United States when already engaged in an armed conflict in a country that was able to keep the Soviet Union at bay for nine years is monumentally stupid. Face it, rummy, dougie, paulie and shoot-a-guy-in-the-facie are not, absolutely NOT, smarter than Sun Tzu.

    19 guys with box-cutters and a $500K (or less) budget proved to be an "imminent threat" to the United States and an aggressive state run by Saddam Hussein (that had attacked both Iran and Kuwait and was basically at war with the US) wasn't? Gotcha.

    The Iraq war could obviously have been run better, but it was the thing to do (Iraq one of the most strategically important pieces of land on earth, drawing Al Qaeda there and thumping their asses but good, etc.), so no "admissions" out of yours truly, sorry.

    And perhaps you ought to lay off of Sun Tzu a bit. No question the guy (or guys possibly comprising the composite, mythical him) is influential, but the main adherents to his philosophies, the Chinese and Japanese, got their asses thumped in battle a fair number of times (e.g., How did Japan's attacking the US while bogged down in China work for them?). Furthermore, comparing the guy to Bush et al in the context of Afghanistan is more or less unnecessary name-dropping.

    So yes, for the time being, Pres. Obama has to maintain the status quo in Afghanistan while he and his staff come up with a solution to bush's greatest failure and that's going to take time. We're talking about fixing george w. bush's greatest failure. Do you realize how epic a screw-up has to be to be george w. bush's greatest? It's almost off the charts, for cryin' out loud. Undoing that will take time and may not even be achievable by mere mortals.

    Again, why maintain a status quo you clearly know is wrong when you've the power to change it rather quickly?

    Such hyperbole ("Bush's greatest failure") might make you feel good (as your not capitalizing parts of Bush's name apparently does), but outside of being an Obama expectation lowering - Bush Derangement Syndrome "daily double", it's a little over the top and, moreover, gives Bush far more credit than he deserves. You know, "George Bush, the guy who screwed up Afghanistan." And after the Mongols, Brits, and Soviets had each turned the place into Club Med.

    Posted in: Afghan president says U.S. forces killed 16 civilians

  • 0

    Anodyne

    "I think it says a lot about the incompetence of the bush presidency and massive move in the right (as in correct) direction the U.S. has taken with regards to our foreign affairs policies when Pres. Obama's detractors believe he should produce more results in Afghanistan in a week than what bush did in 8 years."

    I think it says a lot about the intellectual dishonesty (I'm being generous here) of Bush detractors/anybody but Bush supporters to see the things Bush has done (and been soundly lambasted for doing) suddenly re-cast as "correct" when Obama does them. True, Afghanistan is a tough nut to crack (always has been) and it's very early in Obama's presidency, but the hypocrisy is glaring. That is, the sturm and drang over civilian deaths - actual or trumped-up - has been enormous during Bush's tenure, but such deaths are now apparently viewed as "the cost of doing business" given an assumption of some yet to be unveiled Obama "master" plan that for the moment looks surprisingly like that of his predecessor. And to claim that folks' pointing out said hypocrisy is further "evidence" of Bush's "incompetence" is just plain silly. Try and have the intellectual stones to admit that, at least for the short term, Obama is continuing at least some of the "incompetent" policies of the Bush administration.

    Posted in: Afghan president says U.S. forces killed 16 civilians

  • 0

    Anodyne

    "Whenever the Americans shoot at anyone in Afghanistan, the victims will always be reported as "civilians", haven´t you noticed that yet? Doesn´t matter if they were civilians shooting rocket launchers or packing themselves with dynamite vests, they are always "civilians".

    And that playbook won´t change under Obama, sorry folks."

    I read you loud and clear, WilliB. Was just poking the Obamalackeys for their new-found lack of outrage in regards to trumped up civilian casualties.

    Posted in: Afghan president says U.S. forces killed 16 civilians

  • 0

    Anodyne

    Aside from the U.S., which countries of economic consequence embargo Cuba? Answer: none. And yet the place is in tatters. The Workers' Paradise that is Cuba needs normalized relations with the evil Uncle Sam to be put right? The U.S. should deal with Cuba simply as yet another way to turn a buck, not because the folks down there will suddenly figure out how to do things right (i.e., some sort of democracy) after not doing so for so long.

    Posted in: For Cuba and U.S., making up is hard to do

  • 0

    Anodyne

    Nice try boys. This is still george bush's doing. It's now Obama's responsibility ...

    It's Obama's responsibility to kill civilians in Afghanistan? Not quite the "Hope and Change" many folks were banking on, is it?

    Posted in: Afghan president says U.S. forces killed 16 civilians

Follow us

Facebook
Twitter

View all