[Rupert]

No, not how we evolved from little one celled amoebas....Ratlady can start that thread. How we got in this War on Terror that is not going all that well, and hasn't been for a long time.

We were attacked on 911......I won't go into the blame game here, there is plenty for both sides. Clinton failed and so did Bush...you can assign degrees of blame, but the failures have the same result.

We retaliated in Afghanistan, a worthy and justifiable action, sanctioned by most of the world and certainly by the American people both left and right. I knew of not a single soul that was not for the Afghan invasion. I bet you didn't either?

Then, with the job incomplete, we pulled our resources and went into Iraq for a quick and easy victory, liberating the people under Sadam's tyrannic control, and destroying those WMD's by the boatload.....Well, it wasn't quite that way, was it?

Meanwhile Afghanistan was festering and Al Qaeda wasted no time in using the invasion of Iraq as a recruiting tool for proof that America was an Imperialist invader and planned destruction of the Arab world. Rogue nations like N Korea and Iran took advantage of our inability to deal with them in our time of crisis in Iraq, and furthered their control and expanded their capabilities for mass destruction. Al Qaeda flourished and spread their terrorism to Iraq, an excellent training ground, and penetrated deep into Yemen, Nigeria, Somalia, and many, many other countries...some as close as our southern neighbors.

So as I see it we were at the wrong place at the wrong time...we were in Iraq when the bad guys were still in Afghanistan......and now we are in Afghanistan while the bad guys have packed up and left. Gone with their newly found recruits to seed the world. It seems to me we are always one step behind and wasting resources while the enemy grows in our absence.

Does anyone here really think that when all is said and done, and many of our young soldiers are buried at Arlington National, the Taliban won't still run the country of Afghanistan? Seen any Taliban attacks on America...other than in their own country? Would you attack a Chinese occupation force here? We need to leave them alone and go get the bad guys, and a only a tiny few are in Afghanistan....more are on our own soil than in Afghanistan.

We seem to learn little from our mistakes, but we may be the best in the world at making those mistakes......over and over. Why not? You keep paying for it and sending your young to die for bizarre plans that never produce the desired results......me too. When will we say no more?

Your views may vary, I expect they will, but if you don't defend one side over the other, and admit that both sides have failed us, we might not differ all that much....

Try to imagine what a distinct and overwhelming victory in Afghanistan would have meant to AlQaeda eight years ago.....a sign that America is serious... and a poor recruiting tool for like minded evildoers worldwide. When will we stop fighting wars of convenience and get down to the dirty work? Obama doesn't seem to have any more clue than George....why is that?
Regards
Rupert

[Parallax]

We seem to learn little from our mistakes, .....

That is exactly how we got here.
You can't fight a friendly war. You can't accomplish anything by slapping your enemy.

Rule #1: Stay out of fights when possible.

Rule #2: If you decide you have to fight. FIGHT!
Whether your opponent gets back up or not is irrelevant.
If he is capable of getting back up, you didn't hit him hard enough.

Rule # 3: Don't help your opponent get back up.
The one thing that the world learned from Japan, Germany, Iraq, Viet Nam, and every other country we have fought in
is that no nation has anything to loose by fighting the U.S.
They will always be better off after than they were before.
Unless we make the risk of fighting the U.S outweigh the benefit,
we will not be any safer than we are now.

[Ratmagiclady]

"How we got here" didn't start on 9/11.

It goes back through things like *colonialism* and later corporate versions: the Cold War, when the US propped up or put in power or trained and funded despots and radicals against 'Godless Communism...' while certain rulers encouraged the jihadist mentality to divert blame for their own economic and social injustices on the West while we became more dependent on the oil supply... Back to what the Axis and Allies did in that part of the world in the Second World War, ... Colonialism, the Crusades, conflicts among various Muslim sects and rulers, what came out of the *whole* ball of wax that is India and Pakistan, Islam's own expansionism into regions where indigenous people had their own cultures destroyed (this leaves long-term scars) ....back further to the pogroms of the Christianized Empire in decline, the destruction of much of the cultural moorings of most of civilization in favor of these aggressive and monolithic book religions... back to the expansionism of Julius Caesar... Heck, you could say it goes back to Darius and Xerxes and Philip and Alexander.

How we *got* here is... Not something that began in 2001.

What we all do *next,* that's the question.

There have been other opportunities. in the West, the Enlightenment left us with some checks many of us have been afraid to cash. Among these are that *unloading* the concerns of money, war, and politics from religion, not only bring more peaceful and thus prosperous societies, ...but, as many think: better spirituality for all traditions. The people whose interests are threatened by this state of affairs aren't the ones we ought to be listening to about either religion or who 'deserves' bombing in one way or another.

[Blue]

RML,

Julius Caesar was not a Christian nor was he Emperor of Rome.

[Parallax]

RML,

Julius Caesar was not a Christian nor was he Emperor of Rome.

Don't confuse her with facts, she's on a roll.

[Ratmagiclady]

RML,

Julius Caesar was not a Christian nor was he Emperor of Rome.

I said neither.

[little laker]

like minded evildoers worldwide.

This line bothers me whenever I see someone using it.
Just because someone has different believes than you do doesn't mean that they're evil.
It just means that they have a different opinion.

There's a good chance that you believe your defending your country and way of life, while they're defending their home and way of life.

It isn't the people of Afghanistan, or Iraq who invaded the US soil. It was a few sick minded people, who are benefiting from the wars it's caused.

[Ratmagiclady]

This line bothers me whenever I see someone using it.
Just because someone has different believes than you do doesn't mean that they're evil.
It just means that they have a different opinion.

There's a good chance that you believe your defending your country and way of life, while they're defending their home and way of life.

It isn't the people of Afghanistan, or Iraq who invaded the US soil. It was a few sick minded people, who are benefiting from the wars it's caused.

That's kind of the thing about Afghanistan. Taking out Al Qaeda and the Taliban guys we were doing nothing about while they abused the people of Afghanistan.... is a different matter from this 'Crusade' notion of Biblical literalists.


Also a different matter entirely than complicating *that* job by attacking Iraq on false pretenses, as Bush and Rummy did. Saddam was not a good guy, no. But the *war* there had no realistic promise of improving the situation beyond what the world community was doing at the time: actually containing the SOB's power to hurt people and starting to talk about *easing* the sanctions, rather than letting all the people he was playing off each other to remain in power transfer their anger to America while blowing the crap out of each other.

Iraq was a massive blunder Bush claimed 'God Spoke to me' about... Therefore lied to us about to, basically, 'attack Babylon.' (And, frankly, if he just had to do it, he could have *not screwed it up,* and it might have come out reasonably OK. Leaving the ammo dumps unguarded and *disbanding the Iraqi army to go off to their home factions with no skills but hurting people, instead of *paying them for once to maintain order.* ...Created much more of a morass than things ever actually had to be, there.

Heedless of the consequences, and without a plan, except how to force it politically at home. That was how Bush played Iraq, and he wouldn't commit to Tora Bora (cause he wanted to invade Iraq) when we still had righteous arsekicking on our side.

Basically, Bush just wasn't thinking. He wanted his photo ops with pulling down statues, but had false expectations of the results of his actions. His *father* had already in the previous war, told all the credible resistance in Iraq to 'rise up, now is your time!' ...Then hung them out to dry. If any survived the intervening decade, they weren't about to try that again. Major blunders and myopia were involved. While he had Colin Powell tell us there were WMDs, such that he'd have to resign for honor's sake once he did it.

[Nesster]

I find this funny, though of course sad and screwed up: the Bush folks truly believed that there was a liberal (in the old sense) middle class in Iraq yearning to be 'free' and prosperous, instantly springing to life once Saddam was gone. This idea is explicitly held by the multinational corporations, who see an ocean of consumers stabilizing the world for profit.

The irony is, if you believe the statistics and your own budget, the US middle class has done progressively worse in the last 10 or more years, with real incomes (adjusted for inflation etc) down and expenses up. Yeah, the credit and equity shows have made us feel rich, but inevitably have left us high and dry.

Like-minded evildoers - why Little Laker, that's why they are 'like minded' whichever side they are found on, as everyone defines their best interest narrowly and defends his/her way of life and country. Which means every side has them.

[thazooo]

How We Got Here....

When it makes no sense follow the money and see who makes the most :-)

[Ratmagiclady]

How We Got Here....

When it makes no sense follow the money and see who makes the most :-)

All you gotta do is look at the figures on 'income stratification' to see where the *real* "transfer of wealth" has been going on.

[Rupert]

I don't disagree with most of what I have seen in these replies, and I do have to agree with the Ratlady, it started long ago, and we are certainly not free of some responsibility. Just how much could be debated forever, but we have made serious mistakes.

Dana, it is always "follow the money" you are 100% correct on that point, no doubt about it.

Just as a side note, I recall living in Stephenville in 1975 and reading an article in Time Magazine, rather long, about the coming wave of terrorism against America from the Middle East. At the time it seemed a little far fetched. I'm sure it could be found in their archives, and I am amazed at the accuracy of their predictions. I wonder why our Government couldn't or wouldn't see this all coming?
Regards!

I find this funny, though of course sad and screwed up: the Bush folks truly believed that there was a liberal (in the old sense) middle class in Iraq yearning to be 'free' and prosperous, instantly springing to life once Saddam was gone. This idea is explicitly held by the multinational corporations, who see an ocean of consumers stabilizing the world for profit.

The irony is, if you believe the statistics and your own budget, the US middle class has done progressively worse in the last 10 or more years, with real incomes (adjusted for inflation etc) down and expenses up. Yeah, the credit and equity shows have made us feel rich, but inevitably have left us high and dry.

Like-minded evildoers - why Little Laker, that's why they are 'like minded' whichever side they are found on, as everyone defines their best interest narrowly and defends his/her way of life and country. Which means every side has them.

They need to 'free' that middle class first so that they can take all their money from them. That model worked in this country, now they're rolling it out to the rest of the world.

[Parallax]

I don't disagree with most of what I have seen in these replies, and I do have to agree with the Ratlady, it started long ago, and we are certainly not free of some responsibility. Just how much could be debated forever, but we have made serious mistakes.

Dana, it is always "follow the money" you are 100% correct on that point, no doubt about it.

Just as a side note, I recall living in Stephenville in 1975 and reading an article in Time Magazine, rather long, about the coming wave of terrorism against America from the Middle East. At the time it seemed a little far fetched. I'm sure it could be found in their archives, and I am amazed at the accuracy of their predictions. I wonder why our Government couldn't or wouldn't see this all coming?
Regards!

You answered your own question: I wonder why our Government couldn't or wouldn't see this all coming? in the previous paragraph: Dana, it is always "follow the money" you are 100% correct on that point, no doubt about it.

[Rupert]

I suppose you too are 100% correct, but wouldn't it be nice if it wasn't so. I know I make many personal decions that are not based on money alone, and others do also...is it too much to ask that our elected leaders do the same?
Regards!