ABC News: Year After Obama Won Nobel, World Looks for Signs of Peace

[Mad Mike]

I wonder if you will still roll your eyes when some of those 10k are killed?

NO. I won't. *IF* that happens, I will honor them for volunteering to serve. I will remember that they gave their lives in an important mission to save lives here at home.

And BTW.... none of this is new. It's been said from the beginning that we would have some special ops and training forces remaining well after the majority of forces leave. Because if we don't and let Afghanistan fall back into the hands of the Taliban, all of the lives we lost taking it away from them and helping the REAL Afghan people take their country back will have been in vain.

Sorry Neville, but peace does not come from giving in to terrorists and child killing cult members who would drag a nation into the dark ages.

[SnyderShrugged]

NO. I won't. *IF* that happens, I will honor them for volunteering to serve. I will remember that they gave their lives in an important mission to save lives here at home.

And BTW.... none of this is new. It's been said from the beginning that we would have some special ops and training forces remaining well after the majority of forces leave. Because if we don't and let Afghanistan fall back into the hands of the Taliban, all of the lives we lost taking it away from them and helping the REAL Afghan people take their country back will have been in vain.

Sorry Neville, but peace does not come from giving in to terrorists and child killing cult members who would drag a nation into the dark ages.

Let us know when its over and your plans to keep paying for it while we are at it. (or do you even know what "over" even means, because I sure dont)

It's only been 13 years, might as well be permanent. I'm sure you would love that.

[Mad Mike]

Let us know when its over and your plans to keep paying for it while we are at it. (or do you even know what "over" even means, because I sure dont)

It's only been 13 years, might as well be permanent. I'm sure you would love that.

I see. So you chastise me about possible lives lost but it's really all about the money to you isn't it.

And yeah, I would love for it to be permanent. Because I'm that kind of guy who loves violence and death and wants to spend money... Care to make any more stupid outrageous claims about me? Wait a minute... let me try that tactic.... If we leave before Afghanistan is strong enough the Taliban and Terrorists win. I'm sure you would love that. ... Nah, consciously choosing to be a self righteous prick just doesn't work for me. I'll stick to the intelligent (although apparently difficult to understand) argument that sometimes we must make difficult choices and take on difficult tasks.

[SnyderShrugged]

I see. So you chastise me about possible lives lost but it's really all about the money to you isn't it.

And yeah, I would love for it to be permanent. Because I'm that kind of guy who loves violence and death and wants to spend money... Care to make any more stupid outrageous claims about me? Wait a minute... let me try that tactic.... If we leave before Afghanistan is strong enough the Taliban and Terrorists win. I'm sure you would love that. ... Nah, consciously choosing to be a self righteous prick just doesn't work for me. I'll stick to the intelligent (although apparently difficult to understand) argument that sometimes we must make difficult choices and take on difficult tasks.

Nah, you are just a war lovin neo-con and you have trouble admitting it. Not a biggie man, embrace yourself!

It's about both lives and money (the whole blood and treasure thingy, you know?)

When do you estimate we can leave? 2050 maybe?

and yes, your arguments on this are definitely difficult to understand. I agree with your point there.

[Mad Mike]

Nah, you are just a war lovin neo-con and you have trouble admitting it. Not a biggie man, embrace yourself!

Ah, the classic SS "neocon" moronic bull**** attack. Logic isn't good enough to make your arguments so you try to paint me as some kind of horrible person. Way to go. Classic SS.

(And yes MODS I *do* take it very personally when someone accuses me of "loving" war. It doesn't get more personal than someone accusing you of being morally bankrupt.)

Thanks for reminding me why I dislike you so much. I was starting to get soft. And if you don't understand the concept of having to do things you don't like because sometimes the right choice is the hardest one, that's your failing, not mine. I'm done here. I have better things to do than argue with someone who cant understand such a simple concept.

[SnyderShrugged]

Ah, the classic SS "neocon" moronic bull**** attack. Logic isn't good enough to make your arguments so you try to paint me as some kind of horrible person. Way to go. Classic SS.

(And yes MODS I *do* take it very personally when someone accuses me of "loving" war. It doesn't get more personal than someone accusing you of being morally bankrupt.)

Thanks for reminding me why I dislike you so much. I was starting to get soft. And if you don't understand the concept of having to do things you don't like because sometimes the right choice is the hardest one, that's your failing, not mine. I'm done here. I have better things to do than argue with someone who cant understand such a simple concept.

You do understand what the silly smiley means in a post, right? Nice temper tantrum MAD mike

[Mad Mike]

I see. It's OK to insult someone as long as you put a smilie in there. Is that it?

TIme for another difficult concept.... Smilies work in context when you have a neutral or positive history with someone and are clearly joking. When you have repeatedly made the same personal attacks on someone in the past... not so much.

[killerbee99]

I see. So you chastise me about possible lives lost but it's really all about the money to you isn't it.

And yeah, I would love for it to be permanent. Because I'm that kind of guy who loves violence and death and wants to spend money... Care to make any more stupid outrageous claims about me? Wait a minute... let me try that tactic.... If we leave before Afghanistan is strong enough the Taliban and Terrorists win. I'm sure you would love that. ... Nah, consciously choosing to be a self righteous prick just doesn't work for me. I'll stick to the intelligent (although apparently difficult to understand) argument that sometimes we must make difficult choices and take on difficult tasks.

Damn, cold -blooded smack down.

[SnyderShrugged]

Damn, cold -blooded smack down.

LOL, except for that whole pesky fact that is wasnt.

---------- Post added November-27th-2012 at 12:25 PM ----------

I see. It's OK to insult someone as long as you put a smilie in there. Is that it?

TIme for another difficult concept.... Smilies work in context when you have a neutral or positive history with someone and are clearly joking. When you have repeatedly made the same personal attacks on someone in the past... not so much.

Hmmm, I must have been mistaken when I saw an immediate response to a post that had nothing to do with you initially. The roll eyes smiley (or do you not follow your own professed "smiley rules"?)

Thats quite the tantrum for being called a neo-con. Strange since you seem to mirror most neo-con beliefs out there, especially the neo-con foreign policy stance of GWB, yet you get really upset when its pointed out. Why is that?

[Bang]

I think it's safe to say the Peace Prize won't be awarded to anyone in this thread.

Which now includes me.

dangit!

~Bang

[Corcaigh]

Having the troops in Afghanistan seems like a better use than, say, Italy. 50k+ in Germany still, 36k+ in Japan, 10k in the UK

[Thiebear]

South Korea DMZ for 60 years.. could go tomorrow also.

We never really leave, we create "Embassies"

full of CIA and Military.

[Mad Mike]

LOL, except for that whole pesky fact that is wasnt.

---------- Post added November-27th-2012 at 12:25 PM ----------

Hmmm, I must have been mistaken when I saw an immediate response to a post that had nothing to do with you initially. The roll eyes smiley (or do you not follow your own professed "smiley rules"?)

Thats quite the tantrum for being called a neo-con. Strange since you seem to mirror most neo-con beliefs out there, especially the neo-con foreign policy stance of GWB, yet you get really upset when its pointed out. Why is that?

I should be gone but the absolute stupidity of your argument is just too much not to make fun of...

My "rolleyes" smilie was not attached to a personal insult. It was a comment *on the argument* you made that somehow it is against the principles of peace to try to help an nation rid itself of a child killing, terrorist supporting cult. The two smilies and their use have nothing in common.

Then in a fit of absolute mindless typing, you admit that your neocon comment was not a joke after all and that you are in fact accusing me of being morally bankrupt.

And now you try to paint me as having a "temper tantrum" for calling you on your BS. The standard SS ad hominem attack.

What is amazing to me is that you cant recognize how bad your make yourself look. You just keep running off at the mouth like a bad parody of yourself.

[SnyderShrugged]

I should be gone but the absolute stupidity of your argument is just too much not to make fun of...

My "rolleyes" smilie was not attached to a personal insult. It was a comment *on the argument* you made that somehow it is against the principles of peace to try to help an nation rid itself of a child killing, terrorist supporting cult. The two smilies and their use have nothing in common.

Then in a fit of absolute mindless typing, you admit that your neocon comment was not a joke after all and that you are in fact accusing me of being morally bankrupt.

And now you try to paint me as having a "temper tantrum" for calling you on your BS. The standard SS ad hominem attack.

What is amazing to me is that you cant recognize how bad your make yourself look. You just keep running off at the mouth like a bad parody of yourself.

Its really quite entertaining watching you twist yourself into angry knots over a thread that you came into with an adversarial comment from the get go and then follow it up with (here come an ad hominem) a nice little temper tantrum at the unfairness of commentary in return.

I wont accuse you of being morally bankrupt Mike, I'll just accuse everyone that shares your ideals as such instead. Wouldnt want to offend your tenderest of tender sensibilities.

[Mad Mike]

South Korea DMZ for 60 years.. could go tomorrow also.

We never really leave, we create "Embassies"

full of CIA and Military.

Yeah, the insane "leadership" on the other side of the boarder threatening a vital economic partner has nothing to do with it.

(See how that works SS? I used sarcasm and that smilie to show my distain *for the argument*. I'm not attacking Thiebear. I'm sure he's a fine person and I find no need to accuse him of holding views he does not hold.)

---------- Post added November-27th-2012 at 07:27 PM ----------

Its really quite entertaining watching you twist yourself into angry knots over a thread that you came into with an adversarial comment from the get go and then follow it up with (here come an ad hominem) a nice little temper tantrum at the unfairness of commentary in return.

I wont accuse you of being morally bankrupt Mike, I'll just accuse everyone that shares your ideals as such instead. Wouldnt want to offend your tenderest of tender sensibilities.

I see. Because I disagree with your position and dare to say so in this thread, I must be "twisted into angry knots". Got it.

...And in return I won't call you a complete ******* idiot... You can fill in the rest.

[SnyderShrugged]

Yeah, the insane "leadership" on the other side of the boarder threatening a vital economic partner has nothing to do with it.

(See how that works SS? I used sarcasm and that smilie to show my distain *for the argument*. I'm not attacking Thiebear. I'm sure he's a fine person and I find no need to accuse him of holding views he does not hold.)

So you are saying you do not agree with neo-con foreign policy then? I thought for sure you rolled your smiley eyes when it came up before.

What views were you accused of having that you dont here in this thread?

[SnyderShrugged]

And THIS is why keeping troops there is a bad idea regardless of what they tell us their mission is. The reason to bring them home is obvious to anyone using rational thought.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/02/us-afghanistan-jalalabad-explosions-idUSBRE8B100X20121202

(Reuters) - Suicide attackers detonated bombs and fired rockets outside a major U.S. base in Afghanistan on Sunday, killing five people in a brazen operation that highlighted the country's security challenges ahead of the 2014 NATO combat troop pullout. SS add: Despite the fact that it really will NEVER be a full troop pullout. But why let that whole truth thingy get in the way of a good fiction right?)

[Larry]

Is it your assertions that

a) We should never have troops in any place in which terrorists kill people?

We should completely remove all troops from Afghanistan? Do Marines at our embassy/embassies count, or do we have to get rid of them, too? If not, then how low do we have to go, to meet your standard of "full troop pullout"?

[HailToTheRedskins14]

There are nearly 50k troops on active duty in Iraq as we speak. Mr. Peace Prize can claim his mantle when they are not there any longer.

Don't forget all the mercenaries who don't count as troops that work for private companies. All we've done is turn the war over to private businesses.

[SnyderShrugged]

Is it your assertions that

a) We should never have troops in any place in which terrorists kill people?

We should completely remove all troops from Afghanistan? Do Marines at our embassy/embassies count, or do we have to get rid of them, too? If not, then how low do we have to go, to meet your standard of "full troop pullout"?

A troop pull out should pretty much be a troop pullout. Especially in Afghanistan.

---------- Post added December-2nd-2012 at 03:01 PM ----------

Don't forget all the mercenaries who don't count as troops that work for private companies. All we've done is turn the war over to private businesses.

Good point

[Barney B]

I wont accuse you of being morally bankrupt Mike, I'll just accuse everyone that shares your ideals as such instead.

Actually, the argument that preventing Afghanistan from falling entirely into the hands of the Taliban is there to be made by anyone seeking the moral high ground - whether in Pakistan or Afghanistan, these are people who shoot little girls in the head.

To deny this, you'd have to either make the case that the Taliban is not really a factor in Afghan politics, or explain why it's less immoral to not resist the Taliban, practical considerations aside (and even then, you're still a long way from "morally bankrupt").

[SnyderShrugged]

Actually, the argument that preventing Afghanistan from falling entirely into the hands of the Taliban is there to be made by anyone seeking the moral high ground - whether in Pakistan or Afghanistan, these are people who shoot little girls in the head.

To deny this, you'd have to either make the case that the Taliban is not really a factor in Afghan politics, or explain why it's less immoral to not resist the Taliban, practical considerations aside (and even then, you're still a long way from "morally bankrupt").

So in short, we should invade/occupy/control every nation that is a potential takeover target for the Taliban and other Terror orgs, correct?

If thats the real plan, I'd prefer they just come out and say it and not play these silly games claiming we are "pulling out the troops" when we never really do. It's dishonest.

[Barney B]

So in short, we should invade/occupy/control every nation that is a potential takeover target for the Taliban and other Terror orgs, correct?

No, that's a different argument. I was addressing your statement about people who share Mike's views being "morally bankrupt", which I'm confident you'll now retract, since you're basically a good guy.

Some people might contend that Afghanistan is a special case (or at least the most precipitous case) but I'll reserve judgment. I'll just add that it's possible for them to say so without being fundamentally dishonest. :2cents:

[SnyderShrugged]

No, that's a different argument. I was addressing your statement about people who share Mike's views being "morally bankrupt", which I'm confident you'll now retract, since you're basically a good guy.

Some people might contend that Afghanistan is a special case (or at least the most precipitous case) but I'll reserve judgment. I'll just add that it's possible for them to say so without being fundamentally dishonest. :2cents:

Honestly, I was more pulling Mike's chain then, but I also do believe in my heart that our current foreign policy is amoral.

[Jumbo]

Honestly, I was more pulling Mike's chain then

Honestly, it almost bought you a long vacation. You can consider this post a partial answer to your PM.

But don't send me any more.

Nothing personal, but I've taken a hiatus from the "perpetual babysitting/hand-holding/explaining" business for anyone who's seemed to repeatedly require it.