j44

I know, but that still doesn't justify it.

Actually I never really understand people that lump an entire ethnic, religious or national group together and blame them all for the actions of a few. Whether that is Israeli governments occupying land, Islamic terrorists killing innocent people, or Western governments invading countries. It always seemed overly simplistic to me.

I think that might have something to do with age. A lot of players are getting scouted very, very early and teams want to grab them when they are still young. More and more are getting in the NHL at 18 and that is when they would just be heading to university.

Or a porn star name. Tory Secret stars in Robocalls in her District.

I thought Hollande 's favorables weren't that great. There is a lot of socialist pandering so I'm not so sure they would be so anti-Merkel as some would assume. Not that these things are needed to disregard a false flag accusation.

SarKozy's pandering to La Pen's voters is another telling sign of France's disturbing slide.

lol

Do you want me to email them and ask them?

I'm not asking you to support anything. I'm not asking any leftist to support anything (war or otherwise). I was saying that some of the left would disagree with you and you don't have a monopoly on left-wing views. If you want to brush me off as irrational for pointing out that others on the left may see things slightly different than you...well, than you don't see your own irrationality or closed-mindedness.

Good God. Yeah leftists are known for being anti-war but that doesn't make all leftists anti-war and it doens't make it necessary to be anti-war to be a leftist. So you are essentially saying that you can't argue that it was justified because it was a failure? Aren't you being ridiculous for just looking at the war? Can't you look at the aid aspect of it too? And acknowledge that some on the left can disagree with you? A leftist could have opposed the war to begin with but look at it now and say that aid is helping at least some. To dismiss everything and say it has had no positive affect on anyone in the country is a bit one sided to me. As far as leftists saying that the US could have aided Afghanistan after the Soviets left. Do you want me to list my friends that have said this?? Is it that much of a stretch that some on the left would like to have seen Afghanistan not left to the Taliban with no foreign aid or anything at all to help them make their lives better? Your last paragraph makes no sense. At no point did I close my eyes to anything. You concentrated (and still do) purely on the war side of what is happening and I'm pointing out that there is also aid, nation building. If you can't really see that I'm trying to add balance to the discussion you are the one that is closing their eyes and not me. I know the war has been terrible on Afghans as a whole but you can't ignore that some have been helped but some of the aid going in. How am I blaming the left for any of this? I was saying that people on the left might disagree with you. And of course your Fox news comment just backs up my case. I kinda assumed that you would label everyone that isn't as left-wing as you are as a Republican or Neo-conservative.

So if it was a success would it be left-wing to support it? Some may argue that keeping the Taliban out of Kabul is better for most Afghans and especially women. Wouldn't that be a left-wing-ish argument? Hasn't a big part of the more recent aspects of the war had a lot to do with nation-building? Isn't that a left-wing or even progressive case? If the left argues that cutting Afghanistan off after the Soviets left was a mistake wouldn't helping them build institutions etc now be a left-wing idea? Isn't foreign aid (at least non-military) what leftists are almost always in favor of? Doesn't that help Afghans?

I really don't know American W's views but can you really say that no leftist can support a war? Ever? Isnt that what you are saying?

Good point.

He never actually responds directly to arguments. He just makes mostly baseless comments and tip toes (poorly) around any debate. Is it your opinion that the solution to Afghanistan is that they 'go atheism?' And no I don't think my opinions have more merit than anyone elses...but I am thinking they have more merit than yours. so you gave me from 1:07pm ti 1:21 to reply? That was your permitted time? I think you did the same thing the last time we did this. Jumped ship and said you had better things to do. I think you even put the exact same 'I will gladly give you the last word! Don't dissapoint me buddy!' Exclamation marks and all!!!!!!! I dont see how I am trying to control the direction of this when I have repeatedly asked the same question from the start. How did the jihadits pose a threat to the world? Thanks for playing. I always find it amusing.

You can start by commenting on my above comments and telling me how the jihadists posed a threat to the world in the 80s and elaborating on the Vietnam comments. If you have time of course.

lol. Yeah, I'm a lot of work. You're the one that isn't backing up their claims with anything other than simple broad statements. You have very, very simple view of history and when you look at your comments you see that you never even really make any solid argument. Ever. Then when you start to lose you say that it isn't your job to convince me of anything. Ummm, I'm pretty sure debate is a pretty big part of what this forum is all about. And we were in a debate. But if you give up that is ok. And no, you saying that the Soviets were doing world peace a favor doesn't boil down to atheism. Not even a little bit. Do you really see Afghanistan going 'atheism?' Really? Does that seem possible to you? Really? And yeah, spelling is so difficult when typing to a few people.

Oh I'm so glad we are buddies again. That is a nice try. You could always explain the comparison in more detail...if you can.

I see that the Soviets were helping the regime they were supporting in Kabul but I don’t see how the Islamic fighters were a threat to world peace or how a group of fighters that needed so much support from the US to just fight in Afghanistan could threaten ‘to break up the Soviet Union.’ I’m sure they thought they could do that with God on their side but if you want to think that too you can go right ahead. The US supported the fighters for the purpose of bogging the Soviets down in Afghanistan. It worked. Once they achieved their purpose that support was pulled. Other than one supporting the other the comparison with Afghanistan and Pakistan ends there. Bringing up Vietnam etc is just muddying the waters. I encourage you to continue to question my intelligence and age though. Coming from someone who constantly misspells words it makes you look so good to everyone else on this forum.

That is just your opinion. It isn't a fact.

Yeah, 10 or so sentences is quite the rant. Maybe you should try going on a rant sometimes. If you're comments were longer maybe they would contain more facts.You managed to reply with my 'rant' with what basically amounted to 'they shared a border and the USSR had a problem with its neighbors.' You point out they shared border but don't say anything about how Afghanistan would threaten the USSR. Yes, the Soviets wanted a pro-Soviet regime on its border but how would the Afghans threaten world peace if they weren't pro-Soviet? You didnt answer that. Most of your arguments are like that though. You don't really answer questions. You make big statements with nothing really to back them up. I enjoy taking the bait though.

Ok I got it. The Soviets invaded and occupied Afghanistan for world peace. They did it for WORLD peace even though the Mujahadeen only posed a threat to the gov. in Kabul and in no way threatened any outside country. I got it, right? So your criticism of the US is that they supported what ended up being the Taliban but you don't see a problem with the Taliban taking over when the US leaves? Oh wait. I'm sorry. I forgot that the Taliban taking over would be one of the 'good things.' Are you saying that the Soviets invaded in 1979 because they were attacked in 2011? That is some preemptive attack. That puts G. W. Bush's invasion of Iraq to shame. How do you criticize someone for not listening to facts and then never really say anything other than that the US funded the anti-Soviet fighters in Afghanistan? That is all you've said over and over. If you are going to come up with some foreign policy arguments it is time to spend some time and think of something other than 'the US screwed up.' I do think I have it figured out though. I think Brezhnev had the breathing and speech mechanics down and that is why you like him. It's OK. It all makes sense to us now.

Why would you bother to quote a question of mine if you're not going to answer it?

I totally agree with you. I'm left leaning on many issues but foolish comments like his do nothing but make it easier for others to label the left in less than flattering terms. Not to mention that it makes any serious discussion almost impossible. I have many friends on the left that use similar logic. A lot of anti-US views are so knee-jerk that anything and anyone that opposes the US is correct and moral. Not too long ago one of my friends on facebook posted a pro-Lukashenko (sp?) article because it was anti-Nato. I can promise that he knew nothing of Belarus before that day or that it is arguably the worst dictatorship in Europe. But that didn't matter. He is against the US. So Belarus is for freedom and equality.

Tell me how they were 'doing a fine job' at stoppin them while doing world peace a favor? Weren't they stopping them by invading and occupying? And for everyone out there that wonders why some on the right refer to people on the left as radicals, militants and communist sympathizers just remember that the 'Soviets were doing world peace a favor.'

HAHAHA. This thread made my day. and it is idiotic.