Jump to content

POLITICS SCHMALITICS


romad1

Recommended Posts

Iraq - I believe could have been correctly done, but not the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld Plan. They F'd it up. Not saying it's an absolute guarantee that a (General) MacArthur Plan would have worked; but it would have put the country in its best position to succeed rather than its worst. I won't give a guarantee, but I absolutely believe that that kind of plan would have worked.

Afghanistan - the only thing that would work for the Afghans is to split them up IMO. Not a good option, but the northeastern 25-30% of the country is mostly Tadjik. Split that off (I think Kabul is in that NE 25%, but is more mixed ethnically) and combine it with Tadjikistan and at least that area is stable. The rest of the country is 90% Pashtun. Create a Pashtunistan. The Taliban would rule there. There's no getting around that. But if that's how they (Pashtun) want to live then we would just have to resign ourselves to that scenario. It would still be a problem area and the Pashtuns would decidedly not be happy with that solution... but wall of the area from Pashtun and most of the population could live a normal life. 0% chance this ever would have been considered though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the boomer/ not boomer spectrum... I was at the very tail end of "boomers", born in 1964.

So Vietnam was not a thing for me at all... too young. My political/ military initiation was Nixon's fall (barely on my register), the EPA and the rise in environmentalism, stagflation, the end of Vietnam, Carter's dysfunctional years, and the rise of Reaganism.

I was in Fort Bragg when we went to Grenada, however, I was Artillery and we didn't go there, just Airborne went to Grenada (from Fort Bragg... so they took all of our equipment). I did serve near the Korean DMZ for a year and a half latrer on...

I hated lots and lots of Reagan policies but, in the end, I had to agree that he was a good president. Still hate lots of his policies. But he turned me from a Liberal Dem to a stout Independent that caucuses mostly with Dems. Since 1990. Or maybe it was 1992.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gehringer_2 said:

Might work for us, but not so much for Pakistan. The first thing a Taliban Pashtunistan would want is their 'half' of Pakistan! 🤷‍♂️

Yeah I considered that.

Pashtun in Pakistan I believe are all in the western mountainous areas all the way down to southwestern Pakistan, I believe west of Karachi, and touching the Indian Ocean... Maybe Pakistan out of the goodness of their hearts would gift some land to the Pashtun, giving them sea access, and good relations with (no more terrorist attacks within) Pakistan.

Hah! What a farcical dream. No one would ever go for that. Except the Pashtun that is...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Deleterious said:

I miss him.

 

Some really good stuff in those interviews.  I think Justin would be a good Speaker, but that's why it will never happen.  These people don't care about us, all they care about is power and money.  They are corrupt to the core.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Screwball said:

Some really good stuff in those interviews.  I think Justin would be a good Speaker, but that's why it will never happen.  These people don't care about us, all they care about is power and money.  They are corrupt to the core.

Some are worse than others, but none of them care.  I believe that the system is such that someone who does care can not succeed as a politician.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Screwball said:

Some really good stuff in those interviews.  I think Justin would be a good Speaker, but that's why it will never happen.  These people don't care about us, all they care about is power and money.  They are corrupt to the core.

We are all learning that bomb-throwers are more likely to succeed in Congress than truth-tellers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, chasfh said:

We are all learning that bomb-throwers are more likely to succeed in Congress than truth-tellers.

There are no truth tellers in congress.  Only people who get filthy rich by taking bribes while feeding their constituents bullshit like they are "fighting for them."  Fuck off with that shit.  Whores, the whole lot of them - bomb-throwers or not.  And that goes from the White House to the local courthouse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tiger337 said:

Some are worse than others, but none of them care.  I believe that the system is such that someone who does care can not succeed as a politician.  

If the few who have good intentions when they get there, it is taken from them not long after.  You go along to get along, or you are out.  The money will not flow, and that's all that matters.

We don't have elections, we have auctions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Screwball said:

There are no truth tellers in congress.  Only people who get filthy rich by taking bribes while feeding their constituents bullshit like they are "fighting for them."  Fuck off with that shit.  Whores, the whole lot of them - bomb-throwers or not.  And that goes from the White House to the local courthouse.

That would mean we don't want Justin Amash to be Speaker of the House, then, because he will stop telling that truth you liked so much in your earlier post.

We don't want anyone to be Speaker of the House because they will definitely not tell any truth.

We don't want there to be any Congress at all, because it is where truth goes to die.

We don't want a government because it only corrupts everyone who touches it and precludes the telling of any truth.

We should strive to remove all governance of any sort from the lives of all people because it's the only way we have a chance to get close to the truth that governance by practical definition precludes, although people are still involved, so that's no guarantee, either.

Does that pretty much cover it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, chasfh said:

That would mean we don't want Justin Amash to be Speaker of the House, then, because he will stop telling that truth you liked so much in your earlier post.

We don't want anyone to be Speaker of the House because they will definitely not tell any truth.

We don't want there to be any Congress at all, because it is where truth goes to die.

We don't want a government because it only corrupts everyone who touches it and precludes the telling of any truth.

We should strive to remove all governance of any sort from the lives of all people because it's the only way we have a chance to get close to the truth that governance by practical definition precludes, although people are still involved, so that's no guarantee, either.

Does that pretty much cover it?

Amash isn't in congress the last I looked.  Wonder why?

The rest is just bullshit talking points.

I think you can figure out what we need if you think hard enough.  It really isn't difficult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, chasfh said:
22 minutes ago, chasfh said:

That would mean we don't want Justin Amash to be Speaker of the House, then, because he will stop telling that truth you liked so much in your earlier post.

We don't want anyone to be Speaker of the House because they will definitely not tell any truth.

We don't want there to be any Congress at all, because it is where truth goes to die.

We don't want a government because it only corrupts everyone who touches it and precludes the telling of any truth.

We should strive to remove all governance of any sort from the lives of all people because it's the only way we have a chance to get close to the truth that governance by practical definition precludes, although people are still involved, so that's no guarantee, either.

Does that pretty much cover it?

 

I think the people at the top are terrible and always will be.  Having worked as a consultant within government for a long time in the past, I know that there are some good people at lower levels who work to get things done despite the corruption and BS at the top.  So, despite my cynicism of high level politics, I don't dislike government as a whole.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tiger337 said:

I think the people at the top are terrible and always will be.  Having worked as a consultant within government for a long time in the past, I know that there are some good people at lower levels who work to get things done despite the corruption and BS at the top.  So, despite my cynicism of high level politics, I don't dislike government as a whole.    

There's BS at the top everywhere, not just government. Is it fixable, or just the human condition? Because if it's the latter, we might as well stop whinging about it and start looking for a way to work around it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...