Nov 22 GOP debate

[AZRedhawk44]

There were 7 hawkish imperialist NeoCons on stage, and Ron Paul.


At least, that was my take on it.

I absolutely loved the discussion about the Patriot (sic) Act.

I giggle-snorted when one candidate (one of the good-hairs... I think it was Perry) started talking about utilizing our "allies" in the Middle East to enforce sanctions or a no-fly against Syria.  Because we have SO MANY GOOD allies in the Middle East.

I did enjoy Gingrich's poke against Pakistan.  That we SHOULD be furious with them.

Bachman was a 'tard.  Obviously our foreign aid to Pakistan is buying us FANTASTIC intel from them.  Hell, we PAID for UBL's rural villa and home dialysis machine and resident medical staff.  For 10 years.

Santorum was also a 'tard.  Obviously the "shining city on a hill" story is one of his favorite... he said the phrase probably a dozen times last night.  And he's a "Yay Israel you can do no wrong and you have a blank check from the US" type.  No offense intended, Micro...

7 meddling hawkish imperialist NeoCon status-quo 'tards.

And Ron Paul.



I also found myself shouting at the TV that the whole reason we're meddling in A-stan, P-stan, other icky-stans and the rest of southwest Asia is to increase our number of military outposts around China's perimeter.  That our long term State department and DOD goals have nothing to do with "nation building" and that it is a matter of force-containment of China.  And that no one has the integrity and courage to come out and say it... because we need China to continue to allow us to operate our disgusting budget until we collapse under the pain of our own debts.

And that our three greatest REAL national security threats are:
1. Debts.
2. Entitlements ("all enemies, foreign and domestic democratic").
3. Energy Independence.

Camel-riding idgits are a distant number eleventy-seven.

[Perd Hapley]

Hell, we PAID for UBL's rural villa and home dialysis machine and resident medical staff.  For 10 years.

I hadn't heard about that. Where do I find this information?

[AZRedhawk44]

I hadn't heard about that. Where do I find this information?

Pakistan was hiding UBL.

Did you hear about our SEAL raid that killed him?

We've been giving P-stan foreign aid in exchange for "intel" about UBL (and other terrorist related intel) ever since our adventurism in A-stan and Iraq began.  And before that... basically, propping up this fledgling nuclear power ever since the 90's.

But we gave them money we gave them from 2002 to today.  UBL was there from 2002 until 2011.  Ergo, we paid for his villa/dialysis/med-staff.

[Perd Hapley]

I was actually a little more interested in the dialysis thing. As far as I know, his need for dialysis was more of a rumor than solid intel. It's pretty funny, if you google it, you can find people using the lack of a dialysis machine in the compound to claim that the whole SEAL raid was fake.  

Kind of makes it appear you're fast and loose with your facts, though.

[AZRedhawk44]

I was actually a little more interested in the dialysis thing. As far as I know, his need for dialysis was more of a rumor than solid intel. It's pretty funny, if you google it, you can find people using the lack of a dialysis machine in the compound to claim that the whole SEAL raid was fake.  

Kind of makes it appear you're fast and loose with your facts, though.

You're nit-picking at minutiae in an attempt to refute the point. 

The point being:

We give P-stan foreign aid under the pretense they are our ally in the GWoT.  We have expected to get intel from them in exchange. 

Instead, our funds ended up buying us lies, and paying for UBL's comfort in a (relatively) nice (for P-stan standards) villa, and making us look like idgits in the international intel community.

[Perd Hapley]

Refuting what point? You think I'm trying to defend Pakistan? Why? Ain't no percentage in it.

It's just funny that you laugh at Bachmann's foreign policy views, yet you're talking about medical staff and equipment that never existed. 

[cosine]

{...}


I also found myself shouting at the TV that the whole reason we're meddling in A-stan, P-stan, other icky-stans and the rest of southwest Asia is to increase our number of military outposts around China's perimeter.  That our long term State department and DOD goals have nothing to do with "nation building" and that it is a matter of force-containment of China.  And that no one has the integrity and courage to come out and say it... because we need China to continue to allow us to operate our disgusting budget until we collapse under the pain of our own debts.

[...]

Interesting. I had never thought of our military presence in that area as containment of China, but it makes sense.

[wmenorr67]

I also found myself shouting at the TV that the whole reason we're meddling in A-stan, P-stan, other icky-stans and the rest of southwest Asia is to increase our number of military outposts around China's perimeter.  That our long term State department and DOD goals have nothing to do with "nation building" and that it is a matter of force-containment of China.  And that no one has the integrity and courage to come out and say it... because we need China to continue to allow us to operate our disgusting budget until we collapse under the pain of our own debts.

And outside of Afghanistan how many bases do we have in that area?  And how many of them are permanent?

[MicroBalrog]

Interesting. I had never thought of our military presence in that area as containment of China, but it makes sense.

China does not need containing. If there's containment of China it's even a bigger waste of money than fighting terrorists.

[cosine]

China does not need containing. If there's containment of China it's even a bigger waste of money than fighting terrorists.

What I mean is it seems reasonable to me that the State Dept. and DoD may be thinking like that. I have no position on whether or not it's necessary or should be done.

[Fly320s]

You're nit-picking at minutiae in an attempt to refute the point. 

The point being:

We give P-stan foreign aid under the pretense they are our ally in the GWoT.  We have expected to get intel from them in exchange. 

Instead, our funds ended up buying us lies, and paying for UBL's comfort in a (relatively) nice (for P-stan standards) villa, and making us look like idgits in the international intel community.

1. The US gives Pakistan money for intelligence.
2. Bin Laden is in Pakistan.
3.  ?
4.  Pakistan was providing aid to UBL.

Where is number 3?

[roo_ster]

1. The US gives Pakistan money for intelligence.
2. Bin Laden is in Pakistan.
3.  ?
4.  Pakistan was providing aid to UBL.

Where is number 3?

Only AZR44 and the underpants gnomes know.

The simple answer, that Pakistan is a third-world tribal state with competing factions in the gov't, is just too simple and easy.  Hence the need to make up some conspiracy.  Kinda like JFK getting shot by a left-wing commie was too simple.

The world is a complex and contradictory place.  Navigating the shoals of state will require one to course correct at the drop of a hat danged often.

[MicroBalrog]

Only AZR44 and the underpants gnomes know.

Money is a fungible asset.

[longeyes]

If we are containing China, we aren't doing a very good job.  Ask Wal-mart.

[Perd Hapley]

Hey, now, I went to Wal-Mart today. That places contains a whole lot of China.

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

I wouldn't be surprised in the least if certain factions of the Paki gov't were supporting OBL - the ISI was heavily involved in facilitating the Mumbai attacks, and they've been fingered for a dozen other criminal bits of work.
There was an incident a few weeks after OBL was dropped into the brine - the US had drones and satellites over a terrorist camp, and told the Pakis we would be coming in there very soon. Almost immediately after we make that call, the campers start moving out. Thus the reason we didn't tell them when we came to get OBL.

[longeyes]

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-demand-military-lock-american-citizens-battlefield-they-define-being

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/congress-vote-next-week-explicitly-creating-police-state

[kgbsquirrel]

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-demand-military-lock-american-citizens-battlefield-they-define-being

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/congress-vote-next-week-explicitly-creating-police-state

From the first link..

...and if any president can send the military anywhere in the world to imprison civilians without charge or trial.

Nothing new. Executive Order 9066. (And it was never ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS, only that you can't target one specific ethnic group, yay.)


Maybe I'm just feeling extra-cynical here at the end of my work day (a 12 hour night shift) but I have the overwhelming sense that the Constitution is dead in all but the minds of a few citizens of moral conscience. Habeas corpus, posse comitatus, ex post facto, et alii. All just foot notes in the history book of another former constitutional republic.

[mtnbkr]

Maybe I'm just feeling extra-cynical here at the end of my work day (a 12 hour night shift) but I have the overwhelming sense that the Constitution is dead in all but the minds of a few citizens of moral conscience. Habeas corpus, posse comitatus, ex post facto, et alii. All just foot notes in the history book of another former constitutional republic.

Why are you soft on terrorists?

Chris

[kgbsquirrel]

Why are you soft on terrorists?

Chris

But I'm doing it for the children!