I do agree that juan deserves credit for speaking his mind regardless of pressure from various sides of sides the political spectrum.
I disagree on the implication that one shouldnt bother in trying communicate to the powerful, one should attempt, in any way, to make their voices heard and opinions known.
This is the only way to bring about change.
As a small side note though, you seem unaware of what an ad hominem is.
>There were three anglo-afghan wars (1843, 1879 & 1919)
Yes, the first of which was an afghan victory, the second was a british one, while the third was mixed but arguably it was another overall british gain.
Again, no need for exclamation points, its silly at this point.
Also your post post show that you were.
>inserting Advisers onto the Game board: link to mtholyoke.edu.
Certainly something to note however the situations are very different, broad generalisations and comparisons arent useful, are finer more detailed analysis is needed which takes into account the various variables.
>of just about all such previous missions, says that is just smoke and mirrors.
Again the "available evidence", as you put it, doesnt show this, it does show that the goals of the us are aimed towards hindering Isis due to the belief that they are a significant geo-political threat to its allies in the region rightly or wrongly.
Asserting its smoke and mirrors may convince some conspiracy theorists but most people would like some convincing evidence that this is the case.
>“Investing in Junk Armies: Why American Efforts to Create Foreign Armies Fail,” link to commondreams.org, and more broadly in the Iraq context
You should read your links, none of them contradict my comments, they merely highlight that its possible that the assistance efforts may fail which i already pointed out above.
>Glad you’re willing, from a safe distance, to let the next set of ground truths “remain to be seen.”
When did i come out and say that i supported the intervention, please avoid using straw-man arguments.
>This enlistee volunteer veteran
So you certainly claim.
>Yes, there are a lot of “decent, hard working people” plying the Facebook space and Twitterverses, but there’s a huge raft of ugly doorways into the dark, hateful, violent id of a massive part of our Imperial populace
Theres also those on other sections of the internet who are willing to put others down just in the vain attempt to try and make themselves look better than most.
>Care to articulate or identify the “principles” that our investment, in blood and treasure, are supposed to be serving?
Im on the fence in regards to the issue but for those supporting the conflict they likely would claim that humanitarian principles are being served by hindering isis from attacking certain areas.
Whether they are right or wrong in their assessment remains to be seen.
I doubt someone like yourself though could provide an answer, again that would require detailed analysis of the available information and not just exclamation marks.
Theres no need to put in exclamation marks, the available evidence clearly shows that training and intelligence gathering are the main goals here.
>so they can likely do just what, again?
Are you seriously unaware?
They are to become ground opposition to isis. Whether or not this is to be successful remains to be seen but this is the goal. This again is clear by looking at the available evidence.
>and for a little more literature, there’s Matthew Arnold’s dark vision, “Dover Beach,”
You could post some literature which hasnt been presented time and time again .
>They have departed? Us humans seem to be able to imagine and do “better,” but… The “content” and comments at Youtube and Facebook and the MSM and even “liberal progressive blogs” tell me, at least, that there ain’t no stinking principles but “gimme iMore.” Sad…
This piece is exceptionally weak, it ignores the reality that most people on sites like facebook are decent, hard-working individuals who support the improvement of the world and that many of them take actions to bring this about.
Youre basically creating a caricature and loftily wagging your finger against this made up entity to make yourself appear enlightened.
Its certainly a massive market to be missing out on, 70 million+.
>It’s clear you do…
Theres no evidence to the contrary, no doubt this wont hinder you into believing whatever it is you wish to believe.
I do agree that juan deserves credit for speaking his mind regardless of pressure from various sides of sides the political spectrum.
I disagree on the implication that one shouldnt bother in trying communicate to the powerful, one should attempt, in any way, to make their voices heard and opinions known.
This is the only way to bring about change.
As a small side note though, you seem unaware of what an ad hominem is.
I guess it was a nasty precursor. And an indication of things to come.
It really is baffling how the us got itself into this position.
There has been some evidence that such attacks can be effective against insurgencies.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/external_publications/EP201200135.html
>There were three anglo-afghan wars (1843, 1879 & 1919)
Yes, the first of which was an afghan victory, the second was a british one, while the third was mixed but arguably it was another overall british gain.
>Who “trained” the Afghan fighters that successfully defeated the Brits – THREE TIMES?
I think you need to brush up on your history.
@JTMcPhee
>No, I’m not “unaware.”
Again, no need for exclamation points, its silly at this point.
Also your post post show that you were.
>inserting Advisers onto the Game board: link to mtholyoke.edu.
Certainly something to note however the situations are very different, broad generalisations and comparisons arent useful, are finer more detailed analysis is needed which takes into account the various variables.
>of just about all such previous missions, says that is just smoke and mirrors.
Again the "available evidence", as you put it, doesnt show this, it does show that the goals of the us are aimed towards hindering Isis due to the belief that they are a significant geo-political threat to its allies in the region rightly or wrongly.
Asserting its smoke and mirrors may convince some conspiracy theorists but most people would like some convincing evidence that this is the case.
>“Investing in Junk Armies: Why American Efforts to Create Foreign Armies Fail,” link to commondreams.org, and more broadly in the Iraq context
You should read your links, none of them contradict my comments, they merely highlight that its possible that the assistance efforts may fail which i already pointed out above.
>Glad you’re willing, from a safe distance, to let the next set of ground truths “remain to be seen.”
When did i come out and say that i supported the intervention, please avoid using straw-man arguments.
>This enlistee volunteer veteran
So you certainly claim.
>Yes, there are a lot of “decent, hard working people” plying the Facebook space and Twitterverses, but there’s a huge raft of ugly doorways into the dark, hateful, violent id of a massive part of our Imperial populace
Theres also those on other sections of the internet who are willing to put others down just in the vain attempt to try and make themselves look better than most.
>Care to articulate or identify the “principles” that our investment, in blood and treasure, are supposed to be serving?
Im on the fence in regards to the issue but for those supporting the conflict they likely would claim that humanitarian principles are being served by hindering isis from attacking certain areas.
Whether they are right or wrong in their assessment remains to be seen.
I doubt someone like yourself though could provide an answer, again that would require detailed analysis of the available information and not just exclamation marks.
Your post is an incoherent mess.
>1,500, is on the terrain to "train"
Theres no need to put in exclamation marks, the available evidence clearly shows that training and intelligence gathering are the main goals here.
>so they can likely do just what, again?
Are you seriously unaware?
They are to become ground opposition to isis. Whether or not this is to be successful remains to be seen but this is the goal. This again is clear by looking at the available evidence.
>and for a little more literature, there’s Matthew Arnold’s dark vision, “Dover Beach,”
You could post some literature which hasnt been presented time and time again .
>They have departed? Us humans seem to be able to imagine and do “better,” but… The “content” and comments at Youtube and Facebook and the MSM and even “liberal progressive blogs” tell me, at least, that there ain’t no stinking principles but “gimme iMore.” Sad…
This piece is exceptionally weak, it ignores the reality that most people on sites like facebook are decent, hard-working individuals who support the improvement of the world and that many of them take actions to bring this about.
Youre basically creating a caricature and loftily wagging your finger against this made up entity to make yourself appear enlightened.