Karzai says US should reduce operations' intensity

AP ^ | November 14, 2010 | Deb Riechmann

[SatinDoll]

I agree with you but not about nuke annihilation.

We should treat terrorists exactly like pirates have been in the past and should be treated now: you go after the nations which protect them from the victims. We make it so damned painful they kick-out the pirates/terrorists, or kill them.

Our operation in Afghanistan was wrong from the start. The Afghanis aren’t ready to be a coherent nation yet so GWB’s idea of nation-building, though based on Christian charity and beliefs, was flat-out wrong.

Afghanistan is not Germany, or Japan, or Italy. It has never before been a unified, modern nation. It is still a loose confederation of tribes warring among themselves which I liken to resembling North America in 1491.

[Gunslingr3]

"How many BILLIONS did we borrow from China to accomplish that?"

I don't know. You tell me? How many?

ALL of them. The entire discretionary budget is the size of the deficit. Although we're moving from borrowing the money to fund our overseas adventures, now the Federal Reserve is printing the money to buy the bonds to keep the MIC fully funded.

"29 MILLION people live in Afghanistan. How many MILLION do you think want to see foreign invaders leave?"

I don't know. You tell me, how many? Seriously, answer the question.

About 1/3rd, or 10 MILLION people. Capturing a few thousand, or killing few hundred, isn't going to put a dent in the resistance to our presence. Seriously.

[Toadman]

I don't know why you keep insisting on knowing what I'm thinking. All I speculated in my original response to John W was that perhaps Karzai was hearing more noise from taliban reps because the recent higher operations temp and their successes. I cited a source of that speculation, with the caveat it was the "oh-so-trustworthy" AP.

Based on that smidgen information, you've managed to infer that: I think were not spending enough - I think all Afghans love the US - "recent success will put a dent in the resistance to our presence"(your words, not mine).

Since your brought up money and popularity though, they are worth discussing. Saying we borrowed all of our money is a bold statement worth investigating. Popularity among the Afghan population is not something I believe that has been documented. I have only my own and my friends opinions/experiences to derive a non-scientific conclusion.

WRT the budget. I'm not as savvy as I should be on budget definitions, so did some googling (source/s cited):

"Discretionary spending is that part of the U.S. Federal Budget that is negotiated between the President and Congress each year as part of the budget process. It includes everything that is not in the mandatory budget, which are programs required by law to provide certain benefits, such as Social Security and Medicare." (http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpolicy/tp/US_Federal_Budget.htm)

Now to be clear. You and I obviously agree big brother needs to cut spending. The way I understand it, we spend more than exists - more than we earn. I can see how - in a rube goldberg kinda of way - you can make the connection between debt owed to China and our overall debt. However, our debt to China is approx 900 Billion. Our National Debt exceeds 13 Trillion (http://www.defeatthedebt.com/understanding-the-national-debt/how-much-do-we-owe/), which is greater than the economies of PRC, UK and Australia combined (according to the site). Based on the discretionary budget definition I don't see how it relates to war funding for Afghanistan, considering all of our overseas commitments. I not saying your wrong (don't go inferring again), I just don't understand.

About 1/3rd, or 10 MILLION people. Capturing a few thousand, or killing few hundred, isn't going to put a dent in the resistance to our presence. Seriously.

How you come to that conclusion requires one to "suspend disbelief." I won't dispute that 2/3 of the population want us to stay (as you say). But unless you cite at least one source (no matter how biased), it just looks like you pulled that one out of your ass.

My personal opinion is that they'd rather have security than a democracy. Whoever creates a safe environment where they (the tribes) do not live in a state of constant fear will have the popular support.

[Gunslingr3]

Based on that smidgen information, you've managed to infer that: I think were not spending enough

I never said that. I asked you how many billions we've borrowed for this adventure. You admit having no clue that we're borrowing the entire expense of this war. Any inference beyond that is your own.

- I think all Afghans love the US - "recent success will put a dent in the resistance to our presence"(your words, not mine).

I wrote, in full, "Capturing a few thousand, or killing few hundred, isn't going to put a dent in the resistance to our presence. Seriously." I never said you think all Afghans will love the US. That is a strawman, an absurdity you know not to be true and concoct to distract from the fact that killing a few hundred or few thousand Afghans isn't going to stop the resistance to our presence.

However, our debt to China is approx 900 Billion. Our National Debt exceeds 13 Trillion

I wouldn't bother conflating the 'debt' to SSA with the debt held by the public. The Feds have always siphoned off the extra money taken in FICA and used it for discretionary spending.

9.1 trillion is actual issued debt (bonds sold to the public), 4.5 trillion is 'intragovernmental holdings', that which the Feds took from SS over and above what they had to pay out.

Based on the discretionary budget definition I don't see how it relates to war funding for Afghanistan, considering all of our overseas commitments.

The entirety of the DoD falls under discretionary spending, and we're at the point now (taxes collections down to ~15% of GDP, spending ~25% of GDP) that we borrow all of it.

But unless you cite at least one source (no matter how biased), it just looks like you pulled that one out of your ass.

link

[Toadman]

You've been positing a strawman from the beginning. You assumed I was awfully proud of the AP quote I cited, and obtuse via rhetorical questions on spending and ISAF popularity, which was a response to my AP post. Perhaps it was my phrase that the taliban have been having their asses handed to them in the last three months. Lest we forget:

How many BILLIONS did we borrow from China to accomplish that? I admitted I didn't know.

29 MILLION people live in Afghanistan. How many MILLION do you think want to see foreign invaders leave?Admittedly no hard evidence, but you speculate 1/3. Personally I think it may be a little more.

You're awfully proud of that bag of leaves we've raked up, but you don't even see the forest we're standing in. No inference there. Nope. Nada.

If you think we're going to keep this up longer than the Taliban, I think you're going to be disappointed. As they like to say, we have the watches, they have the time.No inference to see here... move along.

Additionally you wrote: "...killing a few hundred or few thousand Afghans isn't going to stop the resistance to our presence." I never stated it would. I must be drawing another incorrect inference.

Typing "Afghan Poll" in google does not show many relevant hits regarding how the populace feels towards the US. Or your response of "About 1/3rd, or 10 MILLION people." The hits that do relate to ISAF presence tend to offer constructive criticism (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8452975.stm) I have only my own experience to draw upon, which wouldn't be representative of the whole population. I won't argue the budget. I believe you.