Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was watching a general talk about the war in Afghanistan on the news recently and he kept referring to the "mission." But he never described what this mission entailed...
What do you think the mission is in Afghanistan?
to kill osama for 9/11 was why we went..we founds huge amouts of rare earth minerals which make the I-pad screens and and long lasting batteries for hybrids...
Sorry if it goes against your ideology that all government is bad, but the Interstate Highway system was built by the government and it is good.
I'd be fine with just axing half the military and closing most of our overseas bases, but I'm realstic enough to also realize, as I said before, that the military is a huge job program for the uneducated. It's also a great source of benefits for those who have figured out the game. A friend of mine in the reserves called it "the biggest scam going".
My son, who serves in the Military, Navy, has a degree. This whole household holds degrees. How dare you speak of the Women and Men that serve this country! I find it very disrespectful. Whether they hold degrees or not, they are to be respected.
My son, who serves in the Military, Navy, has a degree. This whole household holds degrees. How dare you speak of the Women and Men that serve this country! I find it very disrespectful. Whether they hold degrees or not, they are to be respected.
Your son is doing a good service for America. However, I'd like to get his perspective on what the mission in Afghanistan is.
If you have a chance, ask him and please report back to us.
In short the "mission" in Afghanistan is simply part and parcel of the US "full spectrum dominance" period, look it up and see what the PNAC group had in mind when the US began it's venturing in the middle east.........
The mission in Afghanistan is to stabilize the country enough so that it can stand on its own, and to train its security forces so they are capable of protecting themselves and the nation's citizens against the Taliban. Before we invaded, it was a "failed state" -- fertile breeding ground for global terrorists. I think the idea is to prop up the country enough so that when we leave it doesn't collapse into that state again.
Sorry if it goes against your ideology that all government is bad, but the Interstate Highway system was built by the government and it is good.
I'd be fine with just axing half the military and closing most of our overseas bases, but I'm realstic enough to also realize, as I said before, that the military is a huge job program for the uneducated. It's also a great source of benefits for those who have figured out the game. A friend of mine in the reserves called it "the biggest scam going".
umm all military recruits need high school and college/trade school because the machines they work on are a pretty advaced and the electronic are beyong anything in the civillian world and you need a university degree for alot of things lke medics and most of the advance systems the navy uses because the military is more then just combat troops which are well trained and define team work and those guys that did 2-3 tours have alot of experience and why would a person in the reserves that has not be deployed be able to say anything on what it is like to serve overseas in a combat zone.
The mission in Afghanistan is to stabilize the country enough so that it can stand on its own, and to train its security forces so they are capable of protecting themselves and the nation's citizens against the Taliban. Before we invaded, it was a "failed state" -- fertile breeding ground for global terrorists. I think the idea is to prop up the country enough so that when we leave it doesn't collapse into that state again.
Is there a clear indicator of when the country is "stable enough" or is this up to the General's discretion?
And so are many who desperately try to blame the extremes, while generally fulfilling one end or the other themselves.
I've never really blamed the extremes. They can be noisy, often annoying, and frequently amusing but at the end of the day, the fringes really have no clout at all.
One problem I see is that the definitions of Liberal and Conservative seem to be quite different from what I was taught in the 1960s. From my perspective nearly everyone seems to be a socialist. The only real difference between the two parties I see is their idea of who should be nannied and which corporate interests they reside in the pockets of.
While I tend to lean right as it's the lesser of two evils, as-it-were (I'm atheist. Good and evil are philosophical constructs), I am often puzzled at how some (probably most) people who oppose UHC because it forces them to buy a product so adamantly support SSI, a product everyone is forced to buy. I'm against both and I want my money back. The list of incongruous congruities could get long so I'll stop here.
But.... my attitudes put me on the fringe... go figure.
According to the 2008 Presidential election results, a whole 509,478 people, or .4% (yes POINT 4 percent) of the people in the US agree with me and are therefore not socialists. I by definition am an extremist but since I have virtually no political influence, me and my kind share no part of the blame.
If someone calls themselves Republican or Democrat, while they individually may not be sheep, they are definitely walking with the herd; a herd that's been milling about in the same pile of manure for decades.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.