Dora wrote:
>
> Quit this damned war - the British long ago, then
> the Russians, and now the US couldn't win. Bring the boys home.


Amen, sister.

gloria p

In article >, says...
>
> Dora wrote:
> >
> > Quit this damned war - the British long ago, then
> > the Russians, and now the US couldn't win. Bring the boys home.
>
>
> Amen, sister.

Ten times as many Americans are killed by drunk drivers every year than
died in the _entire_ US involvement in Afghanistan. Four times as many
Americans die every year in bicycle accidents than die in Afghanistan.

Why is it OK for those many Americans to die in the name of having fun,
but not OK for a much smaller number to die in the course of trying to
help somebody?

On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 07:11:16 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:

> In article >, says...
>>
>> Dora wrote:
>> >
>>> Quit this damned war - the British long ago, then
>>> the Russians, and now the US couldn't win. Bring the boys home.
>>
>> Amen, sister.
>
> Ten times as many Americans are killed by drunk drivers every year than
> died in the _entire_ US involvement in Afghanistan. Four times as many
> Americans die every year in bicycle accidents than die in Afghanistan.
>
> Why is it OK for those many Americans to die in the name of having fun,
> but not OK for a much smaller number to die in the course of trying to
> help somebody?

after we 'helped' iraq right into the ground, the afghanis might not be
eager to receive such help. especially in the form of predator drones.

blake

blake wrote:

> after we 'helped' iraq right into the ground, the afghanis might not be
> eager to receive such help. especially in the form of predator drones.

Didja hear about the Afghan who applied for a bank loan? He dove under the
desk screaming when the loan officer asked, "What will be your collateral?"

Bob

J. Clarke wrote:
>
> Why is it OK for those many Americans to die in the name of having fun,
> but not OK for a much smaller number to die in the course of trying to
> help somebody?

Calling it help is a misnomer when they don't want to be helped.

It doesn't matter if they want help or not, though. Their country was
used as a launching point for an act of war and they need to ensure that
does not happen again. To the extent they work towards that end they
get to not get helped. To the extent they fight the troops sent there
any objections to occupation are irrelevant.

However it's done a repeat attack will be prevented. As usual most
folks just want jobs to work so they can raise their families and so
most folks get screwed by the ones who really want to fight. It's not
about what most folks want unfortunately. It's about what the worst of
folks on all sides actually do.

With Iraq what happened is a dictatorship was taken away then
infrastructure was rebuilt. As the rebuild happened peace grew to more
and more regions of the country. It's gotten to the point where few
regions are problematic any more and so the number of foreign troops
stationed there has been steadily dropping. Iraq was one of the places
where agriculture and metalsmithing were invented so they have a
tradition of civilization longer than almost any other place on Earth.
Afghanistan has long been comparatively wild and rugged. There the word
may be "build" rather than "rebuild" and it could take a very long time
before they understand the whole principle that being at peace is how to
get the troops to leave. But it doesn't matter if they want the troops
to leave or not. However it's done a repeat attack will be prevented
and what the locals want doesn't factor into that. It's sad but that's
the way it goes.

On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 20:11:58 -0800, Bob Terwilliger wrote:

> blake wrote:
>
>> after we 'helped' iraq right into the ground, the afghanis might not be
>> eager to receive such help. especially in the form of predator drones.
>
> Didja hear about the Afghan who applied for a bank loan? He dove under the
> desk screaming when the loan officer asked, "What will be your collateral?"
>
> Bob

<snort>

your pal,
blake