Unclassified Afghanistan war report

[Ryoki]

Hey, remember that war in Afghanistan, the Good War, the one that is now America's longest war ever? Yeah, it's not going nearly so well as the media would have us believe. In fact, things are a right mess apparently.

Read this non classified report on the war in Afghanistan by a senior officer and whistle blower who got so disgusted with the disparity in what he saw and experienced and what was portrayed in the media back home that he felt it was his duty to make loud noises about it:

http://www1.rollingstone.com/extras/RS_REPORT.pdf

[Nightshade]

Thanks Ryoki, I'll read that later.

I'm voting for Ron Paul no matter what.

[scared?]

this is like three weeks old news...

[DTS]

News just in: War is bad.

[4days]

downloading, cheers

[feedback]

Read it all last night, absolutely fascinating; challenges everything I "knew" about Iraq/Afghanistan.

[EtUL]

lol people still thinking ron paul is getting the nomination

luckily my state is so late in the primary process that, much like voting in general, my ballot cast doesn't mean a fucking thing. If it'll make you interlibs happy i'll check ron paul tho, i'm registered repub from high school days.

[Tsakali]

what kind of retard registers republican in their teens?

[EtUL]

One with outspoken conservative catholic family?

My intro to politics on a national level was sean hannity's radio show. It only took me about a year of talk radio to realize that it was bullshit.

[Κracus]

Keep hearing conflicting stories about Ron, one day he sounds like a charismatic underdog with decent values and then the next I'm hearing about how he's an ultra conservative religious fanatic that wants to encorporate christianity into goverment.

[Κracus]

Well I'm not American so my interest is only passing otherwise I would look more into it. The way I see it right now it doesn't matter who gets the vote for the republican candidate because Obama is going to destroy whoever is put in front of him come election time.

[Eraser]

And have you looked into this yourself at all? Just youtubing RP Christianity answers this multiple times from multiple periods in history and he says the exact same thing everytime - consititution, constitution, constitution. Small government that keeps out of people's lives as much as possible. But hey, why look yourself when you can take some moron TV-chugging spacker's opinion and call it a day?

Wait, you're insinuating someone's gullible for believing a "moron TV-chugging spacker's opinion" while you're perfectly content with forming your own opinion based on some YouTube videos? Case of the pot calling the kettle black?

Oh, and there's also the point of you almost religiously worshiping this Ron Paul fella as if he's some kind savior. You really believe he's going to solve your problems? Here's a hint that might lead to the correct answer: he's a politician.

[feedback]

Memphis is gullible.

Politicians can be truthful and revolutionary- until they actually stand a chance at getting elected. Then they can't afford to be.

[MKJ]

ffs case.

[Κracus]

I missed out 'Fox'TV. And no, my opinions aren't based soley on youtube uploads, i'm just stressing how easy it is to actually get a more informed opinion than what cranky Pete down the pub said. Kracus' angle was some folks say this about him, some folks say that. Why not actually listen to the fucker himself?

Just to be cleared, it may have seemed in my statement that I obtained this info second hand but it was actually from interviews he's given that I've watched that has given me this impression.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

well for one thing, he says he doesn't want the government in people's lives but he does want it to stop a woman from having an abortion.

[seremtan]

... sean hannity's radio show. It only took me about a year of talk radio to realize that it was bullshit.

which is only 364 days 23 hours and 59 minutes longer than it should have taken

[Κracus]

K, so you find me where he ever said government should be theocratic and in return, I shall violently hammer a live conga-eel up my jap's eye with a potato masher and post it up on youtube.

Alright...

Well there's this that he wrote.

Paul believes that prayer in public schools should not be prohibited at the federal or state level, nor should it be made compulsory to engage in.[91][92] He rejects the notion of "separation of Church and state", instead seeing the issue as "free exercise of religion" and "no establishment of religion". Importantly he views the latter as specific government endorsement of one particular religion, and does not see it as a mandate to ban all policies that would benefit religion in general. He argues that churches give people a moral base that government cannot provide. He views churches as more effective and more established providers of social welfare than the government. He also argues this leads to a more orderly people who have less need for the government to actively seek to control them. He opposes efforts to force religion out of the public sphere.[93]
In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed "any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion" from the jurisdiction of federal courts.[94] If made law, this provision would purportedly permit state, county, and local governments to decide whether to allow displays of religious text and imagery, but would not interfere with the application of relevant federal law.[citation needed]
Paul has sponsored a constitutional amendment which would allow students to pray privately in public schools, but would not allow anyone to be forced to pray against their will or allow the state to compose any type of prayer or officially sanction any prayer to be said in schools

So I interpret this as a fairly liberal/religious view where he's saying everyone should be tolerant of each other but you shouldn't stop schools from teaching prayer and incorporating religion and government freely. Personally I don't agree with this view even though it sounds reasonable enough because there are underlying problems with it that can't really be avoided if it's mixed with things like politics and the education system, even science suffers.

There's also this video where he's careful in what he says but confirms what he wrote above which is on his wiki listed as his stance/beliefs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyfnHOPA ... r_embedded

I'll take pics but youtube vid is preffered.

[Κracus]

Oh and I used to be pro-gun control. Now i'm honestly not so sure. I think people have bigger problems than crazy Jake down at the bar thinking they owe him a 10 bag. It's again twisting of outlooks. Sure if noone had guns, noone would get shot right? But you tell me none of those police, army and government branch folks that have firearms are all nice people and will never be a threat to their people, when the very point of the gun law, is to have a populace capable of protecting itself from them. Crazy Jake can be bargained with at least, to the others you're a faceless name that won't be missed. I dunno, i'm on the fence at the moment.

I'm Canadian and I could get a gun if I wanted to but gun crime is so low here that it's gotta be effective. You have two countries side by side, even cities like Detroit and close neighboring cities in Canada that are roughly the same size will have a drastic difference in murders and gun related crimes. Gun control definitely seems to work and we're still allowed to own them. It is possible if reasonable to get a gun with a licence like a handgun and even easier for a hunting rifle.

[Κracus]

I don't think you understand it fully to be honest. Unless you want government sponsored atheism or the eradication of religion, and let me tell you now squire, that's a long, loooong way off. If ever.

I wouldn't mind government sponsored atheism but I feel that separation of church and state is acceptable even though I think religious people are nutters who believe in a magical tooth fairy.

That said, today that's the status quo and I'm fine with that and he'd like to take it back to the way it was and that's just moving backwards and delaying progress for us as a species to get along and get past our petty grievances that lead to shit like what's going to go down between Israel and Iran in the next 4 months.

[Κracus]

Yeah that's too draconian. I think if you solve issues like poverty everyone could own guns and there would likely be very little gun crime.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

well for one thing, he says he doesn't want the government in people's lives but he does want it to stop a woman from having an abortion.

No he does not. He doesn't want the government to have to have a say in it at all. Leave it to the States. Which is FAR better, because if one State says no and the people disagree, they could actually make some noise, or move to another State. What you're wanting is one authoritarian answer that happens to fit your outlook. It's good in some cases, but it's easily abused in others and once it's the norm, it can get turned both ways. One minute it's abortions for all, the next it's a criminal offence to have multiple sprogs. Why do you need the government to make the judgement in the first place? And unless you're having a kid, you shouldn't give a fuck, neither should the government. But somehow this is worth argument as the do as we say government goes about bombing cities, wasting cash, and passing laws that makes it A-OK to detain and torture it's own citizens. Yay government.

Sorry dude but you're being played. He is for states deciding, which means that women's liberties will be curtailed in those states that outlaw abortion. Right now a woman has a right to an abortion in the USA due to a federal Supreme Court ruling. If he were truly for civil liberties he be against ANY (federal, state, municipal) level of government having the power to pass a law like that.

And what's with you being okay with women having to uproot their lives because the state can choose what a woman can and can't do with their body.

[Κracus]

Because some people in power still hold values from 40 years ago?

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

Probably because I don't believe many, if any states will have the sack to make the change back for one. Government won't be saying no abortions, just that it's not their call. Which I agree isn't. Why would you think that as soon as they opt-out of being the final say in the matter, that most of the country would plunge back 40 years?

Because there are a bunch of severely right-wing governors of states right now who are trying to roll back rights in their states, 120 years.

P.S. Ron Paul voted for a federal bill that sought to ban partial birth abortions. So even though he thinks the feds shouldn't decide, he actively took part federally trying to roll back rights because of his RELIGIOUS beliefs. He's a big old hypocrite like the rest of them.

[Tsakali]

i don't care what political game each one them is trying to play, and why they support one thing over another... but when the choice of abortion is all of a sudden up for discussion is where I lose my shit. I mean seriously, how can something so fundamentally personal be anything else other than a choice of each individual ?

This subject matter is so mindbogglingly preposterous. How can someone with a straight face claim to be 'pro-life' (what a ridiculous choice of words ) , and is still allowed to breathe, let alone run for office ffs.