Rifty wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde { No matter what happens, it's caused by global warming )
>
yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> But not you, you oppose both adventures.
>
> By George , he's got it! Congratulations!
>
The point here is that if you opposed even trying to get bin Laden,
after he did 9/11, you aren't on the side of fighting terrorism.
> My present government, marginally less right wing than its predecessor,
> supports military adventures in Afghanistan. I don't. Obama apparently
> supports military action in Afghanistan. I don't, just as I did not
> support the invasion of Iraq by George Bush Jr. and after my own
> experience of Vietnam in the mid 60s I quickly worked out it was
> unwinnable - which it was.
>
No it wasn't.
> Let's be perfectly clear. I support military actions where they are
> likely to succeed, if the objective is honorable. It is frankly insane
> to support military actions that are bound to fail. This is why I did
> not support Bush Jr (et al)'s invasion of both - they are doomed. Just
> remember I said that. They are bound to fail - because they are fatally
> flawed in their approach and have been from the very beginning, just as
> Indo-China was.
>
The concepts are sound and winnable.
> The solution is far more complex - there are no magic wands. But just
> because that is the case, there is no reason to persist with failed
> policies simply because you aren't savvy enough or courageous enough to
> attempt something way more difficult. There IS a solution, but you
> aren't going to like it.
>
I suspect you aren't telling me because you really don't have any
solution.
--
"Oh, I'm broke."
"Take another mortgage, don't give in."
"I thought you were broke. Where did you get all that money from?"
"Don't question me."
"Where did you get it?"
"I borrowed it from the bank."
"Well, you can't do that, that's cheating."
"Listen you little stoat, I own Park Lane, I can borrow as much
bloody money as I like."
~Joanna Lumley and Julia Sawalha, "Absolutely Fabulous"
