Thoughts?

The stock market drop was entirely predictable...

 

Did you just self-medicate with something?

 

Revenge is sweet, but the real goal is to prevent another 9/11.

 

Bombing and personal attacks aren't the same thing.

 

How so? I said the objective would be to remove the insect. It doesn't take a 1000lb JDAM to remove an insect.

 

Sooo, the way to prevent people from hating you is to invade their country, kill tens of thousands of their people, destroy their homes, then occupy that country with men who do not blend with their culture and hit on their women.

How stupid of me. Why didn't I realize that?

 

C'mon on Man!
Everyone knows that buildings could not evaporate by just gravity alone.
That is 7th grade physics.

 

Your words, not mine. They already hate you, so running and hiding isn't going to save you.

 

I can't take credit for that. YOU are the one who wants us over there. What was the reason again? Why can't we just draw a "red line"?

Just out of curiosity, are you a war veteran?

 

Explosives do not cause a building to "evaporate". It is gravity that is doing all the actual work.

The buildings collapsed when the Strengths of the Materials supporting the upper portions of the buildings exceeded their Factor of Safety. The weight of the upper floors pulverized the floors below by accelerating under gravitational forces. The momentum in the upper floors then caused them to pulverize once they reached the ground.

Yes, gravity did the pulverizing.

I gather that you don't know how explosives are used to demolish a building either. In essence it is the same principle. The explosives just remove the Factor of Safety from the supports at ground level and then gravitational forces pulverize the building as it impacts the ground.

 

duplicate

 

Again, the reason is to destroy ISIS before they kill more of US.

 

We are there because we want to destablilize Afghanistan so that competing energy interests can not build pipelines into the new silk road (China/India energy market).

If we cared about getting rid of Al Qaeda we would not be arming them with tens of thousands of tons of sophisticated military equipment in Syria, fighting on the same side as Al Qaeda in Yemen and would not created another homeland for them in Libya.

 

Way too simplistic. We do care about al Qaeda and ISIL. Are we beyond hypocrisy? No, of course not. Do we have hidden objectives! Sure.

 

It is impossibility,
Newton third law of physic make it impossible.
I am sorry for an American people.

 

The only way to destroy ISIS is to kill their recruiting base. Are you up for genocide?
Why didn't you answer my question? Are you a war veteran?

 

I have a tin foil hat for sale. You seem like a good candidate.

 

You can read the book and make your own judgement.
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/newton.html

There is nothing you can do, lighter part will not move heavier part.

 

So you don't understand the laws of physics either? That explains why you believe in the 9/11 Conspiracy bovine excrement.

Those of us with educations in the relevant subject matter do understand how the laws of physics actually work and what caused the collapse of the WTC buildings.

 

The fact of the matter is our foreign policy is a function of the economic agenda of big money interests.

The idea that we have been in Afghanistan for 18 years due to the Taliban not attacking Al Qaeda (what you refer to as giving them a safe haven) is simplistic nonsense.

If our agenda was to get rid of Al Qaeda at all costs we would not be arming and supporting them.

https://gabbard.house.gov/news/StopArmingTerrorists

 

Dont you think it is a better idea to kill the recruiters? Yes? Just maybe? Seems like a common sense to me.

Unfortunately it looks like common sense left the building then swore blind loyalty to the with the red hat. Now they spend their day defending whatever BS he says.

 

Typically, but not always. Besides, "Big Money" often have conflicting interests.

So, too, an assumption we're only there for economic reasons.

There's plenty of evidence our Afghanistan effort is half-hearted.

 

I did not say that we were only there for economic reasons. You are being obtuse. The fact of the matter is that foreign policy is largely influenced by big money. While it is true that the money influences conflict with each other - in general - they either agree or just do not care with respect to war.

The majority of money interests benefit from war.... as is the case in physics -- when forces line up in the same direction on some object - the object moves in that direction.

What we are not there for .. is to prevent a safe haven for Al Qaeda ..at least not in any large measure.

 

You said it we're there because of "Big Money" and it follow that meand it's "economic reasons," no?

Sure. What else would one expect from a plutocracy?

I think part of the reason Big Money is prepared to have us in a relatively inexpensive, low casuslty conflict is they won't want to run the risk Americans will go squirrely if there is another attack by terrorists based in the region. There's perhaps a subliminal thought we might get our hands on some of the resources, but a stable Afghanistan would be unlikely to give American business much in the way of an advantage.

Why are we there, IYO?

 

It is not my opinion - it is absurd silliness to believe that we would be in an 18 year war in Afghanistan - for the purposes of eliminating a safe haven for Al Qaeda - while at the same time arming, supporting Al Qaeda in other parts of the world and creating safe havens for Al Qaeda and numerous other similar groups in other parts of the world.

This simply does not pass the giggle test.