On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 14:53:53 -0500, dgk wrote:

On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 10:23:58 -0800, "DGDevin"
wrote:

"Robert Green" wrote in message
...

I feel the invasion was justified (which is not the same thing as wise)
in
that Bin Laden was operating from there,

Would that justify invading the area of the US that Timothy McVeigh
operated
from? Of course not, and when framed that way, the invasion of
Afghanistan
makes equally little sense.

Ummmm, that's not an effective analogy, as there was no need to invade
territory to find and apprehend McVeigh.

However I see little chance of a
stable democracy being established in Afghanistan in the foreseeable
future,

So then what's the fV(I*ing point? Wars should have clearly defined
goals
and exit strategies. They've taught that at all the military schools
since
'Nam but it seems like the entire DoD developed amnesia after 9/11.

The Neocons have a huge blind spot, they think they can engineer history
with the application of military force, they don't consider that sometimes
that simply doesn't work. It is beyond their comprehension that centuries
of ethnic and religious tensions will not be overcome by their
democracy-in-a-box nation building. As you say, they don't seem to be aware
of history.


Neocons don't really care about democracy, they care about free
enterprise.

There really is no difference between freedom and free enterprise. The word
is "liberty". Look it up.

If governments are elected that interfere with their
profits, then that democratic goverrnment gets overthrown.

As it should. If government gets in the way of liberty it's unconstitutional.