If "brown" people (or any people) are capable of self-government and desirous of affluence (in other words desirous of doing those things that lead to affluence) then why is it neccessary for white people to be involved.

The "optimistic" view would be that they can acheive it on their own. The "pessimistic" view is that they will always be dependent on White people to solve their problems.

Lastly, our involvement in Afghanistan was clearly to gain revenge on Bin Laden. NOTHING ELSE was the motivation. Bush's failure in that regard is obvious to everyone and his method for dealing with it is to distract and demagogue to the effect that we are trying to establish a democracy there. Afghans can decide that on their on, without our help.

I will defend the Left on your charge. I'm not certain that "the Left that thinks brown people incapable of self-government and undesirous of liberty and affluence" is any way based on race.

They simply believe that self-government, liberty, and affluence are in and of themselves awful and terrible things if they result in any end that the Left finds undesireable, or are acheived in any manner that the Left is not ultimately in control of. (The latter being inevitable, since self-government, liberty and affluence can never be attained through socialistic principles).

Thus, it plays out largely in the underdeveloped (non-white) world, but race is not the inherent issue. They hate white people being free just as much as anyone else.

I think AndrewX is right. The Left's first order concern has always been destroying what is now known as the Anglosphere. "White men" is an Idee Fixe with them to such an extent that nothing else really exists...

Brown people don't really exist for them the way white men do.

Since Bin Laden is likely dead, his senior associates dead or in custody, his foot soldiers dead in droves in Iraq and elswhere and his money flow disrupted, I don't think it "obvious" that George Bush failed.

Unless by "failure" you mean "giant success".

"Unless by "failure" you mean "giant success"

In that case we should leave, since that is the justification for our going there to begin with.

Benny

Only OJ and President Bush brought up the idea of race.

If "brown" people (or any people) are capable of self-government and desirous of affluence (in other words desirous of doing those things that lead to affluence) then why is it neccessary for white people to be involved.

Because the "brown" people are suffocating under the jet boots of their blood thirsty dictators and enablers. Those who fought back were massacred, e.g. the Kurds under Saddam, or are kept in jail, e.g. dissidents under Castro. And those who died at Tienmun or kept in various jails in China serving as live organ donors to rich foreigners. Thus,

If the German people (or any European, such as the French, the Poles, the Dutch) are capable of self-government without Hitler and desirous of affluence then why is it neccessary for the Americans to be involved.

h-man,

President Bush also said "Methodists".

Why was it necessary for America and Britain to intervene so that whites could have self-governance?

The justification was democracy.

ic

We resolved the problem of Hussein, which I supported.

We overthrew the Taliban and installed a more benevolent govt., which I supported.

But like OJ said when he used to make sense, "the Shah always falls". It is up to the new governments in both countries to align themselves with their own populace. Perhaps it's the populace you have a problem with.

I am not appreciative of your implication that I would reccomend the standing aside for Hitler.

James Haney

Methodist overdo self-government.

"The justification was Democracy"

No. It was revenge on Bin Laden (and the taliban for harboring him)

"why was it necessary for America and Britain to intervene so.."

It wasn't except that Hitler was a homicidal maniac who would eventually threaten America and Britain.

h-man

Leave Afghanistan? Why? Because you are tired of 50-75 dead per year?

It is a giant success but it is not over yet.

We still have enemies to kill. Just this past week, some of the late Bin Laden's Taliban stooges seized some villages (for a while) and are apparently going to "stand and fight" until we kill them. If you enemy keeps giving you their throat, you should cut it.

And before OJ says it, Hitler was never a threat to the US. Not even to England as was proven. To England's empire, perhaps, but never to England.

We didn't even bother looking for Osama once we'd made Afghanistan a democracy and then we did Saddam just for fun.

Hitler couldn't even take all of France or Russia.

If Iraq or Afghanistan had a Shah we wouldn't have attacked. But a Christian people can't stand by forever when a Saddam or Taliban are in control. Or a Hitler.

bob

"Gen. Dan McNeill, who recently finished a 16-month tour as NATO commander in Afghanistan, said last week that we need 400,000 troops to control the country"

OJ and bob

There were enough German scientists to create an Atomic Bomb, after all, once the War was over they got both the US and Russia into space.

OJ

"We didn't even bother looking for Osama"

News to me.

Generals always want more troops. While we might use a few more good troops instead of the worthless Germans, 400,000 would be making the Soviet mistake.

Rockets do not equal atomic bombs. The Germans were years away from a bomb. The russians would not have gotten one either except for US and British traitors.

Once they chased their Jews away and Heisenberg led them astray they were nowhere near a bomb. If they'd gotten close we'd have nuked them.

Bush in a chipper mood is better than Saddam Hussein in a chipper mood.

Bob, thanks for pointing out the terrible consequences of the American traitors and their infatuation with the Soviet noble experiment.