wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:18:45 -0400, Harry ?
wrote:

On 7/11/10 6:12 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:08:08 -0400, wrote:

Genghis Khan was quite a few steps up on the ladder of civilization from
the clowns that now rule Afghanistan. For one thing, he was a uniter,
which distinguishes him from, say, George W. Bush, who was a divider.

Actually Clinton was the divider. The last president to **** off that
many people was Andrew Johnson. Bush just drove the wedge in a little
deeper on your side.

Really? So at the end of Clinton's presidency, you're going to claim that
the US was ridiculed and thought little of worldwide compared to when Bush
was IN office?

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:16:48 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:41:59 -0400, wrote:


I don't believe the Kabul government really has much influence in the
area where the AQ guys are hiding. That is why we failed at Tora Bora.

we failed in TB because scum bag bush refused to send in US troops
when we had osama cornered. the 'new republic' had an excellent
article earlier this year on this exact event

I don't think BL was going to stay put for the month or two it would
take to safely deploy a division. We saw what happens when you don't
do the groundwork in Somalia.
This started as a quiet hit on Bin Laden but by the time he got to
Tora Bora that was not going to work. Bush didn't want another war.

Come on. We had him in a corner. We just needed to finish the job, but
instead we handed off the responsibility to paid thugs who let him go.

Bush didn't want another war? Are you sure? After all, he was "listening" to
his generals (until they contradicted Rumsfeld anyway).

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 14:37:36 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Then why are we saying this wart is about terrorism? There was not a
single Taliban involved with 9/11. They were Saudis who simply
traveled through Afghanistan. If that was all it took, we should be
attacking Germany and Spain where the final plans were developed.

Untrue. They may not have participated in the planning, but they refused
to
give up bin laden, etc. They didn't "simply travel" through. They took
over
and their extremist views allowed bin laden's crowd to have a safe-haven.
Don't try and rewrite Bush's failures.

So what are you going to do about Pakistan where he has done the same
thing?

You're claiming BL is in charge in Pakistan? Well, that's news to the
Pakistanis!

Anyone who thinks Karzai or the Junta de jour in Pakistan actually has
much influence in the tribal areas is deluded.

Which make up (in Pakistan) a relatively small area.

The "Countries" we are trying to ally with are so corrupt any deal we
may hammer out with them is just a love letter in the sand, to be
wiped out with the next tide.

And, your solution is.... isolationism? I think we tried that.

It is possible to lose the whore region and then we would cause
problems for India, Israel and most of the rest of the world.

Whore region? Well, sure there would be problems....

wrote in message
news
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 14:41:14 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I agree with Harry on this one.
Generals are hammers, all problems look like nails to them.

Did you ever see the movie "The battle of the Bulge"?
Watch the Robert Ryan monologue at the end of the movie where he says
he will do anything to keep wearing that uniform and waging war.
I see the same thing in our military policy.

That's why it's fortunate that the military are under civilian control.
Not
to beat it to death, but that's why McCrystal was booted.

McChrystal was booted for letting his staff talk too much. Obama says
there were no real policy differences between them.
This is not Truman MacArthur

And for him talking to much.... which usurps Presidential (civilian)
authority.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:00:54 -0400, John H
wrote:

Did you ever see the movie "The battle of the Bulge"?
Watch the Robert Ryan monologue at the end of the movie where he says
he will do anything to keep wearing that uniform and waging war.
I see the same thing in our military policy.

No one would deny that the job of Generals is to fight wars.

Do you deny that they are controlled by politicians? If we are in
Afghanistan
another ten years, it will be because Presidents wanted us there.
--

With all du respect, you won't find many generals who will say "we
can't win" no matter how hopeless the mission is and they have no
authority to question the objective of the mission.

Seems to me that they would give honest opinions if asked.

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:17:58 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

With all du respect, you won't find many generals who will say "we
can't win" no matter how hopeless the mission is and they have no
authority to question the objective of the mission.

Seems to me that they would give honest opinions if asked.

Giving honest opinions is not conducive to a long career in the
military.

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:17:58 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

With all du respect, you won't find many generals who will say "we
can't win" no matter how hopeless the mission is and they have no
authority to question the objective of the mission.

Seems to me that they would give honest opinions if asked.

Giving honest opinions is not conducive to a long career in the
military.


So, when a President asks for an honest assessment of a military situation,
the general should lie? I believe that a general has already had a "long
career" in the military, and he or she should be valued for his/her honest
opinion.

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 20:51:51 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Giving honest opinions is not conducive to a long career in the
military.


So, when a President asks for an honest assessment of a military situation,
the general should lie? I believe that a general has already had a "long
career" in the military, and he or she should be valued for his/her honest
opinion.

Giving an assessment is not the same thing as offering an opinion.

An assessment is a highly structured process based on underlying
factual data and probability analysis.

"Harry " wrote in message
m...
On 7/11/10 8:46 AM, John H wrote:
On Jul 10, 7:52 pm, Harry wrote:
...it is out to **** us all...forever...

General George Casey, the Chief of Staff of the Army, said today the
United States could face another "decade or so" of persistent conflict
in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In two months, the U.S. will have been at war in Afghanistan for nine
years.

- - -

These whores will do anything to stay in uniform.

Harry, it's not August yet, but I'm going to give you an early reply
to one of your posts.

Your comment about General Casey's remarks was about the most stupid,
****ing thing you've said in years. Now I know some folks will argue
about it was *really* the *most* stupid thing you've said, but they're
wrong. It was.

Generals do not keep wars going. Politicians keep wars going. Obama
could have had us out of both Iraq and Afghanistan well over a year
ago. *Obama* is making the choice of keeping us there.

General Casey is noting that it could take another decade or so to
accomplish what the friggin' politician, to wit: Obama, wants to
accomplish. Since Obama has his head up his ass and doesn't have any
idea of his goals over there, your grandchildren could well end up
there. If things change in your family, you might even hear about it.

Pray for a Republican president. She'll probably either **** or get
off the pot with regard to Afghanistan. Remember the Iraq surge that
'wouldn't work' but did?

OK, see you again in September...unless you do some *really* stupid
again.


Wow...herring thinks I give a damn whether he responds directly to one of
my posts. That's some ego working over there in herringville.

The posit is that the "officer corps" will do anything it can to stay in
uniform, including prolonging war. Without a heavy-duty war to keep
themselves busy, the officer corps will shrink, and so should the amount
of dollars wasted on the "military-industrial" complex.

The last presidents we had who knew anything real about "modern" war and
the military from the highest levels were Eisenhower and to a lesser
degree, George H.W. Bush.

There is nothing worth accomplishing in Afghanistan. If Obama thinks
otherwise, it is because his "military advisers" told him there was.

The Iraqi surge merely postponed the inevitable. Iraq will fall apart once
we pull out. Either that, or it will be ruled by a right-winger with close
ties to some ayatollah.

The military establishment will **** us over every time. If it didn't,
half of its officers would be mustered out to become substitute teachers.




Didn't think it was possible but you did it. You just admitted that
Obama, with no military experience and little knowledge, has become
subservient to the military and it's advisors. Supposed to be the other way
around.

Military leadership reports the facts as they see them. The Commander in
Chief is ultimately responsible for policy and giving the orders.

In your eyes (and words) it's not Obama's fault. Now it's "his military
advisors" who are shaping policy and are to blame.

This country is in a leadership crisis right now, a quality Obama is
unfortunately demonstrating a lack of. Nice guy and all, gives good
speeches, etc., but little to offer in true leadership qualities.

GTMO is still operating.
A trillion dollar economic stimulus program has failed.
We are still in Iraq.
We are escalating in Afghanistan.

I really haven't noticed any "change". Have you?

CC

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:08:08 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:18:30 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:54:19 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:51:3

People have occupied Kabul but the mountains we are in were never
"conquered".

tell it to ghengis khan
That is not history, that is legend and folk lore.
We don't have a clue how effective Khan was in controlling the tribal
areas of Afghanistan. For that matter, the people there could be
descendants of the Khan army.

we you kind of disproved your own point. if we dont know who conquered
afghanistan, then you can't say it's never been conquered, can you?

Since Afghanistan was ruled by guys named Khan for years I suppose you
could say we are fighting Ghengis

could be. more evidence they conquered afghanistan, isn't it?

Yup, shall we just say it is a country that is still living under
Ghengis Khans decendents with about the same level of civilization.

They may be living under the descendent's of Genghis Khan but, the
civilization is long gone.