Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

....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.

Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

"Harry ?" wrote in message
...
...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.

Last time I checked O'Bama was the whore in charge.

Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

"Harold'" wrote in message
...

"Harry ?" wrote in message
...
...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.

Last time I checked O'Bama was the whore in charge.


I didn't have to check. You're still a moron.

Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

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.
So? Should we surrender and convert to Islam or what, because the fight
is too long for your liking?
Are you doing the fighting???
Just like the Drug addicts, Hippies and fifth columnist did to Viet Nam,
Cambodia and the whole of Southeast Asia.
How many millions, of lives did Congress's surrender, cost those people.
Your mantra why win when we can surrender? America';s proper place is
crawling on its belly begging the Muslims to leave us alone???
Whinny ass, hide behind Mama's apron bunch of socialists!
As much as we hate war and don't want any of us to die, it ain't gonna
happen. Like the Bible says there will be wars and rumors of wars til
the end of time.
Wishing the Hitlers, Stalins, Mao's, and Muhammad's, of the world will
go away don't work.

Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 20:11:26 -0400, "Harold'"
wrote:


"Harry ?" wrote in message
...
...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.

Last time I checked O'Bama was the whore in charge.

you pro terrorism?

Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 00:41:17 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 23:32:27 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 20:11:26 -0400, "Harold'"
wrote:

These whores will do anything to stay in uniform.

Last time I checked O'Bama was the whore in charge.

you pro terrorism?



Afghanistan has very little to do with terrorism. There may be less
than 100 al queda in Afghanistan and we are spending about 100 million
dollars a year each to try to kill them.

how many al qaida do you need to launch a terrorist attack? how many
taliban sympathizers in govt do you need to provide a base (look up
the translation of 'al qaida)?

This is a stupid way to waste our grand kid's money at a time when the
country is in so much fiscal trouble.

what would be more stupid is to allow another 9/11

Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 01:06:30 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 00:47:17 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 00:41:17 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 23:32:27 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 20:11:26 -0400, "Harold'"
wrote:

These whores will do anything to stay in uniform.

Last time I checked O'Bama was the whore in charge.

you pro terrorism?



Afghanistan has very little to do with terrorism. There may be less
than 100 al queda in Afghanistan and we are spending about 100 million
dollars a year each to try to kill them.

how many al qaida do you need to launch a terrorist attack? how many
taliban sympathizers in govt do you need to provide a base (look up
the translation of 'al qaida)?


The point is, there are more al queda than that in other countries,
are we going to invade them all?

actually we are invading a far number or training forces to do so. we
routinely send forces to somalia. we have trained algerian and
moroccan special forces, etc. and afghanistan is the only failed
state so far to launch an attack against the US.


This is a stupid way to waste our grand kid's money at a time when the
country is in so much fiscal trouble.

what would be more stupid is to allow another 9/11

The 100 in Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11.

meaningless statement. al qaida launched the attack. if they are AQ
then they need to be killed and/or denied a base of operations

In case you haven't heard. Bin Laden's gang is supposed to be in
Pakistan and he has been there since Tora Bora, about a trillion
dollars and over a thousand coalition lives ago.

and it would gain NOTHING by allowing him to re establish his base in
afghanistan


We have hitched our hopes to a corrupt government in a country famous
for grinding up super powers, somehow thinking everything will work
out for us.

you guys think that 'grinding up superpowers' is a profound
observation

it's a cliche. afghanistan has been conquered 3 times in the last 1000
years.

Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 20:11:26 -0400, "Harold'"
wrote:


"Harry ?" wrote in message
...
...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.

Last time I checked O'Bama was the whore in charge.

you pro terrorism?


No. Harriot needed to be reminded of who is running these wars.

Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

On Jul 10, 7:52Â*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.

Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

On Jul 11, 12:41*am, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 23:32:27 -0400, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 20:11:26 -0400, "Harold'"
wrote:

"Harry ?" wrote in message
...
...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.

Last time I checked O'Bama was the whore in charge.

you pro terrorism?

Afghanistan has very little to do with terrorism. There may be less
than 100 al queda in Afghanistan and we are spending about 100 million
dollars a year each to try to kill them.
This is a stupid way to waste our grand kid's money at a time when the
country is in so much fiscal trouble.

It's kinda like fishing. The marginal cost per fish goes down, but the
damn things are expensive as hell when you first buy the boat,
equipment, etc, etc. Before long the marginal cost per Al Quedaian
will be down to only a few million. Cheap.

Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

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.

Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

"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.


Pity the students...especially if they belong to a minority... eh Johnny!

Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

"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.


According to an eye witness, Obama has very little interest in being advised
on military affairs. Obama does what he damn well pleases. He gives the
orders. He da man. He your man, Howard the coward.

Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

On 10/07/2010 9:32 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 20:11:26 -0400, "Harold'"
wrote:


"Harry wrote in message
...
...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.

Last time I checked O'Bama was the whore in charge.

you pro terrorism?

You can want our people out of there and not be pro-terrorism.

So far this war is getting close to two times as long as WW II and no
sight of peace.

Which means we are not winning.

And it is probably due to the fact that we in the west will not face up
to what we are really fighting. We are not fighting an army but a cult
of fascism and hate engrained right into families. If we can't
extinguish the cult, the problem will persist. The enemy is islam itself.

--

Government: We have Liberals (academic idealists), NDP (dreaming
socialists) and Conservative (lawyer scum) but where is the middle class
(common sense)?

Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

On 10/07/2010 10:41 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 23:32:27 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 20:11:26 -0400, "Harold'"
wrote:


"Harry wrote in message
...
...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.

Last time I checked O'Bama was the whore in charge.

you pro terrorism?



Afghanistan has very little to do with terrorism. There may be less
than 100 al queda in Afghanistan and we are spending about 100 million
dollars a year each to try to kill them.
This is a stupid way to waste our grand kid's money at a time when the
country is in so much fiscal trouble.

I disagree. Locals are not turning in taliban. And the way taliban is
used, it can encompass any radical islam organization. It isn't like
there is just one.

--

Government: We have Liberals (academic idealists), NDP (dreaming
socialists) and Conservative (lawyer scum) but where is the middle class
(common sense)?

Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

On 10/07/2010 8:31 PM, lil abner wrote:
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.
So? Should we surrender and convert to Islam or what, because the fight
is too long for your liking?
Are you doing the fighting???
Just like the Drug addicts, Hippies and fifth columnist did to Viet Nam,
Cambodia and the whole of Southeast Asia.
How many millions, of lives did Congress's surrender, cost those people.
Your mantra why win when we can surrender? America';s proper place is
crawling on its belly begging the Muslims to leave us alone???
Whinny ass, hide behind Mama's apron bunch of socialists!
As much as we hate war and don't want any of us to die, it ain't gonna
happen. Like the Bible says there will be wars and rumors of wars til
the end of time.
Wishing the Hitlers, Stalins, Mao's, and Muhammad's, of the world will
go away don't work.

Agreed. But to make them go away you have to do what it takes.

Policing them isn't going to work, the war will be going on for millenia
as it does not work.

The answer is massive sterilization and execution of islam radicals.
Make them take polygraphs, execute supporters and RFID the rest. Treat
them like rabid cattle and thin the herd of the diseased ones.

This especially includes the cult leaders.

--

Government: We have Liberals (academic idealists), NDP (dreaming
socialists) and Conservative (lawyer scum) but where is the middle class
(common sense)?

Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 00:41:17 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 23:32:27 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 20:11:26 -0400, "Harold'"
wrote:

These whores will do anything to stay in uniform.

Last time I checked O'Bama was the whore in charge.

you pro terrorism?



Afghanistan has very little to do with terrorism. There may be less
than 100 al queda in Afghanistan and we are spending about 100 million
dollars a year each to try to kill them.

how many al qaida do you need to launch a terrorist attack? how many
taliban sympathizers in govt do you need to provide a base (look up
the translation of 'al qaida)?

This is a stupid way to waste our grand kid's money at a time when the
country is in so much fiscal trouble.

what would be more stupid is to allow another 9/11

Al queda has moved out. we have even less chance of securing the borders
there than we do here.
If we'd have said "Hey Mr. Taliban, if you hear some loud noises around Tora
Bora, don't worry about it, just us coming in to "get some" for 9/11. Just
letting you know so that you stay out of the line of fire."
And then seriously going after that scum instead of going after the sitting
government and half assing the assaullt on al queda when they were all in a
cluster, we would be much better off than we are today.
You don't have to beknowledgeable in military history to know that taking
over a country is the easy part- holding a country is much harder, just ask
anyone that has played the game "Risk".
To me, taking over Afghanistan made as much sense as the rumors of that big
weather changing machine tha USAF is supposed to have causing the Haiti
earthquakes so that the US could take over the country. Who the hell in his
or her right mind would want either country?

Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

The 100 in Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11.
In case you haven't heard. Bin Laden's gang is supposed to be in
Pakistan and he has been there since Tora Bora, about a trillion
dollars and over a thousand coalition lives ago.

And by driving them over the border instead of dealing with them when we had
the chance, we've caused the destabilization of Pakistan by causing regional
and ethnic rifts. Pakistan is a nuclear armed country and those nukes could
end up in the hands of a government or faction that is controlled by or
actually is al queda and/or taliban.
That last round of White House ass clowns did us no favors, looking like the
current group of ass clowns isn't going to fix things.


We have hitched our hopes to a corrupt government in a country famous
for grinding up super powers, somehow thinking everything will work
out for us.

We love throwing stones at other peoples corruption, but what about our own?
Lobbyist, corporate sponsership of our politicians thru campaign
contributions (remainders of which BELONG to the candidate after that
particular election) and free media coverage all for sake of buying access
and influence are legalized by the scum taking the payoffs.

Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:10:37 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 02:37:00 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

We have hitched our hopes to a corrupt government in a country famous
for grinding up super powers, somehow thinking everything will work
out for us.

you guys think that 'grinding up superpowers' is a profound
observation

it's a cliche. afghanistan has been conquered 3 times in the last 1000
years.

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

tell it to ghengis khan.

Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 11:34:59 -0400, "mmc" wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 00:41:17 -0400, wrote:



This is a stupid way to waste our grand kid's money at a time when the
country is in so much fiscal trouble.

what would be more stupid is to allow another 9/11

Al queda has moved out. we have even less chance of securing the borders
there than we do here.

which is OK. we win the war if we prevent the taliban from taking
power.

If we'd have said "Hey Mr. Taliban, if you hear some loud noises around Tora
Bora, don't worry about it, just us coming in to "get some" for 9/11. Just
letting you know so that you stay out of the line of fire."

on 9/11 there was no functional difference between AQ and the taliban.
now there is. i have no objections at all to negotiating with
elements of the taliban...as long as they keep their noses clean


And then seriously going after that scum instead of going after the sitting
government and half assing the assaullt on al queda when they were all in a
cluster, we would be much better off than we are today.

yep. bush screwed the pooch by trying to fight the war on the cheap.

Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 08:24:27 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 10/07/2010 9:32 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 20:11:26 -0400, "Harold'"
wrote:


- - -

These whores will do anything to stay in uniform.

Last time I checked O'Bama was the whore in charge.

you pro terrorism?

You can want our people out of there and not be pro-terrorism.

So far this war is getting close to two times as long as WW II and no
sight of peace.

that's the nature of guerrilla insurrections. we don't have to 'win'.
we just dont have to lose

Which means we are not winning.

neither are they

And it is probably due to the fact that we in the west will not face up
to what we are really fighting. We are not fighting an army but a cult
of fascism and hate engrained right into families. If we can't
extinguish the cult, the problem will persist. The enemy is islam itself.

yep. islam is the most backwards of the world's major religions, with
christianity not far behind

Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:51:30 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:18:07 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:10:37 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 02:37:00 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

We have hitched our hopes to a corrupt government in a country famous
for grinding up super powers, somehow thinking everything will work
out for us.

you guys think that 'grinding up superpowers' is a profound
observation

it's a cliche. afghanistan has been conquered 3 times in the last 1000
years.

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?

Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:20:39 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 11:34:59 -0400, "mmc" wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 00:41:17 -0400, wrote:



This is a stupid way to waste our grand kid's money at a time when the
country is in so much fiscal trouble.

what would be more stupid is to allow another 9/11

Al queda has moved out. we have even less chance of securing the borders
there than we do here.

which is OK. we win the war if we prevent the taliban from taking
power.

If we'd have said "Hey Mr. Taliban, if you hear some loud noises around
Tora
Bora, don't worry about it, just us coming in to "get some" for 9/11.
Just
letting you know so that you stay out of the line of fire."

on 9/11 there was no functional difference between AQ and the taliban.
now there is. i have no objections at all to negotiating with
elements of the taliban...as long as they keep their noses clean



The Taliban is not al queda. They just share a common enemy, US
invaders. We empowered the Taliban. There is little chance we will
ever stop them as long as we keep killing innocent civilians

Yep, we're doing the recruiting for them.

Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:18:07 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:10:37 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 02:37:00 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

We have hitched our hopes to a corrupt government in a country famous
for grinding up super powers, somehow thinking everything will work
out for us.

you guys think that 'grinding up superpowers' is a profound
observation

it's a cliche. afghanistan has been conquered 3 times in the last 1000
years.

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.

I don't know of any US policy that claims we want to "control" the tribal
regions. What we want is a stable gov't that doesn't harbor terrorists, such
as
Al-Qaeda.

Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

"mmc" wrote in message
g.com...



The 100 in Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11.
In case you haven't heard. Bin Laden's gang is supposed to be in
Pakistan and he has been there since Tora Bora, about a trillion
dollars and over a thousand coalition lives ago.

And by driving them over the border instead of dealing with them when we
had the chance, we've caused the destabilization of Pakistan by causing
regional and ethnic rifts. Pakistan is a nuclear armed country and those
nukes could end up in the hands of a government or faction that is
controlled by or actually is al queda and/or taliban.
That last round of White House ass clowns did us no favors, looking like
the current group of ass clowns isn't going to fix things.


We have hitched our hopes to a corrupt government in a country famous
for grinding up super powers, somehow thinking everything will work
out for us.

We love throwing stones at other peoples corruption, but what about our
own? Lobbyist, corporate sponsership of our politicians thru campaign
contributions (remainders of which BELONG to the candidate after that
particular election) and free media coverage all for sake of buying access
and influence are legalized by the scum taking the payoffs.


Well, the drone attacks are having an effect, and the Pakistan army is
starting to actually engage A-Q in the lawless area.

Certainly hard to disagree with your point, however.

Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 08:26:00 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

Afghanistan has very little to do with terrorism. There may be less
than 100 al queda in Afghanistan and we are spending about 100 million
dollars a year each to try to kill them.
This is a stupid way to waste our grand kid's money at a time when the
country is in so much fiscal trouble.

I disagree. Locals are not turning in taliban. And the way taliban is
used, it can encompass any radical islam organization. It isn't like
there is just one.

The Taliban is not al queda, although Washington would like us to
think they are the same.

Some in Washington. The adults don't think that nor promote that false
notion.

Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 10/07/2010 9:32 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 20:11:26 -0400, "Harold'"
wrote:


"Harry wrote in message
...
...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.

Last time I checked O'Bama was the whore in charge.

you pro terrorism?

You can want our people out of there and not be pro-terrorism.

So far this war is getting close to two times as long as WW II and no
sight of peace.

Which means we are not winning.

And it is probably due to the fact that we in the west will not face up to
what we are really fighting. We are not fighting an army but a cult of
fascism and hate engrained right into families. If we can't extinguish
the cult, the problem will persist. The enemy is islam itself.

--

Government: We have Liberals (academic idealists), NDP (dreaming
socialists) and Conservative (lawyer scum) but where is the middle class
(common sense)?

No. You're just a racist.

Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:22:02 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

So far this war is getting close to two times as long as WW II and no
sight of peace.

that's the nature of guerrilla insurrections. we don't have to 'win'.
we just dont have to lose

We did so well in Vietnam, what could possibly go wrong

If you listen to the generals of that era, it was the politicians' fault for
not letting them finish the job.

Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

"Harold'" wrote in message
...

"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.


According to an eye witness, Obama has very little interest in being
advised on military affairs. Obama does what he damn well pleases. He
gives the orders. He da man. He your man, Howard the coward.

This according to a moron such as yourself. You da racist.

Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 08:24:27 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 10/07/2010 9:32 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 20:11:26 -0400, "Harold'"
wrote:


- - -

These whores will do anything to stay in uniform.

Last time I checked O'Bama was the whore in charge.

you pro terrorism?

You can want our people out of there and not be pro-terrorism.

So far this war is getting close to two times as long as WW II and no
sight of peace.

that's the nature of guerrilla insurrections. we don't have to 'win'.
we just dont have to lose

Far as I know, we've only won one insurgent war and that was when we were
the insurgents. The only way to "win" this one is to declare a tie or call
it a victory if we would rather continue to lie to ourselves (we stopped
fooling the rest of the world a long time ago) and leave.
The "win" will be stopping the loss of life for all and not having to
finance a war we can't afford.
This goes for Iraq as well.


Which means we are not winning.

neither are they

And it is probably due to the fact that we in the west will not face up
to what we are really fighting. We are not fighting an army but a cult
of fascism and hate engrained right into families. If we can't
extinguish the cult, the problem will persist. The enemy is islam itself.

Probably exactly what is being preached about Christianity in radical Muslim
gathering. Welcome to the ****ing dark ages. Funny how Christians forget
about Christ's teachings and want to fall back on old testament psychotic
crap that makes Sharia look progressive whenever Muslims are mentioned..

yep. islam is the most backwards of the world's major religions, with
christianity not far behind

Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

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?

Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:54:31 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:20:39 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 11:34:59 -0400, "mmc" wrote:



on 9/11 there was no functional difference between AQ and the taliban.
now there is. i have no objections at all to negotiating with
elements of the taliban...as long as they keep their noses clean



The Taliban is not al queda.

at that time there was no functional difference. learn your history.

They just share a common enemy, US
invaders

uh...we hadnt invaded afghanistant when they attacked us.

learn your history

. We empowered the Taliban

we empowered them by kicking them out of kabul??

gee. you really don't know anything about afghanistan, do you?

.. There is little chance we will
ever stop them as long as we keep killing innocent civilians

cliche

Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:55:33 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:22:02 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

So far this war is getting close to two times as long as WW II and no
sight of peace.

that's the nature of guerrilla insurrections. we don't have to 'win'.
we just dont have to lose

We did so well in Vietnam, what could possibly go wrong

ROFLMAO!!! boy you ARE draggiing out the cliches, aren't you?

the viet cong and NVA had the support of china and the USSR.

the taliban enjoy the support of the ISI.

big deal!

Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

On 7/11/10 3:55 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:38:59 -0400, wrote:

So far this war is getting close to two times as long as WW II and no
sight of peace.

that's the nature of guerrilla insurrections. we don't have to 'win'.
we just dont have to lose

Far as I know, we've only won one insurgent war and that was when we were
the insurgents. The only way to "win" this one is to declare a tie or call
it a victory if we would rather continue to lie to ourselves (we stopped
fooling the rest of the world a long time ago) and leave.
The "win" will be stopping the loss of life for all and not having to
finance a war we can't afford.
This goes for Iraq as well.


I would go farther and say I defy anyone to come up with an example of
a super power putting down an insurgency except perhaps for the Nazis
and the Soviets. They did it by ignoring all rules of common decency
and it really just drove the insurgents underground. Is that who we
want to emulate?
It might be noted that the Soviets had their ass handed to them in
Afghanistan.
We watched the French in Vietnam and didn't learn anything, then we
watched the Soviets in Afghanistan and didn't learn anything.
Is the US just stupid?


The situation in afghanistan is worse than anyone is discussing,
vis-a-vis the US involvement there. Afghanistan may define a territory,
but it certainly does not define a country. Is there a period in the
lifetimes of anyone living in that "country" when it was a functioning
political entity, with an effective centralized government and strong
provincial governments who believed in the concept of nationhood?

Villagers in many parts of Afghanistan are often at war with the next
village down the road. Its US-imposed elections are corrupt. The
so-called central government is corrupt, and in reality, there is no
central government.

Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 10:24:51 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:18:07 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:10:37 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 02:37:00 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

We have hitched our hopes to a corrupt government in a country famous
for grinding up super powers, somehow thinking everything will work
out for us.

you guys think that 'grinding up superpowers' is a profound
observation

it's a cliche. afghanistan has been conquered 3 times in the last 1000
years.

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.

I don't know of any US policy that claims we want to "control" the tribal
regions. What we want is a stable gov't that doesn't harbor terrorists,
such
as
Al-Qaeda.


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 had influence in Northwestern Afghanistan but when we got down near
the Pakistan border where tribal leaders are in charge we did not have
enough local support to operate. More people will not do anything but
drive the opposition farther underground and they will pop up like
dandelions as soon as we leave. This is not Iraq.

Currently they don't, but the policy is to give them more stability and less
corruption. They may never "control" the tribal regions, but they'll be able
(according to the policy) keep it under control.

No... we failed in Tora Bora because Bush aka Rumsfeld failed to follow
through.

Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 10:27:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 08:26:00 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

Afghanistan has very little to do with terrorism. There may be less
than 100 al queda in Afghanistan and we are spending about 100 million
dollars a year each to try to kill them.
This is a stupid way to waste our grand kid's money at a time when the
country is in so much fiscal trouble.

I disagree. Locals are not turning in taliban. And the way taliban is
used, it can encompass any radical islam organization. It isn't like
there is just one.

The Taliban is not al queda, although Washington would like us to
think they are the same.

Some in Washington. The adults don't think that nor promote that false
notion.


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.

Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

"Jim" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 10:27:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 08:26:00 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

Afghanistan has very little to do with terrorism. There may be less
than 100 al queda in Afghanistan and we are spending about 100
million
dollars a year each to try to kill them.
This is a stupid way to waste our grand kid's money at a time when
the
country is in so much fiscal trouble.
I disagree. Locals are not turning in taliban. And the way taliban
is
used, it can encompass any radical islam organization. It isn't like
there is just one.
The Taliban is not al queda, although Washington would like us to
think they are the same.
Some in Washington. The adults don't think that nor promote that false
notion.


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.

AQ was head-quartered in Afghanistan, and sheltered by the Taliban.
They were asked to turn over Bin Laden and refused.
You can't separate 9/11, AQ and Taliban. Not possible.

Actually, you can to some degree. There are flavors of Taliban, apparently.

If Taliban regain power, the cycle will repeat.
Refute that.

Probably true.

With no Taliban refuge in Afghanistan, remaining AQ are forced into
Pakistan, and the Pakis will deal with them, as they are increasingly
doing.
Besides that, the Taliban are criminal trash, and allowing them back
will become a huge human rights issue, and we will have to re-invade
with UN forces.

Perhaps they'll deal with them. It's in the own best self-interest
certainly.

Keep in mind that when the Iraq "surge" started there was "no hope" for
establishing a working government in Iraq.
Many wanted to abandon the effort.
There is a government there now, and time will tell if it succeeds.
The memories of Saddam will help.
I don't remember when the last American casualty occurred there.

There will be a "progress report" on Afghan operations in December, and
another in July/2011.
We will know the progress in building Afghan armed forces, and be able
to count our own costs in blood and treasure, and adjust as necessary.
I expect success, and we can thank our military for it.
As others have said, victory is establishing any government that isn't
the Taliban, and doesn't approach the Taliban abuse of human rights.
They'll be crooks, but like U.S. pols, "good crooks."
Once they get cable or satellite TV installed in enough homes, and
enough cell phone towers put up, the Taliban problem will go away.
There is no other solution I can think of.
You haven't offered any solution except "cut and run."
GWB didn't do that in Iraq, and Obama won't in Afghanistan.
Because there is no other moral choice but to "stay the course."
Like it or lump it.

Jim - Laying out the choices.

Well, I'm not sure if I completely agree with "stay the course" entirely,
forever. That's why there's a deadline in place... flexible, but a deadline.

Only time will tell..

Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 10:29:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:22:02 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

So far this war is getting close to two times as long as WW II and no
sight of peace.

that's the nature of guerrilla insurrections. we don't have to 'win'.
we just dont have to lose

We did so well in Vietnam, what could possibly go wrong

If you listen to the generals of that era, it was the politicians' fault
for
not letting them finish the job.


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.

Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:48:26 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 10:29:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:22:02 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

So far this war is getting close to two times as long as WW II and no
sight of peace.

that's the nature of guerrilla insurrections. we don't have to 'win'.
we just dont have to lose

We did so well in Vietnam, what could possibly go wrong

If you listen to the generals of that era, it was the politicians' fault for
not letting them finish the job.


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.

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.
--

I hope your day is simply *SPECTACULAR* !!

John H