On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 17:32:50 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 13:03:50 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

... but Bin Laden is not there now.
What part of that is so hard for you to understand. Have we demanded
Pakistan turn over Bin Laden? Have we occupied Islamabad to force them
to?

Why not if your logic is solid?



So, if we leave and he comes back, which would be fairly likely, then what?
Are we pressuring Pakistan to do more in the wild, border areas?

\

Nobody has been able to control those areas in the history of the
planet including the Brits, the Soviets and now the US spending $117
billion, How do you think Pakistan will do it?

wrong. the afghans have been conquered at least 3 time in their
history, most recently by the british in the 19th century. you just
believe cliches

On 7-Oct-2010, wrote:

In all fairness....

Yeah right, a partisan rant is fair I guess.

BTW history may say the Iraq war deposed one of the worst dictators of
the 20th century and Afghanistan accomplished nothing ... at about the
same price.

A million times more was accomplished on August 6, 1945, than in 9 years of
tickling the balls of the taliban.

wrote in message
news
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 13:06:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 10:55:08 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 02:10:34 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 21:55:42 -0700, jps wrote:

Yeah right, a partisan rant is fair I guess.

BTW history may say the Iraq war deposed one of the worst dictators
of
the 20th century and Afghanistan accomplished nothing ... at about
the
same price.

Gosh, it's a good thing Idi Amin didn't have oil under his country.

You notice that since Clinton got his nose bloodied in Africa we are
not really doing much war making there.

Oh, if Idi would have had oil to offer in large quantities in the
middle east, he'd have been GW Bush's target.

My point is that it had nothing whatsoever to do with toppling a
dictator and everything to do with what lives under that sand and
where that sand exists on the planet.

Mentioning that we toppled a dictator is humorous and disingenuous.

It was a tangible result. Everything else in both wars is political
posturing and massive killings of innocents.
Afghanistan will go down in history as the American war with the worst
rate of collateral damage..

And lying. Don't forget the lying about Iraq, and the willful neglect in
Afg.

Really? The worst? I would say WW2, but I'm just adding up the score of
course.


You are talking total numbers, I am talking the rate. No way was WWII
killing 20 -30 civilians per combatant, even on the eastern front.

Well... total civilian deaths in WW2 were 50-70 million.

"Colonel Kurtz" wrote in message
...

On 7-Oct-2010, wrote:

In all fairness....

Yeah right, a partisan rant is fair I guess.

BTW history may say the Iraq war deposed one of the worst dictators of
the 20th century and Afghanistan accomplished nothing ... at about the
same price.

A million times more was accomplished on August 6, 1945, than in 9 years
of
tickling the balls of the taliban.

Yeah, so nuking a bunch of civilians is the right move. Good grief!

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 13:07:49 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 10:38:51 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

In all fairness....

I would say a new accomplishment is pulling within 2 points of Obama
about which was the better president in today's CNN poll. (45/47)

History will not be as tough on this guy as you are.

I still think Clinton will be remembered for Monica, Bush 1&2 will be
remembered for Saddam and Obama will be remembered because he is the
first black guy in the white house

Since you didn't include the thread, I have no idea what you're talking
about wrt the "better" president. Better than who? Bush? Right.

This supposed to be a thread about Bush isn't it. It is your thread.
Note I quoted your top note.

You mean at the same time in his presidency? That's a pretty meaningless
stat in my view.

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 11:54:29 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 13:07:32 -0400, bpuharic wrote:


He wasn't in Hamburg where the plot was planned, he wasn't in Spain
where the hijackers were trained and the Taliban did not have any
involvement at all except letting him live there. They certainly did
not know anything about airplanes crashing into buildings.
Their fight is with the people who have invaded their country, no more
no less.
They were there before we arrived and they will be there when we
leave.

So, what you're saying is that if there's a known murderer living in your
house, you're not really responsible for turning him in, because you weren't
there when he murdered someone...

I am saying if the murderer left the house, you stop shooting at it.

OBL left Afghanistan 9 years ago, yet we still keep up the war.
To use your logic we should be occupying Islamabad and threatening
their government.. I suppose we are already killing their people so
that is a start ... until they just kick us out completely.

Nobody controls the territory within the national boundaries of
Afghanistan. Some might control the territory they are in right now but,
when they go three miles in any direction someone moves into to control
the territory that was just vacated.

Afghanistan hasn't advanced socially and culturally beyond tribalism.

On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 10:15:17 -0400, BAR wrote:



Nobody controls the territory within the national boundaries of
Afghanistan. Some might control the territory they are in right now but,
when they go three miles in any direction someone moves into to control
the territory that was just vacated.

Afghanistan hasn't advanced socially and culturally beyond tribalism.

at one time, through the 60's and70's, afghanistan was a fairly modern
state, growing towards becoming a thriving country.

On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 15:52:01 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 18:08:10 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

wrong. the afghans have been conquered at least 3 time in their
history, most recently by the british in the 19th century. you just
believe cliches

The Brits took Kabul and controlled the government but they did not
control Kandahar. It was all they could do to keep the Kyber Pass
open.

what's the UK defense budget again?

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 15:52:01 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 18:08:10 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

wrong. the afghans have been conquered at least 3 time in their
history, most recently by the british in the 19th century. you just
believe cliches

The Brits took Kabul and controlled the government but they did not
control Kandahar. It was all they could do to keep the Kyber Pass
open.

what's the UK defense budget again?

It was very large in those days.

On 8-Oct-2010, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

A million times more was accomplished on August 6, 1945, than in 9 years

of
tickling the balls of the taliban.

Yeah, so nuking a bunch of civilians is the right move. Good grief!

Good point. Know any way to make the Islamic Maniacs put on uniforms??