On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 12:50:12 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 06:30:40 -0400, bpuharic wrote:


and Afghanistan accomplished nothing ... at about the
same price.

really? where are the taliban? they still rule kabul and have al qaida
training camps in afghanistan?

The Taliban still holds big areas in southern Afghanistan

actually they don't. according to tariq ali, they control about 1.5%
of the population.

thanks for playing

and they
will be back in Kabul the day we leave.

yep. they sure will unless we leave a residual force or convince them
it's in their best interests not to ally themselves with al qaida
again. then they can have their **** hole religion and go back to
cutting the noses off young girls

your kind of folks

Right now they are across the
road in Pakistan and our ability to do much there is really limited.

irrelevant.

We are killing about 50 innocents per terrorist we kill

and they are killing 500.

and that is
worse that the ratio of Nazi reprisals in WWII. The rest of the world
is waking up to that reality. We also risk losing Pakistan.

pakistan is muslim. islam is a psychotic religion. too bad you're
unaware of that fact

If we destabilize a nuclear power we have really set world safety
back 40 years.

it was destablized before we got there. too bad you dont know that

It won't be a Soviet missile that blows up a US city,
it will be a leaked Pakistani warhead delivered in a Ryder truck or a
small boat.

and how is today different than 9/10/01? how many terrorist attacks
on US soil since then?

On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 15:27:32 -0400, wrote:



What? Bin Laden has been in Pakistan for bout 9 years. Somebody there
is harboring him. Islamabad has about as much control in that area as
Kabul. You really need a GPS to tell the difference between Pakistan
and Afghanistan down there anyway.

actually the ISI has quite a bit of control...they're bankrolling the
pakistani taliban.



So, now with your false equivalency argument you're comparing the US to the
Nazis????


Only the tactic. If we think killing thousands of innocent people

got any proof we're killing 'thousands'? and your friends, the
murderers in the taliban kill 10X as many as we do, according to the
UN

to
get a few hundred Taliban we are not much better than the Nazis.
The same people who question the ethics of Gitmo are willing to ignore
the legal concept that we would rather "let a guilty person go free
than convict (or kill without trial) an innocent one".

which has never been the case in war. i would rather kill 100 afghans
to get 1 taliban than let them attack the US again. when they realize
how futile their war is, they'll negotiate

just like they are doing now

On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 17:05:38 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 13:13:28 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 10:41:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


Right, but they don't harbor bin laden and there are negotiations underway
to bring them into the political framework (basically we get out, they
don't
harbor terrorists is the gist of it).

What? Bin Laden has been in Pakistan for bout 9 years. Somebody there
is harboring him. Islamabad has about as much control in that area as
Kabul. You really need a GPS to tell the difference between Pakistan
and Afghanistan down there anyway.

And your point? We went in to get bin laden. We would have settled this
without a war if the Taliban had turned him over. They didn't.

... so we are going to kill men, women and children until they do.

No wonder they hate us there.

who gives a **** if they hate us. if they leave us alone that's
enough.

Pakistan could deal with it if they really wanted to, but they have their
own political problems. And, as you said, we don't want to destabilize that
gov't any more than necessary.

It is not clear Islamabad has any more influence in those mountains
than we do. They are shaky enough that they could lose that fight. If
they do, we all lose

where do you think the pakistani taliban get their money and arms
from? the pakistan ISI.

On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 07:48:08 -0500, "MMC" wrote:



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

BTW, we are not in the business of deposing dictators and Bush is the one
that failed early and ugly in Afghanistan, Obama just doesn't have the balls
to turn it off.


no, he has the good moral sense not to abandon a commitment we made.
you're confused

On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 01:48:44 -0400, wrote:

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

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

On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 12:33:17 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 00:50:50 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


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

The Iraq war was started not because of some ugly dictator. It was started
because of the neocon wetdream vision of transforming the middle east into a
laissez-faire capitalism.

Iraq all about Israel, as the upcoming Iran war will be.
Afg was and is a useless war. There is nothing to win there.

The Afg. war WOULD have accomplished more than it has if Bush had actually
finished the job. He was the worst failure in US history.

Here. I posted it again for you.

Repeating a rant does not make it any more true.
I am sure I can go to some GOP site and get a list that polished GWs
turd like the list you posted about Clinton but I bet history puts
them all in the same category.
They will be presidents with no nation changing accomplishments and
each have one interesting anecdote. Bush will be remembere\d for Bush
v Gore and Clinton will be remembered as being the second president to
be impeached, with the blow jobs being the snicker factor that makes
it memorable.

Golly, I don't recall Clinton attempting to bankrupt the country apart
from his support of globalism.

He didn't obsessively pursue spending us into oblivion.

On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 14:16:47 -0500, Jim wrote:

nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message


This was still all about Israel. If we didn't take out Saddam, Israel
was going to try to and we would have been drawn is as Israel's ally
when the war escalated, a far worse position than just being the
cowboys with bad intel.

This has little to do with Israel, even though that's a convenient
forgetting of the facts.


You are the one forgetting the "facts."
Here's a fair rendering of Israel's influence on the Iraq war, written
before it started by former CIA policy analysts:
http://www.counterpunch.org/christison1213.html

It will explain to you how the Jewish Zionists and the "end of days"
Christian Zionists came together happily in the Bush administration.
Might be too much for your attention span though.
BTW, Zionism is all about Israel.

You remind me of the lower to middle class Teabaggers who support
Republicans, manipulated into thinking that party has their interests
at heart.
All part of winger knee jerk psychology.


Unfortunately our Afghan war has still put is in the position of being
at war with Islam.

Only in the eyes of the radicals. Unfortunately, they're very good at
spreading that lie. Look at the hatred people in _this_ country have
toward Muslims.


All part of Zionism of any stripe.
Maybe with the departure of Wall Street multi-millionaire Rahm Emanuel
(middle name Israel, former Israeli Defense Forces worker, son of an
Irgun terrorist, Israeli citizen, etc) from the Obama administration,
the Arabs will get a fair shake.
Uh-oh.
Looks like I'm an anti-Semite.
Funny. I see that Rick Sanchez got canned from CNN for saying his
Jewish bosses and Jon Stewart are hardly "oppressed minorities."
He only spoke the truth, and that got him fired.
Maybe he really got fired because he's an asshole who thinks because his
name is Sanchez he is automatically "oppressed," but who knows?

Jim - If ignorance works for you, go for it.

He got fired for spitting in his boss's face.

When was the last time you saw that happen and not have the spitting
fool idiot loose his job?

It was a short number of generations past when Jews were regularly set
apart by this very society, just like blacks, asians, etc. There's a
lot of people still alive who remember. And their children are still
alive who know what was done to their relatives during WWII.

A few have done well for themselves but guys like Sanchez are too
stupid to understand that they're the exception and not part of a
grand scheme of Jews taking over the world.

He played right into well-hewn stereotypes and ****ed into the wind.

It serves him right that he got **** in his face and lost his job. His
"apology" was pathetic and the only crew who'd likely hire him now is
the same group that'd love having Lou Dobbs.

Maybe he can join those idiots on the couch at Fox & Friends.

On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 16:36:48 -0400, Jim wrote:

On 10/7/2010 3:47 PM, Secular Humoresque wrote:
In , says...

nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message


This was still all about Israel. If we didn't take out Saddam, Israel
was going to try to and we would have been drawn is as Israel's ally
when the war escalated, a far worse position than just being the
cowboys with bad intel.

This has little to do with Israel, even though that's a convenient
forgetting of the facts.


You are the one forgetting the "facts."
Here's a fair rendering of Israel's influence on the Iraq war, written
before it started by former CIA policy analysts:
http://www.counterpunch.org/christison1213.html

It will explain to you how the Jewish Zionists and the "end of days"
Christian Zionists came together happily in the Bush administration.
Might be too much for your attention span though.
BTW, Zionism is all about Israel.

You remind me of the lower to middle class Teabaggers who support
Republicans, manipulated into thinking that party has their interests
at heart.
All part of winger knee jerk psychology.


Unfortunately our Afghan war has still put is in the position of being
at war with Islam.

Only in the eyes of the radicals. Unfortunately, they're very good at
spreading that lie. Look at the hatred people in _this_ country have
toward Muslims.


All part of Zionism of any stripe.
Maybe with the departure of Wall Street multi-millionaire Rahm Emanuel
(middle name Israel, former Israeli Defense Forces worker, son of an
Irgun terrorist, Israeli citizen, etc) from the Obama administration,
the Arabs will get a fair shake.
Uh-oh.
Looks like I'm an anti-Semite.
Funny. I see that Rick Sanchez got canned from CNN for saying his
Jewish bosses and Jon Stewart are hardly "oppressed minorities."
He only spoke the truth, and that got him fired.
Maybe he really got fired because he's an asshole who thinks because his
name is Sanchez he is automatically "oppressed," but who knows?

Jim - If ignorance works for you, go for it.

You seem to be going for the ignorance constantly. Anyone who would come
back here after what you did to John's wife is truly ignorant.


I never did anything to John's wife. Nor did I make the above-referenced
comment about Israel. I guess one of you assholes is ID copying me too.
That's all you kiddies seem capable of doing, copying the IDs of other
posters.

A careful look at the headers supports your case. Different versions
of Thunderbird.

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 00:38:33 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 21:40:20 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

Iraq all about Israel, as the upcoming Iran war will be.
Afg was and is a useless war. There is nothing to win there.

except the death of al qaida's influence

We are making them more powerful and Pakistan is about ready to kick
US out. They are refusing to let us use their roads now to supply our
troops.

then why are the taliban in negotiations, when our key demand is to
cut ties with AQ?

go ahead. find a resource saying AQ is more powerful today than it was
9 years ago.

i'll wait.

and you're an idiot if you think pakistan is going to kick us out and
lose the billions we bribe them with

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 00:41:03 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 22:00:40 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

No wonder they hate us there.

who gives a **** if they hate us. if they leave us alone that's
enough.

They are more likely to screw with us if we are screwing with them.

we arent screwing with them. afghanistan attacked us. that has some
consequences. just ask the japanese.