On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 00:35:20 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 16:54:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

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.

We do it less and less. It's against policy and every incident is looked at.
See Petraeus.

Now it is the CIA flying drones but the death count among the
civilians is still going up.
Haven't you been watching the news at all this week? Pakistan has
blockaded out supplies over this exact thing.

wrong. you dont understand ****.

the pakistanis blocked our supplies because we killed 3 of their
soldiers. the taliban just killed dozens of shiite worshippers and
they dont care. muslims dont care if muslims kill other muslims.
that's what's great about being religious fanatics.

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 00:36:45 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 16:55:18 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

There are plenty of Democrats who feel the same way.
Nobody really has a better idea about what to do with the detainees.
Maybe they should load them all up on a surplus C5A and take them back
to Afghanistan. Then they could have a problem in the air, the plane
crashes and the crew were the only ones with parachutes. ;-)

Even the innocent ones? How do we know who's actually a terrorist?

You don't seem that concerned with the 6000 we killed in Afghanistan.
Isn't that just collateral damage?

and the 60,000 killed by the taliban?

you're right. i dont give a rat's ass about how many of them we kill.
25% of their children die before their 1st birthday. and all they care
about is their idiotic religion.

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.

we were lifesaving there. no point in stopping genocide if everyone's
in favor of it

In article , says...

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.

You are using the ID of another poster.

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 11:05:35 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 02:11:05 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

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.

Beating the Taliban is like pushing mercury around in a bowl with your
finger. You can move it but it is still all there and it fills in
behind your finger.

meaninless. if this was the case they wouldn't be talking. there is
all kind of pressure you can bring to bear on terrorist groups,
military is just one;


How many years are you planning on being there, pushing these guys
around the mountains? This is Vietnam all over again.
In Vietnam we never lost a battle and we still lost the war.

unlike you i can think independently. the vietman paradigm does not
apply since they have no ability to occupy any land we wish to deny
them.


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

They have denied us the use of the only road to Afghanistan.

WRONG!! BUSZZZ thanks for playing. there are a number of roads. they
simply closed one of the busiest.

That is certainly a sign that they want us to stop the war ... in
spite of our bribes. I am sure we will patch that up but the writing
is on the wall.

no, it's a sign they want more bribes. you dont understand how greedy
they truly are. that's what islam is; a shakedown theology

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 11:10:14 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 02:14:58 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 00:36:45 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 16:55:18 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

There are plenty of Democrats who feel the same way.
Nobody really has a better idea about what to do with the detainees.
Maybe they should load them all up on a surplus C5A and take them back
to Afghanistan. Then they could have a problem in the air, the plane
crashes and the crew were the only ones with parachutes. ;-)

Even the innocent ones? How do we know who's actually a terrorist?

You don't seem that concerned with the 6000 we killed in Afghanistan.
Isn't that just collateral damage?

and the 60,000 killed by the taliban?

you're right. i dont give a rat's ass about how many of them we kill.
25% of their children die before their 1st birthday. and all they care
about is their idiotic religion.

No I don't care how many the Taliban kill. We should get the hell out
of there and let them all kill each other if they want. They won't be
holding up Hellfire missile parts and blaming us.

that's the joe biden approach. i think it has merit.

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 11:07:32 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 02:12:11 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

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.

Afghanistan never attacked us. That is as valid as the WMD argument
... from the same guy, your hero GW Bush.

gee. where was bin laden on 9/11

oh. you dont know.

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 11:13:59 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 04:15:34 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

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.

we were lifesaving there. no point in stopping genocide if everyone's
in favor of it


Are you saying a black person's life is less valuable than an
Afghani's life? You just finished a rant about how many Afghans the
Taliban kill.

i'm in favor of letting people kill themselves if they want to.
there's no reason for us to step in where they believe it's god's will
to kill their own children.



Racist

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 02:11:05 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

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.

Beating the Taliban is like pushing mercury around in a bowl with your
finger. You can move it but it is still all there and it fills in
behind your finger.
How many years are you planning on being there, pushing these guys
around the mountains? This is Vietnam all over again.
In Vietnam we never lost a battle and we still lost the war.

Well actually I think that is the only war we did win in the 20th
century.
In every other war we had, we still have 50,000+ troops occupying the
country. We are out of Vietnam and they are now trading freely with us
and the rest of the world.

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

They have denied us the use of the only road to Afghanistan.
That is certainly a sign that they want us to stop the war ... in
spite of our bribes. I am sure we will patch that up but the writing
is on the wall.

They haven't denied us the use of the road. They closed it for a couple of
days.

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 21:57:49 -0700, jps wrote:

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.

I can't defend Bush and Obama spending a trillion each on useless
wars.

Unfortunately nobody remembers money you didn't spend.

Obama hasn't spent nor will he spend a trillion in either place or both.

Last I checked, Congress writes the checks, btw.