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.

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.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 11:47:18 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:



It's not comparable to VN. Come on. We're not carpet bombing villages.

True, instead of carpet bombing we are using pinpoint strikes on the
wrong people. You can't deny the statistics our government is putting
out. They say we killed a couple hundred AQ and 6000 innocents. The
Afghans say it is more like double or triple that number of innocents.

We're doing the best we can. I don't think anyone wants to kill innocents.

Now we find out we are just paying protection money to the Taliban,
hiring them to protect our bases. Karzai wants us to stop propping up
the people we pay him to be against. and the Senate just figured out
we were doing it. Without them we would need thousands more troops
that we don't have.
The wheels are coming off this war.

Perhaps. If so, then we'll leave. If not, then we'll stay a bit longer.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 13:41:02 -0400, "MMC" wrote:



"bpuharic" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 07:48:08 -0500, "MMC" wrote:



wrote in message
m...
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

He promised to bring everyone home during the campaign, not honor any
imaginary commitment.
Karzai wants to throw out all private security and is talking about
throwing
out all contractors. Obama may have a convenient out.

Where is that "Mission Accomplished" banner?

Bush's biggest mistake was not believing the one behind him on the
Carrier
We could have brought home all the people from both wars that day and
the end result would be the same.

You got that right!

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 11:51:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

You seem mightily concerned about AQ, but not so much with reducing the
violent attacks in Afg. and around the world.

I am concerned about dead Americans and a war that causes more
problems than it fixes. No more no less.

For Iraq, I agree. Talk to Bush. For Afg., it's too early to tell thanks
to
Bush.

We did depose Saddam in Iraq, what have we done in Afghanistan?

Not enough. We would have been more successful there if Iraq hadn't
happened.

It appears all we have really accomplished is to prop up a corrupt
Kabul government that will fail as soon as we leave and destabilize
Pakistan.

Perhaps it'll fail. We're trying to ensure that doesn't happen. Sounds like
you'd prefer not to try at this point.

We have a single minded obsession with Bin Laden in spite of the fact
that he has not been linked to any of the recent attacks and is far
from the worst threat to the US right now.

Actually, he's been linked to the recent Euro threat. Should we just forget
about him??

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 10:32:57 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
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.

Actually, we have lots of people on the ground there... special ops I
think
they're called. But, feel free to blame Clinton.


I have no problems with a few special ops people being anywhere but it
should be a black op without any direct link to the US.
We used to be real good at that sort of thing.

That is pour best chance of getting Bin Laden. A guy with a sniper
rifle or a laser designator could get him but an army never will.


?? What's wrong with ties to the US? You're in favor of the policy of
targeted murder, right?

The deniability is for the American public. As long as the voters can be
convinced, all is good with the Gov't.
The rest of the world doesn't buy the BS but the average American just
doesn't care or know enough to care.

wrote in message
...
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.

Firstly, in our system of justice, the person who harbors a murderer is also
guilty of a crime. Secondly, you're right, he left 9 years or so ago. Bush's
fault. Finally, we're no longer threatening the gov't, since they didn't
have anything to do with OBL and they aren't the Taliban. There's a
timetable for withdrawal. It's been published.

wrote in message
news
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?

Ok. Then, why did you make the argument that we should demand Pakistan turn
him over? We're demanding that they step up their war in the area, and get
back more control.

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 17:26:42 -0400, wrote:

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..

what do you think we did after 9/11. do you think they had a choice?

I suppose we are already killing their people so
that is a start ... until they just kick us out completely.

we're not muslims. we dont kill for no reason

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 17:26:42 -0400, wrote:

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

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.

the murderer wants to return. think we should let him?

oh. you do.

i forgot you hate the US an love bin laden