On Mon, 16 May 2011 12:25:08 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 15 May 2011 23:06:58 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2011 00:25:41 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 15 May 2011 21:18:29 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

The fact is there are more Taliban now than there were in 2002 but the
vast majority of them have no interest in attacking the US, they just
want us out of their country, just like they wanted the Soviets out.
We somehow feel the need and the right to impose our culture on them
and they don't like it.

Well, in order to have less Taliban, you have to be prepared to kill them.

Or like cockroaches they can become a bigger problem.

I do think it best to leave, but after building a monument our of
concrete. It will read.

"Live in peace, do what you want inside your borders and we will ignore
your barbarism. But take your problems to us again, this will be ground
zero."

Put it right in-front of their capital buildings. And if they ause
trouble in the future, including frug trade, nuke'em. No need to spread
American and Canadian blood for a barbaric culture.

The point is the Taliban don't really care about us one way or the
other., If we get out they will chug along in their 10th century world
without giving us a second thought.
We are fighting their birth rate and we will never kill them all.
The taliban are against the drug trade, if that is your issue. The
drugs come from the people we support.

You're wrong. They will harbor terrorists, such as bin laden if we
don't make that unsustainable for them. We're in the process of doing
that in Afg.

We don't need to "kill them all." More nonsense.

We have no real evidence that 150,000 troops on the ground is doing
much to change anything. All we have proved is if you have enough
people there we can drive the support underground.
This is another unsustainable program that we will eventually stop.
The only question is when.
A month after we leave the Taliban will be back with the propaganda
advantage of being able to point out how many friends and neighbors
the evil Americans killed. We are making them stronger, not weaker.

Hmm... well, we have Bob Gates saying it on 60 minutes, but I guess
you know more than he does.

On May 16, 1:33*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 16 May 2011 12:25:08 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 15 May 2011 23:06:58 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2011 00:25:41 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 15 May 2011 21:18:29 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

The fact is there are more Taliban now than there were in 2002 but the
vast majority of them have no interest in attacking the US, they just
want us out of their country, just like they wanted the Soviets out..
We somehow feel the need and the right to impose our culture on them
and they don't like it.

Well, in order to have less Taliban, you have to be prepared to kill them.

Or like cockroaches they can become a bigger problem.

I do think it best to leave, but after building a monument our of
concrete. *It will read.

"Live in peace, do what you want inside your borders and we will ignore
your barbarism. *But take your problems to us again, this will be ground
zero."

Put it right in-front *of their capital buildings. *And if they ause
trouble in the future, including frug trade, nuke'em. *No need to spread
American and Canadian blood for a barbaric culture.

The point is the Taliban don't really care about us one way or the
other., If we get out they will chug along in their 10th century world
without giving us a second thought.
We are fighting their birth rate and we will never kill them all.
The taliban are against the drug trade, if that is your issue. The
drugs come from the people we support.

You're wrong. They will harbor terrorists, such as bin laden if we
don't make that unsustainable for them. We're in the process of doing
that in Afg.

We don't need to "kill them all." More nonsense.

We have no real evidence that 150,000 troops on the ground is doing
much to change anything. All we have proved is if you have enough
people there we can drive the support underground.
This is another unsustainable program that we will eventually stop.
The only question is when.
A month after we leave the Taliban will be back with the propaganda
advantage of being able to point out how many friends and neighbors
the evil Americans killed. We are making them stronger, not weaker.

Hmm... well, we have Bob Gates saying it on 60 minutes, but I guess
you know more than he does.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No, but I am sure Greg is a lot more honest...snerk

On Mon, 16 May 2011 10:35:02 -0700 (PDT), "JustWaitAFrekinMinute!"
wrote:

On May 16, 1:33*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 16 May 2011 12:25:08 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 15 May 2011 23:06:58 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2011 00:25:41 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 15 May 2011 21:18:29 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

The fact is there are more Taliban now than there were in 2002 but the
vast majority of them have no interest in attacking the US, they just
want us out of their country, just like they wanted the Soviets out.
We somehow feel the need and the right to impose our culture on them
and they don't like it.

Well, in order to have less Taliban, you have to be prepared to kill them.

Or like cockroaches they can become a bigger problem.

I do think it best to leave, but after building a monument our of
concrete. *It will read.

"Live in peace, do what you want inside your borders and we will ignore
your barbarism. *But take your problems to us again, this will be ground
zero."

Put it right in-front *of their capital buildings. *And if they ause
trouble in the future, including frug trade, nuke'em. *No need to spread
American and Canadian blood for a barbaric culture.

The point is the Taliban don't really care about us one way or the
other., If we get out they will chug along in their 10th century world
without giving us a second thought.
We are fighting their birth rate and we will never kill them all.
The taliban are against the drug trade, if that is your issue. The
drugs come from the people we support.

You're wrong. They will harbor terrorists, such as bin laden if we
don't make that unsustainable for them. We're in the process of doing
that in Afg.

We don't need to "kill them all." More nonsense.

We have no real evidence that 150,000 troops on the ground is doing
much to change anything. All we have proved is if you have enough
people there we can drive the support underground.
This is another unsustainable program that we will eventually stop.
The only question is when.
A month after we leave the Taliban will be back with the propaganda
advantage of being able to point out how many friends and neighbors
the evil Americans killed. We are making them stronger, not weaker.

Hmm... well, we have Bob Gates saying it on 60 minutes, but I guess
you know more than he does.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No, but I am sure Greg is a lot more honest...snerk

Because Gates was hired by Bush or retained by Obama?

On May 16, 2:12*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 16 May 2011 10:35:02 -0700 (PDT), "JustWaitAFrekinMinute!"





wrote:
On May 16, 1:33 pm, wrote:
On Mon, 16 May 2011 12:25:08 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 15 May 2011 23:06:58 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2011 00:25:41 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 15 May 2011 21:18:29 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

The fact is there are more Taliban now than there were in 2002 but the
vast majority of them have no interest in attacking the US, they just
want us out of their country, just like they wanted the Soviets out.
We somehow feel the need and the right to impose our culture on them
and they don't like it.

Well, in order to have less Taliban, you have to be prepared to kill them.

Or like cockroaches they can become a bigger problem.

I do think it best to leave, but after building a monument our of
concrete. It will read.

"Live in peace, do what you want inside your borders and we will ignore
your barbarism. But take your problems to us again, this will be ground
zero."

Put it right in-front of their capital buildings. And if they ause
trouble in the future, including frug trade, nuke'em. No need to spread
American and Canadian blood for a barbaric culture.

The point is the Taliban don't really care about us one way or the
other., If we get out they will chug along in their 10th century world
without giving us a second thought.
We are fighting their birth rate and we will never kill them all.
The taliban are against the drug trade, if that is your issue. The
drugs come from the people we support.

You're wrong. They will harbor terrorists, such as bin laden if we
don't make that unsustainable for them. We're in the process of doing
that in Afg.

We don't need to "kill them all." More nonsense.

We have no real evidence that 150,000 troops on the ground is doing
much to change anything. All we have proved is if you have enough
people there we can drive the support underground.
This is another unsustainable program that we will eventually stop.
The only question is when.
A month after we leave the Taliban will be back with the propaganda
advantage of being able to point out how many friends and neighbors
the evil Americans killed. We are making them stronger, not weaker.

Hmm... well, we have Bob Gates saying it on 60 minutes, but I guess
you know more than he does.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No, but I am sure Greg is a lot more honest...snerk

Because Gates was hired by Bush or retained by Obama?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No, because the 2 plus 2 equals purple.. Really, adjust your meds...

On Mon, 16 May 2011 11:14:06 -0700 (PDT), "JustWaitAFrekinMinute!"
wrote:

On May 16, 2:12*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 16 May 2011 10:35:02 -0700 (PDT), "JustWaitAFrekinMinute!"





wrote:
On May 16, 1:33 pm, wrote:
On Mon, 16 May 2011 12:25:08 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 15 May 2011 23:06:58 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2011 00:25:41 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 15 May 2011 21:18:29 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

The fact is there are more Taliban now than there were in 2002 but the
vast majority of them have no interest in attacking the US, they just
want us out of their country, just like they wanted the Soviets out.
We somehow feel the need and the right to impose our culture on them
and they don't like it.

Well, in order to have less Taliban, you have to be prepared to kill them.

Or like cockroaches they can become a bigger problem.

I do think it best to leave, but after building a monument our of
concrete. It will read.

"Live in peace, do what you want inside your borders and we will ignore
your barbarism. But take your problems to us again, this will be ground
zero."

Put it right in-front of their capital buildings. And if they ause
trouble in the future, including frug trade, nuke'em. No need to spread
American and Canadian blood for a barbaric culture.

The point is the Taliban don't really care about us one way or the
other., If we get out they will chug along in their 10th century world
without giving us a second thought.
We are fighting their birth rate and we will never kill them all.
The taliban are against the drug trade, if that is your issue. The
drugs come from the people we support.

You're wrong. They will harbor terrorists, such as bin laden if we
don't make that unsustainable for them. We're in the process of doing
that in Afg.

We don't need to "kill them all." More nonsense.

We have no real evidence that 150,000 troops on the ground is doing
much to change anything. All we have proved is if you have enough
people there we can drive the support underground.
This is another unsustainable program that we will eventually stop.
The only question is when.
A month after we leave the Taliban will be back with the propaganda
advantage of being able to point out how many friends and neighbors
the evil Americans killed. We are making them stronger, not weaker.

Hmm... well, we have Bob Gates saying it on 60 minutes, but I guess
you know more than he does.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No, but I am sure Greg is a lot more honest...snerk

Because Gates was hired by Bush or retained by Obama?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No, because the 2 plus 2 equals purple.. Really, adjust your meds...

Bye bye freak...

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 16 May 2011 11:14:06 -0700 (PDT), "JustWaitAFrekinMinute!"
wrote:

On May 16, 2:12*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 16 May 2011 10:35:02 -0700 (PDT), "JustWaitAFrekinMinute!"





wrote:
On May 16, 1:33 pm, wrote:
On Mon, 16 May 2011 12:25:08 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 15 May 2011 23:06:58 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2011 00:25:41 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 15 May 2011 21:18:29 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

The fact is there are more Taliban now than there were in 2002 but the
vast majority of them have no interest in attacking the US, they just
want us out of their country, just like they wanted the Soviets out.
We somehow feel the need and the right to impose our culture on them
and they don't like it.

Well, in order to have less Taliban, you have to be prepared to kill them.

Or like cockroaches they can become a bigger problem.

I do think it best to leave, but after building a monument our of
concrete. It will read.

"Live in peace, do what you want inside your borders and we will ignore
your barbarism. But take your problems to us again, this will be ground
zero."

Put it right in-front of their capital buildings. And if they ause
trouble in the future, including frug trade, nuke'em. No need to spread
American and Canadian blood for a barbaric culture.

The point is the Taliban don't really care about us one way or the
other., If we get out they will chug along in their 10th century world
without giving us a second thought.
We are fighting their birth rate and we will never kill them all.
The taliban are against the drug trade, if that is your issue. The
drugs come from the people we support.

You're wrong. They will harbor terrorists, such as bin laden if we
don't make that unsustainable for them. We're in the process of doing
that in Afg.

We don't need to "kill them all." More nonsense.

We have no real evidence that 150,000 troops on the ground is doing
much to change anything. All we have proved is if you have enough
people there we can drive the support underground.
This is another unsustainable program that we will eventually stop.
The only question is when.
A month after we leave the Taliban will be back with the propaganda
advantage of being able to point out how many friends and neighbors
the evil Americans killed. We are making them stronger, not weaker.

Hmm... well, we have Bob Gates saying it on 60 minutes, but I guess
you know more than he does.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No, but I am sure Greg is a lot more honest...snerk

Because Gates was hired by Bush or retained by Obama?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No, because the 2 plus 2 equals purple.. Really, adjust your meds...

Bye bye freak...

Yeah, you really can't follow a conversation anyway.. so long slut...

--
Team Rowdy Mouse, Banned from the Mall for life!

On Mon, 16 May 2011 14:27:56 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2011 10:33:42 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2011 12:25:08 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 15 May 2011 23:06:58 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2011 00:25:41 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 15 May 2011 21:18:29 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

The fact is there are more Taliban now than there were in 2002 but the
vast majority of them have no interest in attacking the US, they just
want us out of their country, just like they wanted the Soviets out.
We somehow feel the need and the right to impose our culture on them
and they don't like it.

Well, in order to have less Taliban, you have to be prepared to kill them.

Or like cockroaches they can become a bigger problem.

I do think it best to leave, but after building a monument our of
concrete. It will read.

"Live in peace, do what you want inside your borders and we will ignore
your barbarism. But take your problems to us again, this will be ground
zero."

Put it right in-front of their capital buildings. And if they ause
trouble in the future, including frug trade, nuke'em. No need to spread
American and Canadian blood for a barbaric culture.

The point is the Taliban don't really care about us one way or the
other., If we get out they will chug along in their 10th century world
without giving us a second thought.
We are fighting their birth rate and we will never kill them all.
The taliban are against the drug trade, if that is your issue. The
drugs come from the people we support.

You're wrong. They will harbor terrorists, such as bin laden if we
don't make that unsustainable for them. We're in the process of doing
that in Afg.

We don't need to "kill them all." More nonsense.

We have no real evidence that 150,000 troops on the ground is doing
much to change anything. All we have proved is if you have enough
people there we can drive the support underground.
This is another unsustainable program that we will eventually stop.
The only question is when.
A month after we leave the Taliban will be back with the propaganda
advantage of being able to point out how many friends and neighbors
the evil Americans killed. We are making them stronger, not weaker.

Hmm... well, we have Bob Gates saying it on 60 minutes, but I guess
you know more than he does.


I saw Bob Gates promoting everlasting war in Afghanistan. Maybe you
saw another show. I never heard him say we could pull out and the
Afghan government would survive.
All they got out of him was "The troops can start to come home" but
when pressed he said "it was premature"

I'm sure you did. I'm also sure that no matter what anyone says or
shows you, you know more than they.

On Mon, 16 May 2011 20:59:09 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2011 13:38:23 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2011 14:27:56 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2011 10:33:42 -0700, wrote:


I saw Bob Gates promoting everlasting war in Afghanistan. Maybe you
saw another show. I never heard him say we could pull out and the
Afghan government would survive.
All they got out of him was "The troops can start to come home" but
when pressed he said "it was premature"

I'm sure you did. I'm also sure that no matter what anyone says or
shows you, you know more than they.

Do you want me to go get the transcript?

Never mind, you would just change the subject if I did.

He said it was premature to quickly reduce the forces. Feel free to
get the transcript.

On Tue, 17 May 2011 02:12:01 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2011 21:59:52 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2011 20:59:09 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2011 13:38:23 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2011 14:27:56 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2011 10:33:42 -0700, wrote:


I saw Bob Gates promoting everlasting war in Afghanistan. Maybe you
saw another show. I never heard him say we could pull out and the
Afghan government would survive.
All they got out of him was "The troops can start to come home" but
when pressed he said "it was premature"

I'm sure you did. I'm also sure that no matter what anyone says or
shows you, you know more than they.

Do you want me to go get the transcript?

Never mind, you would just change the subject if I did.

He said it was premature to quickly reduce the forces. Feel free to
get the transcript.

Exactly right. That means we are going to be there quite a while if we
keep listening to him.
He was behind the "double down" in Iraq and in Afghanistan. The idea
that he won't find an excuse to stay there is still pretty likely.


The timeline for withdrawal hasn't changed, but may depending on the
facts on the ground. Feel free to keep yammering about how terrible
Obama is doing.