On 7/12/10 1:59 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"Charles C." wrote in message
...


"Harry " wrote in message
m...
On 7/11/10 8:46 AM, John H wrote:
On Jul 10, 7:52 pm, Harry wrote:
...it is out to **** us all...forever...

General George Casey, the Chief of Staff of the Army, said today the
United States could face another "decade or so" of persistent conflict
in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In two months, the U.S. will have been at war in Afghanistan for
nine years.

- - -

These whores will do anything to stay in uniform.

Harry, it's not August yet, but I'm going to give you an early reply
to one of your posts.

Your comment about General Casey's remarks was about the most stupid,
****ing thing you've said in years. Now I know some folks will argue
about it was *really* the *most* stupid thing you've said, but they're
wrong. It was.

Generals do not keep wars going. Politicians keep wars going. Obama
could have had us out of both Iraq and Afghanistan well over a year
ago. *Obama* is making the choice of keeping us there.

General Casey is noting that it could take another decade or so to
accomplish what the friggin' politician, to wit: Obama, wants to
accomplish. Since Obama has his head up his ass and doesn't have any
idea of his goals over there, your grandchildren could well end up
there. If things change in your family, you might even hear about it.

Pray for a Republican president. She'll probably either **** or get
off the pot with regard to Afghanistan. Remember the Iraq surge that
'wouldn't work' but did?

OK, see you again in September...unless you do some *really* stupid
again.


Wow...herring thinks I give a damn whether he responds directly to
one of my posts. That's some ego working over there in herringville.

The posit is that the "officer corps" will do anything it can to stay
in uniform, including prolonging war. Without a heavy-duty war to
keep themselves busy, the officer corps will shrink, and so should
the amount of dollars wasted on the "military-industrial" complex.

The last presidents we had who knew anything real about "modern" war
and the military from the highest levels were Eisenhower and to a
lesser degree, George H.W. Bush.

There is nothing worth accomplishing in Afghanistan. If Obama thinks
otherwise, it is because his "military advisers" told him there was.

The Iraqi surge merely postponed the inevitable. Iraq will fall apart
once we pull out. Either that, or it will be ruled by a right-winger
with close ties to some ayatollah.

The military establishment will **** us over every time. If it
didn't, half of its officers would be mustered out to become
substitute teachers.




Didn't think it was possible but you did it. You just admitted that
Obama, with no military experience and little knowledge, has become
subservient to the military and it's advisors. Supposed to be the
other way around.

Military leadership reports the facts as they see them. The Commander
in Chief is ultimately responsible for policy and giving the orders.

In your eyes (and words) it's not Obama's fault. Now it's "his
military advisors" who are shaping policy and are to blame.

This country is in a leadership crisis right now, a quality Obama is
unfortunately demonstrating a lack of. Nice guy and all, gives good
speeches, etc., but little to offer in true leadership qualities.

GTMO is still operating.

And, Republicans have blocked moves to allocate funding to getting it
closed, and they're blocking moves to transfer the detainees to federal
facilities here.

A trillion dollar economic stimulus program has failed.

Untrue. It staved off a depression.

We are still in Iraq.

And, the troop numbers are dropping.

We are escalating in Afghanistan.

Yes, but they'll be drawn down in the next year or so, as per policy and
agreement with the Afg. admin.

I really haven't noticed any "change". Have you?

Yes, but I can't help what other people refuse to see.




"Charles" is just another of the demented right-wing assholes here. I
don't read his posts...I think I fill my obligatory quota of reading the
posts of right-wing morons with the posts I do read. I mean, if you look
at a few posts from Scotty Tosk, "Larry," "E-Jack-Ulate, flajim, et
cetera, you're sort of off the hook for looking at more.

There are a few of these fellows here like "Charles" ...there's more
intelligence and thought in a fart than in any of their posts, so...why
bother even opening them?