On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 08:24:27 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 10/07/2010 9:32 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 20:11:26 -0400, "Harold'"
wrote:


- - -

These whores will do anything to stay in uniform.

Last time I checked O'Bama was the whore in charge.

you pro terrorism?

You can want our people out of there and not be pro-terrorism.

So far this war is getting close to two times as long as WW II and no
sight of peace.

that's the nature of guerrilla insurrections. we don't have to 'win'.
we just dont have to lose

Which means we are not winning.

neither are they

And it is probably due to the fact that we in the west will not face up
to what we are really fighting. We are not fighting an army but a cult
of fascism and hate engrained right into families. If we can't
extinguish the cult, the problem will persist. The enemy is islam itself.

yep. islam is the most backwards of the world's major religions, with
christianity not far behind

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:51:30 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:18:07 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:10:37 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 02:37:00 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

We have hitched our hopes to a corrupt government in a country famous
for grinding up super powers, somehow thinking everything will work
out for us.

you guys think that 'grinding up superpowers' is a profound
observation

it's a cliche. afghanistan has been conquered 3 times in the last 1000
years.

People have occupied Kabul but the mountains we are in were never
"conquered".

tell it to ghengis khan.

That is not history, that is legend and folk lore.
We don't have a clue how effective Khan was in controlling the tribal
areas of Afghanistan. For that matter, the people there could be
descendants of the Khan army.

we you kind of disproved your own point. if we dont know who conquered
afghanistan, then you can't say it's never been conquered, can you?

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:20:39 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 11:34:59 -0400, "mmc" wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 00:41:17 -0400, wrote:



This is a stupid way to waste our grand kid's money at a time when the
country is in so much fiscal trouble.

what would be more stupid is to allow another 9/11

Al queda has moved out. we have even less chance of securing the borders
there than we do here.

which is OK. we win the war if we prevent the taliban from taking
power.

If we'd have said "Hey Mr. Taliban, if you hear some loud noises around
Tora
Bora, don't worry about it, just us coming in to "get some" for 9/11.
Just
letting you know so that you stay out of the line of fire."

on 9/11 there was no functional difference between AQ and the taliban.
now there is. i have no objections at all to negotiating with
elements of the taliban...as long as they keep their noses clean



The Taliban is not al queda. They just share a common enemy, US
invaders. We empowered the Taliban. There is little chance we will
ever stop them as long as we keep killing innocent civilians

Yep, we're doing the recruiting for them.

wrote in message
news
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:18:07 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:10:37 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 02:37:00 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

We have hitched our hopes to a corrupt government in a country famous
for grinding up super powers, somehow thinking everything will work
out for us.

you guys think that 'grinding up superpowers' is a profound
observation

it's a cliche. afghanistan has been conquered 3 times in the last 1000
years.

People have occupied Kabul but the mountains we are in were never
"conquered".

tell it to ghengis khan.

That is not history, that is legend and folk lore.
We don't have a clue how effective Khan was in controlling the tribal
areas of Afghanistan. For that matter, the people there could be
descendants of the Khan army.

I don't know of any US policy that claims we want to "control" the tribal
regions. What we want is a stable gov't that doesn't harbor terrorists, such
as
Al-Qaeda.

"mmc" wrote in message
g.com...



The 100 in Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11.
In case you haven't heard. Bin Laden's gang is supposed to be in
Pakistan and he has been there since Tora Bora, about a trillion
dollars and over a thousand coalition lives ago.

And by driving them over the border instead of dealing with them when we
had the chance, we've caused the destabilization of Pakistan by causing
regional and ethnic rifts. Pakistan is a nuclear armed country and those
nukes could end up in the hands of a government or faction that is
controlled by or actually is al queda and/or taliban.
That last round of White House ass clowns did us no favors, looking like
the current group of ass clowns isn't going to fix things.


We have hitched our hopes to a corrupt government in a country famous
for grinding up super powers, somehow thinking everything will work
out for us.

We love throwing stones at other peoples corruption, but what about our
own? Lobbyist, corporate sponsership of our politicians thru campaign
contributions (remainders of which BELONG to the candidate after that
particular election) and free media coverage all for sake of buying access
and influence are legalized by the scum taking the payoffs.


Well, the drone attacks are having an effect, and the Pakistan army is
starting to actually engage A-Q in the lawless area.

Certainly hard to disagree with your point, however.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 08:26:00 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

Afghanistan has very little to do with terrorism. There may be less
than 100 al queda in Afghanistan and we are spending about 100 million
dollars a year each to try to kill them.
This is a stupid way to waste our grand kid's money at a time when the
country is in so much fiscal trouble.

I disagree. Locals are not turning in taliban. And the way taliban is
used, it can encompass any radical islam organization. It isn't like
there is just one.

The Taliban is not al queda, although Washington would like us to
think they are the same.

Some in Washington. The adults don't think that nor promote that false
notion.

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 10/07/2010 9:32 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 20:11:26 -0400, "Harold'"
wrote:


"Harry wrote in message
...
...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.

Last time I checked O'Bama was the whore in charge.

you pro terrorism?

You can want our people out of there and not be pro-terrorism.

So far this war is getting close to two times as long as WW II and no
sight of peace.

Which means we are not winning.

And it is probably due to the fact that we in the west will not face up to
what we are really fighting. We are not fighting an army but a cult of
fascism and hate engrained right into families. If we can't extinguish
the cult, the problem will persist. The enemy is islam itself.

--

Government: We have Liberals (academic idealists), NDP (dreaming
socialists) and Conservative (lawyer scum) but where is the middle class
(common sense)?

No. You're just a racist.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:22:02 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

So far this war is getting close to two times as long as WW II and no
sight of peace.

that's the nature of guerrilla insurrections. we don't have to 'win'.
we just dont have to lose

We did so well in Vietnam, what could possibly go wrong

If you listen to the generals of that era, it was the politicians' fault for
not letting them finish the job.

"Harold'" 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.


According to an eye witness, Obama has very little interest in being
advised on military affairs. Obama does what he damn well pleases. He
gives the orders. He da man. He your man, Howard the coward.

This according to a moron such as yourself. You da racist.

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 08:24:27 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 10/07/2010 9:32 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 20:11:26 -0400, "Harold'"
wrote:


- - -

These whores will do anything to stay in uniform.

Last time I checked O'Bama was the whore in charge.

you pro terrorism?

You can want our people out of there and not be pro-terrorism.

So far this war is getting close to two times as long as WW II and no
sight of peace.

that's the nature of guerrilla insurrections. we don't have to 'win'.
we just dont have to lose

Far as I know, we've only won one insurgent war and that was when we were
the insurgents. The only way to "win" this one is to declare a tie or call
it a victory if we would rather continue to lie to ourselves (we stopped
fooling the rest of the world a long time ago) and leave.
The "win" will be stopping the loss of life for all and not having to
finance a war we can't afford.
This goes for Iraq as well.


Which means we are not winning.

neither are they

And it is probably due to the fact that we in the west will not face up
to what we are really fighting. We are not fighting an army but a cult
of fascism and hate engrained right into families. If we can't
extinguish the cult, the problem will persist. The enemy is islam itself.

Probably exactly what is being preached about Christianity in radical Muslim
gathering. Welcome to the ****ing dark ages. Funny how Christians forget
about Christ's teachings and want to fall back on old testament psychotic
crap that makes Sharia look progressive whenever Muslims are mentioned..

yep. islam is the most backwards of the world's major religions, with
christianity not far behind