On 7/12/10 7:49 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:08:08 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:18:30 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:54:19 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:51:3

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?

Since Afghanistan was ruled by guys named Khan for years I suppose you
could say we are fighting Ghengis

could be. more evidence they conquered afghanistan, isn't it?

Yup, shall we just say it is a country that is still living under
Ghengis Khans decendents with about the same level of civilization.

They may be living under the descendent's of Genghis Khan but, the
civilization is long gone.

Painful as it is, I have to agree with you. Afghanistan is a country in
map outline only. It is not a nation by any reasonable working
definition of that term. What civilization it is has is minimal, tribal
and ethnic. There is as much chance of Afghanistan emerging as a real
nation as there is of me getting an invite to spend the weekend at the
No-Tell Motel with Salma Hayek, Penelope Cruz, or Scarlett Johansson.

We should get our ground troops the hell out of Afghanistan as quickly
as possible, and try to help the Pakistanis turn their crazy country
into a nation. There's a small chance of success with the Pakis; there's
none with the Afghanis.

"Harry ?" wrote in message
m...
On 7/12/10 7:49 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:08:08 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:18:30 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:54:19 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:51:3

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?

Since Afghanistan was ruled by guys named Khan for years I suppose you
could say we are fighting Ghengis

could be. more evidence they conquered afghanistan, isn't it?

Yup, shall we just say it is a country that is still living under
Ghengis Khans decendents with about the same level of civilization.

They may be living under the descendent's of Genghis Khan but, the
civilization is long gone.

Painful as it is, I have to agree with you. Afghanistan is a country in
map outline only. It is not a nation by any reasonable working definition
of that term. What civilization it is has is minimal, tribal and ethnic.
There is as much chance of Afghanistan emerging as a real nation as there
is of me getting an invite to spend the weekend at the No-Tell Motel with
Salma Hayek, Penelope Cruz, or Scarlett Johansson.

We should get our ground troops the hell out of Afghanistan as quickly as
possible, and try to help the Pakistanis turn their crazy country into a
nation. There's a small chance of success with the Pakis; there's none
with the Afghanis.
That settles it then. Get our troops out and bomp the place into a sheet of
glass.
Pass the word on to Obammy, Krause and lets get started.

On 7/12/10 9:14 AM, Harold' wrote:
"Harry wrote in message
m...
On 7/12/10 7:49 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:08:08 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:18:30 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:54:19 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:51:3

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?

Since Afghanistan was ruled by guys named Khan for years I suppose you
could say we are fighting Ghengis

could be. more evidence they conquered afghanistan, isn't it?

Yup, shall we just say it is a country that is still living under
Ghengis Khans decendents with about the same level of civilization.

They may be living under the descendent's of Genghis Khan but, the
civilization is long gone.

Painful as it is, I have to agree with you. Afghanistan is a country in
map outline only. It is not a nation by any reasonable working definition
of that term. What civilization it is has is minimal, tribal and ethnic.
There is as much chance of Afghanistan emerging as a real nation as there
is of me getting an invite to spend the weekend at the No-Tell Motel with
Salma Hayek, Penelope Cruz, or Scarlett Johansson.

We should get our ground troops the hell out of Afghanistan as quickly as
possible, and try to help the Pakistanis turn their crazy country into a
nation. There's a small chance of success with the Pakis; there's none
with the Afghanis.
That settles it then. Get our troops out and bomp the place into a sheet of
glass.
Pass the word on to Obammy, Krause and lets get started.



You're ever the racist, eh, flajim? What does one of your other handles
here, "Jim." have to say?

Perhaps you should confer with your ******* son Loogy, or is he too busy
breaking the arms of kids in his 'hood?

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:18:45 -0400, Harry ?
wrote:

On 7/11/10 6:12 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:08:08 -0400, wrote:

Genghis Khan was quite a few steps up on the ladder of civilization from
the clowns that now rule Afghanistan. For one thing, he was a uniter,
which distinguishes him from, say, George W. Bush, who was a divider.

Actually Clinton was the divider. The last president to **** off that
many people was Andrew Johnson. Bush just drove the wedge in a little
deeper on your side.

But anybody who doesn't goose step, drives a wedge in there. The party
in general is narrow and intolerant..

--
Rowdy Mouse Racing - We race for cheese!

In article ,
says...

On 7/12/10 9:14 AM, Harold' wrote:
"Harry wrote in message
m...
On 7/12/10 7:49 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:08:08 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:18:30 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:54:19 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:51:3

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?

Since Afghanistan was ruled by guys named Khan for years I suppose you
could say we are fighting Ghengis

could be. more evidence they conquered afghanistan, isn't it?

Yup, shall we just say it is a country that is still living under
Ghengis Khans decendents with about the same level of civilization.

They may be living under the descendent's of Genghis Khan but, the
civilization is long gone.

Painful as it is, I have to agree with you. Afghanistan is a country in
map outline only. It is not a nation by any reasonable working definition
of that term. What civilization it is has is minimal, tribal and ethnic.
There is as much chance of Afghanistan emerging as a real nation as there
is of me getting an invite to spend the weekend at the No-Tell Motel with
Salma Hayek, Penelope Cruz, or Scarlett Johansson.

We should get our ground troops the hell out of Afghanistan as quickly as
possible, and try to help the Pakistanis turn their crazy country into a
nation. There's a small chance of success with the Pakis; there's none
with the Afghanis.
That settles it then. Get our troops out and bomp the place into a sheet of
glass.
Pass the word on to Obammy, Krause and lets get started.



You're ever the racist, eh, flajim? What does one of your other handles
here, "Jim." have to say?

Perhaps you should confer with your ******* son Loogy, or is he too busy
breaking the arms of kids in his 'hood?

Spoofer alert! I'm far too refined and cultured to accuse someone of
something that heinous without evidence.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:12:07 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

which distinguishes him from, say, George W. Bush, who was a divider.

Actually Clinton was the divider. The last president to **** off that
many people was Andrew Johnson. Bush just drove the wedge in a little
deeper on your side.

Really? So at the end of Clinton's presidency, you're going to claim that
the US was ridiculed and thought little of worldwide compared to when Bush
was IN office?


You have to say the US was about as divided as it could get during the
Clinton administration. They impeached him and at least 40% of the
country thought that was the right thing to do. The vote was 45-55 in
the senate. That is "divided" no matter how you measure it.
There were plenty of Europeans who thought our Iraq policy was wrong.
It was really just us and the Brits.

At least 60% of the people thought it was a right-wing stunt. That's a
majority, btw. The country is ALWAYS divided, but compared to now? Come on.

"I am Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:18:45 -0400, Harry ?
wrote:

On 7/11/10 6:12 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:08:08 -0400, wrote:

Genghis Khan was quite a few steps up on the ladder of civilization from
the clowns that now rule Afghanistan. For one thing, he was a uniter,
which distinguishes him from, say, George W. Bush, who was a divider.

Actually Clinton was the divider. The last president to **** off that
many people was Andrew Johnson. Bush just drove the wedge in a little
deeper on your side.

But anybody who doesn't goose step, drives a wedge in there. The party
in general is narrow and intolerant..

--
Rowdy Mouse Racing - We race for cheese!

You just described the Republicans who've been blocking normal, everyday
appointments, obstructing legislation, and basically not even being there,
according to their own doctrine. You, the Republicans, and the Tea baggers,
scream nazi, yet you're the ones who continually compare Obama and Dems to
hitler, stalin, etc. You're a loud-mouth liar and a racist.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:13:50 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:16:48 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:41:59 -0400, wrote:


I don't believe the Kabul government really has much influence in the
area where the AQ guys are hiding. That is why we failed at Tora Bora.

we failed in TB because scum bag bush refused to send in US troops
when we had osama cornered. the 'new republic' had an excellent
article earlier this year on this exact event

I don't think BL was going to stay put for the month or two it would
take to safely deploy a division. We saw what happens when you don't
do the groundwork in Somalia.
This started as a quiet hit on Bin Laden but by the time he got to
Tora Bora that was not going to work. Bush didn't want another war.

Come on. We had him in a corner. We just needed to finish the job, but
instead we handed off the responsibility to paid thugs who let him go.

Bush didn't want another war? Are you sure? After all, he was "listening"
to
his generals (until they contradicted Rumsfeld anyway).

You were going to have a mission shift if we went into Afghanistan in
force. The original plan was a covert hit squad.

Who is "you"? Bush let Rumsfeld dictate a tiny army with no ability to have
boots on the ground, despite the recommendations from the military.


You simply can not move a mass army as fast as they had to if they
were going to get Osama by brute force. It has been almost 10 years
and we still don't have that much power in that area.
When we started chasing OBL we had local support but he was moving
into an area that would rather shoot us than help us. It is still true
today and we still do not really have any operational control there
with 140,000 people on the ground.
There are still 100 al queda there that we can't catch.

We have about 95K in Afg. and about the same number in Iraq.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:16:31 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 14:37:36 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Then why are we saying this wart is about terrorism? There was not a
single Taliban involved with 9/11. They were Saudis who simply
traveled through Afghanistan. If that was all it took, we should be
attacking Germany and Spain where the final plans were developed.

Untrue. They may not have participated in the planning, but they refused
to
give up bin laden, etc. They didn't "simply travel" through. They took
over
and their extremist views allowed bin laden's crowd to have a
safe-haven.
Don't try and rewrite Bush's failures.

So what are you going to do about Pakistan where he has done the same
thing?

You're claiming BL is in charge in Pakistan? Well, that's news to the
Pakistanis!


He is certainly more powerful than we are in the area he is in.

But not more powerful than the Pakistani gov't. As I said.

Anyone who thinks Karzai or the Junta de jour in Pakistan actually has
much influence in the tribal areas is deluded.

Which make up (in Pakistan) a relatively small area.

Yeah, just the part where the terrorists are and where we can't seem
to get them.

Well, it's a different country. Are you advocating a new war? I doubt it.


The "Countries" we are trying to ally with are so corrupt any deal we
may hammer out with them is just a love letter in the sand, to be
wiped out with the next tide.

And, your solution is.... isolationism? I think we tried that.


Buy off the *******s and covertly murder the ones who won't go along.
Even Obama has said that is OK.

I wouldn't call it murder, but ok. Isn't that what we're doing? ... drone
attacks, covert teams...

It is possible to lose the whore region and then we would cause
problems for India, Israel and most of the rest of the world.

Whore region? Well, sure there would be problems....

Run, it's the typo police!

heh.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:17:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
news
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 14:41:14 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I agree with Harry on this one.
Generals are hammers, all problems look like nails to them.

Did you ever see the movie "The battle of the Bulge"?
Watch the Robert Ryan monologue at the end of the movie where he says
he will do anything to keep wearing that uniform and waging war.
I see the same thing in our military policy.

That's why it's fortunate that the military are under civilian control.
Not
to beat it to death, but that's why McCrystal was booted.

McChrystal was booted for letting his staff talk too much. Obama says
there were no real policy differences between them.
This is not Truman MacArthur

And for him talking to much.... which usurps Presidential (civilian)
authority.

From what they are reporting, most of the offensive jokes came from
the staff.

He said several things that were out of line. He works for Obama. His staff
works for him. He should have fired the staffers and not said what he said.