On 8/12/2009 11:48 PM Ashton Crusher spake thus:

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 13:51:58 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 8/10/2009 12:52 PM Doug Miller spake thus:

In article , David
Nebenzahl wrote:

This is aimed at one particular person here, who posts as
, and who said in an earlier exchange about
Afghanistan, among other things:

We took the Taliban out of power and showed the world that if you
sponsor terrorism, you run the risk of having the US take out your
little empire, blow up your house, and kill your family.

Well, you're wrong about that. Check out this article, from today's
/Wall Street Journal/, no less, which says:

The Taliban have gained the upper hand in Afghanistan, the top
American commander there said, forcing the U.S. to change its
strategy in the eight-year-old conflict by increasing the number of
troops in heavily populated areas like the volatile southern city of
Kandahar, the insurgency's spiritual home.

Well, what do you expect? The previous administration took its eye
off the ball, and started mucking about in Iraq when they should have
been tending to business in Afghanistan. The Taliban have the upper
hand there now, because we *allowed* them to.

I don't disagree with you, only to say that we have as much
business being in Afghanistan as we did in Iraq (which is to say,
for the reading-between-the-lines-impaired, none).

ditto. I have yet to hear a cogent reason for us being there.

The only reason supplied by some who responded in this thread is revenge
(for 9/11). Since when is revenge a valid reason to commit warfare?
(Misplaced revenge in this case; might as well declare war against Saudi
Arabia or Yemen.)


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism