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.

[article at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1249...54218153.html]

So much for American supremacy as ordained by God himself.


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

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.

On Aug 10, 2:38*pm, 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.

[article athttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB124986154654218153.html]

So much for American supremacy as ordained by God himself.

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

WTF, get lost numbnutsnebhidasshole, you extremist Taliban supporter,
go harass the folks asking questions at that slr site you are so good
at. And your post had what to do with fixin somethin, absolutely nutin.

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).


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

On 8/10/2009 12:53 PM ransley spake thus:

WTF, get lost numbnutsnebhidasshole, you extremist Taliban supporter,
go harass the folks asking questions at that slr site you are so good
at. And your post had what to do with fixin somethin, absolutely nutin.

WTF indeed. Yet more proof, if any were needed, that you're an idjit who
can't put together a complete coherent sentence to save his life.

It sounds from your postings here as if you have customers; how do you
communicate with them? Draw pictures with crayon on paper sacks?


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

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.


If the Wall Street Journal reports it, then it must be so. But I wouldn't
throw in the towel just yet - the Obamasurge is in the works.

Just like the Bushsurge turned things around and made Iraq the Riviera of
the Middle East, the Obamasurge - if prosecuted the same way - will yield
amazing results.

David Nebenzahl wrote:

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).

Oh bother! We need a war every ten to fifteen years to keep the tip of the
spear sharp (and, of course, to encourage enlistments).

On 8/10/2009 1:56 PM HeyBub spake thus:

Just like the Bushsurge turned things around and made Iraq the Riviera of
the Middle East, the Obamasurge - if prosecuted the same way - will yield
amazing results.

Right back atcha. I see your snarky sarcasm and raise you $2.


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

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 14:07:09 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 8/10/2009 1:56 PM HeyBub spake thus:

Just like the Bushsurge turned things around and made Iraq the Riviera of
the Middle East, the Obamasurge - if prosecuted the same way - will yield
amazing results.

Right back atcha. I see your snarky sarcasm and raise you $2.

Wher is that $2 coming from?

On 8/10/2009 2:16 PM spake thus:

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 14:07:09 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 8/10/2009 1:56 PM HeyBub spake thus:

Just like the Bushsurge turned things around and made Iraq the Riviera of
the Middle East, the Obamasurge - if prosecuted the same way - will yield
amazing results.

Right back atcha. I see your snarky sarcasm and raise you $2.

Wher is that $2 coming from?

My share of the stimulus pkg, naturally.


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

In article , David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 8/10/2009 12:52 PM Doug Miller spake thus:

In article , David
Nebenzahl wrote:

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).

Were you paying attention to the news on 11 September 2001?

And it happened on Obama's clock.....

cm


"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...
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.

[article at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1249...54218153.html]

So much for American supremacy as ordained by God himself.


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

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article , David
Nebenzahl wrote:
On 8/10/2009 12:52 PM Doug Miller spake thus:

In article ,
David Nebenzahl wrote:

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).

Were you paying attention to the news on 11 September 2001?


He certainly did not pay attention to President Bush stating WHY we invaded
Iraq.It wasn't all about WMDs.

All he did was listen to the DemocRATs and Mainstream media's nonsense.

just Bush Derangement Syndrome.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

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.

SO many people fail to see the strategic key that Iraq is to the Middle
East.
Iran has seen it,that's why they have interfered so much in Iraq.
Changing Iraq was a powerful strategic move by President Bush.

It's also ironic that people believe we should "do something"
militarily about Darfur,and that we properly acted in Bosnia,but Saddam
should have been left alone.
We have for more interest in what happens in the ME than Darfur or Bosnia.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article , Jim Yanik wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

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.

SO many people fail to see the strategic key that Iraq is to the Middle
East.
Iran has seen it,that's why they have interfered so much in Iraq.
Changing Iraq was a powerful strategic move by President Bush.

Yes, it was -- but tactically, it was badly bungled. And it took our attention
away from destroying the people who attacked us on Sept. 11.

On 8/10/2009 3:36 PM Doug Miller spake thus:

In article , David Nebenzahl wrote:

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).

Were you paying attention to the news on 11 September 2001?

Gee, and all this time I thought we were attacked by some people from
something called al Qaeda, not by the Taliban. When did the Taliban
attack us?


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

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article , Jim Yanik
wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

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.

SO many people fail to see the strategic key that Iraq is to the
Middle East.
Iran has seen it,that's why they have interfered so much in Iraq.
Changing Iraq was a powerful strategic move by President Bush.

Yes, it was -- but tactically, it was badly bungled. And it took our
attention away from destroying the people who attacked us on Sept. 11.


"badly bungled" is an exaggeration,IMO.
Yes,mistakes were made,but the same happened in WW2.
Things have been turning out pretty good in Iraq.

and it really did not "take our attention away" from destroying the 9-11
perpetrators.If anything,political concerns about Pakistan did more.
And that is now changing.Pakistan is now seeing the threat that Al-Qaida
and Taliban are to their country.

you shuld realize that this sort of threat is new to the US and tactics not
prepared for it prior to 9-11.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article , David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 8/10/2009 3:36 PM Doug Miller spake thus:

In article , David
Nebenzahl wrote:

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).

Were you paying attention to the news on 11 September 2001?

Gee, and all this time I thought we were attacked by some people from
something called al Qaeda, not by the Taliban. When did the Taliban
attack us?

Clearly you were *not* paying attention. Come back after you've educated
yourself on the relationship between Al Qaeda and the Taliban prior to October
2001. Google is your friend.

On 8/10/2009 5:46 PM Doug Miller spake thus:

In article , David
Nebenzahl wrote:

On 8/10/2009 3:36 PM Doug Miller spake thus:

In article , David
Nebenzahl wrote:

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).

Were you paying attention to the news on 11 September 2001?

Gee, and all this time I thought we were attacked by some people
from something called al Qaeda, not by the Taliban. When did the
Taliban attack us?

Clearly you were *not* paying attention. Come back after you've
educated yourself on the relationship between Al Qaeda and the
Taliban prior to October 2001. Google is your friend.

Look bub, don't play cutesy with me. Of course I know what that
relationship was.

The fact remains that the Taliban never did a thing to us. They hosted
al Quaeda in Afghanistan, true. But it was their guests, not them, that
launched the 9/11 attacks on us. So how do you figure that this gives us
the right to go after *them*?

By the way, just to head it off, I am no fan of the Taliban, who are
backwards religious fascists so far as I can tell. But that still gives
us no license to attack them and the country in which they are embedded.


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

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 8/10/2009 12:53 PM ransley spake thus:

WTF, get lost numbnutsnebhidasshole, you extremist Taliban supporter,
go harass the folks asking questions at that slr site you are so good
at. And your post had what to do with fixin somethin, absolutely nutin.

WTF indeed. Yet more proof, if any were needed, that you're an idjit who
can't put together a complete coherent sentence to save his life.

It sounds from your postings here as if you have customers; how do you
communicate with them? Draw pictures with crayon on paper sacks?

This is beautiful! Can you all feel the love? I can. La, la, la de
da. Here are some Daisies for both of you.

In article , David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 8/10/2009 5:46 PM Doug Miller spake thus:

In article , David
Nebenzahl wrote:

On 8/10/2009 3:36 PM Doug Miller spake thus:

In article , David
Nebenzahl wrote:

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).

Were you paying attention to the news on 11 September 2001?

Gee, and all this time I thought we were attacked by some people
from something called al Qaeda, not by the Taliban. When did the
Taliban attack us?

Clearly you were *not* paying attention. Come back after you've
educated yourself on the relationship between Al Qaeda and the
Taliban prior to October 2001. Google is your friend.

Look bub, don't play cutesy with me. Of course I know what that
relationship was.

Your next paragraph makes it crystal clear that you have no idea.

The fact remains that the Taliban never did a thing to us. They hosted

protected

al Quaeda in Afghanistan, true. But it was their guests,

"Guests" my ass. The Taliban knew exactly what al Qaeda was and is, and
allowed them free rein to use Afghan soil as a training ground and staging
area for terrorist attacks in other nations. That makes them accessories
before the fact.

not them, that
launched the 9/11 attacks on us. So how do you figure that this gives us
the right to go after *them*?

Because they allowed al Qaeda to operate unfettered from their territory, and
gave them aid and shelter after they attacked us. That makes them our enemy as
well.

By the way, just to head it off, I am no fan of the Taliban, who are
backwards religious fascists so far as I can tell. But that still gives
us no license to attack them and the country in which they are embedded.

Aiding, abetting, sheltering, and protecting the gang of thugs who murdered
three thousand Americans eight years ago *does* give us that license.

Doug Miller wrote:

Yes, it was -- but tactically, it was badly bungled. And it took our
attention
away from destroying the people who attacked us on Sept. 11.

If you mean Osama ben Laden, it was NEVER the goal of the United States to
capture or kill Osama ben Laden.

The singular goal of the United States was to prevent an attack on the
United States or its interests abroad. To accomplish this goal, several
tactics were undertaken at the same time to disrupt or destroy our enemies
communications, funding, recruitment, training, and sanctuaries and to deter
those who would assist our enemies.

If, during the execution of these tactics, ben Laden ended up dead, that
would be a plus, but it was certainly never a goal (after the first week).

Before 9-11, there was, on average, one or two attacks on U.S. interests
overseas every year (the first WTC bombing, the USS Cole, the bombing of our
embassies in Kenya and elsewhere, kidnapping or killing of U.S. ambassadors,
etc.). Since 2001 there has not be a single successful attack on either the
U.S. or U.S. interests abroad.

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article , David
Nebenzahl wrote:
On 8/10/2009 5:46 PM Doug Miller spake thus:

In article ,
David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 8/10/2009 3:36 PM Doug Miller spake thus:

In article ,
David
Nebenzahl wrote:

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).

Were you paying attention to the news on 11 September 2001?

Gee, and all this time I thought we were attacked by some people
from something called al Qaeda, not by the Taliban. When did the
Taliban attack us?

Clearly you were *not* paying attention. Come back after you've
educated yourself on the relationship between Al Qaeda and the
Taliban prior to October 2001. Google is your friend.

Look bub, don't play cutesy with me. Of course I know what that
relationship was.

Your next paragraph makes it crystal clear that you have no idea.

The fact remains that the Taliban never did a thing to us. They hosted

protected

al Quaeda in Afghanistan, true. But it was their guests,

"Guests" my ass. The Taliban knew exactly what al Qaeda was and is,
and allowed them free rein to use Afghan soil as a training ground and
staging area for terrorist attacks in other nations. That makes them
accessories before the fact.

not them, that
launched the 9/11 attacks on us. So how do you figure that this gives
us the right to go after *them*?

Because they allowed al Qaeda to operate unfettered from their
territory, and gave them aid and shelter after they attacked us. That
makes them our enemy as well.

By the way, just to head it off, I am no fan of the Taliban, who are
backwards religious fascists so far as I can tell. But that still
gives us no license to attack them and the country in which they are
embedded.

Aiding, abetting, sheltering, and protecting the gang of thugs who
murdered three thousand Americans eight years ago *does* give us that
license.


further,we gave the Taliban the chance to either give up Al-Qaida or allow
us free entry to go after them,and the Taliban refused.

but liberals("progressives")have blinders on and only see what they wish to
see,and believe only what the Mainstream media tells them.

Many of them are barely waking up to how bad Obama is for the US,and how
much he and the DemocRATs lie.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

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).


Hmmm,
What do you know about Iraq or Afghanistan war? What business?

Jim Yanik wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article , David
Nebenzahl wrote:
On 8/10/2009 12:52 PM Doug Miller spake thus:

In article ,
David Nebenzahl wrote:

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).

Were you paying attention to the news on 11 September 2001?


He certainly did not pay attention to President Bush stating WHY we
invaded Iraq.It wasn't all about WMDs.

No. It was one thing after another. Each time one was proven to be nonsense, he
made up another.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , David
Nebenzahl wrote:
On 8/10/2009 3:36 PM Doug Miller spake thus:

In article ,
David
Nebenzahl wrote:

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).

Were you paying attention to the news on 11 September 2001?

Gee, and all this time I thought we were attacked by some people from
something called al Qaeda, not by the Taliban. When did the Taliban
attack us?

Clearly you were *not* paying attention. Come back after you've
educated
yourself on the relationship between Al Qaeda and the Taliban prior
to October 2001. Google is your friend.

Who's not paying attention?

The Taliban offered to turn Bin Laden over to a third party for trial. We could
have taken them up on it and he would have been tried and probably convicted.
But the U.S. wouldn't trust their allies to do the job, so he's still
threatening us. Instead, we invaded a country that has defeated every invader
it's ever had.

You might also take a look at the history of the U.S. and Bin Laden. After all,
we did finance his rise to power.

On 8/11/2009 9:18 AM Bob F spake thus:

Doug Miller wrote:

Clearly you were *not* paying attention. Come back after you've
educated
yourself on the relationship between Al Qaeda and the Taliban prior
to October 2001. Google is your friend.

Who's not paying attention?

The Taliban offered to turn Bin Laden over to a third party for trial. We could
have taken them up on it and he would have been tried and probably convicted.
But the U.S. wouldn't trust their allies to do the job, so he's still
threatening us. Instead, we invaded a country that has defeated every invader
it's ever had.

You might also take a look at the history of the U.S. and Bin Laden. After all,
we did finance his rise to power.

Right-o.

And speaking of Google, one might google "blowback" ...


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

Now we're adopting the same strategies as the Soviets did when they
attempted to conquer Afghanistan (and we all know how that ended up):

http://news.antiwar.com/2009/08/10/u...afghan-victory

The U.S. is the Homer Simpson of nations, constantly banging its head on
the same wall and repeatedly yelling "Doh! Doh! Doh!".


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

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message

CAN YOU KEEP THIS CRAP OFF A.H.R

HeyBub wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

Yes, it was -- but tactically, it was badly bungled. And it took our
attention
away from destroying the people who attacked us on Sept. 11.

If you mean Osama ben Laden, it was NEVER the goal of the United
States to capture or kill Osama ben Laden.

The singular goal of the United States was to prevent an attack on the
United States or its interests abroad. To accomplish this goal,
several tactics were undertaken at the same time to disrupt or
destroy our enemies communications, funding, recruitment, training,
and sanctuaries and to deter those who would assist our enemies.


And incidentally, to recruit and motivate a few new generations of terrorists
that hate our country.
Not just in Iraq, but also around the world.

The war on Iraq has probably benefitted Al Queda and Iran more than the U.S. We
certainly removed Iran's biggest enemy. And created a perfect recruiting ground
and training ground for Al Queda. At the same time as we destroyed the U.S.
ecomony with useless expenses.

Iraq was no threat to the U.S. They couldn't even fly a plane without our sayso.

But go ahead - keep parroting the Republican talking points.

HeyBub wrote:

Before 9-11, there was, on average, one or two attacks on U.S.
interests overseas every year (the first WTC bombing, the USS Cole,
the bombing of our embassies in Kenya and elsewhere, kidnapping or
killing of U.S. ambassadors, etc.). Since 2001 there has not be a
single successful attack on either the U.S. or U.S. interests abroad.

Really. I heard reports that thousands of Americans have been murdered in Iraq
and Afganistan.

We just gave them more convenient targets. Why should them come here when they
can kill us there.

ktos wrote:
David Nebenzahl wrote in
.com:

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.

[article at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1249...54218153.html]

So much for American supremacy as ordained by God himself.



That's cuz the taliban are like the viet cong. They pretend to be
innocent townspeople. Then they jump out and kill people and crap.

They are cowards not to fight in the open.

Kind of like the American Revolutionaries?

On 8/12/2009 9:33 AM Bob F spake thus:

ktos wrote:

David Nebenzahl wrote in
.com:

So much for American supremacy as ordained by God himself.

That's cuz the taliban are like the viet cong. They pretend to be
innocent townspeople. Then they jump out and kill people and crap.

They are cowards not to fight in the open.

Kind of like the American Revolutionaries?

Yep. Always remember: one man's terrorist is another man's "freedom
fighter".


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

Bob F wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

Before 9-11, there was, on average, one or two attacks on U.S.
interests overseas every year (the first WTC bombing, the USS Cole,
the bombing of our embassies in Kenya and elsewhere, kidnapping or
killing of U.S. ambassadors, etc.). Since 2001 there has not be a
single successful attack on either the U.S. or U.S. interests abroad.

Really. I heard reports that thousands of Americans have been
murdered in Iraq and Afganistan.

We just gave them more convenient targets. Why should them come here
when they can kill us there.

Our warrior class consists of volunteers who knew the risks. They joined up
in spite of the possible downsides. In this regard, they are no different
from sky divers, mountain climbers, race car drivers, marriage, and other
hazardous endeavors.

However, our military folks get the opportunity to kill people and blow
things up. That's probably why there are more of them than race car drivers.

As for "convient targets" it's called the "flypaper effect." We've
attracted - and killed - most of the mental defectives.

My favorite example in Iraq was a group of "tacticals" in a pick-up truck
with a .50 cal BMG mounted on the bed. Here they come, lickey-split
miles-per-hour, spraying bullets. At an Abrams.

The immediately went to Paradise, along with a carburetor, three tires, and
a radiator cap (there was no mention of the CD player).

If you ask the typical warrior why he's doing what he's doing, he's likely
to say:

We march.

For our lands. For our families. For our freedom.

We march.

Into the Hot Gates we march. Into that narrow corridor we march. Where
Xerxes numbers count for nothing.

Spartans. Citizen soldiers, freed slaves, free Greeks all.

Brothers. Fathers. Sons.

We march.

For honor's sake. For duty's sake. For glory's sake.

We march.

Into Hell's mouth we march.


In reality, it's fun. Kinda like bowling.

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.

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

In .com,
David Nebenzahl spewed forth:
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.)

So what should we have done in response to 9/11 then?
Invite the taliban over for a beer and sing kumbiya and tell them how it's
all our fault?
Get real

On 8/13/2009 10:56 AM ChairMan spake thus:

In .com,
David Nebenzahl spewed forth:

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.)

So what should we have done in response to 9/11 then?
Invite the taliban over for a beer and sing kumbiya and tell them how it's
all our fault?
Get real

Doing *nothing* would have been a better response than what we did.


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

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:56:33 -0500, "ChairMan" wrote:

In .com,
David Nebenzahl spewed forth:
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.)

So what should we have done in response to 9/11 then?
Invite the taliban over for a beer and sing kumbiya and tell them how it's
all our fault?
Get real


The president should have gotten on the TV and in a forceful voice
said that we would get those responsible in our own time and our own
way. he should have said that as in the past the US would overcome
this tragedy and emerge stronger and free'er then it has ever been. He
should have said that we would SOON begin rebuilding the towers. He
should have said that the US welcomes the support from around the
world and that we would begin talking to all our friends about
appropriate ways to deal with the people responsible.


Of course, that's not what our feeble minded president did. he got on
TV and looked like he was scared of his own shadow. It didn't help
that in the aftermath of 9/11 he snuck off like a coward to fly around
in circles. I know, you will say the SS made him. Really!! The SS
determines what the president does?? He also immediately started
taking away our rights and started spying on us. Even thought there
was no evidence that Iraq was involved he attached them. Wow, what a
signal that sent to Al Quada. He made no effort to get the towers
rebuilt. Instead, he, like Gulliani, used the burned out hulk of the
towers as a backdrop for political grandstanding. It's been nearly a
decade and the US still has not rebuilt the towers. What does THAT
tell Al Quada about our national will? He created teh largest
peacetime expansion of gvt in our history by creating the horrible
sounding "HOMELAND SECURITY" agency and filling the airports with
their goon squads of shoe sniffing morons.

The short answer to your question would be, whatever bush did, we
should have done the opposite.

On 11 Aug 2009 00:13:44 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article , Jim Yanik
wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

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.

SO many people fail to see the strategic key that Iraq is to the
Middle East.
Iran has seen it,that's why they have interfered so much in Iraq.
Changing Iraq was a powerful strategic move by President Bush.

Yes, it was -- but tactically, it was badly bungled. And it took our
attention away from destroying the people who attacked us on Sept. 11.


"badly bungled" is an exaggeration,IMO.
Yes,mistakes were made,but the same happened in WW2.
Things have been turning out pretty good in Iraq.

and it really did not "take our attention away" from destroying the 9-11
perpetrators.If anything,political concerns about Pakistan did more.
And that is now changing.Pakistan is now seeing the threat that Al-Qaida
and Taliban are to their country.


So lets see, this master stroke of bushes that you applaud has
accomplished what exactly?? 200000 to a million dead and Al Queda
stronger then ever. Yeah, that's a real success story. 7 years later
and we are worse off then when we started - wow, what a success!!


you shuld realize that this sort of threat is new to the US and tactics not
prepared for it prior to 9-11.

It was NOT a new threat when bush took office. Clinton's people knew
of the threat and had been preparing for it and told the incoming bush
idiots about it and those idiots did NOTHING. They let all the
Clinton programs die on the vine.