On Dec 8, 8:49*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
"harry" *wrote in message

...

What made Bush think he could do any better than the might of the USSR
situated right next door?

Well, actually he did. *The Taliban was destroyed and/or fled, and didn't
really bounce back for four or five years. *Unfortunately the U.S. and its
allied had put Afghanistan so far on the back burner that those precious
years were lost and the Taliban stepped back into almost a power vacuum,
stronger than ever. *It's kind of like home repair, you have to finish the
job or there is little point in even starting.

Now I got the impresion that the CIA was helping the Taliban just
because they were fighting the USSR.

On Dec 8, 9:26*pm, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 12/8/2010 12:53 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote: On 12/8/2010 7:07 AM harry spake thus:

On Dec 8, 8:17 am, The Daring Dufas wrote:

The Mad Max movie didn't come out of Hollywood you silly man. :-)

Ah yes. You're right. I assumed it was Hollywood, it has all the
characteristics.

Well, "Hollywood" is really a state of mind, a way of viewing/molding
the world, not necessarily a geographic location.

The Aussies I know don't view the world in a Hollywood manner by
any means. :-)

TDD

They are just as insular as Americans.

On Dec 8, 9:35*pm, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 12/8/2010 9:08 AM, harry wrote:





On Dec 8, 8:20 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 12/8/2010 1:13 AM, harry wrote:

On Dec 7, 5:35 pm, The Daring
wrote:
On 12/7/2010 8:00 AM, Jeff Thies wrote:

On 12/7/2010 5:24 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 12/7/2010 4:11 AM, harry wrote:
--
"The danger to America is not George W Bush, but a citizenry capable
of
entrusting a man like him with the presidency. It will be easier to
limit and undo the follies of a George W Bush presidency than to
restore
the necessary common sense and good judgment to an electorate willing
to
have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and
far
more serious than Mr. George W Bush, who is a mere symptom of what
ails
us. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the
vast
confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The republic can
survive a George W Bush. It is less likely to survive a multitude of
fools such as those who made him their president."

-- Author Unknown

Harry! George W. Bush is not The President of The United States anymore!
You can crawl out from under your rock, it's safe for now. :-)

Sarah Palin is talking like she is going to run. Isn't it about the same
confederation of fools that would vote for her? I suppose the end of
Rome was a lot like this.

Jeff

Sara Palin is not in any political office! If you are so smart, put up
an exceptional candidate who can sway the people to vote for him/her/it.
Present a candidate who can walk on water and breath life into a dead
moose, impress me. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Tch. There are too many politicians these days get voted in for their
celebrity status rather then real ability. (Hollywood politicians
now!) *That's why the OP is true. Over here too. (UK)
Walk on water? Are you mad? *Are there that many meece in America in
need of rescusitation?

Well, the messiah would have to walk on water to get to the dead moose
that Sara Palin just killed. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That woman will kill you all if she gets in power. * :-)

Perhaps she will nuke The UK first. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

She'd probably get confused between the UK and Georgia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Georgia.svg

On Dec 8, 11:17*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 12/8/2010 3:08 PM The Daring Dufas spake thus:





On 12/8/2010 4:58 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 12/8/2010 1:26 PM The Daring Dufas spake thus:

On 12/8/2010 12:53 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 12/8/2010 7:07 AM harry spake thus:

On Dec 8, 8:17 am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

The Mad Max movie didn't come out of Hollywood you silly
man. :-)

Ah yes. You're right. I assumed it was Hollywood, it has all
the characteristics.

Well, "Hollywood" is really a state of mind, a way of
viewing/molding the world, not necessarily a geographic
location.

The Aussies I know don't view the world in a Hollywood manner by
any means. :-)

But then they're not in the Australian film industry, are they?

The "Australian film industry" and the "American film industry" are not
the same. The "Australian prison system" and the "American prison
system" are not the same either but like the film industries they share
some common traits but they're not the same. Why is that hard to comprehend?

Where did I say they were the same?

What I'm getting at is that there might be *similarities*, based on the
products of each (like the aforementioned "Mad Max" series). Which
wouldn't be surprising, given Hollywood's 800 lb. gorilla dominance of
world cinema.

--
Comment on quaint Usenet customs, from Usenet:

* *To me, the *plonk...* reminds me of the old man at the public hearing
* *who stands to make his point, then removes his hearing aid as a sign
* *that he is not going to hear any rebuttals.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There are some similarities between Australia and the USA culturally.

On 12/9/2010 1:26 AM, harry wrote:
On Dec 8, 9:35 pm, The Daring
wrote:
On 12/8/2010 9:08 AM, harry wrote:





On Dec 8, 8:20 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 12/8/2010 1:13 AM, harry wrote:

On Dec 7, 5:35 pm, The Daring
wrote:
On 12/7/2010 8:00 AM, Jeff Thies wrote:

On 12/7/2010 5:24 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 12/7/2010 4:11 AM, harry wrote:
--
"The danger to America is not George W Bush, but a citizenry capable
of
entrusting a man like him with the presidency. It will be easier to
limit and undo the follies of a George W Bush presidency than to
restore
the necessary common sense and good judgment to an electorate willing
to
have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and
far
more serious than Mr. George W Bush, who is a mere symptom of what
ails
us. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the
vast
confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The republic can
survive a George W Bush. It is less likely to survive a multitude of
fools such as those who made him their president."

-- Author Unknown

Harry! George W. Bush is not The President of The United States anymore!
You can crawl out from under your rock, it's safe for now. :-)

Sarah Palin is talking like she is going to run. Isn't it about the same
confederation of fools that would vote for her? I suppose the end of
Rome was a lot like this.

Jeff

Sara Palin is not in any political office! If you are so smart, put up
an exceptional candidate who can sway the people to vote for him/her/it.
Present a candidate who can walk on water and breath life into a dead
moose, impress me. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Tch. There are too many politicians these days get voted in for their
celebrity status rather then real ability. (Hollywood politicians
now!) That's why the OP is true. Over here too. (UK)
Walk on water? Are you mad? Are there that many meece in America in
need of rescusitation?

Well, the messiah would have to walk on water to get to the dead moose
that Sara Palin just killed. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That woman will kill you all if she gets in power. :-)

Perhaps she will nuke The UK first. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

She'd probably get confused between the UK and Georgia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Georgia.svg

They'll be safe as long as they have moose to hunt there. :-)

TDD

"harry" wrote in message
...

Now I got the impresion that the CIA was helping the Taliban just
because they were fighting the USSR.

Wherever you got that impression is a place you should avoid in future. The
Taliban as such did not exist during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
Their founder/leader did fight against the Soviets, but he didnt form his
own merry band until five years after the Russkis had left. Yes, the CIA
helped Afghan resistance groups against the Soviets after the Carter
administration had goaded the Soviets into invading Afghanistan in order to
give the Soviets their own Vietnam, but what does that have to do with what
I posted? Bush's invasion of Afghanistan was quite effective but sadly his
eye had already turned to Iraq and he didn't finish what he started in
Afghanistan (assuming it could have been finished). Of course the Taliban
came to power in Afghanistan largely because the west lost interest in that
nation after the Soviets withdrew, which is a good argument for not
abandoning the place again. The question is how much blood and money is the
west willing to spend to keep the Taliban from taking over again?

No offense, but you are generally long on slogans, short on facts. You
would benefit from more time spent reading and less time reciting Everything
Is The Fault Of America.

On 12/8/2010 11:22 PM harry spake thus:

On Dec 8, 8:49 pm, "DGDevin" wrote:

"harry" wrote in message

...


What made Bush think he could do any better than the might of the
USSR situated right next door?

Well, actually he did. The Taliban was destroyed and/or fled, and
didn't really bounce back for four or five years. Unfortunately
the U.S. and its allied had put Afghanistan so far on the back
burner that those precious years were lost and the Taliban stepped
back into almost a power vacuum, stronger than ever. It's kind of
like home repair, you have to finish the job or there is little
point in even starting.

Now I got the impresion that the CIA was helping the Taliban just
because they were fighting the USSR.

Of course they were; that's not even controversial at this point.
Zbigniew Brzezinski has said as much, so we can take it as true.


--
Comment on quaint Usenet customs, from Usenet:

To me, the *plonk...* reminds me of the old man at the public hearing
who stands to make his point, then removes his hearing aid as a sign
that he is not going to hear any rebuttals.

On Dec 9, 8:14*am, "DGDevin" wrote:
"harry" *wrote in message

...

Now I got the impresion that the CIA was helping the Taliban just
because they were fighting the USSR.

Wherever you got that impression is a place you should avoid in future. *The
Taliban as such did not exist during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan..
Their founder/leader did fight against the Soviets, but he didn’t form his
own merry band until five years after the Russkis had left. *Yes, the CIA
helped Afghan resistance groups against the Soviets after the Carter
administration had goaded the Soviets into invading Afghanistan in order to
give the Soviets their own Vietnam, but what does that have to do with what
I posted? *Bush's invasion of Afghanistan was quite effective but sadly his
eye had already turned to Iraq and he didn't finish what he started in
Afghanistan (assuming it could have been finished). *Of course the Taliban
came to power in Afghanistan largely because the west lost interest in that
nation after the Soviets withdrew, which is a good argument for not
abandoning the place again. *The question is how much blood and money is the
west willing to spend to keep the Taliban from taking over again?

No offense, but you are generally long on slogans, short on facts. *You
would benefit from more time spent reading and less time reciting Everything
Is The Fault Of America.

Whatever you choose to call this guerrilla organisation it arose
intially in reponse to American/Soviet interference in their country.
And America was in there from the first training arming an arming them
for no good reason.
Trying to say that the Muhajeen are not the Taliban is just semantics.
It like trying to say Teabaggers are not Republicans.
There's one thing for sure. Everything that you bloody Yanks interfere
in ends in disaster. Not helped by national dementia, ie short memory,
total lack of political moral values and ability to forget any fact
more than a year old. And of course the Hollywood education.
The Taliban was created by the USA is at war with the USA and they are
winning. Because they are religious nuts, they are not afraid to die
and they are not going to disappear, whatever happens in Afghanistan.
And they will continue to come and gitcha (and the rest of the West.)
Thankyou Uncle Sam.

On Dec 9, 6:30*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 12/8/2010 11:22 PM harry spake thus:





On Dec 8, 8:49 pm, "DGDevin" wrote:

"harry" *wrote in message

....

What made Bush think he could do any better than the might of the
USSR situated right next door?

Well, actually he did. *The Taliban was destroyed and/or fled, and
didn't really bounce back for four or five years. *Unfortunately
the U.S. and its allied had put Afghanistan so far on the back
burner that those precious years were lost and the Taliban stepped
back into almost a power vacuum, stronger than ever. *It's kind of
like home repair, you have to finish the job or there is little
point in even starting.

Now I got the impresion that the CIA was helping the Taliban just
because they were fighting the USSR.

Of course they were; that's not even controversial at this point.
Zbigniew Brzezinski has said as much, so we can take it as true.

--
Comment on quaint Usenet customs, from Usenet:

* *To me, the *plonk...* reminds me of the old man at the public hearing
* *who stands to make his point, then removes his hearing aid as a sign
* *that he is not going to hear any rebuttals.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The problem got bigger when the cold war was finally ended. Then was
the time when the US should have run down it's militatry machine and
started spending the taxpayers money on the taxpayer, eg new roads,
railways etc.
But no. The US arms manufacturers realised they were out of a job.
So new wars were started via their politician friends and this
continues.
They have realised that guerilla wars are no good for their bank
balances. What they need is a real war. ie North Korea.

Or was that South? Maybe both. Especially if the mad cow Palin
woman gets in. Say, how about China?

On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 00:07:38 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Dec 9, 6:30*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 12/8/2010 11:22 PM harry spake thus:





On Dec 8, 8:49 pm, "DGDevin" wrote:

"harry" *wrote in message

...

What made Bush think he could do any better than the might of the
USSR situated right next door?

Well, actually he did. *The Taliban was destroyed and/or fled, and
didn't really bounce back for four or five years. *Unfortunately
the U.S. and its allied had put Afghanistan so far on the back
burner that those precious years were lost and the Taliban stepped
back into almost a power vacuum, stronger than ever. *It's kind of
like home repair, you have to finish the job or there is little
point in even starting.

Now I got the impresion that the CIA was helping the Taliban just
because they were fighting the USSR.

Of course they were; that's not even controversial at this point.
Zbigniew Brzezinski has said as much, so we can take it as true.

--
Comment on quaint Usenet customs, from Usenet:

* *To me, the *plonk...* reminds me of the old man at the public hearing
* *who stands to make his point, then removes his hearing aid as a sign
* *that he is not going to hear any rebuttals.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The problem got bigger when the cold war was finally ended. Then was
the time when the US should have run down it's militatry machine and
started spending the taxpayers money on the taxpayer, eg new roads,
railways etc.
But no. The US arms manufacturers realised they were out of a job.
So new wars were started via their politician friends and this
continues.
They have realised that guerilla wars are no good for their bank
balances. What they need is a real war. ie North Korea.

Or was that South? Maybe both. Especially if the mad cow Palin
woman gets in. Say, how about China?

Exactly right. Remember they first tried to set up Gadaffi sp? as
the big threat but a guy in a dress isn't really seen as too
threatening. So they went for Saddam as the big need to arm. Oh,
weapons of mass destruction! How quaint, gas as a WMD. I suppose so,
but compared to the way we can kill, not really.

And of course, we (and you Harry) were the ones who did supply Saddam
with the gas.

Can't have a big military-industrial complex without something to
fear. Hey, let's turn 20 guys with boxcutters into a reason to double
the defense budget!!!

On 12/10/2010 6:38 AM dgk spake thus:

Exactly right. Remember they first tried to set up Gadaffi sp? as
the big threat but a guy in a dress isn't really seen as too
threatening. So they went for Saddam as the big need to arm. Oh,
weapons of mass destruction! How quaint, gas as a WMD. I suppose so,
but compared to the way we can kill, not really.

And of course, we (and you Harry) were the ones who did supply Saddam
with the gas.

Can't have a big military-industrial complex without something to
fear. Hey, let's turn 20 guys with boxcutters into a reason to double
the defense budget!!!

And that, boys and girls, is how we ended up with what I like to call
.... the War on Tourism.


--
Comment on quaint Usenet customs, from Usenet:

To me, the *plonk...* reminds me of the old man at the public hearing
who stands to make his point, then removes his hearing aid as a sign
that he is not going to hear any rebuttals.

On Dec 10, 11:27*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 12/10/2010 6:38 AM dgk spake thus:

Exactly right. Remember they first tried to set up Gadaffi sp? as
the big threat but a guy in a dress isn't really seen as too
threatening. So they went for Saddam as the big need to arm. Oh,
weapons of mass destruction! How quaint, gas as a WMD. I suppose so,
but compared to the way we can kill, not really.

And of course, we (and you Harry) were the ones who did supply Saddam
with the gas.

Can't have a big military-industrial complex without something to
fear. Hey, let's turn 20 guys with boxcutters into a reason to double
the defense budget!!!

And that, boys and girls, is how we ended up with what I like to call
... the War on Tourism.

--
Comment on quaint Usenet customs, from Usenet:

* *To me, the *plonk...* reminds me of the old man at the public hearing
* *who stands to make his point, then removes his hearing aid as a sign
* *that he is not going to hear any rebuttals.

I think you'll find Saddam got his basic WMD chemicals from an
agricultural chemical supplier in Germany. (They use nerve gas
derivatives to make insecticides.)
Nerve gases were discovered accidently by the Germans during WW2.

"DGDevin" wrote in message
...
"harry" wrote in message
...


What made Bush think he could do any better than the might of the USSR
situated right next door?

Well, actually he did. The Taliban was destroyed and/or fled,

Big difference between the two options. AFAIK, they moved with Osama into
the lawless tribal areas of Pakistan until things cooled down. Soldiers I
know who've been deployed in Afghanistan say that they "police" they pay and
train during the day are the ones that shoot at them when it's nighttime.
Sounds as futile as Vietnam where much the same thing happened. Friends by
day, foes by night. In the '60's we were propping up badman Diem and his
crazy wife. Now we've got Karzai and his band of brotherly brigands.

It's kind of like home repair, you have to finish the
job or there is little point in even starting.

It's more like trying to deal with termites. You can kill all that you see,
but if you don't destroy the nest, you're just spinning your wheels. The
Afghan people remind me of an old Clint Eastwood movie about the Civil War
where the townspeople living on the border sing "Dixie" if the Confederates
ride into town and "Yankee Doodle Dandy" if Union soldiers ride in.
Taliban, USSR, US, British - the Afghans have seen them all, lived under
them all, and don't much change the way they've done things for centuries.
They just wait for the next invader to come when the current one leaves.

We're delusion in thinking we can replace a long-standing tradition of
bribe-based family and tribal culture with a modern democracy from the top
down. It just doesn't work that way. We sure didn't have to ram capitalism
down the Chinese throats by force. They came to it (like gangbusters)
*when* the time was right. Same with the Sovs. The Afghan people mostly
don't care about democracy - they just want to get back to living the way
they've always lived.

We should let the Taliban back in, let them build their government up and
THEN topple it. Right now, they're doing the same to us, blowing up
whatever WE try to build. It's pretty pointless and VERY expensive.
Despite the recent "leaked" news reports extolling Afghanistan's alleged
mineral wealth a while back, they really are of little strategic interest to
us. To the Sovs, maybe - they are as near as Canada is to us and that
represents a legitimate strategic threat.

The BS line about "denying Al-Qaeda a place to plan future attacks" made me
realize people will believe anything. To believe that crock, you have to
ignore the fact that this is a huge world full of places that bad men can
use to plan attacks if we deny them Afghanistan. As we can plainly see,
Pakistan makes just as good a terrorist incubator as Afghanistan - maybe
even better because eventually Pakistanis will refuse to allow US troops to
kill their countrymen with our drones.

We could easily force Pakistan over to the "dark side." We wouldn't like it
very much if some other country started killing Americans by remote control.
Well, they don't like it much, either. From what I read, each day it
continues creates deeper anti-US sentiment, even from the Pakistanis that
hate the Taliban. For them, it's a question of national sovereignty, just
as it would be if it were happening to us.

--
Bobby G.

On 12/11/2010 5:08 PM Robert Green spake thus:

We should let the Taliban back in, let them build their government up and
THEN topple it.

Why should we even plan to do that? What gives us the right to dictate
the type and composition of governance of the Afghan people? Where do we
get off playing cosmic overlord there?

I agree with everything you said UP to that point. Let the Taliban back
in. Leave the country. Then let an international group try to deal with
the problems we exacerbated by invading the place.

Really, the Taliban have about zero interest in us or what we do,
provided we're thousands of miles away from their home. Remember, they
did not attack us on Sept. 11; rather, it was their guests. They may
have been sympathetic to the attack, sure, but they also have a very
strong impulse towards self-preservation.

Those who spout and pontificate about the Taliban really owe it to
themselves (and to the rest of us) to educate themselves on the subject
first. I'd recommend the book /Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil &
Fundamentalism in Central Asia/ as a very good starting point.

Right now, they're doing the same to us, blowing up whatever WE try
to build.

Yes, which is completely to be expected when WE are there trying to
wreck everything they have--homes and lives.

I don't care much for the Taliban myself; they're essentially
anti-democratic, misogynistic and their mindset is hopelessly
12th-century or so.

But that still gives me *zero* right to wade into their homeland and
smash everything up. Unless they attack us, which they have not (and
have shown almost no interest in doing).


--
Comment on quaint Usenet customs, from Usenet:

To me, the *plonk...* reminds me of the old man at the public hearing
who stands to make his point, then removes his hearing aid as a sign
that he is not going to hear any rebuttals.

On 12/11/2010 5:37 PM David Nebenzahl spake thus:

Those who spout and pontificate about the Taliban really owe it to
themselves (and to the rest of us) to educate themselves on the subject
first. I'd recommend the book /Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil &
Fundamentalism in Central Asia/ as a very good starting point.

Forgot to mention the author, Ahmed Rashid, the Pakistani journalist who
covered Afghanistan for more than 20 years prior to 9/11.

Oh, and I didn't mean to imply that you (Bobby Green) are one of those
who spouts and pontificates about the Taliban out of ignorance.


--
Comment on quaint Usenet customs, from Usenet:

To me, the *plonk...* reminds me of the old man at the public hearing
who stands to make his point, then removes his hearing aid as a sign
that he is not going to hear any rebuttals.

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

I'll buy that (your response), on the grounds that the wise, prudent and
long-range thing to do would to have never set foot in that place in the
first place.

I feel the invasion was justified (which is not the same thing as wise) in
that Bin Laden was operating from there,

Would that justify invading the area of the US that Timothy McVeigh operated
from? Of course not, and when framed that way, the invasion of Afghanistan
makes equally little sense. More than Iraq, I suppose, but not very much
more. We didn't learn much from fighting in Vietnam or Korea. At least
Vietnam ended up as a stable country without nukes. We didn't fare as well
with the truce in Korea. We'll be revisiting that war soon, I'm afraid.

although it's notable that when he
was cornered at Tora Bora the pleas of the CIA/Special Forces team leader
to
have Army Rangers dropped in behind Bin Laden so he couldn't escape to
Pakistan were ignored by Washington.¹

Remember that history, as told by participants, hardly ever paints said
participants in the dark colors that others might use. It's why
Presidential memoirs are often so saccharine that you get diabetes reading
them.

However I see little chance of a
stable democracy being established in Afghanistan in the foreseeable
future,

So then what's the fV(I*ing point? Wars should have clearly defined goals
and exit strategies. They've taught that at all the military schools since
'Nam but it seems like the entire DoD developed amnesia after 9/11.

maybe it would have been different if the resources poured into Iraq had
gone to Afghanistan instead. But then there is the problem of leaving
Afghanistan putting more pressure on Pakistan, and Pakistan has nukes we
don't want kicking around loose.

The lunacy of the whole situation is that we somehow believe that we have a
crystal ball and can determine what will come of our actions. We were
convinced that all of Asia would fall under the thumb of Red China via the
"domino theory." We were 100% wrong.Throughout history, only the Romans
seem to have been able to overcome the prejudice that people felt about
being invaded by weaving them into the Roman conquest machine. They had it
easy, though. They never pulled out. When you got conquered, you stayed
conquered so no one thought "what will it be like when the Romans leave and
the people we helped them decimate turn on us?" In that sense, they were
somewhat smarter than we've been because we've been around this block with
the Hmong, the Kurds and many, many more. We were utterly convinced all
Cuba would rise up and join the rebellion we would start at the "Bay of
Pigs." Wrong there, too.

But now, of course, Obama has made it *his* war. It's no longer Bush's
folly.

Indeed. Sooner or later they'll have to pretend things are stable enough
to
pull out, that constant drain of blood and money can't be sustained
forever.
Among other things it's too bad they backed a national leader for
Afghanistan who is massively corrupt and apparently a bit crazy.

He was the BEST they could find. Read the CV's of some of the other
candidates and you'd think they graduated from a college designed to teach
James Bond's villians. Drugs, murder, mutilation, slavery, double and
triple crossers and much, much more. Reminds me a picture I saw once of
Geronimo in a top hat and tails. He's still Geronimo under that civilized
clothing. Same with Karzai. As soon as the US muscle backing him is gone,
he'll be, too. His paranoia eclipses even Saddam Hussein's. He knows his
time might come long before the US exit.

Of course if Obama had ordered an immediate withdrawal when he took office
the right would be screaming that he had abandoned Afghanistan, that the
war
could have been won if only he'd shown more guts and so on.

You got that right. He was damned either way, so he might as well have made
the people that elected him to end the war happy. The escalation of the war
and caving in on the public option have doomed him. There's only a slim
chance he's re-elected because he's so clearly guilty of the sin of
overpromising. In that respect, I believe Hillary actually waged the more
honest campaign.

Once they get those dire military briefings that outline the terrible things
that would happen when we pull out, Presidents are stuck between a rock and
a hard place. There is not one soldier I have talked to that believe the
Afghan police are likely to *ever* be ready to take over from the US troops.

So it comes down to taking the kick in the pants now, or betraying the
people that voted for you and taking the kick in the pants later, after a
few more tens of billions of dollars are burned up. All to please people
that wouldn't cross the street to whiz on him if he were on fire. Bringing
bi-partisanship to people uninterested in compromise is as futile as
bringing democracy to people who couldn't care less about it. It's clearly
Obama's fatal flaw. You can't change water into wine unless you're named
Jesus. Still, he keeps trying . . .

I can't help
but think of Nixon, who inherited a war he was eventually smart enough to
get out of but only after long years of more slaughter.

I had hoped Obama would have realized that the prolongation of the Vietnam
war served no useful purpose and that prolonging the AfRaq wars will bring
pretty much the same result. But we won't think of Obama as a dirty coward,
just a dirty, life-wasting liar. (I voted for the SOB and I feel betrayed.
YMMV.)

The worst part? We've cried wolf so often that the public will have little
taste for another war, even though Iran is developing into the most serious
threat of Middle East. When we need to exert military force the most, we
may find ourselves out of money, out of will, out of faith and out of luck.
If Korea, Taiwan and Iran all "light up" at the same time we're still busy
in AfRaq, we'll find out how seriously drained our military has become.

--
Bobby G.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:



Would that justify invading the area of the US that Timothy McVeigh operated
from? Of course not, and when framed that way, the invasion of Afghanistan
makes equally little sense.
Bad analogy. McViegh was a single (maybe two person) cell. There
was no larger organization with sophisticated training areas, etc. Now,
if there was evidence that the governor of Oklahoma had approved
training areas where people were brought in from around the world to get
specific training, had provided logistic support, etc., that the Taliban
did, then we would have been more likely in invading the Sooner State.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 05:59:55 -0500, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:



Would that justify invading the area of the US that Timothy McVeigh operated
from? Of course not, and when framed that way, the invasion of Afghanistan
makes equally little sense.
Bad analogy. McViegh was a single (maybe two person) cell. There
was no larger organization with sophisticated training areas, etc. Now,
if there was evidence that the governor of Oklahoma had approved

....and refused extradition.

training areas where people were brought in from around the world to get
specific training, had provided logistic support, etc., that the Taliban
did, then we would have been more likely in invading the Sooner State.

....like they did in Texas and Idaho.

"Robert Green" wrote in message
...

I feel the invasion was justified (which is not the same thing as wise)
in
that Bin Laden was operating from there,

Would that justify invading the area of the US that Timothy McVeigh
operated
from? Of course not, and when framed that way, the invasion of
Afghanistan
makes equally little sense.

Ummmm, that's not an effective analogy, as there was no need to invade
territory to find and apprehend McVeigh.

However I see little chance of a
stable democracy being established in Afghanistan in the foreseeable
future,

So then what's the fV(I*ing point? Wars should have clearly defined
goals
and exit strategies. They've taught that at all the military schools
since
'Nam but it seems like the entire DoD developed amnesia after 9/11.

The Neocons have a huge blind spot, they think they can engineer history
with the application of military force, they don't consider that sometimes
that simply doesn't work. It is beyond their comprehension that centuries
of ethnic and religious tensions will not be overcome by their
democracy-in-a-box nation building. As you say, they don't seem to be aware
of history.

The worst part? We've cried wolf so often that the public will have
little
taste for another war, even though Iran is developing into the most
serious
threat of Middle East. When we need to exert military force the most, we
may find ourselves out of money, out of will, out of faith and out of
luck.
If Korea, Taiwan and Iran all "light up" at the same time we're still busy
in AfRaq, we'll find out how seriously drained our military has become.

Some senior leaders of the Chinese military have told their government that
now is the time to become more aggressive, because the U.S. military is so
tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan that the U.S. won't react strongly if
China moves to absorb Taiwan or whatever. That's what happens when you grab
ahold of something you can't release.

"harry" wrote in message
...


Whatever you choose to call this guerrilla organisation it arose
intially in reponse to American/Soviet interference in their country.

You're trying to move the goalposts. You didn't know what you were talking
about, it happens to us all, just admit it and move on.

And America was in there from the first training arming an arming them
for no good reason.

There was a perfectly good reason, it placed great stress on the Soviet
Union which as you might recall had been the self-announced enemy of the
U.S. and its allies for half a century. The Soviet failure in Afghanistan
was a significant factor in the implosion of the USSR.

Trying to say that the Muhajeen are not the Taliban is just semantics.

No, it isn't, the Taliban were formed as a private militia to battle other
such militias, it was part of a struggle for power. The Taliban fought
against some of the same groups that had fought the Soviets, to claim
they're all the same is absurd.

There's one thing for sure. Everything that you bloody Yanks interfere
in ends in disaster.

Remind us again how you defeated Nazi Germany and Japan all by yourselves.
And take a look at the former British Empire. Notice some of those nations
are sinkholes of corruption and oppression?

Your determination to blame every rainy day on America is not unusual, but
it's foolish.

On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 10:23:58 -0800, "DGDevin" wrote:

"Robert Green" wrote in message
...

I feel the invasion was justified (which is not the same thing as wise)
in
that Bin Laden was operating from there,

Would that justify invading the area of the US that Timothy McVeigh
operated
from? Of course not, and when framed that way, the invasion of
Afghanistan
makes equally little sense.

Ummmm, that's not an effective analogy, as there was no need to invade
territory to find and apprehend McVeigh.

However I see little chance of a
stable democracy being established in Afghanistan in the foreseeable
future,

So then what's the fV(I*ing point? Wars should have clearly defined
goals
and exit strategies. They've taught that at all the military schools
since
'Nam but it seems like the entire DoD developed amnesia after 9/11.

The Neocons have a huge blind spot, they think they can engineer history
with the application of military force, they don't consider that sometimes
that simply doesn't work. It is beyond their comprehension that centuries
of ethnic and religious tensions will not be overcome by their
democracy-in-a-box nation building. As you say, they don't seem to be aware
of history.

In this case, it was a matter of stopping the Al-Qaeda, which meant the
Taliban also had to go. Without installing some sort of replacement they
would/will be right back. Little choice.

The worst part? We've cried wolf so often that the public will have
little
taste for another war, even though Iran is developing into the most
serious
threat of Middle East. When we need to exert military force the most, we
may find ourselves out of money, out of will, out of faith and out of
luck.
If Korea, Taiwan and Iran all "light up" at the same time we're still busy
in AfRaq, we'll find out how seriously drained our military has become.

Some senior leaders of the Chinese military have told their government that
now is the time to become more aggressive, because the U.S. military is so
tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan that the U.S. won't react strongly if
China moves to absorb Taiwan or whatever. That's what happens when you grab
ahold of something you can't release.

Now is the time because the Dummy-In-Chief won't do anything. It has nothing
to do with Iraq and Afghanistan.

wrote in message ...


The Neocons have a huge blind spot, they think they can engineer history
with the application of military force, they don't consider that sometimes
that simply doesn't work. It is beyond their comprehension that centuries
of ethnic and religious tensions will not be overcome by their
democracy-in-a-box nation building. As you say, they don't seem to be
aware
of history.

In this case, it was a matter of stopping the Al-Qaeda, which meant the
Taliban also had to go. Without installing some sort of replacement they
would/will be right back. Little choice.

But the replacement isn't working, and is unlikely to work in the
foreseeable future. A government that can't survive without massive
military intervention for decades doesn't seem like much of a solution.
Having U.S. bases in Europe during the Cold War was expensive, but thousands
of American troops didn't die in the process.

Some senior leaders of the Chinese military have told their government
that
now is the time to become more aggressive, because the U.S. military is so
tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan that the U.S. won't react strongly if
China moves to absorb Taiwan or whatever. That's what happens when you
grab
ahold of something you can't release.

Now is the time because the Dummy-In-Chief won't do anything. It has
nothing
to do with Iraq and Afghanistan.

Remember what the last Dummy-In-Chief did when China knocked down that U.S.
spy plane and held the aircraft until they'd finished combing it for
secrets? Refresh my memory, what firm action did Two-Gun Tex take?

It has everything to do with Iraq and Afghanistan, and it's another part of
the wonderful Bush legacy.

On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 11:53:20 -0800, "DGDevin" wrote:


wrote in message ...


The Neocons have a huge blind spot, they think they can engineer history
with the application of military force, they don't consider that sometimes
that simply doesn't work. It is beyond their comprehension that centuries
of ethnic and religious tensions will not be overcome by their
democracy-in-a-box nation building. As you say, they don't seem to be
aware
of history.

In this case, it was a matter of stopping the Al-Qaeda, which meant the
Taliban also had to go. Without installing some sort of replacement they
would/will be right back. Little choice.

But the replacement isn't working, and is unlikely to work in the
foreseeable future. A government that can't survive without massive
military intervention for decades doesn't seem like much of a solution.
Having U.S. bases in Europe during the Cold War was expensive, but thousands
of American troops didn't die in the process.

Irrelevant. There is little choice.

Some senior leaders of the Chinese military have told their government
that
now is the time to become more aggressive, because the U.S. military is so
tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan that the U.S. won't react strongly if
China moves to absorb Taiwan or whatever. That's what happens when you
grab
ahold of something you can't release.

Now is the time because the Dummy-In-Chief won't do anything. It has
nothing
to do with Iraq and Afghanistan.

Remember what the last Dummy-In-Chief did when China knocked down that U.S.
spy plane and held the aircraft until they'd finished combing it for
secrets? Refresh my memory, what firm action did Two-Gun Tex take?

A "spy plane" isn't the same as a country. You really do like your moral
equivalences.

It has everything to do with Iraq and Afghanistan, and it's another part of
the wonderful Bush legacy.

Utter nonsense.

On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 17:37:48 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 12/11/2010 5:08 PM Robert Green spake thus:

We should let the Taliban back in, let them build their government up and
THEN topple it.

Why should we even plan to do that? What gives us the right to dictate
the type and composition of governance of the Afghan people? Where do we
get off playing cosmic overlord there?

I agree with everything you said UP to that point. Let the Taliban back
in. Leave the country. Then let an international group try to deal with
the problems we exacerbated by invading the place.

Really, the Taliban have about zero interest in us or what we do,
provided we're thousands of miles away from their home. Remember, they
did not attack us on Sept. 11; rather, it was their guests. They may
have been sympathetic to the attack, sure, but they also have a very
strong impulse towards self-preservation.

Those who spout and pontificate about the Taliban really owe it to
themselves (and to the rest of us) to educate themselves on the subject
first. I'd recommend the book /Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil &
Fundamentalism in Central Asia/ as a very good starting point.

Right now, they're doing the same to us, blowing up whatever WE try
to build.

Yes, which is completely to be expected when WE are there trying to
wreck everything they have--homes and lives.

I don't care much for the Taliban myself; they're essentially
anti-democratic, misogynistic and their mindset is hopelessly
12th-century or so.

But that still gives me *zero* right to wade into their homeland and
smash everything up. Unless they attack us, which they have not (and
have shown almost no interest in doing).

The reason we police the world was stated very well by a true American
hero, Major General Smedley Butler. He won the medal of honor in two
separate wars, and the Brevet medal in the Marines. His take was that
the wealthy in America know that they can make more money abroad than
at home, and the soldiers go to protect those investments. That is
always why we go to war, not Mom, Apple Pie, WMDs or Democracy. Cold
hard cash.

In article ,
dgk wrote:



The reason we police the world was stated very well by a true American
hero, Major General Smedley Butler. He won the medal of honor in two
separate wars, and the Brevet medal in the Marines. His take was that
the wealthy in America know that they can make more money abroad than
at home, and the soldiers go to protect those investments. That is
always why we go to war, not Mom, Apple Pie, WMDs or Democracy. Cold
hard cash.

Now you're just spoiling usenet by speaking truth.

On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 10:23:58 -0800, "DGDevin"
wrote:

"Robert Green" wrote in message
...

I feel the invasion was justified (which is not the same thing as wise)
in
that Bin Laden was operating from there,

Would that justify invading the area of the US that Timothy McVeigh
operated
from? Of course not, and when framed that way, the invasion of
Afghanistan
makes equally little sense.

Ummmm, that's not an effective analogy, as there was no need to invade
territory to find and apprehend McVeigh.

However I see little chance of a
stable democracy being established in Afghanistan in the foreseeable
future,

So then what's the fV(I*ing point? Wars should have clearly defined
goals
and exit strategies. They've taught that at all the military schools
since
'Nam but it seems like the entire DoD developed amnesia after 9/11.

The Neocons have a huge blind spot, they think they can engineer history
with the application of military force, they don't consider that sometimes
that simply doesn't work. It is beyond their comprehension that centuries
of ethnic and religious tensions will not be overcome by their
democracy-in-a-box nation building. As you say, they don't seem to be aware
of history.


Neocons don't really care about democracy, they care about free
enterprise. If governments are elected that interfere with their
profits, then that democratic goverrnment gets overthrown.

On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 10:37:01 -0800, "DGDevin"
wrote:

"harry" wrote in message
...


Whatever you choose to call this guerrilla organisation it arose
intially in reponse to American/Soviet interference in their country.

You're trying to move the goalposts. You didn't know what you were talking
about, it happens to us all, just admit it and move on.

And America was in there from the first training arming an arming them
for no good reason.

There was a perfectly good reason, it placed great stress on the Soviet
Union which as you might recall had been the self-announced enemy of the
U.S. and its allies for half a century. The Soviet failure in Afghanistan
was a significant factor in the implosion of the USSR.

Trying to say that the Muhajeen are not the Taliban is just semantics.

No, it isn't, the Taliban were formed as a private militia to battle other
such militias, it was part of a struggle for power. The Taliban fought
against some of the same groups that had fought the Soviets, to claim
they're all the same is absurd.

There's one thing for sure. Everything that you bloody Yanks interfere
in ends in disaster.

Remind us again how you defeated Nazi Germany and Japan all by yourselves.
And take a look at the former British Empire. Notice some of those nations
are sinkholes of corruption and oppression?

Your determination to blame every rainy day on America is not unusual, but
it's foolish.

The Nazis were pretty much defeated by the Russians. It cost them
20,000,000 young men (which they never recovered from) but that was
what really beat them. There just wasn't too much left to throw at the
west after that. It was brutal of course, mostly because Stalin killed
all their qualified Generals, but even so, that is a lot of men to
lose.

On 12/13/2010 1:53 PM, dgk wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 10:23:58 -0800, "DGDevin"
wrote:

"Robert Green" wrote in message
...

I feel the invasion was justified (which is not the same thing as wise)
in
that Bin Laden was operating from there,

Would that justify invading the area of the US that Timothy McVeigh
operated
from? Of course not, and when framed that way, the invasion of
Afghanistan
makes equally little sense.

Ummmm, that's not an effective analogy, as there was no need to invade
territory to find and apprehend McVeigh.

However I see little chance of a
stable democracy being established in Afghanistan in the foreseeable
future,

So then what's the fV(I*ing point? Wars should have clearly defined
goals
and exit strategies. They've taught that at all the military schools
since
'Nam but it seems like the entire DoD developed amnesia after 9/11.

The Neocons have a huge blind spot, they think they can engineer history
with the application of military force, they don't consider that sometimes
that simply doesn't work. It is beyond their comprehension that centuries
of ethnic and religious tensions will not be overcome by their
democracy-in-a-box nation building. As you say, they don't seem to be aware
of history.


Neocons don't really care about democracy, they care about free
enterprise. If governments are elected that interfere with their
profits, then that democratic goverrnment gets overthrown.

What form of government is The United States? I know Al Gore could
never bring himself to say it. :-)

TDD

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 14:53:53 -0500, dgk wrote:

On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 10:23:58 -0800, "DGDevin"
wrote:

"Robert Green" wrote in message
...

I feel the invasion was justified (which is not the same thing as wise)
in
that Bin Laden was operating from there,

Would that justify invading the area of the US that Timothy McVeigh
operated
from? Of course not, and when framed that way, the invasion of
Afghanistan
makes equally little sense.

Ummmm, that's not an effective analogy, as there was no need to invade
territory to find and apprehend McVeigh.

However I see little chance of a
stable democracy being established in Afghanistan in the foreseeable
future,

So then what's the fV(I*ing point? Wars should have clearly defined
goals
and exit strategies. They've taught that at all the military schools
since
'Nam but it seems like the entire DoD developed amnesia after 9/11.

The Neocons have a huge blind spot, they think they can engineer history
with the application of military force, they don't consider that sometimes
that simply doesn't work. It is beyond their comprehension that centuries
of ethnic and religious tensions will not be overcome by their
democracy-in-a-box nation building. As you say, they don't seem to be aware
of history.


Neocons don't really care about democracy, they care about free
enterprise.

There really is no difference between freedom and free enterprise. The word
is "liberty". Look it up.

If governments are elected that interfere with their
profits, then that democratic goverrnment gets overthrown.

As it should. If government gets in the way of liberty it's unconstitutional.

wrote in message news

But the replacement isn't working, and is unlikely to work in the
foreseeable future. A government that can't survive without massive
military intervention for decades doesn't seem like much of a solution.
Having U.S. bases in Europe during the Cold War was expensive, but
thousands
of American troops didn't die in the process.

Irrelevant. There is little choice.

Let me get this straight: it isn't working, it isn't likely to work, but we
have to keep on pouring in money and young Americans to be maimed and killed
because, "there is little choice". Sure there is a choice, get the hell
out. And when the Taliban take over again and consider welcoming Al-Qaeda
back with open arms, you drop the occasional cruise missile into their hip
pocket to remind them that it would be a good idea to keep their lunatic
practices strictly domestic. Because we didn't care what they were doing
until Bin Laden set up shop there, so provided they aren't hosting any more
international terrorists in future, it would seem a reasonable outcome for
things to go back the way they were.

Remember what the last Dummy-In-Chief did when China knocked down that
U.S.
spy plane and held the aircraft until they'd finished combing it for
secrets? Refresh my memory, what firm action did Two-Gun Tex take?

A "spy plane" isn't the same as a country. You really do like your moral
equivalences.

Oh, I see, has to be a country huh? Okay, North Korea withdrew from the
Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty in 2003 and tested its first nuke in Oct.,
2006. Do you happen to recall who was President on both those occasions?
Pray tell, what hard-nosed, no-nonsense steps did Two-Gun Tex take to make
North Korea bitterly regret they had decided to go nuclear?

It has everything to do with Iraq and Afghanistan, and it's another part
of
the wonderful Bush legacy.

Utter nonsense.

Brilliant comeback, you really have a way with unsubstantiated slogans, must
save a lot of time thinking your way through issues.

"dgk" wrote in message ...


Neocons don't really care about democracy, they care about free
enterprise. If governments are elected that interfere with their
profits, then that democratic goverrnment gets overthrown.

I disagree. *I* believe in free enterprise. Neocons appear to believe in
something quite different, namely govt. enriching big business at the
public's expense whenever possible. The Republican's version of health care
reform saw them pass a unfunded prescription drug bill that prohibited
Medicare from negotiating lower drug prices with pharmaceutical companies in
the way the VA does. That's not business being free to pursue profits,
that's govt. helping business to screw the taxpayer. The Democrats have
their own share of baggage of course, but it would be silly to pretend that
the Republican Party's first concern isn't always the profitability of their
corporate sponsors. But they don't arrange that via free enterprise, they
arrange that by stacking the deck in favor of those who direct hundreds of
millions of dollars in lobbying and campaign funding their way. The drug
companies spend a hundred million a year on buying influence in Washington,
and it seems to be a good investment.

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 17:40:55 -0800, "DGDevin" wrote:

wrote in message news

But the replacement isn't working, and is unlikely to work in the
foreseeable future. A government that can't survive without massive
military intervention for decades doesn't seem like much of a solution.
Having U.S. bases in Europe during the Cold War was expensive, but
thousands
of American troops didn't die in the process.

Irrelevant. There is little choice.

Let me get this straight: it isn't working, it isn't likely to work, but we
have to keep on pouring in money and young Americans to be maimed and killed
because, "there is little choice". Sure there is a choice, get the hell
out. And when the Taliban take over again and consider welcoming Al-Qaeda
back with open arms, you drop the occasional cruise missile into their hip
pocket to remind them that it would be a good idea to keep their lunatic
practices strictly domestic. Because we didn't care what they were doing
until Bin Laden set up shop there, so provided they aren't hosting any more
international terrorists in future, it would seem a reasonable outcome for
things to go back the way they were.

Well, we could "absorb" another 9/11 every few months, like Obummer suggests.
....or we can try to kill the *******s and keep them there.

Remember what the last Dummy-In-Chief did when China knocked down that
U.S.
spy plane and held the aircraft until they'd finished combing it for
secrets? Refresh my memory, what firm action did Two-Gun Tex take?

A "spy plane" isn't the same as a country. You really do like your moral
equivalences.

Oh, I see, has to be a country huh?

Yeah, you know; women and children. They tend to be "worth" more than those
who make it their business to do dangerous jobs.

Okay, North Korea withdrew from the
Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty in 2003 and tested its first nuke in Oct.,
2006. Do you happen to recall who was President on both those occasions?

Does it really matter?

Pray tell, what hard-nosed, no-nonsense steps did Two-Gun Tex take to make
North Korea bitterly regret they had decided to go nuclear?

None. That was part of his problem. The solution was simple (still is), but
no one wants to go there.

It has everything to do with Iraq and Afghanistan, and it's another part
of
the wonderful Bush legacy.

Utter nonsense.

Brilliant comeback, you really have a way with unsubstantiated slogans, must
save a lot of time thinking your way through issues.

The obvious doesn't need a lot of words.

"dgk" wrote in message ...

The Nazis were pretty much defeated by the Russians. It cost them
20,000,000 young men (which they never recovered from) but that was
what really beat them. There just wasn't too much left to throw at the
west after that. It was brutal of course, mostly because Stalin killed
all their qualified Generals, but even so, that is a lot of men to
lose.

It is certainly true that the Soviets did far more bleeding than Britain and
America, but that doesn't equate to them winning the war on their own, they
couldn't have. Russia received massive support from the U.S., e.g. they
built their own tanks, but without trucks to haul fuel and ammo those tanks
would have been useless and almost half their wheeled vehicles came from the
west. The west sent Russia thousands of vehicles and aircraft and large
quantities of food, fuel and specialized equipment like radios, railway
hardware and so on. Since sources of information opened up after the
collapse of the Soviet Union, historians have confirmed that lend-lease
support was vital to the Soviets. And that's aside from large portions of
the German military effort being devoted to fighting in North Africa, Italy
and N.W. Europe.

It's quite possible that Britain and America could not have defeated Germany
without the Soviets, but it's equally likely that without Britain and
America the Soviet Union would not have survived.

In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote:

pu
that's govt. helping business to screw the taxpayer. The Democrats have
their own share of baggage of course, but it would be silly to pretend that
the Republican Party's first concern isn't always the profitability of their
corporate sponsors. But they don't arrange that via free enterprise, they
arrange that by stacking the deck in favor of those who direct hundreds of
millions of dollars in lobbying and campaign funding their way. The drug
companies spend a hundred million a year on buying influence in Washington,
and it seems to be a good investment.

Just like the Dems in their attempts to institutionalize
intimidation by the unions and the trial lawyers. Just a difference is
who is getting the benefits of the stacking of the deck.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...

Just like the Dems in their attempts to institutionalize
intimidation by the unions and the trial lawyers. Just a difference is
who is getting the benefits of the stacking of the deck.

I was hoping somebody would play the union menace card. Unions once
represented a third of the American workforce--today it's 8% (if memory
serves) and falling. So continuing to drag out that dead horse and flog it
one more time is a singularly unconvincing exercise, and yet the right is
always happy to give it another try. I suppose it's related to their other
standard scare tactics: Gay Marriage! Welfare Queens! Illegal Aliens!
Anything to distract the voters from thinking about who is really screwing
them blind.

As for trial lawyers, they're the worst rat-*******s on the planet, until
you need one. Corporate America claims to hate them, but companies like
Monsanto are expert at using them to bully farmers into playing ball with
the company or else. Funny how it works out that way, isn't it? It's
almost as if what corporate America *really* hates are trial lawyers who
don't work for them.

In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...

Just like the Dems in their attempts to institutionalize
intimidation by the unions and the trial lawyers. Just a difference is
who is getting the benefits of the stacking of the deck.

I was hoping somebody would play the union menace card. Unions once
represented a third of the American workforce--today it's 8% (if memory
serves) and falling. So continuing to drag out that dead horse and flog it
one more time is a singularly unconvincing exercise, and yet the right is
always happy to give it another try. I suppose it's related to their other
standard scare tactics: Gay Marriage! Welfare Queens! Illegal Aliens!
Anything to distract the voters from thinking about who is really screwing
them blind.
Not at all. Especially in this context. If anything you note the
reasons for the concern. Unions can't make it any more on their own. So,
they told their Dem lackeys that they must outlaw secret ballots using
the card system so that they know EXACTLY who voted against them. Under
the terms of what was proposed, the organizers could actually go to a
person's home and coerece... er.. convince the worker in person to sign
the card.
After the almost inevitable win, then, again under the terms
proposed in the Dem platform, the union and the company would have a
certain period of time to get an agreement or there would be arbitration
with a third party TELLING the employer what the job was worth.


As for trial lawyers, they're the worst rat-*******s on the planet, until
you need one. Corporate America claims to hate them, but companies like
Monsanto are expert at using them to bully farmers into playing ball with
the company or else. Funny how it works out that way, isn't it? It's
almost as if what corporate America *really* hates are trial lawyers who
don't work for them.
Those aren't trial lawyers, those are patent attorneys. What's
really hilarious is that you say the two are the same.
I am talking about the guys who, allegedly on my behalf, filed class
action suits where they get millions and I get nothin'. My favorite is
a class action against Verizon over some line in the contracts. The
attorney's got $3.4 million, Verizon promised to go forth and sin no
more, and I got a free ear bud if I extended to my contract (albeit with
these new, hard won, "protections") for two years .
Most recent was a stock thing. I got a 75 cents a share while the
attorneys in the suit got to split over $5 million.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 14:14:40 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/13/2010 1:53 PM, dgk wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 10:23:58 -0800, "DGDevin"
wrote:

"Robert Green" wrote in message
...

I feel the invasion was justified (which is not the same thing as wise)
in
that Bin Laden was operating from there,

Would that justify invading the area of the US that Timothy McVeigh
operated
from? Of course not, and when framed that way, the invasion of
Afghanistan
makes equally little sense.

Ummmm, that's not an effective analogy, as there was no need to invade
territory to find and apprehend McVeigh.

However I see little chance of a
stable democracy being established in Afghanistan in the foreseeable
future,

So then what's the fV(I*ing point? Wars should have clearly defined
goals
and exit strategies. They've taught that at all the military schools
since
'Nam but it seems like the entire DoD developed amnesia after 9/11.

The Neocons have a huge blind spot, they think they can engineer history
with the application of military force, they don't consider that sometimes
that simply doesn't work. It is beyond their comprehension that centuries
of ethnic and religious tensions will not be overcome by their
democracy-in-a-box nation building. As you say, they don't seem to be aware
of history.


Neocons don't really care about democracy, they care about free
enterprise. If governments are elected that interfere with their
profits, then that democratic goverrnment gets overthrown.

What form of government is The United States? I know Al Gore could
never bring himself to say it. :-)

TDD

Is Al Gore your answer to everything? I pointed out that we don't give
a **** about Democracy and all you can write about is Al Gore? In
fact, we don't give a **** about Apple Pie, Mom, Our Superior
Morality, or any other stated reason for going to war. All the US
cares about is that the wealthy make a big profit because of a war.

I'll make it simpler for you Dufas. Marine Corps Major General Smedley
Butler, a true American Hero.. Look him up:

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and
during that period I spent most of my time as a high class thug for
Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a
racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and
especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped
make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to
collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central
American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify
Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in
1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American
sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American
fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that
Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might
have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate
his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 17:50:52 -0800, "DGDevin"
wrote:

"dgk" wrote in message ...


Neocons don't really care about democracy, they care about free
enterprise. If governments are elected that interfere with their
profits, then that democratic goverrnment gets overthrown.

I disagree. *I* believe in free enterprise. Neocons appear to believe in
something quite different, namely govt. enriching big business at the
public's expense whenever possible. The Republican's version of health care
reform saw them pass a unfunded prescription drug bill that prohibited
Medicare from negotiating lower drug prices with pharmaceutical companies in
the way the VA does. That's not business being free to pursue profits,
that's govt. helping business to screw the taxpayer. The Democrats have
their own share of baggage of course, but it would be silly to pretend that
the Republican Party's first concern isn't always the profitability of their
corporate sponsors. But they don't arrange that via free enterprise, they
arrange that by stacking the deck in favor of those who direct hundreds of
millions of dollars in lobbying and campaign funding their way. The drug
companies spend a hundred million a year on buying influence in Washington,
and it seems to be a good investment.

You are correct.

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 08:23:48 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
dgk wrote:



The reason we police the world was stated very well by a true American
hero, Major General Smedley Butler. He won the medal of honor in two
separate wars, and the Brevet medal in the Marines. His take was that
the wealthy in America know that they can make more money abroad than
at home, and the soldiers go to protect those investments. That is
always why we go to war, not Mom, Apple Pie, WMDs or Democracy. Cold
hard cash.

Now you're just spoiling usenet by speaking truth.

Sorry, it just slipped out, I won't let it happen again.

On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 08:38:00 -0500, dgk wrote Re
OT Interesting remark.:

The reason we police the world was stated very well by a true American
hero, Major General Smedley Butler. He won the medal of honor in two
separate wars, and the Brevet medal in the Marines. His take was that
the wealthy in America know that they can make more money abroad than
at home, and the soldiers go to protect those investments. That is
always why we go to war, not Mom, Apple Pie, WMDs or Democracy. Cold
hard cash.

Now you're just spoiling usenet by speaking truth.

Sorry, it just slipped out, I won't let it happen again.

Be sure you don't.
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.