harry wrote:

Afghanistan has not been conquered.
If the Russians couldn't do it, from next door what reason do you have
to suppose the USA could do it from the other side of the world?
It has been temporarily partially pacified.

Well, we conquered Germany and Japan from the other side of the world. Just
because the Brits and the Rooskies couldn't do it doesn't mean it can't be
done.

That said, our goal is not to WIN in Afghanistan; our goal is to NOT LOSE.

Don Klipstein wrote:
In article , HeyBub
wrote:
harry wrote:

Afghanistan has not been conquered.
If the Russians couldn't do it, from next door what reason do you
have to suppose the USA could do it from the other side of the
world?
It has been temporarily partially pacified.

Well, we conquered Germany and Japan from the other side of the
world. Just because the Brits and the Rooskies couldn't do it
doesn't mean it can't be done.

That said, our goal is not to WIN in Afghanistan; our goal is to NOT
LOSE.

USA with fellow Allies did not conquer Germany or Japan - we merely
forced them to surrender and reform their governments towards our
ideals.

??? Surrender = Conquer


As for Afghanistan:

The Taliban is what it is, and was since sometime in the early
1990's or even 1980's, because USA supported it farther back around
1980. The principle of "Cold War Era" was, "Enemy of our enemy is
our friend".

The US never supported the Taliban. The Taliban wasn't organized until 1996.
We didn't support ANYBODY in that country after the Russians left in 1988.

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message ...

One of those two defeated countries had its war-entering leader
committing suicide as that country was in its final weeks to days of being
on the losing end of conventional warfare, at face of US manufacturing
power - that USA ~3-4 decades afterwards started losing desire to
maintain.

It wasn’t lack of desire on the part of the U.S., it was that the rest of
the world was catching up to the enormous lead in mfg. the U.S. had after
WWII (at the end of that war over half of all the mfg. in the world was
happening in America).

The Taliban is what it is, and was since sometime in the early 1990's or
even 1980's, because USA supported it farther back around 1980. The
principle of "Cold War Era" was, "Enemy of our enemy is our friend".

The Taliban was not the principle group opposing the Soviets and the notion
that the U.S. supported the Taliban is overstated to put it mildly. The
Taliban were late-comers to the war against the Soviets and were concerned
largely with fighting other groups in Afghanistan for their own political
ends.

I think USA needs to get pickier about choosing other nations or major
political forces therein to be friends or enemies, especially in the
part of the globe east of Athens and much west of Nome or Pearl Harbor.

American foreign policy has always accommodated dictators who happen to
control valuable real estate or natural resources. But these days the
world's biggest dictatorship is also the No. 2 economy, and they are
developing an interest in expanding their horizons--it's going to get
interesting.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Don Klipstein wrote:
In article , HeyBub
wrote:
harry wrote:

Afghanistan has not been conquered.
If the Russians couldn't do it, from next door what reason do you
have to suppose the USA could do it from the other side of the
world?
It has been temporarily partially pacified.

Well, we conquered Germany and Japan from the other side of the
world. Just because the Brits and the Rooskies couldn't do it
doesn't mean it can't be done.

That said, our goal is not to WIN in Afghanistan; our goal is to NOT
LOSE.

USA with fellow Allies did not conquer Germany or Japan - we merely
forced them to surrender and reform their governments towards our
ideals.

??? Surrender = Conquer


As for Afghanistan:

The Taliban is what it is, and was since sometime in the early
1990's or even 1980's, because USA supported it farther back around
1980. The principle of "Cold War Era" was, "Enemy of our enemy is
our friend".

The US never supported the Taliban. The Taliban wasn't organized until
1996.
We didn't support ANYBODY in that country after the Russians left in 1988.

Sure we did. Out of the $20B we've given Pakistan, clearly *some* of it has
gone to the Taliban. I wouldn't be surprised if American dollars helped
build OBL's compound near Islamabad. Ever since the Vietnam war soldiers
have complained that we always end up somehow funding the opposition.
That's the problem with foreign aid. It can always be turned into cash and
some of that aid always gets diverted. Somalia is a classic case where the
warlords steal food from aid shipments to the poor and distribute it to
their soldiers and not the starving non-combatants.

To say that we supported no one after the Sovs left requires knowledge of
"black" CIA programs which I don't believe you have access to. Or do you
believe we just rolled up the CIA station chief, all his operators and left
a country in flux on the borders of one of our previously great national
enemies? It just doesn't work that way. We don't abandon intelligence
assets like that - ever. They cost too much in money and lives to put in
place and could be unduplicable if we did abandon them, even temporarily.

We're still funneling money to anti-Castro Cubans, for God's sake, and that
"hot spot" went cool 50 years ago. Yet we do trillions in business with Red
China. How could Cuba ever be a threat of the same nature as China yet we
continue to embargo them? We're *always* paying somebody something in a
"hot zone" in some way or another. Whether it's to keep a friendly
government in power, like Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan or an unfriendly
government in distress, we're always spreading money around the globe hoping
to buy influence. Mostly, we don't buy much of anything except hate with
that money, especially when we decided to turn off the taps. China has just
given the Paks 50 new fighter jets because we've not upgraded the Paks from
F-16's and that fleet is aging and they are ****ed at us about OBL. The fun
is just beginning.

Honk if you think Arab Spring has loads of CIA operators pushing it along.

--
Bobby G.

Robert Green wrote:

The US never supported the Taliban. The Taliban wasn't organized
until 1996. We didn't support ANYBODY in that country after the
Russians left in 1988.

Sure we did. Out of the $20B we've given Pakistan, clearly *some* of
it has gone to the Taliban.

Clearly? I'd appreciate a cite.

I wouldn't be surprised if American
dollars helped build OBL's compound near Islamabad. Ever since the
Vietnam war soldiers have complained that we always end up somehow
funding the opposition. That's the problem with foreign aid. It can
always be turned into cash and some of that aid always gets diverted.
Somalia is a classic case where the warlords steal food from aid
shipments to the poor and distribute it to their soldiers and not the
starving non-combatants.

Yep, cash is fungible.


To say that we supported no one after the Sovs left requires
knowledge of "black" CIA programs which I don't believe you have
access to.

But you seem certain "money went to the Taliban." I, too, have a crystal
ball.

Or do you believe we just rolled up the CIA station
chief, all his operators and left a country in flux on the borders of
one of our previously great national enemies? It just doesn't work
that way.

Yes it does work that way. There is STILL complaining about how Carter
rolled-up our intelligence assets the world over.

We don't abandon intelligence assets like that - ever.
They cost too much in money and lives to put in place and could be
unduplicable if we did abandon them, even temporarily.

See "Carter" above.


We're still funneling money to anti-Castro Cubans, for God's sake,
and that "hot spot" went cool 50 years ago. Yet we do trillions in
business with Red China. How could Cuba ever be a threat of the same
nature as China yet we continue to embargo them?

China is not now, never was, and never will be, a military threat to the US.
They have too much to lose in the economic sphere.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Robert Green wrote:

The US never supported the Taliban. The Taliban wasn't organized
until 1996. We didn't support ANYBODY in that country after the
Russians left in 1988.

Sure we did. Out of the $20B we've given Pakistan, clearly *some* of
it has gone to the Taliban.

Clearly? I'd appreciate a cite.

Clearly you need one. You can't be so daft as to suggest that out of $20B
we've given them since 9/11 that the country hiding Bin Laden hasn't
double-timed us? You DO read newspapers, don't you? Correcting you is
getting pretty tiring. I think it's no longer necessary, though, because
there seems to be a general agreement that you've turned yourself into a
contrarian troll. So sad. Just Google "US AID DIVERTED TO TALIBAN"

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22US...+TO+TALIBAN%22

That will give you hours of fun reading about how US money goes to our
enemies as well as our friends.

or

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...gewanted=print

...The ISI helped create and nurture the Taliban movement in the 1990s to
bring stability to a nation that had been devastated by years of civil war
between rival warlords, and one Pakistani official explained that Islamabad
needed to use groups like the Taliban as ''proxy forces to preserve our
interests.'' . . . Over the past year, a parade of senior American
diplomats, military officers and intelligence officials has flown to
Islamabad to urge Pakistan's civilian and military leaders to cut off
support for militant groups, and Washington has threatened to put conditions
on more than $1 billion in annual military aid to Pakistan. On Saturday, the
director of the C.I.A., Leon E. Panetta, met with top Pakistani officials in
Islamabad.

We give unconditional (shocking, isn't it?) $Billions to Pakistan and the
ISI. They then admit to using the Taliban as a proxy and you think none of
the $20B got to the Taliban? You CAN'T be that naive or unaware of what's
basically common knowledge.

I wouldn't be surprised if American
dollars helped build OBL's compound near Islamabad. Ever since the
Vietnam war soldiers have complained that we always end up somehow
funding the opposition. That's the problem with foreign aid. It can
always be turned into cash and some of that aid always gets diverted.
Somalia is a classic case where the warlords steal food from aid
shipments to the poor and distribute it to their soldiers and not the
starving non-combatants.

Yep, cash is fungible.

And so there's no way anyone can guarantee that aid dollars reach their
intended recipients. To believe that all $20B of our unconditional aid got
into the right hands and not the Taliban's is Birther thinking. It does not
compute. It does not make sense on a fundamental level. If OBL living
right outside the capital Islamabad near their West Point doesn't tell you
we're being played, nothing will.

To say that we supported no one after the Sovs left requires
knowledge of "black" CIA programs which I don't believe you have
access to.

But you seem certain "money went to the Taliban." I, too, have a crystal
ball.

I read the newspapers. Remember what the Sov diplo said in "Dr.
Strangelove" - "I read it in the New York Times." Anyone who believes that
$20B in unconditional aid from our dysfunctional federal government never
goes astray is either not playing with a full deck or is deliberately being
a putz. It's not intelligent discourse, it's Monty Python's "Argument
Clinic" acted out on Usenet.

Or do you believe we just rolled up the CIA station
chief, all his operators and left a country in flux on the borders of
one of our previously great national enemies? It just doesn't work
that way.

Yes it does work that way. There is STILL complaining about how Carter
rolled-up our intelligence assets the world over.

Carter was way, Way, WAY before 9/11. We're in a different world now. Buy
a ticket to it.

We don't abandon intelligence assets like that - ever.
They cost too much in money and lives to put in place and could be
unduplicable if we did abandon them, even temporarily.

See "Carter" above.

See "Ticket" above. Part of the HUGE national debt we've run up is
precisely to fund the hiring of all sorts of agents, from CIA to FBI to "La
Migra." The actions of one incompetent peanut farmer turned bad President
don't make a national plan. In fact, his arse-frigging at the hands of a
bunch of Iranian students prove that anything Carter did in the area of
intel was ill-conceived and came with awful consequences. And you're right,
he's pilloried for it even today. He was naive. And stupid.

We're still funneling money to anti-Castro Cubans, for God's sake,
and that "hot spot" went cool 50 years ago. Yet we do trillions in
business with Red China. How could Cuba ever be a threat of the same
nature as China yet we continue to embargo them?

China is not now, never was, and never will be, a military threat to the
US.
They have too much to lose in the economic sphere.

Talk about claiming to have crystal balls . . . Your contention is as dumb
as saying your neighbor with his shotgun would never shoot you down in cold
blood because he's got too much to lose. Yet people are gunned down daily
(probably by the hour in Texas). Here's a sad fact of life: People get
angry, governments get angry. When they act in anger your "too much to
lose" argument evaporates in a puff of smoke.

For God's sake, educate yourself:

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1996_hr/s960222h.htm

That's our own Defense Intelligence Agency's listing and although dated, few
of the issues regarding its basic assessment of China have changed and their
progress has been far greater than the 1996 projections (the latest I could
find quickly - I assume later versions are classified now):

We are also closely watching improvements in the Chinese military that
stem from its growing defense spending. Most of China's military suffers
from weaknesses in force projection, logistics, training, and command and
control; for the time being, these effectively limit Chinese military
capability. It is clear that the PLA is intent on addressing many of these
shortfalls in hopes of being able to conduct what it refers to as "local
wars under high tech conditions." But even with increased defense spending,
China is finding it necessary to make tradeoffs, evidenced by the fact that
they recently announced a 500,000 man cutback in the size of the PLA.
However, as part of its overall force development process, China is steadily
and deliberately modernizing its military. The strategic nuclear force is
expanding; we expect to see steady growth in this force. China will also
maintain a deterrent, second strike capability. In the conventional arena,
China is moving along two tracks, emphasizing indigenous production, but
also purchasing modern military equipment (for example SA-10 SAM systems,
SU-27 fighters and Kilo submarines from Russia) and dual use technologies.

The Chinese have been considered a very credible threat ever since they
demonstrated they have the means to destroy our comm satellites. Their
development of serious stealth aircraft 10 years ahead of when our analysts
*thought* they should also makes them a credible enemy. The fact that we
have not one, but two serious hot zones that are China related (Taiwan and
N. Korea) makes them a credible enemy.

Their manufacturing of Russian-made anti-ship torpedoes and missiles has our
side *very* concerned because as good as our carrier group defenses are,
they can be overwhelmed by the comparatively cheap anti-ship weapons China
can make by the tens of thousands. Get enough anti-ship weapons in the
water at once and no Phalanx system can cope. You can swat one bee and
maybe ten, but you can't swat 1,000. Sounds very much like a Chinese
strategy.

There is a serious danger that the U.S. image of a more assertive and
aggressive China and the Chinese notion that the United States is on the
decline will feed a sense of strategic rivalry-and this could become a
self-fulfilling prophecy. To assume that there will be a growing military
rivalry that will eventually evolve into a Cold War-type situation is the
biggest risk for the United States and China. source:

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/pub...=42332#rivalry

They are even building submerged concrete launchers for these anti-carrier
devices that can be sunken along strategic channels where they fire straight
up from the seabed. That technique alone knocks out a lot of our
countermeasures since we've designed them for air or close to the surface
torpedo attacks. There is no other military in the world capable of
inflicting damage on us as great as the Chinese.

Our continuing support of Taiwan is a thorn in their side that pricks them
mightily. Their alliance with North Korea is also a potential trigger point
for a larger conflict. Remember, we were great friends of Iraq until we
weren't. Things often change very quickly in the world. If economics
trumped war, there would never be ANY wars.

Wars have PERPETUALLY happened between countries with what you call "too
much to lose." Your analysis is both historically inaccurate and
psychologically unfounded. The Taliban is the less credible threat having
no standing army, no aircraft, warships, guided missiles, and nuclear
weapons, all of which our ally of the moment China has. Credible threats
are based on capacity, not the day's political winds. It's determined by
how much damage an enemy is *capable* of doing to us if, for whatever
reason, we started trading blow. It's only been 60 years since our GI's
were dying at the hands of Chinese soldiers in North Korea. We fought
against Chinese-armed Vietnamese after that. Never say never. Stuff
happens. A default on all the money we owe China could make them very, VERY
angry.

The problem we're facing is that OBL was far too effective as a terrorist.
He launched us into such a panic over the WTC, we started treating the
Islamic terrorists as if they were capable of a sustained military
engagement that could cause trillions of dollars in damages to both sides.
The Taliban can't do that. Yes, they can sting us badly if we get stupid,
but their military power is close to nil. Not so the Chinese. They have
nukes, stealth jets, deadly quiet Kilo subs, comm sat killing missiles and
carrier killing cavitation torpedoes.

I believe the real cost of the War on Terror is its contribution to our
military mis-direction. Credible threats have been wholly obscured by our
obsession with radical Islam and the supposedly winnable War on Terror. If
the Russkie police state can't tamp terrorism down, how do we propose, as a
democratic society, to identify and track all the lone nutcases in this
world? Apparently by bankrupting ourselves fighting phantoms. If we
*really* want to lower the national debt, how about NOT paying countries
like Pakistan billions of dollars? Why aren't serious cuts like that on the
table?

Sorry HeyBub, but I didn't sign up to be your current events tutor. Read a
newspaper and make less of a pseudo-birther of yourself.

--
Bobby G.

Robert Green wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Robert Green wrote:

The US never supported the Taliban. The Taliban wasn't organized
until 1996. We didn't support ANYBODY in that country after the
Russians left in 1988.

Sure we did. Out of the $20B we've given Pakistan, clearly *some*
of it has gone to the Taliban.

Clearly? I'd appreciate a cite.

Clearly you need one. You can't be so daft as to suggest that out of
$20B we've given them since 9/11 that the country hiding Bin Laden
hasn't double-timed us? You DO read newspapers, don't you?
Correcting you is getting pretty tiring. I think it's no longer
necessary, though, because there seems to be a general agreement that
you've turned yourself into a contrarian troll. So sad. Just Google
"US AID DIVERTED TO TALIBAN"

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22US...+TO+TALIBAN%22

That will give you hours of fun reading about how US money goes to our
enemies as well as our friends.

or

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...gewanted=print

...The ISI helped create and nurture the Taliban movement in the
1990s to bring stability to a nation that had been devastated by
years of civil war between rival warlords, and one Pakistani official
explained that Islamabad needed to use groups like the Taliban as
''proxy forces to preserve our interests.'' . . . Over the past year,
a parade of senior American diplomats, military officers and
intelligence officials has flown to Islamabad to urge Pakistan's
civilian and military leaders to cut off support for militant groups,
and Washington has threatened to put conditions on more than $1
billion in annual military aid to Pakistan. On Saturday, the director
of the C.I.A., Leon E. Panetta, met with top Pakistani officials in
Islamabad.

We give unconditional (shocking, isn't it?) $Billions to Pakistan and
the ISI. They then admit to using the Taliban as a proxy and you
think none of the $20B got to the Taliban? You CAN'T be that naive
or unaware of what's basically common knowledge.

I wouldn't be surprised if American
dollars helped build OBL's compound near Islamabad. Ever since the
Vietnam war soldiers have complained that we always end up somehow
funding the opposition. That's the problem with foreign aid. It can
always be turned into cash and some of that aid always gets
diverted. Somalia is a classic case where the warlords steal food
from aid shipments to the poor and distribute it to their soldiers
and not the starving non-combatants.

Yep, cash is fungible.

And so there's no way anyone can guarantee that aid dollars reach
their intended recipients. To believe that all $20B of our
unconditional aid got into the right hands and not the Taliban's is
Birther thinking. It does not compute. It does not make sense on a
fundamental level. If OBL living right outside the capital Islamabad
near their West Point doesn't tell you we're being played, nothing
will.

To say that we supported no one after the Sovs left requires
knowledge of "black" CIA programs which I don't believe you have
access to.

But you seem certain "money went to the Taliban." I, too, have a
crystal ball.

I read the newspapers. Remember what the Sov diplo said in "Dr.
Strangelove" - "I read it in the New York Times." Anyone who
believes that $20B in unconditional aid from our dysfunctional
federal government never goes astray is either not playing with a
full deck or is deliberately being a putz. It's not intelligent
discourse, it's Monty Python's "Argument Clinic" acted out on Usenet.

Or do you believe we just rolled up the CIA station
chief, all his operators and left a country in flux on the borders
of one of our previously great national enemies? It just doesn't
work that way.

Yes it does work that way. There is STILL complaining about how
Carter rolled-up our intelligence assets the world over.

Carter was way, Way, WAY before 9/11. We're in a different world
now. Buy a ticket to it.

We don't abandon intelligence assets like that - ever.
They cost too much in money and lives to put in place and could be
unduplicable if we did abandon them, even temporarily.

See "Carter" above.

See "Ticket" above. Part of the HUGE national debt we've run up is
precisely to fund the hiring of all sorts of agents, from CIA to FBI
to "La Migra." The actions of one incompetent peanut farmer turned
bad President don't make a national plan. In fact, his arse-frigging
at the hands of a bunch of Iranian students prove that anything
Carter did in the area of intel was ill-conceived and came with awful
consequences. And you're right, he's pilloried for it even today.
He was naive. And stupid.

We're still funneling money to anti-Castro Cubans, for God's sake,
and that "hot spot" went cool 50 years ago. Yet we do trillions in
business with Red China. How could Cuba ever be a threat of the
same nature as China yet we continue to embargo them?

China is not now, never was, and never will be, a military threat to
the US. They have too much to lose in the economic sphere.

Talk about claiming to have crystal balls . . . Your contention is as
dumb as saying your neighbor with his shotgun would never shoot you
down in cold blood because he's got too much to lose. Yet people are
gunned down daily (probably by the hour in Texas). Here's a sad fact
of life: People get angry, governments get angry. When they act in
anger your "too much to lose" argument evaporates in a puff of smoke.

For God's sake, educate yourself:

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1996_hr/s960222h.htm

That's our own Defense Intelligence Agency's listing and although
dated, few of the issues regarding its basic assessment of China have
changed and their progress has been far greater than the 1996
projections (the latest I could find quickly - I assume later
versions are classified now):

We are also closely watching improvements in the Chinese military
that stem from its growing defense spending. Most of China's military
suffers from weaknesses in force projection, logistics, training, and
command and control; for the time being, these effectively limit
Chinese military capability. It is clear that the PLA is intent on
addressing many of these shortfalls in hopes of being able to conduct
what it refers to as "local wars under high tech conditions." But
even with increased defense spending, China is finding it necessary
to make tradeoffs, evidenced by the fact that they recently announced
a 500,000 man cutback in the size of the PLA. However, as part of its
overall force development process, China is steadily and deliberately
modernizing its military. The strategic nuclear force is expanding;
we expect to see steady growth in this force. China will also
maintain a deterrent, second strike capability. In the conventional
arena, China is moving along two tracks, emphasizing indigenous
production, but also purchasing modern military equipment (for
example SA-10 SAM systems, SU-27 fighters and Kilo submarines from
Russia) and dual use technologies.

The Chinese have been considered a very credible threat ever since
they demonstrated they have the means to destroy our comm satellites.
Their development of serious stealth aircraft 10 years ahead of when
our analysts *thought* they should also makes them a credible enemy.
The fact that we have not one, but two serious hot zones that are
China related (Taiwan and N. Korea) makes them a credible enemy.

Their manufacturing of Russian-made anti-ship torpedoes and missiles
has our side *very* concerned because as good as our carrier group
defenses are, they can be overwhelmed by the comparatively cheap
anti-ship weapons China can make by the tens of thousands. Get
enough anti-ship weapons in the water at once and no Phalanx system
can cope. You can swat one bee and maybe ten, but you can't swat
1,000. Sounds very much like a Chinese strategy.

There is a serious danger that the U.S. image of a more assertive
and aggressive China and the Chinese notion that the United States is
on the decline will feed a sense of strategic rivalry-and this could
become a self-fulfilling prophecy. To assume that there will be a
growing military rivalry that will eventually evolve into a Cold
War-type situation is the biggest risk for the United States and
China. source:

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/pub...=42332#rivalry

They are even building submerged concrete launchers for these
anti-carrier devices that can be sunken along strategic channels
where they fire straight up from the seabed. That technique alone
knocks out a lot of our countermeasures since we've designed them for
air or close to the surface torpedo attacks. There is no other
military in the world capable of inflicting damage on us as great as
the Chinese.

Our continuing support of Taiwan is a thorn in their side that pricks
them mightily. Their alliance with North Korea is also a potential
trigger point for a larger conflict. Remember, we were great friends
of Iraq until we weren't. Things often change very quickly in the
world. If economics trumped war, there would never be ANY wars.

Wars have PERPETUALLY happened between countries with what you call
"too much to lose." Your analysis is both historically inaccurate and
psychologically unfounded. The Taliban is the less credible threat
having no standing army, no aircraft, warships, guided missiles, and
nuclear weapons, all of which our ally of the moment China has.
Credible threats are based on capacity, not the day's political
winds. It's determined by how much damage an enemy is *capable* of
doing to us if, for whatever reason, we started trading blow. It's
only been 60 years since our GI's were dying at the hands of Chinese
soldiers in North Korea. We fought against Chinese-armed Vietnamese
after that. Never say never. Stuff happens. A default on all the
money we owe China could make them very, VERY angry.

The problem we're facing is that OBL was far too effective as a
terrorist. He launched us into such a panic over the WTC, we started
treating the Islamic terrorists as if they were capable of a
sustained military engagement that could cause trillions of dollars
in damages to both sides. The Taliban can't do that. Yes, they can
sting us badly if we get stupid, but their military power is close to
nil. Not so the Chinese. They have nukes, stealth jets, deadly quiet
Kilo subs, comm sat killing missiles and carrier killing cavitation
torpedoes.

I believe the real cost of the War on Terror is its contribution to
our military mis-direction. Credible threats have been wholly
obscured by our obsession with radical Islam and the supposedly
winnable War on Terror. If the Russkie police state can't tamp
terrorism down, how do we propose, as a democratic society, to
identify and track all the lone nutcases in this world? Apparently
by bankrupting ourselves fighting phantoms. If we *really* want to
lower the national debt, how about NOT paying countries like Pakistan
billions of dollars? Why aren't serious cuts like that on the table?

Sorry HeyBub, but I didn't sign up to be your current events tutor.
Read a newspaper and make less of a pseudo-birther of yourself.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but we give CASH to no one. We give, at most,
credits which can be used to buy grain, fighter jets, whatever.

That the product is diverted on the receiving end - and possibly turned
into cash - is regrettable.

And those who say we are striving to WIN the war on terror are being
disingenuous; our goal is simply to NOT LOSE.

On May 23, 9:57*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Robert Green wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
om...
Robert Green wrote:

The US never supported the Taliban. The Taliban wasn't organized
until 1996. We didn't support ANYBODY in that country after the
Russians left in 1988.

Sure we did. *Out of the $20B we've given Pakistan, clearly *some*
of it has gone to the Taliban.

Clearly? I'd appreciate a cite.

Clearly you need one. *You can't be so daft as to suggest that out of
$20B we've given them since 9/11 that the country hiding Bin Laden
hasn't double-timed us? *You DO read newspapers, don't you?
Correcting you is getting pretty tiring. *I think it's no longer
necessary, though, because there seems to be a general agreement that
you've turned yourself into a contrarian troll. *So sad. *Just Google
"US AID DIVERTED TO TALIBAN"

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22US...+TO+TALIBAN%22

That will give you hours of fun reading about how US money goes to our
enemies as well as our friends.

or

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...1E30F935A15750....

...The ISI helped create and nurture the Taliban movement in the
1990s to bring stability to a nation that had been devastated by
years of civil war between rival warlords, and one Pakistani official
explained that Islamabad needed to use groups like the Taliban as
''proxy forces to preserve our interests.'' . . . Over the past year,
a parade of senior American diplomats, military officers and
intelligence officials has flown to Islamabad to urge Pakistan's
civilian and military leaders to cut off support for militant groups,
and Washington has threatened to put conditions on more than $1
billion in annual military aid to Pakistan. On Saturday, the director
of the C.I.A., Leon E. Panetta, met with top Pakistani officials in
Islamabad.

We give unconditional (shocking, isn't it?) $Billions to Pakistan and
the ISI. *They then admit to using the Taliban as a proxy and you
think none of the $20B got to the Taliban? *You CAN'T be that naive
or unaware of what's basically common knowledge.

I wouldn't be surprised if American
dollars helped build OBL's compound near Islamabad. *Ever since the
Vietnam war soldiers have complained that we always end up somehow
funding the opposition. That's the problem with foreign aid. *It can
always be turned into cash and some of that aid always gets
diverted. Somalia is a classic case where the warlords steal food
from aid shipments to the poor and distribute it to their soldiers
and not the starving non-combatants.

Yep, cash is fungible.

And so there's no way anyone can guarantee that aid dollars reach
their intended recipients. *To believe that all $20B of our
unconditional aid got into the right hands and not the Taliban's is
Birther thinking. *It does not compute. *It does not make sense on a
fundamental level. *If OBL living right outside the capital Islamabad
near their West Point doesn't tell you we're being played, nothing
will.

To say that we supported no one after the Sovs left requires
knowledge of "black" CIA programs which I don't believe you have
access to.

But you seem certain "money went to the Taliban." I, too, have a
crystal ball.

I read the newspapers. *Remember what the Sov diplo said in "Dr.
Strangelove" - "I read it in the New York Times." *Anyone who
believes that $20B in unconditional aid from our dysfunctional
federal government never goes astray is either not playing with a
full deck or is deliberately being a putz. *It's not intelligent
discourse, it's Monty Python's "Argument Clinic" acted out on Usenet.

Or do you believe we just rolled up the CIA station
chief, all his operators and left a country in flux on the borders
of one of our previously great national enemies? *It just doesn't
work that way.

Yes it does work that way. There is STILL complaining about how
Carter rolled-up our intelligence assets the world over.

Carter was way, Way, WAY before 9/11. *We're in a different world
now. *Buy a ticket to it.

We don't abandon intelligence assets like that - ever.
They cost too much in money and lives to put in place and could be
unduplicable if we did abandon them, even temporarily.

See "Carter" above.

See "Ticket" above. *Part of the HUGE national debt we've run up is
precisely to fund the hiring of all sorts of agents, from CIA to FBI
to "La Migra." * The actions of one incompetent peanut farmer turned
bad President don't make a national plan. *In fact, his arse-frigging
at the hands of a bunch of Iranian students prove that anything
Carter did in the area of intel was ill-conceived and came with awful
consequences. *And you're right, he's pilloried for it even today.
He was naive. *And stupid.

We're still funneling money to anti-Castro Cubans, for God's sake,
and that "hot spot" went cool 50 years ago. *Yet we do trillions in
business with Red China. *How could Cuba ever be a threat of the
same nature as China yet we continue to embargo them?

China is not now, never was, and never will be, a military threat to
the US. They have too much to lose in the economic sphere.

Talk about claiming to have crystal balls . . . Your contention is as
dumb as saying your neighbor with his shotgun would never shoot you
down in cold blood because he's got too much to lose. *Yet people are
gunned down daily (probably by the hour in Texas). *Here's a sad fact
of life: *People get angry, governments get angry. *When they act in
anger your *"too much to lose" argument evaporates in a puff of smoke..

For God's sake, educate yourself:

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1996_hr/s960222h.htm

That's our own Defense Intelligence Agency's listing and although
dated, few of the issues regarding its basic assessment of China have
changed and their progress has been far greater than the 1996
projections (the latest I could find quickly - I assume later
versions are classified now):

We are also closely watching improvements in the Chinese military
that stem from its growing defense spending. Most of China's military
suffers from weaknesses in force projection, logistics, training, and
command and control; for the time being, these effectively limit
Chinese military capability. It is clear that the PLA is intent on
addressing many of these shortfalls in hopes of being able to conduct
what it refers to as "local wars under high tech conditions." But
even with increased defense spending, China is finding it necessary
to make tradeoffs, evidenced by the fact that they recently announced
a 500,000 man cutback in the size of the PLA. However, as part of its
overall force development process, China is steadily and deliberately
modernizing its military. The strategic nuclear force is expanding;
we expect to see steady growth in this force. China will also
maintain a deterrent, second strike capability. In the conventional
arena, China is moving along two tracks, emphasizing indigenous
production, but also purchasing modern military equipment (for
example SA-10 SAM systems, SU-27 fighters and Kilo submarines from
Russia) and dual use technologies.

The Chinese have been considered a very credible threat ever since
they demonstrated they have the means to destroy our comm satellites.
Their development of serious stealth aircraft 10 years ahead of when
our analysts *thought* they should also makes them a credible enemy.
The fact that we have not one, but two serious hot zones that are
China related (Taiwan and N. Korea) makes them a credible enemy.

Their manufacturing of Russian-made anti-ship torpedoes and missiles
has our side *very* concerned because as good as our carrier group
defenses are, they can be overwhelmed by the comparatively cheap
anti-ship weapons China can make by the tens of thousands. *Get
enough anti-ship weapons in the water at once and no Phalanx system
can cope. *You can swat one bee and maybe ten, but you can't swat
1,000. *Sounds very much like a Chinese strategy.

There is a serious danger that the U.S. image of a more assertive
and aggressive China and the Chinese notion that the United States is
on the decline will feed a sense of strategic rivalry-and this could
become a self-fulfilling prophecy. To assume that there will be a
growing military rivalry that will eventually evolve into a Cold
War-type situation is the biggest risk for the United States and
China. *source:

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/pub...=42332#rivalry

They are even building submerged concrete launchers for these
anti-carrier devices that can be sunken along strategic channels
where they fire straight up from the seabed. *That technique alone
knocks out a lot of our countermeasures since we've designed them for
air or close to the surface torpedo attacks. *There is no other
military in the world capable of inflicting damage on us as great as
the Chinese.

Our continuing support of Taiwan is a thorn in their side that pricks
them mightily. *Their alliance with North Korea is also a potential
trigger point for a larger conflict. *Remember, we were great friends
of Iraq until we weren't. *Things often change very quickly in the
world. *If economics trumped war, there would never be ANY wars.

Wars have PERPETUALLY happened between countries with what you call
"too much to lose." *Your analysis is both historically inaccurate and
psychologically unfounded. *The Taliban is the less credible threat
having no standing army, no aircraft, warships, guided missiles, and
nuclear weapons, all of which our ally of the moment China has.
Credible threats are based on capacity, not the day's political
winds. *It's determined by how much damage an enemy is *capable* of
doing to us if, for whatever reason, we started trading blow. *It's
only been 60 years since our GI's were dying at the hands of Chinese
soldiers in North Korea. * We fought against Chinese-armed Vietnamese
after that. *Never say never. *Stuff happens. *A default on all the
money we owe China could make them very, VERY angry.

The problem we're facing is that OBL was far too effective as a
terrorist. He launched us into such a panic over the WTC, we started
treating the Islamic terrorists as if they were capable of a
sustained military engagement that could cause trillions of dollars
in damages to both sides. The Taliban can't do that. *Yes, they can
sting us badly if we get stupid, but their military power is close to
nil. *Not so the Chinese. They have nukes, stealth jets, deadly quiet
Kilo subs, comm sat killing missiles and carrier killing cavitation
torpedoes.

I believe the real cost of the War on Terror is its contribution to
our military mis-direction. *Credible threats have been wholly
obscured by our obsession with radical Islam and the supposedly
winnable War on Terror. * If the Russkie police state can't tamp
terrorism down, how do we propose, as a democratic society, to
identify and track all the lone nutcases in this world? *Apparently
by bankrupting ourselves fighting phantoms. *If we *really* want to
lower the national debt, how about NOT paying countries like Pakistan
billions of dollars? *Why aren't serious cuts like that on the table?

Sorry HeyBub, but I didn't sign up to be your current events tutor.
Read a newspaper and make less of a pseudo-birther of yourself.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but we give CASH to no one. We give, at most,
credits which can be used to buy grain, fighter jets, whatever.

That the product is diverted on the receiving *end - and possibly turned
into cash - is regrettable.

And those who say we are striving to WIN the war on terror are being
disingenuous; our goal is simply to NOT LOSE.

Respectfully disagree. Our goal is to maintain a continuous 1984-
style "war" going at all times, so the public will be scared into
allowing Congress to pass these bloated military budgets (about 45% of
which, if not more, is pure pork (Congressional whores make sure
contracts are spread around so their districts get plenty pork);
corruption/theft by our "allies", and sky-high profits by such as
Blackwater.

BTW, did you notice that Eric Prince, the religious nut whose
Blackwater sucked us dry in Iraq, while his cowboys killed innocent
local civilians -- did you notice that he has now been contracted by
the Saudis to field a mercenary army to protect the "royal family"
against Shi'a Muslims? Blackwater's cowboy antics and their
bloodsucking got so bad that finally Prince was called to testify
before Congress. (Bwah-ha-ha-!) He's a card-carrying psychopath!

Recently saw a documentary about a young Filipina who signed on to
work in Iraq. The pay she and others received, and the conditions
under which they work are below Third World; they live jammed into
containers. These contract workers from about 15 different countries
toil on food lines, dish washing, laundry, truck drivers (often blown
up in IEDs), whatever. They are shown to be virtually invisible to
the American soldiers whose comfort they assure. Kinda like the
darkies in the ante-bellum South...

When you think about it, we have been waging these opportunistic
"wars" without benefit of the Constitutional requirements for a
declaration of war since just after WW II. And now, with the current
legislation wending its way through Congress, anyone -- yes, YOU! --
can be arrested and confined indefinitely without due process.

Want to be REALLY scared? Read the language of the pending
legislation. And yet the public sleeps on.

HB

On Mon, 23 May 2011 13:13:57 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
om...
Robert Green wrote:

The US never supported the Taliban. The Taliban wasn't organized
until 1996. We didn't support ANYBODY in that country after the
Russians left in 1988.

Sure we did. Out of the $20B we've given Pakistan, clearly *some* of
it has gone to the Taliban.

Clearly? I'd appreciate a cite.

Did anyone see Restrepo (2010)?
The US sent a pallet of cash to Afghanistan.

During the film the troops admit to eating fresh steak, yet the
negotiator for the US did not even want to pay the local man for the
cow they killed.

(The cow was injured in a fence so it had to be killed)

"Metspitzer" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 23 May 2011 13:13:57 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
om...
Robert Green wrote:

The US never supported the Taliban. The Taliban wasn't organized
until 1996. We didn't support ANYBODY in that country after the
Russians left in 1988.

Sure we did. Out of the $20B we've given Pakistan, clearly *some* of
it has gone to the Taliban.

Clearly? I'd appreciate a cite.

Did anyone see Restrepo (2010)?
The US sent a pallet of cash to Afghanistan.

From what I've been told, it's not just one pallet, and it's not just
Afghanistan. Shrink-wrapped bricks of $100 bills that go to warlords and
whomever gets lucky, I suppose. In one case at least, the temptation was
too great and a US Marine ran off with almost a half million in cash meant
for Afghanistanis:

http://www.militarytimes.com/forum/s...ison-for-fraud

"OCEANSIDE, Calif. - A Marine Corps pilot accused of stealing $440,000 in
Iraq reconstruction funds will spend a year in federal prison under a plea
deal.

U.S. District Court Judge David G. Campbell, a federal judge in Phoenix,
Ariz., sentenced Maj. Mark R. Fuller, of Yuma, Ariz., to one year plus one
day in prison after the officer pleaded guilty to two counts of structuring
financial transactions stemming from a federal grand jury indictment last
spring. Fuller, who initially was charged with 22 counts, also must pay a
$198,510 fine and $200 court assessment, said Special Agent James P.
McCormick, an Internal Revenue Service spokesman in Phoenix. Fuller had
deployed to Iraq with 5th Civil Affairs Group and worked at Camp Fallujah as
a project purchasing officer handling CERP, or Commander's Emergency
Response Program, funds. Federal prosecutors alleged the officer took money
from the program and made 91 separate deposits totaling more than $440,000
into personal bank accounts from October 2005 to April 2006."

If he didn't pay any of the money back, he's made $240K for sitting in jail
for a year. Sign me up!

In my LENF classes, the prof said for every criminal caught and convicted,
10 to 20 get away clean.

--
Bobby G.