PDA

View Full Version : Taliban No. 2 guy in custody


d-ray657
02-16-2010, 06:53 PM
Abdul Ghani Baradar, the second in command for the Taliban was taken into custody by U.S. officials, according to news reports. Citing security interests, no U.S. officials will confirm the custody or the circumstances leading to it. It appears that the bombing of Taliban bases is also having an affect.

There is some success coming from the additional emphasis on Afghanistan, but the administration is not crowing about it, but giving priority to security. It appears that some believe governing is not always about scoring political points. I imagine Cheney will find something to criticize about this success.

Regards,

D-Ray

Boreas
02-16-2010, 07:01 PM
It appears that the bombing of Taliban bases is also having an affect.

You mean like an exaggerated swagger? ;)

John

Sandy G
02-16-2010, 08:59 PM
This makes about the umpteenth Numero Dos Big Cheese guy they claim they've managed to catch, kill, whatever..

finnbow
02-16-2010, 09:35 PM
This makes about the umpteenth Numero Dos Big Cheese guy they claim they've managed to catch, kill, whatever..

C'mon Sandy. Do the math. There's gotta be dozens of number twos out there somewhere.

http://vocaro.com/trevor/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/dvd-playerscreensnapz003.png

d-ray657
02-16-2010, 09:40 PM
This makes about the umpteenth Numero Dos Big Cheese guy they claim they've managed to catch, kill, whatever..

When the number two team gets knocked off, someone moves in to that place. Sounds like it might not be a very safe position to hold. According to the Washington Post, they had this one in interrogation for more than a week before news leaked that he had been captured.

Regards,

D-Ray

Boreas
02-16-2010, 09:46 PM
This makes about the umpteenth Numero Dos Big Cheese guy they claim they've managed to catch, kill, whatever..

I think it was al Qaeda that supposedly lost all those #2 guys. This Taliban seems to be the real deal. So much so that the Taliban felt it necessary to issue a statement to the effect that he was free and in Afghanistan, rather than in Pakistani custody.

John

BlueStreak
02-17-2010, 12:20 AM
I imagine Cheney will find something to criticize about this success.

Regards,

D-Ray

It was because of the Bush policies that Obama is following, would be my guess.

I'm sure you've noticed the pattern, Don. When Obama changes a Bush policy, he's a cocksucker that's out to destroy America. When he preserves and utilizes Bush policy, he's still a cocksucker who's out to destroy America.

Nothing the guy ever does is right, even when he's doing exactly as any Republican might do.:rolleyes:

If it weren't so sad, it would be funny.

Dave

d-ray657
02-17-2010, 12:34 AM
It was because of the Bush policies that Obama is following, would be my guess.

I'm sure you've noticed the pattern, Don. When Obama changes a Bush policy, he's a cocksucker that's out to destroy America. When he preserves and utilizes Bush policy, he's still a cocksucker who's out to destroy America.

Nothing the guy ever does is right, even when he's doing exactly as any Republican might do.:rolleyes:

If it weren't so sad, it would be funny.

Dave

Cheney came close to agreeing with Obama on don't ask, don't tell. He even almost acknowledged that his family circumstances give him a pass to break with the party line on that issue. It's funny for him to say that the current focus on Afghanistan is a continuation of a Bush policy, when that administration lost all interest in Afghanistan after they had concocted a justification to invade Iraq.

Regards,

D-Ray

Regards,

D-Ray

merrylander
02-17-2010, 07:31 AM
It sounds like y'all are expecting the impossible to happen - that Cheney will actually tell the truth for a change.

noonereal
02-17-2010, 07:33 AM
Cheney will actually tell the truth for a change.

ROTFL.

Rob, that's not fair.

Everyone knows this will never happen.

finnbow
02-17-2010, 08:54 AM
What took the cake in the recent Cheney interview was when he said Obama had Bush to thank for the current apparent success in Iraq. WTF? :confused:
Obama gets stuck mopping up from an ugly war started under false pretenses and he should thank the perpetrator of this global fraud?

I think all these wingnut utterances about Obama's "weakness in the War on Terror" are just attempts to strengthen their narrative (GOP is strong on national defense, Dem's are pansies). It's part of the Goebbels doctrine, "Repeat something often enough and it becomes the truth."

merrylander
02-17-2010, 09:01 AM
So tell me, who was the last Republican president to win a war? The Republicans talk the talk but they can't walk the walk.

piece-itpete
02-17-2010, 09:50 AM
Obviously, Bush in Iraq.

cording to the Washington Post, they had this one in interrogation for more than a week before news leaked that he had been captured.

Regards,

D-Ray

Secret enhanced interrogation. Tsk, tsk.

... It's funny for him to say that the current focus on Afghanistan is a continuation of a Bush policy, when that administration lost all interest in Afghanistan after they had concocted a justification to invade Iraq.

Regards,

D-Ray

Regards,

D-Ray

It was Iraq 1st, Afghanistan 2nd. Order of importance :)

Pete

d-ray657
02-17-2010, 10:00 AM
Obviously, Bush in Iraq.



Secret enhanced interrogation. Tsk, tsk.

Just because Bush did it, there is no reason to assume that this administration will condone torture. I don't believe the articles or my post said anything other than the prisoner was interrogated.



It was Iraq 1st, Afghanistan 2nd. Order of importance :)

Pete

That order of importance would only arise from belief in the Bush/Cheney misinformation campaign. The actual perpetrator of 9/11 was holed up in Afghanistan. Sadam was more interested in terrorizing his own people than he was in engaging in a global terror campaign. The false premise supporting the invasion of Iraq became apparent a day or so into it. It switched from being an effort to eliminate WMD to "Operation Iraqi Freedom." By golly those people better accept freedom or we'll kill them.

Regards,

D-Ray

merrylander
02-17-2010, 10:02 AM
[QUOTE=piece-itpete;20089]Obviously, Bush in Iraq.

ROTFLMAO, surely you jest.

finnbow
02-17-2010, 10:15 AM
[QUOTE=piece-itpete;20089]Obviously, Bush in Iraq.

ROTFLMAO, surely you jest.

Ah, c'mon. Don't you remember that the "Mission" was "Accomplished" years ago.:p

piece-itpete
02-17-2010, 10:28 AM
The withdrawal of troops started before Bush left office.

Pete

Fast_Eddie
02-17-2010, 10:38 AM
To be fair, which rarely troubles me, I believe Bush did indeed have a plan by the end of his term to remove troops. I'm too busy to look it up right now, but I believe Obama is indeed working with that plan. I don't think I'm making that up.

Personally I don't care. Never should have been there in the first place.

Fast_Eddie
02-17-2010, 10:50 AM
I dunno, maybe I'm wrong.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26621558/

Interesting read though. We were talking about the Afghanistan stuff- sure enough he said he'd do just this when he was campaigning. I knew I remembered that right.

Boreas
02-17-2010, 11:37 AM
So tell me, who was the last Republican president to win a war? The Republicans talk the talk but they can't walk the walk.

Lincoln and he only had to beat us. ;)

John

Boreas
02-17-2010, 11:41 AM
[QUOTE=merrylander;20092]

Ah, c'mon. Don't you remember that the "Mission" was "Accomplished" years ago.:p

Ah, but what was the mission?

John

Boreas
02-17-2010, 11:45 AM
The withdrawal of troops started before Bush left office.

Pete

Bush drew the troop strength down to just below "Pre-Surge" levels or around 132,000. In other words, he increased it before he reduceded it. We're now at about 99,000 and falling.

John

finnbow
02-17-2010, 12:12 PM
[QUOTE=finnbow;20094]

Ah, but what was the mission?

John

Playing dress-up on a real Navy ship.:D

http://roguejew.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/mission-accomplished.jpg

piece-itpete
02-17-2010, 12:30 PM
Say what you will...

Or are you saying Obama won Iraq?

Pete

merrylander
02-17-2010, 12:52 PM
In truth, though he was an odd sort of Republican, I do believe Teddy Roosevelt wins the honor. To suggest that Iraq was "won" is stretching the definiition more than a little. The month after we leave that place will blow up into civil war.

Boreas
02-17-2010, 01:12 PM
In truth, though he was an odd sort of Republican, I do believe Teddy Roosevelt wins the honor. To suggest that Iraq was "won" is stretching the definiition more than a little. The month after we leave that place will blow up into civil war.

TR was a military hero in the Spanish-American War but that was before he became President. There was no war during his presidency. In fact, he won the Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating an end to the Russo-Japanese War. He did, however, project American military power worldwide through things like the Great White Fleet.

John

finnbow
02-17-2010, 02:14 PM
Say what you will...

Or are you saying Obama won Iraq?

Pete

Nobody "won" it yet. I can't seem to remember seeing the Instrument of Surrender being signed by anyone at anytime. Bush's 2003 photo-op on the USS Lincoln doesn't count.

Charles
02-17-2010, 05:34 PM
I thought the whole point of the Iraq war was to station troops in the Middle East as to allow us to influence the region for the forseeable future.

The last time I looked, we still have troops in the Philippines, Cuba, Germany, Japan, Korea...and the Balkans...just to name a few.

It stinks, but the United States does have interests abroad. Our universal interests.

Just a thought,

Chas

d-ray657
02-17-2010, 05:46 PM
A reader participation poll on the Fox site showed some interesting results. Granted, this was not a scientific poll, so I can't draw any precise conclusions about Fox followers. The poll asked readers to choose among five options on what the U.S. should with the arrested Taliban leader. The option to interrogate him within the confines of U.S. Law finished third behind, never should have taken him alive in second place. The overwhelming leader was "Interrogate to get information by any means necessary.

Any means necessary - 60%
Never should have taken him alive - 16%
Interrogate in compliance with U.S. law - 13%

Regards,

D-Ray

Boreas
02-17-2010, 06:17 PM
I thought the whole point of the Iraq war was to station troops in the Middle East as to allow us to influence the region for the forseeable future.

I think that was definitely part of why Bush & Cheney wanted to go in and why they were planning it from day one if not earlier. It was their desire to "influence" the Middle East through the use of military force. The goal was the US, as the last superpower, would control Iraqi oil, the second or third largest proven reserves in the world, behind Saudi Arabia and perhaps Venezuela.

The trouble, Chas, and something you seem to be forgetting is that's not what they told us. First it was Saddam had something to do with 9/11. When everyone except Fox viewers figured out that was BS they switched to Saddam's mythical stockpiles of WMD and nuclear program. When that got exposed for the lie it was they changed their story again, saying we were there to bring the Iraqis the blessings of freedom and democracy. It has been one lie after the other.

John

finnbow
02-17-2010, 06:47 PM
I thought the whole point of the Iraq war was to station troops in the Middle East as to allow us to influence the region for the forseeable future.

Besides the inconvenient fact that this was not the supporting rationale given to garner public support for the invasion of Iraq, it did allow us to influence the region (in a decidedly negative direction). Our invasion was likely the best recruiting tool Al Qaeda could have ever hoped for. It played into Osama bin Laden's overall strategy to cause us to expend lots of blood and treasure deposing a hated Arab despot while building his ranks in support of his struggle to create a new caliphate. Sadly, the winners of the Iraq invasion were Iran and Al Qaeda itelf, not us. He played us like a fiddle on this one.

Charles
02-17-2010, 09:57 PM
Besides the inconvenient fact that this was not the supporting rationale given to garner public support for the invasion of Iraq, it did allow us to influence the region (in a decidedly negative direction). Our invasion was likely the best recruiting tool Al Qaeda could have ever hoped for. It played into Osama bin Laden's overall strategy to cause us to expend lots of blood and treasure deposing a hated Arab despot while building his ranks in support of his struggle to create a new caliphate. Sadly, the winners of the Iraq invasion were Iran and Al Qaeda itelf, not us. He played us like a fiddle on this one.

Debatable.

I'll agree that it was Bin Laden's goal to draw the United states into a war in the Middle East. And, the United States was compelled to comply.

The Bush Administration had no choice but to comply. Much as the Obama Administration has no choice but to continue.

I don't see where this can be pinned to either the Bush or the Obama Administrations...simply the choices offered when you have limited choices.

It ain't like Shrub pulled his six guns and went after 'em, or Ears shook some hands and made it all right.

This is politics on a global scale, and war has always been politics by different means. Have you ever considered why Obamas policies in the Middle East are like a continum of Bush's policies?

I don't see it as he is hobbled by Bush's policies. He's hobbled by the same situation Bush was hobbled by.

Hate to say it, but it's us against them. And I'm rooting for us. And as much as I dislike Ears, if can can deliver, I'll not fault him.

Hell, I'll give him credit for doing what has to be done.

Basically, if I had all of the answers, I'd be another nutter...full of shit as a Christmas Goose.

Chas

noonereal
02-17-2010, 10:01 PM
The Bush Administration had no choice but to comply. s

in iraq?:confused:

finnbow
02-17-2010, 10:19 PM
And, the United States was compelled to comply.

In Afghanistan, sure. But Iraq, NFW. I think we made way more enemies than we could ever kill as a result of the Iraq fiasco. And in the long run, we served Iran and Al Qaeda's interests more than our own.

piece-itpete
02-18-2010, 08:08 AM
I thought the whole point of the Iraq war was to station troops in the Middle East as to allow us to influence the region for the forseeable future.

The last time I looked, we still have troops in the Philippines, Cuba, Germany, Japan, Korea...and the Balkans...just to name a few.

It stinks, but the United States does have interests abroad. Our universal interests.

Just a thought,

Chas

Agreed, and I'd argue that, because of oil (and the money it brings) the ME is a world security interest.




I think that was definitely part of why Bush & Cheney wanted to go in and why they were planning it from day one if not earlier. It was their desire to "influence" the Middle East through the use of military force. The goal was the US, as the last superpower, would control Iraqi oil, the second or third largest proven reserves in the world, behind Saudi Arabia and perhaps Venezuela.

The trouble, Chas, and something you seem to be forgetting is that's not what they told us. First it was Saddam had something to do with 9/11. When everyone except Fox viewers figured out that was BS they switched to Saddam's mythical stockpiles of WMD and nuclear program. When that got exposed for the lie it was they changed their story again, saying we were there to bring the Iraqis the blessings of freedom and democracy. It has been one lie after the other.

John

They were planning it earlier, as in Clinton had it all figured out already! This is bipartisan in reality if not rhetorically. Which explains Obamas reluctance to change.

Lies, I recall a statement given to Bush: "It's a slam dunk, Mr President."

And there can be no doubt that, as they stepped over bodies, they loved to vote. That is something we gave to them and the bad guys can't take away.

Nice too that mothers and fathers can let their daughters go to the market without being dragged off to sex torture dungeons condoned by force of law.

Besides the inconvenient fact that this was not the supporting rationale given to garner public support for the invasion of Iraq, it did allow us to influence the region (in a decidedly negative direction). Our invasion was likely the best recruiting tool Al Qaeda could have ever hoped for. It played into Osama bin Laden's overall strategy to cause us to expend lots of blood and treasure deposing a hated Arab despot while building his ranks in support of his struggle to create a new caliphate. Sadly, the winners of the Iraq invasion were Iran and Al Qaeda itelf, not us. He played us like a fiddle on this one.


In Afghanistan, sure. But Iraq, NFW. I think we made way more enemies than we could ever kill as a result of the Iraq fiasco. And in the long run, we served Iran and Al Qaeda's interests more than our own.


Yeah, us fighting them has been a real boon for Al Qiada. And if Iran didn't draw any lessons from the way we walked all over Iraq they have serious issues.

And the greatest military power in the world is now on Irans' borders. Hmmmm...

A reader participation poll on the Fox site showed some interesting results. Granted, this was not a scientific poll, so I can't draw any precise conclusions about Fox followers. The poll asked readers to choose among five options on what the U.S. should with the arrested Taliban leader. The option to interrogate him within the confines of U.S. Law finished third behind, never should have taken him alive in second place. The overwhelming leader was "Interrogate to get information by any means necessary.

Any means necessary - 60%
Never should have taken him alive - 16%
Interrogate in compliance with U.S. law - 13%

Regards,

D-Ray

Even I find that chilling.

Pete

finnbow
02-18-2010, 08:38 AM
Yeah, us fighting them has been a real boon for Al Qiada.

For their recruiting and getting the Arab world to align behind them instead of us, it certainly has.


And if Iran didn't draw any lessons from the way we walked all over Iraq they have serious issues.

And the greatest military power in the world is now on Irans' borders. Hmmmm...


Our invasion of Iraq and us being on the Iranian border probably has a great deal to do with the urgency with which Iran is pursuing their nuclear program. Plus, the Iranians are smart enough to know that we no longer have the resources to attack them, a nation of 75 million (3 times the size of Iraq.) I think there is a broad consensus among those versed in the geopolitics of the Mideast that Iran is the big winner in our Iraq (mis)adventure.

piece-itpete
02-18-2010, 09:32 AM
Here I thought Al Qaida has been losing support. Those arab governments know that Al Qaida would take them over too.

You really think we don't have the resources to mount another campaign? Bet the Iranians think we do, and they'd be right - we're still largely set up for a two front war.

Iran may - may - have the upper hand right now. But as Iraq and soon Afghanistan cool down not only will we be freed up, but a free and prosperous Iraq is a serious threat to the Imams who rule Iran, if only through example.

Pete

finnbow
02-18-2010, 10:58 AM
Here I thought Al Qaida has been losing support. Those arab governments know that Al Qaida would take them over too.

You really think we don't have the resources to mount another campaign? Bet the Iranians think we do, and they'd be right - we're still largely set up for a two front war.

Iran may - may - have the upper hand right now. But as Iraq and soon Afghanistan cool down not only will we be freed up, but a free and prosperous Iraq is a serious threat to the Imams who rule Iran, if only through example.

Pete

I agree that Al Qaeda may be losing its appeal it the Arab world. However, IMO this loss of appeal would have happened way earlier if we would have simply stayed in Afghanistan and kicked their ass for good right after 9/11.

We are in a 2 front war now and it has greatly taxed our military readiness. You've certainly read about the soldiers serving 3 or 4 tours over there, eh? Not only that, we still have a significant military presence in S. Korea and a huge modernization program ongoing at Camp Humphreys over there.

Iraq, even a free and prosperous one, is a much lesser threat to Iran than Saddam's Iraq was. The ruling party in Iraq is majority Shia and they are culturally and religiously aligned with Iran. This is the primary reason that Iran is the big winner. We deposed a Sunni despot who was hostile to Iran and allowed a majority Shia government to form that has cultural/religious ties to Iran. In effects, our war in Iraq has helped Iran consolidate its influence in that region. A peaceful, friendly Shia government in Iraq has helped Iran fulfill its dream of greater influence in the region. Sad, unfortunate, but still true.

piece-itpete
02-18-2010, 11:47 AM
Goodness Finn we're sure good at beating a topic to death lol.

Let's agree to disagree and come back to it in 5 years :)

Pete

Boreas
02-18-2010, 11:57 AM
I agree that Al Qaeda may be losing its appeal it the Arab world. However, IMO this loss of appeal would have happened way earlier if we would have simply stayed in Afghanistan and kicked their ass for good right after 9/11.

Pete and other apologists for Bush/Cheney would do well to remember that the support al Qaeda seems to be losing was largely a result of our invading Iraq in the first place. In other words, before 9/11 al Qaeda was a somewhat embarrassing collection of religious militants to most of the Arab world. After 9/11 they were pariahs, reviled by the world at large. There were even candlelight vigils in the streets of Tehran in sympathy with America. Suddenly, when Bush invaded Iraq, Muslims began to realize that much of what bin Laden was saying about the US might well be true.

We are in a 2 front war now and it has greatly taxed our military readiness. You've certainly read about the soldiers serving 3 or 4 tours over there, eh? Not only that, we still have a significant military presence in S. Korea and a huge modernization program ongoing at Camp Humphreys over there.

In addition to our global military commitments and over-deployed and exhausted troops, our materiel is old and worn out after nearly 9 years of war. We don't have the manpower for a third war. We don't have the equipment for a third war. Most importantly, we don't have the money for a third war. That may be the only good thing about the looting of the treasury that Bush and the Republicans pulled off.

Iraq, even a free and prosperous one, is a much lesser threat to Iran than Saddam's Iraq was. The ruling party in Iraq is majority Shia and they are culturally and religiously aligned with Iran. This is the primary reason that Iran is the big winner. We deposed a Sunni despot who was hostile to Iran and allowed a majority Shia government to form that has cultural/religious ties to Iran. In effects, our war in Iraq has helped Iran consolidate its influence in that region. A peaceful, friendly Shia government in Iraq has helped Iran fulfill its dream of greater influence in the region. Sad, unfortunate, but still true.

Saddam Hussein was useful to us because, with his huge 400,000 man army and repression of his Shi'ite majority, he was both a counterweight and a distraction to Iran. Removing Saddam undid all of that.

Allowing the Shi'a majority to assert itself in Iraq gave birth to the possibility of having 2 closely allied Shi'ite states on either side of the Persian Gulf. That would be very bad for the Neo-Cons. It's why they want us never to leave Iraq and it's why they want to nuke Iran.

John

piece-itpete
02-18-2010, 12:46 PM
Pete and other apologists for Bush/Cheney would do well to remember that the support al Qaeda seems to be losing was largely a result of our invading Iraq in the first place. In other words, before 9/11 al Qaeda was a somewhat embarrassing collection of religious militants to most of the Arab world. After 9/11 they were pariahs, reviled by the world at large. There were even candlelight vigils in the streets of Tehran in sympathy with America. Suddenly, when Bush invaded Iraq, Muslims began to realize that much of what bin Laden was saying about the US might well be true.

All those folks dancing in the streets in the arab world on 9-11 knew we were invading Iraq a year later?

In addition to our global military commitments and over-deployed and exhausted troops, our materiel is old and worn out after nearly 9 years of war. We don't have the manpower for a third war. We don't have the equipment for a third war. Most importantly, we don't have the money for a third war. That may be the only good thing about the looting of the treasury that Bush and the Republicans pulled off.

800 billion in pork but nothing for national secuirity. Change.

Saddam Hussein was useful to us because, with his huge 400,000 man army and repression of his Shi'ite majority, he was both a counterweight and a distraction to Iran. Removing Saddam undid all of that.

Allowing the Shi'a majority to assert itself in Iraq gave birth to the possibility of having 2 closely allied Shi'ite states on either side of the Persian Gulf. That would be very bad for the Neo-Cons. It's why they want us never to leave Iraq and it's why they want to nuke Iran.

John

I love hearing Democrats arguing that we should've kept Saddam.

Wouldn't "having 2 closely allied Shi'ite states on either side of the Persian Gulf" be bad for neo-libs too?

And no-one WANTS to nuke Iran. Well maybe Hillary! lol

noonereal
02-18-2010, 01:01 PM
All those folks dancing in the streets in the arab world on 9-11 knew we were invading Iraq a year later?


All those celebrating in the streets in this country should have had tanks at their door the next day. The fact that they didn't still pisses me off.

We should have rolled a tank up to the mosque in Journal Square and taken it out not screwed around in a "contained" country.

noonereal
02-18-2010, 01:04 PM
I love hearing Democrats arguing that we should've kept Saddam.





Not sure what you mean. :confused:

Do you feel the harm done both to our economy and security was justified?

Boreas
02-18-2010, 01:04 PM
All those folks dancing in the streets in the arab world on 9-11 knew we were invading Iraq a year later?

Um, no. That was my point, Pete. They sympathized with us and even supported our going into Afghanistan to get those responsible. When we allowed bin Laden to escape and shifted our forces to Iraq the Muslim world began to smell a big oily rat.

800 billion in pork but nothing for national secuirity. Change.

Sources and statistics, please.

I love hearing Democrats arguing that we should've kept Saddam.

I know. Things are so much better now than when SH was bottled up in Iraq under UN sanctions.

Wouldn't "having 2 closely allied Shi'ite states on either side of the Persian Gulf" be bad for neo-libs too?

I have very little use for Neo-Liberals. There isn't a fart's difference between them and the Neo-Conservatives.

And no-one WANTS to nuke Iran. Well maybe Hillary! lol

What?!?!?! Where the heck have you been?

Hardly a week goes by without Krauthammer, Krystol, Bolton or some other Neo-Con saying precisely that - or saying we should green light the Israelis to do it (with the nukes they don't have).

John

Boreas
02-18-2010, 01:08 PM
All those celebrating in the streets in this country should have had tanks at their door the next day. The fact that they didn't still pisses me off.

We should have rolled a tank up to the mosque in Journal Square and taken it out not screwed around in a "contained" country.

Noone..........

That's insane.

John

rickr15
02-18-2010, 01:15 PM
All those celebrating in the streets in this country should have had tanks at their door the next day. The fact that they didn't still pisses me off.

We should have rolled a tank up to the mosque in Journal Square and taken it out not screwed around in a "contained" country.

For once we agree on something.

Boreas
02-18-2010, 01:24 PM
For once we agree on something.

See, Noone? Told you it was insane! ;)

John

piece-itpete
02-18-2010, 01:42 PM
I agree noone. The only pro-American rally in the ME outside of Israel was (drum roll please) (believe it or not!) in Tehran! One of the reasons I support the green movement. They are really our friends.

I really believe that it's (Iraq) a master stroke, in the long run. We've been through all this before in the Philippines.

John those folks dancing in the streets were so happy - for Osama. He's something of a folk hero there.

I was being snarky using the 'neo-lib' comment :)

Pete

finnbow
02-18-2010, 02:11 PM
Goodness Finn we're sure good at beating a topic to death lol.

Let's agree to disagree and come back to it in 5 years :)



Ah hell, Pete. I was trying to learn you something.:D

I really believe that it's (Iraq) a master stroke, in the long run.

Somebody must have scored you a large stash of Middle Eastern hashish in the process. :D

I'm having a hard time thinking of one historical example of a large scale military intervention/occupation in the MidEast by a Western power that was a long term success. Just ask the Brits or French.

piece-itpete
02-18-2010, 03:14 PM
Ah hell, Pete. I was trying to learn you something.:D.

I done learned! I done learned! :D

Somebody must have scored you a large stash of Middle Eastern hashish in the process. :D

I'm having a hard time thinking of one historical example of a large scale military intervention/occupation in the MidEast by a Western power that was a long term success. Just ask the Brits or French.

Light or dark? :) OT kinda, back in the 80s when I was still into that kind of thing tan hash was going around, the foil stamp said 'The Contras thank you'!

Heck those Europeans couldn't even built a stinkin little canal. We're exceptional lol.

Seriously they were there as conquerors, we're not. I believe the reason Al Qaida is losing support, because the more interaction the Arabs have with us, the more they see that's true.

Pete

finnbow
02-18-2010, 03:24 PM
Seriously they were there as conquerors, we're not.
Dubya's comments about our "crusade" didn't do much to help dispel their beliefs about us being conquerors.

I believe the reason Al Qaida is losing support, because the more interaction the Arabs have with us, the more they see that's true.

Pete

I hope you're right about this, but I'm not so sure. If it's true, it may have something to do with Barack HUSSEIN Obama's speech in Cairo.

merrylander
02-19-2010, 07:20 AM
I love hearing Democrats arguing that we should've kept Saddam.

Wouldn't "having 2 closely allied Shi'ite states on either side of the Persian Gulf" be bad for neo-libs too?

And no-one WANTS to nuke Iran. Well maybe Hillary! lol

Uh Pete, Saddam was a Sunni.

piece-itpete
02-19-2010, 07:48 AM
Answers to two different points Rob. Btw, where've you been lately? I've missed your biting wit!

I've been wanting to reply to the Heinlein comment. I agree that outside fictional worlds he's pretty thick, for sure. Heck even his fictional works are kinda twisted, I don't read him anymore :)

Finn, I believe it's the average US soldier, as they are doing the one on one contact. We should be very proud.

Pete

merrylander
02-19-2010, 08:16 AM
Been nothing much to bite on.