Reply With Quote
Why ask Kori to?
Why can't you do it?
I've actually asked Kori to do so.
Narced him out? Wow, that's a throw-back.
Why ask Kori to?
Why can't you do it?
Chumps an idiot? Did your God tell you that yoni, or were you channeling the idol you worship even more. Be sure and thank your idol for saving us from apocolyptic extinction and preserving the possiblity of having a successor to his throne.
(insert twilight zone theme song here)
He couldn't know I'm an idiot unless he met me.
No, I couldn't know your physical description unless I met you. Your posts, this one included, prove you're an idiot...or, possibly, pretending to be an idiot. But, then, only and idiot would do that, right?He couldn't know I'm an idiot unless he met me.
I guess I will. I just though a responsible board moderator would have the necessary information, available to administrators only, that would help in identifying Fillmoe and putting the authorities on the right path.
I'll call them now.
No, I could only be posing as an idiot to get white kids from Sacramento to incriminate themselves.
Even if you met me, how would you know it's me?
Well, that's pretty idiotic as well.
First, you've got to ask, why would I care?
Depends on the white kid.Well, that's pretty idiotic as well.I know why you would avoid answering the question.First, you've got to ask, why would I care?
Now, that's sacrifice. So, who is this white kid you're so obsessed with that you'd be willing to make yourself look like an idiot only to lure him into making a threat against the President?
I'm sorry, I wasn't avoiding -- I just thought the answer was self-evident. I guess not for idiots.
How would I know it's you if I ever met you? Well, it would take you opening your mouth -- that'd be a clincher. Other than that, I probably wouldn't. Who knows, we may have already met.
If true, that information would be classified.Now, that's sacrifice. So, who is this white kid you're so obsessed with that you'd be willing to make yourself look like an idiot only to lure him into making a threat against the President?How do you know I can even speak?I'm sorry, I wasn't avoiding -- I just thought the answer was self-evident. I guess not for idiots.
How would I know it's you if I ever met you? Well, it would take you opening your mouth -- that'd be a clincher. Other than that, I probably wouldn't. Who knows, we may have already met.
Well, I'll wait for the New York Times story then.
Now that you mention it, I don't. And, further, that wouldn't surprise me. Not that you have a physical handicap preventing such as much as having a mental deficiency that precluded coherent speech.
Yoni, why do you care about some kids threat to the Pres? You claim to already have some devine knowledge that would make harm to Bush impossible.
It's understandable that Yoni is completely ignorant here, there aren't any conservative blogs that deal with message board trolls.
...or reality for that matter.
Conservative blogs would rather just paint a false reality of failed policies that actually worked than address things realistically.
It's clear to any serious observer, even from the NIE and dubya's cheerleading, that Iraq is lost, and dubya/rummy won't put in the troops to save it.
Here's a take, on Afghanistan, remember Afghanistan? the Repugs have abandoned it.
=================
October 1, 2006
What's Next
The Afghanistan Triangle
By DAVID ROHDE
SOMEWHERE along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, the Taliban leadership and their Qaeda allies must be pleased.
When the leaders of Pakistan and Afghanistan visited the United States last week, they got into an ugly public spat over who was to blame for a Taliban resurgence that has killed hundreds of Afghans this year and shaken confidence in Afghanistan’s new government.
There was Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, accusing Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan of failing to crack down on the Taliban. Mr. Musharraf struck back, saying Mr. Karzai was behaving like “an ostrich” and ignoring problems in his own land. Finally, President Bush played host at an unusual White House dinner for the two, trying to soothe tensions and promote a united front against the Taliban.
“We’ve got a lot of challenges facing us,” President Bush said as the two leaders stood silently at his side. “All of us must protect our countries, but at the same time, we all must work to make the world a more hopeful place.”
( another example of dubya's astonishing eloquence. nothing but motherhood, bromides, slogans, without an ouce of understaning. "Hope" isn't a ing strategy, asshole. )
The two leaders’ public feud increases already growing pressure on the Bush administration to deal with criticism of the American-led effort to stabilize Afghanistan, which until recent months was seen in bright contrast to the problems in Iraq. Members of Congress, former administration officials and experts argue that missteps by the United States and its allies squandered an early opportunity to bring order to Afghanistan so it could be more completely rebuilt. Stabilizing the country remains possible, they say, but it will now be far more difficult.
“I think the mission continues to be doable,” said James Dobbins, a former Bush administration special envoy to Afghanistan. “But it’s going to be a longer, harder, more expensive mission by virtue of the fact that we did not seize opportunities.”
But what can be done?
The issue is not just a matter of American troop levels, Afghan officials and American experts say. Or of Afghan warlords, once so powerful.
There are three critical problems today:
the weakness of Afghan security forces,
a rampant opium trade and
allegations that Pakistani officials turn a blind eye to Taliban activity in their territory.
Those three problems are wrapped up with a fourth:
a creeping skepticism among Afghans and Pakistanis about the seriousness of the American and NATO commitments to stay in Afghanistan.
The more it looks as if the Americans will leave, the harder it is to gain villagers’ cooperation against the Taliban. Farmers become less willing to give up their profitable opium crop. And — perhaps most important — Pakistanis anticipate the day when their old allies, the Taliban, can again be their proxies to counter Indian influence in Afghanistan.
American officials discount such dire scenarios. They say the American effort in Afghanistan has been and continues to be a success. The current violence, they contend, is the result of a move by NATO troops and an increasingly strong Afghan central government to extend their authority into remote areas that Taliban fighters and drug traffickers have used as havens. Taliban attacks are largely centered in the country’s south, they say, and will be defeated.
“In recent months, the Taliban and other extremists have tried to regain control, mostly in the south of Afghanistan,” Mr. Bush said Tuesday in a joint White House press conference with Mr. Karzai. “We’ve adjusted tactics and we’re on the offense to meet the threat and to defeat the threat.”
But several members of Congress and American experts on Afghanistan said the United States needs to make a grand gesture soon, like doubling American reconstruction assistance. Over the last year, they point out, the United States cut aid to Afghanistan by 30 percent and handed over security in southern Afghanistan to NATO troops.
“Something dramatic” is needed, said Barnett Rubin, a New York University professor and Afghanistan expert. “To convince people that we really mean it. That we’re really committed.” The country’s police present one such opportunity, cited by Mr. Karzai himself. In a meeting with reporters and editors at The New York Times on Sept. 21, he said the failure to create a professional Afghan police force was a central mistake in the early post-Taliban period. He said police training still must expand.
“We would like to get much more support for the training of the police from the United States and our allies,” he said. “Where we failed was to focus in time on having a police force.”
In 2001, Afghanistan’s 80,000 police officers were a poorly equipped hodgepodge of Soviet-trained officers, veterans of the anti-Soviet jihad and gunmen loyal to local warlords. Seventy percent were illiterate.
In 2002, the United States promised to train a new Afghan army and Germany promised to retrain the country’s police. But German officials dispatched only 40 police trainers and focused on developing a core of 3,500 skilled commanders at a reopened police academy. Some foreign military units conducted short training courses outside Kabul. But the tens of thousands of officers outside Kabul received no systematic training until 2004, when the United States opened seven regional training centers.
Opium cultivation, now exploding, is another sore subject. Last month, the United Nations announced a record 6,100 metric ton crop, 50 percent higher than the 2005 yield. Afghanistan now produces 92 percent of the world’s opium poppies, or raw heroin. And in some parts of southern Afghanistan, American officials say, drug traffickers have formed an alliance with the Taliban.
One advocate of a steeply increased anti-opium effort is Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, who offered an amendment this summer calling for $700 million in additional Defense Department funding for narcotics eradication in Afghanistan. The Republican-controlled Senate passed the measure. But when the bill reached a conference committee, the amount was cut to $116 million for all of Central Asia, according to Mr. Schumer.“You cannot win one of these wars by just paying attention to the military side,” the senator said Friday. “They don’t seem to understand that.” He also has called for an increase in reconstruction aid to Afghanistan.
Beyond those more familiar problems, though, there are lingering questions about Pakistan and the Taliban, made more pointed by a sense that the United States may eventually abandon Afghanistan, as it did after the Soviets were driven out in the 1980’s.
Seth Jones, an Afghanistan analyst with the RAND Corporation, said the United States must revamp its approach to Pakistan even as it works to counter an increasingly successful Taliban propaganda campaign that portrays the United States as trying to eradicate Islam from Afghanistan.
Mr. Jones and other analysts said Pakistan allows the Taliban to continue to operate on its territory because it sees the group as a useful tool to counter the growing influence of its archrival, India, in Afghanistan. Pakistan supported the Taliban in the 1990’s in its civil war against an Indian- , Russian- and Iranian-backed Northern Alliance. After the Taliban was driven out, it was that same Northern Alliance that took power in Kabul. Now, with the American commitment to Afghanistan being questioned, a version of that same proxy war is beginning to take shape again.
Analysts argue that stabilizing Afghanistan is still possible, but it would require a long-term American commitment to rebuilding the country. It would also require intensified American diplomacy in the region, they say.
( diplomacy from the Repugs?Don't hold your breath. Condi is a hawk and way out of her depth. )
Christine Fair, an analyst at the United States Ins ute of Peace, a government-funded Washington-based research ins ute, suggests that an American diplomatic drive to ease tensions between India and Pakistan could be a key to stabilizing Afghanistan as well. “What we need,” she said “is a grand bargain. You have to take a regional picture.”
But time is short.
There are indications that public support for a long-term American and NATO role in Afghanistan may be dropping in both the United States and Europe. Recent requests by NATO commanders that Germany and other countries eliminate restrictions on sending their troops to the country’s volatile south have fallen on deaf ears. Countries have also been slow to respond to appeals for additional NATO troops in Afghanistan.
A CNN poll released last week showed increased skepticism among the American public as well. When asked, “Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war in Afghanistan?” 50 percent were in favor, and 48 percent were opposed.
That indicated a slide from the heady days in 2001 and 2002, just after the Northern Alliance had toppled the Taliban with the aid of a few American troops. Back then, 80 or 90 percent of Americans were supportive.
The Taliban strategy appears to be working.
I don't see why everyone thought Afghanistan was such a slam dunk.
Remember the Soviet Union? How long were they there? How did that turn out?
Afghanistan, as opposed to Iraq, had to be done. What we really should have done was stabilize and develop Afghanistan first. All the wasted lives and effort in Iraq just means that we are dividing our efforts and resources and are unable to do either.
Foolish in the extreme.
Unfortunately, Iraq spoiled the effort in Afghanistan in more ways than one.
How so?
That's one.A CNN poll released last week showed increased skepticism among the American public as well. When asked, “Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war in Afghanistan?” 50 percent were in favor, and 48 percent were opposed.
That indicated a slide from the heady days in 2001 and 2002, just after the Northern Alliance had toppled the Taliban with the aid of a few American troops. Back then, 80 or 90 percent of Americans were supportive.
Aghanistan was a slam dunk to be executed, I supported 100%, but it was done badly.
Not enough troops because of that cheap bas of a desk jockey Rummy, so OBL got away as our people depended on locals to do it.
The most probable reason that US support for Afghanistan has fallen from 90% to 50% is the poor results Rummy has obtained in Afghanistan, as he was forced by WHIG to switch priority to Iraq.
The Repugs are well on track for losing both countries, due to their own ing criminal, impeachable faults.
Ah, a poll. Got any facts you want to share today?
The drop in public opinion is a fact.
The resurgence of the Taliban is another.
The continued insurgency and body count in Iraq is a third.
No, it's not a fact. It's a characterization of poll responses.
And, they've taken over Afghanistan again? They've experienced a resurgence in an area, largely never taken by the coalition. And, when they raise their heads, they're being killed by the hundreds.
So much so, they've started resorting to terrorism and assassinations. Not a sign of a strong military presence.
Not relevant to your assertion that Iraq has spoiled Afghanistan.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions