NATO discovers that its opponents are not reading its press releases. Priceless.
It is very difficult to rule a people unless you make it clear that you intend to rule them today, tomorrow, and forever. USG doesn't even try to rule them today. No wonder they cannot get any hearts and minds. Afghans are not fools. They know USG will eventually cut and run -- it says as much as often as it can.
to be fair, no one reads nato's press releases, lol.but that Hina Rabbani Khar is sure a looker.
More Taliban insurgents are being killed or captured than ever before, yet when the captives are interrogated by the American military, they remain convinced that they are winning the war."I don't understand it. In 2003 we were killing, like, two dozen Taliban a year. Eight years later, we're killing easily a thousand. Doesn't that mean we're winning?"
"leggo my nato"okay I admit it, I laughed.
OK, M'sieur - now we know you ARE a "white-privileged" racist. You post this instead of a top-post on the suicide of Don Corneliue (like the one you did on that whitey Mike Kelley yesterday.)Aintcha got nuttin ta say about Soul-Train, you cracker?
Loathe as I am to admit it, Leonard is right. A people who know that their occupiers will leave is a people who will, short a few hotheads, just wait.Not for nothing, Palestinians began to engage in asymmetrical warfare not too long after they began to realize that there was no political, economic, moral or international solution to the problem of Israeli occupation and colonization. The Palestinians, as a rule, know that Israelis mean to stay. They became less and less governable as that realization spread throughout the population. And the Israelis responded in kind.
Why does the great pwoggy West consist of so many pompous assholes?
yeah! just like "we left" iraq a few months ago. and "we left" the philippines decades ago. sure. like herpes, we never leave.despite whatever horseshit is released for US public consumption (incl. the double super secret classified kind), the afghans know full well the US *intends* to stay forever. they don't need to understand the goal of encircling china in order to get the import of the bases, prisons, landing strips & airports being built in their country.
Ellen M. Chen, a scholar of Taoism whose translation with commentary of the Tao Te Ching is highly praised, writes at the beginning of her article "Is There a Doctrine of Physical Immortality in the Tao Te Ching?" (History of Religions, 1973) that she agrees with the "opinion that there was a basic incompatibility between the goals of the philosophical Taoists, on the one hand, and the alchemists and adept, on the other." The former taught people to become reconciled with death as a part of nature's cycle of change, whereas the latter advocated the pursuit of immortality.
Anon,Afghanistan is as close to ungovernable as can be found. Continuing US presence is not the same as resolute US conquest.By way of example: as of about 250 of the Common Era, Gaul was well and truly conquered. Romanized, linguistically remade, culturally contained within the greater Roman fold, religiously incorporated into the Empire and generally loyal. That's not going to happen in Afghanistan.
The whole idea of “winning” is not even the issue with Afghanistan. There likely never was a plan to “win.” The goal of the terror wars has been the Caspian Basin home to trillions of dollars worth of oil and natural gas. The US has been creating a military vise around the Caspian Basin since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Iran borders the Caspian Basin which is why it has been a long term goal to establish military bases there as the US has done in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere in the region. It isn’t necessary to defeat whatever that means to get the oil out of the Caspian Basin. The article in the NYT is deceptive on several levels the idea of winning and losing being one. Winning and losing is fodder for the rubes and not much else.
That's key, rob. A "defeat" which results in a SOFA and a permanent base or two is no loss. And bombs aren't going to fall on Iran because the US plans to occupy and conduct a tank war. Bombs will fall, if they do, because Libya has been a confidence boost to the idea that "air war" + "black ops" = friendly extraction regime.
per afghanistan, dont forget about controlling that lucrative drug market.
JCI'd wager that the westerners want to get Syria done first before tackling Persia. And what about Egypt. Things are not going that smoothly over there, it seems.You know, logical progression: Czechia, Poland, France, and then Russia. However, the joke is on the westerners. 70 years ago two European powers with significantly bigger committments had no trouble bitchslapping the persians at will with only minor assets tasked to the action.The Dull Sycophant
A copy of the document, which was first reported by the BBC and The Times of London, was given to The New York Times by a Western official, on the condition of anonymity because it was classifiedA crime for thee but not for mee...The Dull Sycophant
DS,No doubt. Bombs make profit, all the same.
Jack,That’s exactly the way I see it. That we have left Iraq is of course a farce.
no doubt a Caesarian pacification of afghanistan is impossible. but neither is it necessary in order to achieve the goals rob payne mentions (& there are other goals, like opium). ergo, the US *plans* to never leave.of course the afghanis & other global forces have something to say about those plans.
you think the carpet pissers leaked this?Must be tough for Obama to run as the peace candidate when wars keep happening to him.
Charley/EL, write about Don C. your own goddamn stupid self if you have such a hard-on for the topic, you stupid schizo fuck.
to nony@7:38Fixate much?
Post a Comment