It's called ISAF. On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Larry C. Lyons <larrycly...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > Agreed, ISFOR/NATO should have been out of there by 2003 or 2004. > > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 1:20 PM, LRS Scout <lrssc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > What I mean by win is that we punished those responsible for 9/11, and > made > > it possible for the Northern Alliance to have run the country. > > > > We should have stepped out right then. Provided them with arms and > funding > > and run for the hills. > > > > I agree about Pakistan. Saudi and Iran play their part as well. > > > > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Larry C. Lyons <larrycly...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > >> > >> Don't confuse taking the ground with winning. As long as the taliban > >> were intact they win. They just followed classic guerrilla warfare > >> They have safe havens in the Pakistani tribal regions, and from there > >> it was easy to survive. While Mullah Omar was the nominal leader, the > >> real controllers appear to be the Pakistani ISI. To me its every > >> indication that we are not fighting the right people. We should give > >> Pakistan a deadline and after that fully support India. Its much more > >> stable and democratic. > >> > >> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 1:04 PM, LRS Scout <lrssc...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > All these things being the same, we had basically one the war by 2002. > >> The > >> > Taliban and Al Qaeda had been taken out as a power in the country, > >> > retreating into Pakistan. > >> > > >> > SOCOM did with around 200 men what we can't seem to do with tens of > >> > thousands. > >> > > >> > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Dana <dana.tier...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> > >> >> um. Seems to me it was actually the East India Company and the > British > >> Army > >> >> was repeated defeated defending it. They may have been nominally in > >> control > >> >> of the place but they soon wished they weren't. Did you ever read > >> Kipling? > >> >> Here's a link on some of the early history behind the name: > >> >> > >> >> http://www.britishbattles.com/first-afghan-war/kabul-1842.htm > >> >> > >> >> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Larry C. Lyons < > larrycly...@gmail.com > >> >> >wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > The graveyard of empires is really a myth. Afghanistan through > most of > >> >> > its history was a part of larger empires - the Persian, Mongol, > >> >> > British etc. It wasn't until the 1700's that it became effectively > >> >> > independent. The British actually controlled Afghanistan from the > >> >> > 1880's through 1930 or so. > >> >> > > >> >> > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 1:50 AM, Eric Roberts > >> >> > <ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: > >> >> > > > >> >> > > There is a good reason Afghanistan is called the graveyard of > >> Empires. > >> >> I > >> >> > > don't think the Bush administration was operating in any known > >> >> > reality...so > >> >> > > this "fantasy" was probably a part of it. The rest is greed and > >> giving > >> >> > tax > >> >> > > dollars to his buddies based on no bid contracts for civilians to > >> take > >> >> > over > >> >> > > many of the military functions...like cooks, mechanics, laundry, > >> >> > > construction, etc....also throw in the "protection" role of > >> Blackwater > >> >> or > >> >> > > whatever they call themselves these days...Xe I think...or did > they > >> >> > change > >> >> > > that too? You have a pretty sweet deal for defense contractors. > >> >> > Military > >> >> > > industrial complex is swimming in cash...at least until the > >> treasury is > >> >> > > drained. He certainly didn't try to bolster the treasury with > the > >> tax > >> >> > cuts > >> >> > > to the rich. The ones to the middle class and lower class were a > >> >> > pittance > >> >> > > and in reality didn't do squat. Welcome to the fascist police > >> state my > >> >> > > friends... > >> >> > > > >> >> > > -----Original Message----- > >> >> > > From: Judah McAuley [mailto:ju...@wiredotter.com] > >> >> > > Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 10:17 PM > >> >> > > To: cf-community > >> >> > > Subject: Re: Pics from the NATO Protest > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Afghanistan also has significant deposits of minerals used in > high > >> tech > >> >> > > manufacturing. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > However, I really don't think that was the reason we invaded. > It's > >> >> > possible > >> >> > > that some far right delusional folks thought we might take over > >> >> > Afghanistan > >> >> > > and suppress the Taliban and do a good job extracting resources > and > >> >> > helping > >> >> > > guard against an alliance over oil between Russia and the Middle > >> East. > >> >> > But, > >> >> > > given history, I think that most people in their right minds > would > >> have > >> >> > > regarded that as a rather extreme fantasy. We can bomb a country > >> back > >> >> to > >> >> > > the dark ages, but when it's already in the dark ages? Really, > what > >> are > >> >> > your > >> >> > > odds of success? > >> >> > > > >> >> > > No, we've got the good old fashioned military industrial complex > at > >> >> > work. I > >> >> > > know, seems trite, doesn't it? Eisenhower warned us against it, > >> after > >> >> > all. > >> >> > > That makes it pretty long in the tooth. Obviously just hippy shit > >> these > >> >> > days > >> >> > > that people tell each other as they fit aluminum foil hats. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > There is a huge amount of money to be made and a huge amount of > >> power > >> >> to > >> >> > be > >> >> > > had by simply being at war. Doesn't matter so much with who. > >> >> > > There are advantages one way or another with different enemies. > >> Sure, > >> >> if > >> >> > we > >> >> > > did manage to triumph in Afghanistan, it would have some nice > >> benefits. > >> >> > Same > >> >> > > thing for Iraq. Or Iran. But that's all secondary. A nice bonus, > if > >> you > >> >> > > will. Keeping people afraid allows you to pass further draconian > >> laws > >> >> > that > >> >> > > blow away privacy. Being at war allows you to funnel massive > >> amounts of > >> >> > > money to a tiny number of big companies and agencies with secret > >> >> budgets > >> >> > and > >> >> > > no bids. Spending trillions on wars allows you to look at the > >> >> increasing > >> >> > > deficits and say, "oh no! We need to cut everywhere other than > >> >> defense!" > >> >> > and > >> >> > > put people further into poverty and even more into subjugation. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > The brilliant part of the "war on terror" is that it isn't a war > >> with > >> >> > > anyone. It's a war with an idea. No one ever gets to easily claim > >> >> "we've > >> >> > > won" and be able to show it. There is no white flag from the > enemy. > >> >> > Anyone > >> >> > > who ever says "we're done" will have a well trained group of > media > >> >> attack > >> >> > > dogs jumping them and saying "you gave up and are a coward" and > >> "you've > >> >> > > placed everyone's children at risk". Hell, that's happened to > Obama > >> >> and > >> >> > he > >> >> > > doubled down in Afghanistan. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Nope. The legacy of 9/11 is that we have a country where we > funnel > >> >> almost > >> >> > > unlimited (and totally untracked) amounts of money into an > endless > >> war > >> >> > > against unknown and constantly changing enemies while > sacrificing an > >> >> > untold > >> >> > > number of civil liberties for no appreciable end game. There are > >> plenty > >> >> > of > >> >> > > other games within a game (like the millenarian folks that think > >> that > >> >> > Israel > >> >> > > has to have some sort of weird war stuff to happen for the > rapture > >> to > >> >> > come) > >> >> > > but when you have hugely profitable companies making large > amounts > >> of > >> >> > money > >> >> > > and government power brokers gaining greater control over the > >> populace, > >> >> > > they'll be pretty happy with a continued state of rolling unrest. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Authoritarianism suits large industry and large government. And > war > >> is > >> >> > the > >> >> > > best way to ensure that authoritarianism keeps a strong grip on > our > >> >> > country. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Judah > >> >> > > > >> >> > > On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Larry C. Lyons < > >> >> larrycly...@gmail.com> > >> >> > > wrote: > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> exactly the only greed factor I can see is with KBR, but during > >> that > >> >> > >> time period they didn't have the same presence as they did in > >> Iraq. I > >> >> > >> think Tim can enlighten us on that - he was there. > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> But the only real money to be made in Afghanistan are with opium > >> and > >> >> > weed. > >> >> > >> > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:351421 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
