I always had problems with the anacronyms. Rather anachronistic of me. On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 2:00 PM, LRS Scout <lrssc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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:351424 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
