ScotsAlan Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 If I need to google "Lyndan LaRouche " I am not interested. Care to share your learned learnings with us? Or are you just another sanctimonious over educated fucker :-) Lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 If I need to google "Lyndan LaRouche " I am not interested. Care to share your learned learnings with us? Or are you just another sanctimonious over educated fucker :-) Lol. Bingo!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Trumps Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 It's Lyndon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chutney Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 What, Lyndon won the war on terror ....... dont know him but he deserves a mutley medal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruger Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 The police states are doing well out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 It would appear that I don't take the simplistic view as per most on here. I wonder why that is.... For example the lone fruitcake just can't be beaten, mainly due to a lack of viable intelligence. So the law and order brigade can never declare that they have "won" the war on terror as the likes of Breivik are pretty much unstoppable. So you can assume another will crawl out of the woodwork and slaughter the innocents from time to time as is their wont. Of course, just because it's pretty much impossible to prevent that doesn't mean you should just let them do it. What you have to do is take as many precautions as you can - which essentially is what is considered reasonable. Of course, all those held up in a security queue would soon stop their bitching and moaning if they got directly affected by the results of not having them. But then some people can be so selfishly stupid they can't see the wood for the trees. Next up are the likes of the Taliban. You know, those reasonable, well-adjusted, fair-minded people who will shoot a schoolgirl in the head for wanting an education. In strategic terms in places like Afghanistan they are beaten. The several years they were there the US lost approx 60 of their soldiers in the Korengal valley. The Taliban would lose twice that number in an afternoon. The situation evolved into a strange sort-of cat and mouse arrangement. Now and again the Taliban, or more likely a local who had been paid $5 to do it, would fire off a magazine on a US outpost. Eventually it would come to nothing - as per So the US would mount patrols until they got ambushed and then it was a question of them staying alive long enough to call in air power to destroy the Taliban they had engaged. The Taliban gave it up as they were losing so many men in the firefights. So they resorted to roadside bombs - a nuisance but basically all they had left they could do. But the main point is you can't topple governments with roadside bombs. It's possible that the only reason the Taliban are there is because the UN is there. As the UN troops withdraw we will see. If the Taliban start to try and remove the gov in Kabul then the UN will be back. They have to. Because if Aghanistan falls the next target will be very fractured and fragile but nuclear armed Pakistan just next door. Then they are on the borders of the largest democracy on the planet. We will see. Next are the fruitcake states. Whoever your god is I hope he helps us all if the likes of Iran or North Korea go nuclear..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatshaft Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 Great post PK, but I fear you have missed the point. You were meant to say - AmeriKa iz bAd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 It would appear that I don't take the simplistic view as per most on here. I wonder why that is.... For example the lone fruitcake just can't be beaten, mainly due to a lack of viable intelligence. So the law and order brigade can never declare that they have "won" the war on terror as the likes of Breivik are pretty much unstoppable. So you can assume another will crawl out of the woodwork and slaughter the innocents from time to time as is their wont. Of course, just because it's pretty much impossible to prevent that doesn't mean you should just let them do it. What you have to do is take as many precautions as you can - which essentially is what is considered reasonable. Of course, all those held up in a security queue would soon stop their bitching and moaning if they got directly affected by the results of not having them. But then some people can be so selfishly stupid they can't see the wood for the trees. Next up are the likes of the Taliban. You know, those reasonable, well-adjusted, fair-minded people who will shoot a schoolgirl in the head for wanting an education. In strategic terms in places like Afghanistan they are beaten. The several years they were there the US lost approx 60 of their soldiers in the Korengal valley. The Taliban would lose twice that number in an afternoon. The situation evolved into a strange sort-of cat and mouse arrangement. Now and again the Taliban, or more likely a local who had been paid $5 to do it, would fire off a magazine on a US outpost. Eventually it would come to nothing - as per So the US would mount patrols until they got ambushed and then it was a question of them staying alive long enough to call in air power to destroy the Taliban they had engaged. The Taliban gave it up as they were losing so many men in the firefights. So they resorted to roadside bombs - a nuisance but basically all they had left they could do. But the main point is you can't topple governments with roadside bombs. It's possible that the only reason the Taliban are there is because the UN is there. As the UN troops withdraw we will see. If the Taliban start to try and remove the gov in Kabul then the UN will be back. They have to. Because if Aghanistan falls the next target will be very fractured and fragile but nuclear armed Pakistan just next door. Then they are on the borders of the largest democracy on the planet. We will see. Next are the fruitcake states. Whoever your god is I hope he helps us all if the likes of Iran or North Korea go nuclear..... Would this be the same Taliban who were invited to Washington to be wined and dined in early 2001 to discuss the possibility of huge corporate US oil interests raping their country in return for huge sums of money, but refused the deal. Soon afterwards they were not friends anymore. It'll never be won as allegiances change with the wind, same as with Saddam and Qadaffi. Even Iran under the Shah was a friend while he was letting BP have access to Iran's oil. Now they've told the West to go swivel they're suddenly the enemy again. It's a convenient catch all phrase to be rolled out whenever is necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 Would this be the same Taliban who were invited to Washington to be wined and dined in early 2001 to discuss the possibility of huge corporate US oil interests raping their country in return for huge sums of money, but refused the deal. Soon afterwards they were not friends anymore. It'll never be won as allegiances change with the wind, same as with Saddam and Qadaffi. Even Iran under the Shah was a friend while he was letting BP have access to Iran's oil. Now they've told the West to go swivel they're suddenly the enemy again. It's a convenient catch all phrase to be rolled out whenever is necessary. You're a big enough waste of bandwidth as it is without bloat-quoting. This country of the Taliban's that US corporate oil interest's were going to rape for it's oil - does it have a name? What a load of emotively expressed bs. In Afghanistan the locals want the foreigners - the Taliban - to take their insurgency elsewhere. Your grasp of this tricky geo-political stuff really is tenuous, isn't it? I mean, you proclaim the fact of shifting allegiances via necessity as though it's some kind of recent discovery made by yourself and not that it hasn't happened throughout human history. Frankly facts make you look more out of your depth than usual - if such a thing were possible that is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatshaft Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 Would this be the same Taliban who were invited to Washington to be wined and dined in early 2001 to discuss the possibility of huge corporate US oil interests raping their country in return for huge sums of money, but refused the deal. Soon afterwards they were not friends anymore. It'll never be won as allegiances change with the wind, same as with Saddam and Qadaffi. Even Iran under the Shah was a friend while he was letting BP have access to Iran's oil. Now they've told the West to go swivel they're suddenly the enemy again. It's a convenient catch all phrase to be rolled out whenever is necessary. PK has beaten me to it, but just a terrible reprise of history there. Do you know anything about the last 10 or 15 years at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 Would this be the same Taliban who were invited to Washington to be wined and dined in early 2001 to discuss the possibility of huge corporate US oil interests raping their country in return for huge sums of money, but refused the deal. Soon afterwards they were not friends anymore. It'll never be won as allegiances change with the wind, same as with Saddam and Qadaffi. Even Iran under the Shah was a friend while he was letting BP have access to Iran's oil. Now they've told the West to go swivel they're suddenly the enemy again. It's a convenient catch all phrase to be rolled out whenever is necessary. You're a big enough waste of bandwidth as it is without bloat-quoting. This country of the Taliban's that US corporate oil interest's were going to rape for it's oil - does it have a name? What a load of emotively expressed bs. In Afghanistan the locals want the foreigners - the Taliban - to take their insurgency elsewhere. Your grasp of this tricky geo-political stuff really is tenuous, isn't it? I mean, you proclaim the fact of shifting allegiances via necessity as though it's some kind of recent discovery made by yourself and not that it hasn't happened throughout human history. Frankly facts make you look more out of your depth than usual - if such a thing were possible that is... Sorry? I mentioned shifting alliances as it is a historical fact, not my opinion. If you want to distort my posts to suit your rant then fire away, doesn't make you look any more impressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 Would this be the same Taliban who were invited to Washington to be wined and dined in early 2001 to discuss the possibility of huge corporate US oil interests raping their country in return for huge sums of money, but refused the deal. Soon afterwards they were not friends anymore. It'll never be won as allegiances change with the wind, same as with Saddam and Qadaffi. Even Iran under the Shah was a friend while he was letting BP have access to Iran's oil. Now they've told the West to go swivel they're suddenly the enemy again. It's a convenient catch all phrase to be rolled out whenever is necessary. PK has beaten me to it, but just a terrible reprise of history there. Do you know anything about the last 10 or 15 years at all? Enlighten me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 Sorry? I mentioned shifting alliances as it is a historical fact, not my opinion. If you want to distort my posts to suit your rant then fire away, doesn't make you look any more impressive. I didn't post shifting allegiances were just your opinion. Unlike you I actually DID post they were a historical fact! Now then this Taliban country, what was it called again? Frankly IMHO you should quit 2012 while you're still behind... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 Sorry? I mentioned shifting alliances as it is a historical fact, not my opinion. If you want to distort my posts to suit your rant then fire away, doesn't make you look any more impressive. I didn't post shifting allegiances were just your opinion. Unlike you I actually DID post they were a historical fact! Now then this Taliban country, what was it called again? Frankly IMHO you should quit 2012 while you're still behind... Eh? I'm not sure what you're getting at. The Taliban in 2001 were the people best suited to negotiate with in Afghanistan as they were what could be best described as the people holding most power, the word power used loosely as it has always been a disparate country, divided up by warlords and loose alliances based on tribal and religious lines. But then you knew all that as you're our resident geo-political expert arent you and just wanted to act smart as usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 Would this be the same Taliban who were invited to Washington to be wined and dined in early 2001 to discuss the possibility of huge corporate US oil interests raping their country in return for huge sums of money, but refused the deal. Soon afterwards they were not friends anymore. So the Taliban are the natives of what country exactly? Eh? I'm not sure what you're getting at. The Taliban in 2001 were the people best suited to negotiate with in Afghanistan as they were what could be best described as the people holding most power, the word power used loosely as it has always been a disparate country, divided up by warlords and loose alliances based on tribal and religious lines. But then you knew all that as you're our resident geo-political expert arent you and just wanted to act smart as usual. So according to you in 2001 US corporate interests were lining up to "rape" Afghanistan of it's "oil" reserves with the blessing of the Taliban??? You know here is proof that "Care In The Community" simply isn't working... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.