Posted on 08/25/2009 5:47:25 AM PDT by Cheap_Hessian
Let me give you an idea for the title of your autobiography:
"Living with Enlarged Synapse Syndrome"
Oh dear hope you have your asbestos underwear on.
If we let it, and we are letting it. And with Woodstock being in the news last week, I swear I'm having a flashback.
Sniiiiiffffff. Ah, ozone coming right up.
The key to Afghanistan is in Pakistan in the safe havens, supply, logistical, and R&R bases run by their Army pretty much, notwithstanding all the denials, doublespeak and obfuscations.
Unless we face reality after 8 years there, I’ve come to the conclusion that we should just get the hell out.
I also believe we’re posturing into that mode.
Those in Obama’s circle advocating US out of Afghanistan by next summer will probably win the argument.
I wish we could make it so that they have to declare war when we enter into these "armed conflicts."
And if I were president, and someone killed an American, I would launch a massive counter attack until Americans are safe walking down the street at midnight in any city in the world. Don't mess with us.
We are Gulliver, and we need to throw off the chains of the Lilliputians.
</bloodthirsty old bat>
Several replies by FreeSmart removed, but the troll lives.
Yep. 30,000 more troops doe not a surge make. We need 100,000 or more and unleash Hell on the safe havens. And dam the politics of borders.
Funny thing, that Durand Line.
The prior agreement, signed in 1933 between the King of Afghanistan and the British Empire expired after 60 years.
Technically, there is no legally recognized border, and why did Bush accept claims of Pakistani sovereignity when it has been abundantly clear that the writ of the Pakistani State did not extend to the border areas, rending them unsovereign.
I know, politics and other geostrategic interests, but shame, all the same.
” I seem to remember somewhere that Obama has changed the rules of engagement. “
Unfortunately, you are not hallucinating.
The focus is on protecting Afghan civilians rather than killing the enemy.
” The U.S. commander in Afghanistan will soon order U.S. and NATO forces to break away from fights with militants hiding among villagers,
an official said Monday,
announcing one of the strongest measures yet to protect Afghan civilians.”
General McChrystal:
“The Afghan people are at the center of our mission,” he said.
“In reality, they are the mission.
We must protect them from violence — whatever its nature.
We must respect their religion and traditions.”
” A new military approach in Afghanistan may mean buzzing rather than bombing the enemy,
according to the general taking over the air war there.”
“The first thing we do is fly over head,
and the bad guys know air power is in place and oftentimes that’s enough.
That ends the fight, they vamoose,”
said Lt General Gilmary Hostage,
now in charge of Obama’s kinder, gentler air war ( ? ) over Iraq and Afghanistan.
“Hostage says the Air Force can easily drop bombs with pinpoint accuracy.
But in some cases, it may be better to fly over enemy forces with noisy warplanes to get them to disperse first,.”
Lt General Hostage quotes General McChrystal ordering-
“If you are in a situation where there’s a civilian at risk,
he’d rather have us back away
than pressing to engage the enemy and
run the risk of damaging or hurting somebody.”
Cheney? You are soon to be cat food.
IBTZ
This is not good for anybody- not our troops, Afghanistan, the United States, the world at large, Dems, GOP, or Dear Leader.
I pray that our military is able to get a handle on this and win soon.
IBTZ
Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my Viking Kitty/ZOT ping list!. . . don't be shy.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2321101/posts?page=4#4
It’s a Paultard
IBTZ!!
zotta
Good catch, Darks ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.