| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan |
| Big offensive planned in Afghanistan |
| 2006-06-14 |
| MUSA QALA: The US-led coalition is unleashing more than 11,000 troops to attack militants in the southern mountains of Afghanistan, the biggest offensive since the fall of the Taliban in 2001. The push starting from Thursday by US, British, Canadian and Afghan troops aims to squeeze Taliban fighters in four volatile provinces. It will focus on southern Uruzgan and northeastern Helmand, where the military says most of the forces are massed. Maj Gen Benjamin C Freakley, the US operational commander in Afghanistan, said that coalition and Afghan troops would attack "Taliban enemy sanctuary or safe haven areas" in Kandahar, Helmand, Zabul and Uruzgan provinces. Conditions permitting, Thursday will mark what the military is calling the start of major and decisive anti-Taliban operations lasting through the summer. Reconstruction projects will also play a major role in Mountain Thrust. 'Operation Mountain Thrust' will involve about 2,300 US conventional and special forces, 3,300 British troops, 2,200 Canadians, about 3,500 Afghan soldiers and air support troops, Freakley said. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #84 and could liberalhawk or anyone alse please point me towards the recent detailed analysis and debunking of the 911 conspiracies |
| Posted by: Doogl comments (UK) 2006-06-14 12:00 |
| #83 Great ranting, it's been most informative. I must point out that I'm no a sympathiser with fundaMENTALIST muslims, I don't like them, more than most because I used to live amongst them. My website (a charity, working against the extremists if anything) has been hacked and nuked today. Everyone chuckling to themselves has serious freedom of speech issues. |
| Posted by: Doogl comments (UK) 2006-06-14 11:57 |
| #82 My parents have contributed, but a small percentage. No need to be condescending. Would have loved to have been there before the crazy mullahs moved in. If we hadn't done anything the Taliban would never have been there, taking it back not too far. And you can't talk about the ISI as distinct from the CIA, right in bed with each other. I'm 99% sure that the head of ISI was with big-wigs in US on 9/11 and US military and intelligence people made a flurry of visits to Pakistan in the lead up to 9/11. Incentives to stop growing opium were offered but we never payed up. I just want people to realise the lack of humanity in anything we're doing there. Yeah I'm a bit tetchy. Can't stand ignorant people feeling so good about the inhuman acts done in their name, and cheering for more. OSCR info doesn't need updating. |
| Posted by: Doogl comments (UK) 2006-06-14 10:23 |
| #81 but why educate them when you can drop bombs on them eh! |
| Posted by: Doogl comments (UK) 2006-06-14 09:28 |
| #80 Maybe I should take it all back. Progress in Afghanistan over 5 YEARS has been astounding, and the uranium babies are really quite pretty. The 'containment excersice' allowed them to train and regroup numbering around 30,000 in a neighbouring country, well contained. And more and more heroin keeps flowing. Again, well done. You should report me to OSCR if you think I'm not up to date, they'll lock me up where no one can hear me. You might notice from my sight that I'm funding schools in NWFP which are in direct competition with the mad mullahs. If I could fund schools against idiots in the US aswell I would. |
| Posted by: Doogl comments (UK) 2006-06-14 09:27 |
| #79 As for El Salvador, the US trained and equiped the army to kill everyone who would stand up for the provision of services until only business interest and downtrodden people remained. Nice one guys, FREEDOM! Al Quada are of course spreading, we can expect that as long as we brutalise muslims. Hey Doofus, you wish you had the military might to invade Pakistan. Guess what. You really don't! You are all so hyped up, no connection with reality here. |
| Posted by: Doogl comments (UK) 2006-06-14 07:50 |
| #78 And dare I say, better the poor little engine who couldn't than the big fat one who thought he could until he crashed and burned. |
| Posted by: Doogl comments (UK) 2006-06-14 07:29 |
| #77 And yes, escapades in Vietnam were indeed mind bogglingly stupid. |
| Posted by: Doogl comments (UK) 2006-06-14 07:21 |
| #76 Yes my site is there. I'm pleased to say that my thoughts on the area have nothing to do with our media. All of your optimism is entirely unfounded. Checked out history recently? |
| Posted by: Doogl comments (UK) 2006-06-14 07:20 |
| #75 We've been trying since 2001, or did you forget, we can't do it. Vietnam 2+3 brewing, get ready to hang your head. |
| Posted by: Doogl comments (UK) 2006-06-14 04:37 |
| #74 No worries, grb. You're a dear, and I too find myself falling under a variety of labels, depending on the subject. But I completely agree with you that WoT is non-negotiable, at least until after we've won irreversably. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-06-14 23:10 |
| #73 Hi, trailing wife: Point of information, grb: to the best of my knowledge, I'm not a conservative, and neither are a good many people here. I read a statistic that even in the US Armed Forces, historically 25% vote Democratic. *shrug* It isn't about party politics or mental outlook, but about dealing with deadly reality, realistically. Well, you're the expert on you! It's probably just a matter of definitions. For me, the divide between liberal and conservative is fuzzy. When it comes to many of the subjects that you find on this blog and WOT stuff, I would classify myself as "conservative" - meaning to hold people accountable, no excuses for one's own bad behavior, etc. War and killing are my line you don't cross lightly. Liberal I think of as more forgiving and accepting of another's point of view. It has its uses elsewhere, but not when it comes to something as serious to me as the WOT and the extremist idiots whose time has more than come. In this regard, perhaps you could be called conservative, too, as are most of the comments I see in these parts. Perhaps your liberalism understands people deserve to live their lives more than others deserve to be able to take their lives. I myself am liberal on other issues, but not on this one with all these extremist goals that are anything but tolerable in my eyes, even were I to claim I understood them. In any case, I think it's good to be around people with diverse points of view, as long as they're not wearing tinfoil hats. It's even better when all those people can agree on what needs to be done, and can come to conclusions that help you understand things better and pay dividends in the future! In any case, glad to have you around. |
| Posted by: grb 2006-06-14 23:01 |
| #72 So , hes been 'trolled' for posting under someone elses name ? Shame , I quite liked the guy .. well , at least his amiable , charitable ambitions. |
| Posted by: MacNails 2006-06-14 20:38 |
| #71 Um mods, since we are in the midst of the World Cup, please use the appropriate terminology...he's been shown the red card. Appropriately enough, since he's already been shown a yellow by lotp (or was that just a caution? Should've been a free kick. Will have to watch the replay). For those of you who don't know, two yellows is a red. Red means you're booted off. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2006-06-14 20:31 |
| #70 thank you, mods |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-06-14 20:22 |
| #69 What an interesting day. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-06-14 20:19 |
| #68 Appropriate. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-06-14 20:16 |
| #67 And his time off. He's been dumped. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2006-06-14 20:14 |
| #66 A less gentle hint to our Doogl boy - the moderators can tell what IP you're posting from and through. Adopting someone else's nym, especially to make him look bad, is one of those things we'll come down hard on. You've now had your warning. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-06-14 20:12 |
| #65 Well, then Doogl goes bye-bye. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2006-06-14 20:12 |
| #64 Uh, comment number 83 isn't me, suprisingly enough. Could someone please delete it? Doogl didn't go to bed. He's messing with you! :-) |
| Posted by: grb 2006-06-14 20:08 |
| #63 "Except that no steel building had ever collapsed from fire before that day, ever ever ever." Well then, it's very difficult for me to understand why my structural engineering friends in the petrochemical industry spend so much time and effort on fireproofing of structural steel. Must be some strange paranoid delusions. Odd, they seemed so very rational otherwise. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2006-06-14 20:03 |
| #62 Who was that masked man? |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-06-14 19:34 |
| #61 Except that no steel building had ever collapsed from fire before that day, ever ever ever. No you mean, never, never, ever, ever, ever, ever. Course wind can do it. |
| Posted by: 6 2006-06-14 19:31 |
| #60 I'm a licensed civil engineer with structural specialties and 18 yrs in bridge design/construction. You "sir" are ignorant, and a kool aid drinker/true believer. I wouldn't waste the bandwidth to debunk your fantasies. You're not worth it. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-06-14 19:31 |
| #59 Nighty night. :-) |
| Posted by: grb 2006-06-14 19:30 |
| #58 Yeah, the hollow steel tubes would be like a pop can. You can stand on it carefully and it won't collapse as long as you don't get too aggressive. Of course, you need a "strong core". Who's going to say they have a "weak core"? Nobody would rent the building. Essentially what this means is that there is a much larger portion of the strength in the walls than in past buildings, and the core could be and was built lighter because it didn't have to shoulder the entire load. There is no big metal spike or you would have heard about it. All you saw after its collapse is a bunch of I-beams and concrete rubble, with no blast cuts in them. Anybody working at ground zero who would have caught something like that would have said something. And the government didn't cherry pick its workers or tell them to be quiet. Any evidence like that would have been worth a lifetime of fame and a ton of money. |
| Posted by: grb 2006-06-14 19:30 |
| #57 Doogl, just a friendly hint: Phil and others here are experts in civil engineering, mechanical engineering and the properties of metals under thermal and other stress. They are being VERY gentle with you. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-06-14 19:22 |
| #56 Hi, Doogl: This building is the first of the "tube construction" buildings. The strength was all in the walls of the building, with relatively very little in the core. Now they are talking more about going to a hybrid between tube and core strength, I think I remember hearing. Does that change things? |
| Posted by: grb 2006-06-14 19:10 |
| #55 Pure Canadian maple syrup. |
| Posted by: Throluter Shineting7544 2006-06-14 19:07 |
| #54 Any examples of a very large steel building collapsing sideways under a similar uniformly weakening heat load? Also, law of conservation of angular inertia plays a part here. A very heavy and somewhat rigid floor isn't going to start rotating right away to cause what's above it to tip. I expect unless a huge chunk of one side of a building is weakened that it will pancake as the WTC did. Several floors were weakened fairly uniformly, and when one of the supports gives way, the others are going to have to bear the additional load somewhat equally for a while before the floor starts "tipping" and therefore applying more weight to the supports near the failed one. If those supports were already weakened, they're likely to all buckle about the same time. For example, have you and a friend ever carried something heavy like a long ladder or a railroad tie and one of you let go of your end prematurely? The other guy feels the full weight for an instant before the thing starts to turn one end down. It takes a lot of force to start things turning. If you were not able to support any more weight, it would get forced out of your grip almost instantly before it could tip and it would land fairly flat. That's small potatoes compared to the angular inertia of one of these floors when all of the supports are weakened. It's not going to rotate much, but will fall flat and start a "pancaking" chain reaction. |
| Posted by: grb 2006-06-14 18:58 |
| #53 eLarson, the visual I'm getting from what you wrote alternates between hilarious and disgusting! ;) |
| Posted by: Desert Blondie 2006-06-14 18:57 |
| #52 Except that no steel building had ever collapsed from fire before that day, ever ever ever. You say that as if steel is some sort of magic unobtainium that's impossibly rigid and unbreakable. I'm beginning to wonder how I ever manage to machine the stuff. Have a nice day, everyone. |
| Posted by: Phil 2006-06-14 18:53 |
| #51 Did you say they expected it to collapse? That's a very good start Phil. Up until the initial collapse of WTC 1 and 2, it was being used as an emergency command post. After that, and the fires started there, it was evacuated in the expectation that it would collapse. I ran across an interesting discussion of it here where some people were arguing about whether asbestos might have helped the buildings to last slightly longer. |
| Posted by: Phil 2006-06-14 18:46 |
| #50 Did you say they expected it to collapse? That's a very good start Phil. Why are conspiracy nuts so stupid about such matters? Were I a fireman, I'd "expect" pretty much any structure under duress to collapse and be pleasantly surprised if I were wrong. Jeez. |
| Posted by: Crusader 2006-06-14 18:40 |
| #49 After all, this film opens with a discussion of how even much later the building's remains were at a much higher temperature. |
| Posted by: Phil 2006-06-14 18:38 |
| #48 Shit, Droogl caught our ass. /under Droolz bed |
| Posted by: Junior Mossad 2006-06-14 18:38 |
| #47 Steve will get to NIST's initial thermodynamic model results which showed steel reached 250 degrees C and couldn't fail. And he's decided that initial model was correct and any others wrong... why? |
| Posted by: Phil 2006-06-14 18:37 |
| #46 I think I'm going to leave work (where the computer-that-can-see-video is) and go home. This has become tiring to me. I think I'll say in closing that whatever the mystery that WTC 7 represents to you or Dr. Jones, the NY Fire Department _was_ expecting WTC 7 to collapse and had evacuated it. |
| Posted by: Phil 2006-06-14 18:35 |
| #45 Aye but the point being how did it lose its structural integrity all over at the same time. Probably the same way WTC 1 and 2 did: Thermal stress. (Not the same as thermal shock). For a better explanation of the subject, I would suggest the following book: How Things Break: Understanding The World By The Way It Comes Apart. |
| Posted by: Phil 2006-06-14 18:29 |
| #44 I should add that I have seen debunkings of the whole "wtc 7" scenario that he's writing about. SECOND, I just noticed a problem with the "conservation of momentum" scenario he's talked about. He says that one floor hitting another would be slowed down, but this wouldn't be the case if you had explosive demolition knocking everything out the way. In order for that to happen, the explosives would have to knock the floors completely out the way, i.e. out of the footprint of the collapsing building, which he has just said a minute earlier didn't happen, that everything collapsed into one footprint. Explosives can't violate the conservation of momentum, so he's trying to have it both ways. IMHO. |
| Posted by: Phil 2006-06-14 18:26 |
| #43 OOH, here's a quote: "I wouldn't expect that from the laws of entropy, which would say things topple over..." It occurs to me that toppling over would require the object to maintain structural integrity and rigidity at the same time that it's collapsing from a lack of same. |
| Posted by: Phil 2006-06-14 18:15 |
| #42 And then more patting-on-the-back and comparing himself to Patrick Henry. |
| Posted by: Phil 2006-06-14 18:08 |
| #41 Another piece of misdirection: he is comparing a film of the collapse of WTC-7 where the part that failed is obscured to a film of a collapse of a much smaller building where everything's in full view. |
| Posted by: Phil 2006-06-14 18:06 |
| #40 And now after that quick intro the video seems to have four or so minutes of people patting themselves on the back... and then Dr. Jones starts talking about building collapses. One of the frequent posters here is a rescue worker named Chuck Simmins; this is what he had to say on the matter at the time. |
| Posted by: Phil 2006-06-14 18:03 |
| #39 You really won't understand until you get to the sixth tape that begins with the grandfather of 48. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-06-14 17:44 |
| #38 WELL, I can say for starters that the first item in the first video is dishonest; it mentions the high temperature of the debris field and implies that that means explosives _must_ be responsible. As if explosives must have more chemical energy than other types of compounds. The last time I checked, that wasn't true. The next thing on the list is, it shows the collapse, and labels it a "nice symmetrical implosion," but that's not proof that it was an implosion. And it's going to go on for two hours that I don't have... |
| Posted by: Phil 2006-06-14 17:38 |
| #37 It's quite breath-taking, really. You rarely find someone so willing to cling to lies. Hell, RC. Not justing clinging, but full-on dry-humping them. |
| Posted by: eLarson 2006-06-14 17:18 |
| #36 mr doogl Yes, the popular mechanics article is the standard one, but there has been continued discussion since then. I really dont keep tabs on all the sites. Wed need to see more detail on which particular conspiracy theory you believe (there are several, not all consistent, IIUC) I appreciate your tone and your willingless to learn and participate. We all need to do more of that. I would be the last to say the US is blameless in Afghanistan. Our turning away and ignoring it after 1991 was shameful, albeit a shame we have paid for in death and destruction in our own country - (and before anyone starts, it was a shame shared by both political parties) Since 2001, we have failed to live up to our promises on reconstruction, as has been documented in several articles recently. A better focus on reconstruction might well have moved the afghan economy farther from opium, and thus weakened the Taliban more. Many of us are aware of that however, and I think we will move to do something about it. At the same time operations like the one announced in this thread are still necessary I think. Would you suggest stopping all offensive operations in the Pashtun provinces until reconstuction is completely fixed? Would that not be to cede initiative to the Taliban, who would use it to consolidate their own advantage? |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2006-06-14 16:35 |
| #35 My recollection from a career NCO uncle was that the Army was pretty Democrat from WWII to McNamara & McGovern when they filed for the permanent divorce. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-06-14 15:05 |
| #34 Point of information, grb: to the best of my knowledge, I'm not a conservative, and neither are a good many people here. I read a statistic that even in the US Armed Forces, historically 25% vote Democratic. *shrug* It isn't about party politics or mental outlook, but about dealing with deadly reality, realistically. Otherwise a really good post, though. Well said! In fact, I think this thread is a keeper. And if I prove wrong about Mr. Doogl, I shall be very pleased indeed. We could use a correspondent who knows that part of the world intimately, now that Paul Moloney has gotten so busy with his own affairs. RD: very, very disturbing. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-06-14 14:53 |
| #33 but why educate them when you can drop bombs on them eh! Agreed, it's cheaper to kill them. |
| Posted by: 6 2006-06-14 14:44 |
| #32 Fifteen of the nineteen people who hijacked the four aircraft in the United States were from Saudi Arabia, so the CIA went to PAKISTAN to arrange it? That's too far-fetched for me. Some people need to do some hard thinking. Yeah, it hurts, but the answers are so beautiful! |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2006-06-14 14:06 |
| #31 We've been trying since 2001, or did you forget, we can't do it. Vietnam 2+3 brewing, get ready to hang your head. Hi, Doogl: I understand why people bring up the comparison, but militarily this is nothing like Vietnam. Whether you know it or not you're trying to use it as a seed to get people who don't think with their brain to think this war could turn out that way to start the usual pointless second-guessing process. It's also a good diversion for people who respond to that kind of bait. The US isn't there to do a majority of the fighting, we are there just to fill the gap until they can train the good people who rightfully elected their own government to fight against a small percentage of thugs who have to rely on barbaric techniques to "spread" their ideology. If they are so right and so in the majority, let them put on uniforms and face the people there like men. Like the people the Taliban are trying to subjugate are facing them. Do you think the Taliban could stand for five minutes if they had to face the same techniques they use on the people there? No. It takes less than a couple of percent with guns to put down an unarmed majority. I don't see how any true "leader" could be proud of that. I can imagine how an opportunistic, self-centered, power-hungry, uneducated barbarian and his henchmen could be. The Taliban are there to get a bunch of people to do things that they don't want to do. Why? What's the point? Where is the value? Are the Taliban there to help them go to heaven as only Taliban can? It won't work, because it is not in these people's hearts to live the Taliban lifestyle. The people there are not hurting or threatening their neighbors. The Taliban should back off and go find someone who want to live like them. If the only way they can do this is to keep them at the point of a gun for the rest of eternity, then something is wrong. My thought is to give the people a fighting chance there. A democracy is the best way I know of, but I could be wrong. Any better ideas? Let's hear them. Not just whining about how some unrelated thing didn't turn out. There are no problems, only solutions. This site is for debate, not just bitching about counterexamples. Perhaps one might not pick that up given the tone of some of the comments, though, mine included sometimes! This is how I think. It is not all of what I think. But it seems to be the most relevant right now. And if you can keep your reason as well as you have given that you are facing a bunch of conservatives, you're doing pretty well indeed! But you are a liberal who has wandered into conservative territory, and not the other way around, so you stand a good chance of getting your point across or learning something if you keep your wits about you. |
| Posted by: grb 2006-06-14 13:57 |
| #30 Question for the 911 conspiracies; Where did you hide the people who took those flights ? |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-06-14 13:29 |
| #29 I'll let someone else handle the detailed debunking, but I've heard a good book for conspiracy theorists in general is Karl Popper's _The Open Society And Its Enemies_, which I've heard contains an analysis of the use of conspiracy theories by repressive regimes (such as Czarist Russia, Nazi Germany, and the Communists) as a means of social control. I would provide the caveat that I haven't had time to read it myself, but there it is. |
| Posted by: Phil 2006-06-14 13:27 |
| #28 taleeban jus needed better marketin |
| Posted by: muck4doo 2006-06-14 12:54 |
| #27 Ok, Doogl, as requested. You want a source to debunk the bullshit? When it comes to science, they've kind of established that they know what they are talking about, unlike Charlie Sheen. Here's a second one to read if you don't like the first link.. |
| Posted by: Desert Blondie 2006-06-14 12:33 |
| #26 debunking of the 911 conspiracies |
| Posted by: RD 2006-06-14 12:22 |
| #25 Wow, a liberal commenter who doesn't froth at the mouth and hurl personal insults. Well, too much, anyway. |
| Posted by: gromky 2006-06-14 11:59 |
| #24 It's been done, several times, by people far more intellectually gifted than you (for example, Cameron Diaz). Ouch, DB. Cold. Accurate, though LOL. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-06-14 11:08 |
| #23 Doogi, you're not one of those simian idiots who thinks depleted uranium poisons people, are you? Please tell me you're smarter than that. I'd like to respect you. They call it depleted for a reason. Can you guess why? |
| Posted by: Steve White 2006-06-14 10:47 |
| #22 "If we hadn't done anything the Taliban would never have been there, taking it back not too far." If we hadnt done anything in the 1980s, the Soviets would still be there, something which I think most Afghans would not consider a good thing. The problem in the 90s was that we did too little. "And you can't talk about the ISI as distinct from the CIA, right in bed with each other." yes, you can as they are distinct entities with distinct interests. Yes they worked together against the USSR, but the ISI support for the Taliban was not supported by the CIA. "'m 99% sure that the head of ISI was with big-wigs in US on 9/11 and US military and intelligence people made a flurry of visits to Pakistan in the lead up to 9/11." Im sure that there were contacts, as there are with countries around the world. I dont know what you mean by a flurry, or what your source is. You seem to imply that the US planned 9/11. Perhaps you dont realize how closely such conspiracy theories have been examined already. "incentives to stop growing opium were offered but we never payed up. I just want people to realise the lack of humanity in anything we're doing there." I would agree that there has been a lack of competence in addressing opium growing since 2002. I dont think that means its inhuman to try to stop the Taliban now. "Yeah I'm a bit tetchy. Can't stand ignorant people feeling so good about the inhuman acts done in their name, and cheering for more." Im against the inhuman acts that have been perpertrated on the people of Afghanistan by the Taliban. Im sorry if some innocent rural Pashtuns have been hurt, but AFAICT we have leaned over backwards to reach out to the Pashtun sector, as has the Kharzai govt. I suspect theres more sympathy for the Pashtuns in Washington then there is in some parts of Mazar e Sharif, or in Hazara land. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2006-06-14 10:41 |
| #21 Doogl appears to be one of those people whose mind is so open his brain has fallen out. Look at, for example, his wholesale acceptance of propaganda in re Central America and DU. It's quite breath-taking, really. You rarely find someone so willing to cling to lies. |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2006-06-14 10:29 |
| #20 Its not you doing the funding , its your parents , right ? Good for them . I agree that the work you are doing in that region is impressive , I have read the annual reports et al . I , myself have spent a long time in Kashmir doing the same kind of things (over twenty years ago i may add , before crazy mullahs moved in) , although not on the scale you have undetaken with your lucky parental support . There has been progress in Afganistan whether you can see it or not . Imagine the flip side , if we hadn't done anything , do you think you could do what you are doing now , with the Talibs still in charge of Afganistan ? I seriously doubt it . Five years is absolutely nothing in a backwater hole like where you are based , foundations have been laid and things will develop over time (as you probably notice with your venture ). As regards the heroine trade , its been there for a very very very long time , dismantling something like that will take a long time , farmers need alternatives and incentives to change , the same as the kashmiri pot growers did . Where did I say I would report you to the OSCR ? I merely stated that it needs updating .. sheesh you seem to be a little tetchy to me. As regards the regrouping of Tailbs and friends , they came to your neck of the woods to regroup and sort themselves out , the ISI , Pakistan government , and various other folk wouldnt let us come in and finish the job , so the wound festered , so to speak . Is that really our fault , no ... "but why educate them when you can drop bombs on them eh!" -yawn- boring- Back in your box , oh and keep up the good work |
| Posted by: MacNails 2006-06-14 10:07 |
| #19 I'd also advised Doogl (Douglas?) to update his info with the OSCR (Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator) . Its kinda out of date . And just for the record , its all well and good producing a website , anyone with a modicum of intelligence can produce one . He's a male Yvonne Ridley , dont even know he has Stockholme Syndrome . Like I said before , get back in your box and close the lid |
| Posted by: MacNails 2006-06-14 09:12 |
| #18 How's that K&J thing going? Pushed out the Hinjoooos yet and what's the deal with E pakiland? |
| Posted by: 6 2006-06-14 08:56 |
| #17 If we were serious about Pakistan, Mr. Doogl, we'd drop a daisy cutter on each bara bazaar in your part of the country, followed by more of the same on each of the lovely training camps set up by your ISI for the Taliban. And maybe just a teensy 500 pounder on the street address of your IP -- just a little love pat, y'know. We should be proud of Mr. Doogl -- despite the poor lad's inherent disabilities, he has managed to figure out how to set up a web site, and has strung together enough cliches to believe himself capable of coherent thought. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem aware that the downside of the worldwide web is that his commonplace idiocies will be available for the world to read so long as electrons flow. I do hope Mr. Doogl hasn't any professional ambitions that require the exhibition of consistently applied intelligence. The better employers google their interviewees nowadays. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-06-14 08:32 |
| #16 I had a doogl once. Surgically lanced. No reoccurrence thank god |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-06-14 08:28 |
| #15 Nothing like an early morning chew toy on the Burg ... :-) |
| Posted by: Steve White 2006-06-14 08:10 |
| #14 Doogl, Doogl, Doogl....we don't want to invade Pakistan. We want to invade Venezuela. Haven't you been listening to Hugo? I don't even think India wants to invade Pakistan. India's making so much progress lately, why would they need that boat anchor dragging them down? |
| Posted by: Desert Blondie 2006-06-14 08:10 |
| #13 Well, yes, Doogl, I see your point. Having been a former history minor in college, allow me to make a few observations. The similarities to Vietnam are truly there for anyone to see. All of our soldiers in Afghanistan are draftees, the forces they are fighting against are proxies for another world power, and the Taliban's military leadership is as gifted as General Giap. Mullah Omar is as inspirational as Ho Chi Minh. Our colleges are erupting daily with protests against the war, and the president is afraid to leave the White House grounds. Not sure what the equivalents are to the Ho Chi Minh trail, the Hanoi Hilton, or Dien Bien Phu are yet, much less the Tet Offensive (I could stretch it to include the skirmishes going on right now as an equivalent), but give me some time and caffeine, and I'll come up with some analogies. As to the other part of your argument, we haven't accomplished one damn thing in Afghanistan. Why, we come marching in, and the next thing you know, some girls left their homes without male escorts to go shopping, go to school, or to work! Kids started flying kites, and there was the occasional snippet of music and a television broadcast! Then they got real uppity and held an election or two. I can't remember how many, 'cause our media kind of lost interest due to lack of massive bloodshed. ------- Now, Doogl, please put down your Chomsky (especially if it is his defense of the Khmer Rouge, circa 1975), and pick up a history book by virtually anyone other than his buddy Zinn. You might learn something. Please come up with another analogy besides Vietnam. It's been done, several times, by people far more intellectually gifted than you (for example, Cameron Diaz). Be creative and try something different....the Wars of the Roses, the Hundred Years' War, the Korean War, or the Great Salad Bar Brawl of Toronto in 2003. |
| Posted by: Desert Blondie 2006-06-14 08:04 |
| #12 I've castigated a number of people recently, including a close friend of mine, for confusing wishful thinking with the hard reality of facts on ground. There is a strategy the Jihadi's can, at least not lose, but the Afghan variant haven't figured it out yet and they will continue to be slaughtered in the field. Now if you could bring Masood back, you might have a chance. He figured out how to win. You murdered him! Bummer! Well those are the breaks. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-06-14 07:49 |
| #11 The only thing we didn't learn from Vietnam is that ya hafta go after ALL THE SAFE HAVENS. You go after ALL THE SUPPLY LINES, AND ALL THE SUPPLIERS. That means, with regard to the Taliban, Pakistan. Politics continue to get in the way of winning a war, and Doofus here knows it. What he doesn't want is for us to say "f*ck this stupidity", DO learn ALL the lessons of Vietnam, and go after the safe havens in Pakiwakiland... He, of course, will whine, bitch, moan, complain, and protest, but the sort of clueless bullshitting he does here only will make me more joyful when he does. You don't like it? GOOD. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2006-06-14 07:42 |
| #10 Note that Doogl's link is to a site in Pakistan - specificall in northwest Pakistan. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-06-14 07:05 |
| #9 we can't do it. the poor little engine who couldn't. Whenever I hear liberals talk it always reminds me of this song: Nobody likes me, everybody hates me, I might as well eat worms. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-06-14 06:23 |
| #8 We've been trying since 2001, or did you forget, we can't do it. Vietnam 2+3 brewing, get ready to hang your head. How's the insurgency in El Salvador going Doogl? That place was supposed to have a Communist government before the 1990s. And while you're at it, check out how the Taliban wannabees are doing in Algeria |
| Posted by: Apostate 2006-06-14 06:23 |
| #7 LOL. Did he say "Vietnam"? LOL. And "we"? LOL. The stupidity inherent in both boggles the mind. |
| Posted by: Ebbailing Spereth5283 2006-06-14 05:58 |
| #6 We've been trying since 2001, or did you forget, we can't do it. Vietnam 2+3 brewing, get ready to hang your head. Quagmire! Viet Nam! Doom! Gloom! |
| Posted by: anonymous5089 2006-06-14 05:55 |
| #5 Hardly been trying Doogl, this is whats called an offensive , since 2001 we have been on a containment excerise .. Get back in your box and close the lid . I'll pass you a bowl to cry into too . |
| Posted by: MacNails 2006-06-14 05:36 |
| #4 and before the Brutal Afghan Winter Sounds like a good idea. Push them back into the mountains before they have a chance to resupply. And keep messing with any possible supply routes. They'll either have to show themselves or die in the mountains. |
| Posted by: grb 2006-06-14 02:39 |
| #3 Musta be thinkin of a Decisive Blow(TM) |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-06-14 01:41 |
| #2 Lots of comedy in this piece -- Maj. Gen Freakley; Operation Mount and Thrust. But seriously, if we have the numbers, I think we should send another few battalions to Afghanistan and strike the Taliban while they think they have some hope . . . and before the Brutal Afghan Winter(TM) arrives. |
| Posted by: Tibor 2006-06-14 01:21 |
| #1 Saddle up, it's ass kickin time. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-06-14 01:06 |