All of them say that the situation is much better than it was earlier.  Still tough, but things like information gathering and Iraqi units finally standing to are better.  My prediction is that the Republicans will face the Dems with a war that is being won at the next elections.  Them dems will have some tough choices that WILL divide the party.

Ask them if they think Iraq will ever be self reliant allowing a full withdrawal of US troops or will they have to remain forever like Korea.

We will be there a long time.  Need a base to strike the Mideast from quickly when necessary.  

Quoted: All of them say that the situation is much better than it was earlier.  Still tough, but things like information gathering and Iraqi units finally standing to are better.  My prediction is that the Republicans will face the Dems with a war that is being won at the next elections.  Them dems will have some tough choices that WILL divide the party.

No, that won't happen.  They'd rather go down with the ship than ever come over on the winning side and admit error or defeat.  They are that committed against the war and the guy who led us into it. They are that deranged and maddened by hatred. If anyone steps out of line on the war, like Lieberman or Baird, the activist crazies move to ostracize them and destroy them by promoting anti-war candidates in the primaries like Ned Lamont.

More likely if we win the war, the Democrats will be in a position their ancestors were in after the Civil War, which was such a hardship for the nation and dragged down the Lincoln administration in what seemed like a hopeless, unwinnable war which turned around at the last minute and won Lincoln a second term, and gave the Union victory.

The Democrats then looked really bad, because they had slandered Lincoln who eventually delivered victorious end to the war as a tyrant, an idiot, a man who embarrassed the USA in the eyes of Europeans, who was slaughtering our men by the hundreds of thousands for a war against our own people.  And for what?  For some crazy ideologues and their zealot ideas of freedom?  We should accomodate slavery and condemn the abolitionists who led us into a war only they wanted.

So afterwards, the Democrats came out looking like traitors, defeatists, and were politically exiled for a generation.  I really really hope history repeats itself.

Iraq now has the second largest oil reserves in the world, after Saudi.  Nothing the Dems do is going to change that fact.

tag

Not to hijack the thread, but I'm curious.  Is it really less dangerous in Iraq and Afghanistan, than it is in the suburbs of St. Louis?

Quoted: Not to hijack the thread, but I'm curious.  Is it really less dangerous in Iraq and Afghanistan, than it is in the suburbs of St. Louis?

Depends on if you have a dashboard cam or not.

Actually 41000 casualties in 2 and a half in Korea were much rougher, and we just seem to have won that one this past year.  But, it was a Dem who got us into it so they kept their mouths shut.

What chaps my ass is that we're having to fight this war not only on the middle eastern front, but on the home front, and that the enemy on the home front is hurting us every bit as badly, if not more, than the enemy in the middle east.

For the life of me, I can not comprehend how this administration allowed the leftist propaganda war at home to go so totally unchallenged - that Bush and his team for all practical purposes Surrendered in Total, Unconditional Defeat to the anti-war left's campaign of lies and disinformation to the country.

I don't have the exact date that John Kerry first used the word "Quagmire" in reference to the US war in Iraq, but I think it was June 2003.  I do have online references by *retired* Gen. William Nash using the term on the 4th of July 2003, and (hiccup) Ted Kennedy saying it September 2003, speaking on behalf of Kerry in campaign speeches.

Gen. Wm. Nash

Ted (hiccup) Kennedy

We invaded in MARCH 2003 for God's sake, and these arrogant pieces of shit are yelling "quagmire" in JULY.

AT THAT EXACT MOMENT was the time for Bush and every Conservative organization in this country to realize that the enemy within had launched the first strike in the home front war of public opinion, and to take it as seriously as we'd taken the attacks on September 11.

The war had not been lost in the hearts and minds of the majority of Americans at that time.  Had an aggressive, united Conservative (and whatever you call most of the GOP these days) campaign started immediately and non-stop, buying TV ad time to play back those quagmire comments in the speakers' own voices over a visual of a calendar showing the invasion date and the date these pansy-assed cowards were already claiming America's defeat, Americans would have clearly seen how insane it was to make such a characterization.  And that kind of aggressive counter-attack should have been made against EVERY single similar missile fired by the Left.  

As well, an offensive should've been waged, again via TV ads and non-stop speeches by Bush and all his major cabinet members, portraying every pol and celeb that spoke out against the war as cowardly bundles of sticks that are getting our troops killed by providing media fodder the enemy in the middle east could play back to legions of 20-something idiots, telling them, "See, your sacrifices are WORKING.  America's resolve is crumbling thanks to you.  Keep up the insurgency!"

But instead, this administration chose to hunker down for the most part and surrender the media and rhetoric war with barely an effective shot ever fired.

It is shameful.  It empowered the left to a point that they've gone on to poison the nation to such a degree that we may quite likely never recover.

[end of rant]

Quoted: We will be there a long time.  Need a base to strike the Mideast from quickly when necessary.

And as long as we're there playing empire our citizens are going to keep dying.

Quoted: Quoted: We will be there a long time.  Need a base to strike the Mideast from quickly when necessary.   And as long as we're there playing empire our citizens are going to keep dying.

Quoted: Quoted: We will be there a long time.  Need a base to strike the Mideast from quickly when necessary.   And as long as we're there playing empire our citizens are going to keep dying.

Right... it's just the imperialistic, jingoist, warmongering, death-loving neocon Bu$hitler-lovers that were waging Blood-for-Oil (TM).

Whatever.

Quoted: Quoted: We will be there a long time.  Need a base to strike the Mideast from quickly when necessary.   And as long as we're there playing empire our citizens are going to keep dying.

Oh for fuck's sake...

If we were there "playing empire" things would probably be a lot better. Free oil, and we'd actually put down rebellions instead of pussyfooting around with them.

Please come back to reality.

Quoted: Quoted: Not to hijack the thread, but I'm curious.  Is it really less dangerous in Iraq and Afghanistan, than it is in the suburbs of St. Louis? Depends on if you have a dashboard cam or not.

Quoted: Quoted: We will be there a long time.  Need a base to strike the Mideast from quickly when necessary.   And as long as we're there playing empire our citizens are going to keep dying.

Sometimes when you think you've heard stupid...then you find another.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: We will be there a long time.  Need a base to strike the Mideast from quickly when necessary.   And as long as we're there playing empire our citizens are going to keep dying. Oh for fuck's sake... If we were there "playing empire" things would probably be a lot better. Free oil, and we'd actually put down rebellions instead of pussyfooting around with them. Please come back to reality.

Well that certainly got everyone's panties in a bunch didn't it.

Let's examine - first comment "Need a base to strike the Mideast from quickly when necessary."

This implies that we're going to hover around the middle east policing it like it's somehow our problem. How is the mid-east our problem unless we're sticking our nose where it doesn't belong?

I've made my position on this clear - to hell with the middle east. In 20 years the head hackers will be out of oil and will be living in sandy tents, again. Quit sending our damn military out to irrelevant third-world countries, secure OUR country, fix OUR intelligence agencies, stop the flow across OUR borders, fund the damn missile defense system and let the rest of the world go to hell.

Friendly commerce with all nations, entangling alliances with none.

Yes, having military bases around the world and interfering with local politics in cultures we neither know nor understand is what makes a freaking empire.

Quoted: How is the mid-east our problem unless we're sticking our nose where it doesn't belong? I've made my position on this clear - to hell with the middle east. In 20 years the head hackers will be out of oil and will be living in sandy tents, again. Quit sending our damn military out to irrelevant third-world countries, secure OUR country, fix OUR intelligence agencies, stop the flow across OUR borders, fund the damn missile defense system and let the rest of the world go to hell. Friendly commerce with all nations, entangling alliances with none. Yes, having military bases around the world and interfering with local politics in cultures we neither know nor understand is what makes a freaking empire.

"The preceding has been a paid political commercial brought to you by your friends at The Libertarian Party."

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yes, having military bases around the world and interfering with local politics in cultures we neither know nor understand is what makes a freaking empire.

Is that your definition of empire?

ARH

Because "minding our own business," ignoring them, and leaving them to their own devices worked oh-so-well in Afghanistan.

And leaving them alone is working oh-so-well for the Pakistanis.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: We will be there a long time.  Need a base to strike the Mideast from quickly when necessary.   And as long as we're there playing empire our citizens are going to keep dying. Oh for fuck's sake... If we were there "playing empire" things would probably be a lot better. Free oil, and we'd actually put down rebellions instead of pussyfooting around with them. Please come back to reality. Well that certainly got everyone's panties in a bunch didn't it. Let's examine - first comment "Need a base to strike the Mideast from quickly when necessary." This implies that we're going to hover around the middle east policing it like it's somehow our problem. How is the mid-east our problem unless we're sticking our nose where it doesn't belong? I've made my position on this clear - to hell with the middle east. In 20 years the head hackers will be out of oil and will be living in sandy tents, again. Quit sending our damn military out to irrelevant third-world countries, secure OUR country, fix OUR intelligence agencies, stop the flow across OUR borders, fund the damn missile defense system and let the rest of the world go to hell. Friendly commerce with all nations, entangling alliances with none. Yes, having military bases around the world and interfering with local politics in cultures we neither know nor understand is what makes a freaking empire.

You isolationists really don't understand a Goddamn thing about how the real world works.

Your idea is like ignoring a funny looking bump on your neck until it becomes full-on skin cancer and it's too late to cure.

You people never see the bigger picture.

Our current operations in the middle east are part of a process that will be ongoing for at least another generation.

Quoted: Because "minding our own business," ignoring them, and leaving them to their own devices worked oh-so-well in Afghanistan. And leaving them alone is working oh-so-well for the Pakistanis.

Apparently, we're supposed to "mind our own business" until a nuke goes off in Washington D.C.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yes, having military bases around the world and interfering with local politics in cultures we neither know nor understand is what makes a freaking empire. Is that your definition of empire? ARH

What would you call interfering with democracy, installing and supporting dictators, handing out the citizen's money and engaging in global real-politik.

It is not my definition of the republic laid down by the founders.

Quoted: Quoted: Because "minding our own business," ignoring them, and leaving them to their own devices worked oh-so-well in Afghanistan. And leaving them alone is working oh-so-well for the Pakistanis. Apparently, we're supposed to "mind our own business" until a nuke goes off in Washington D.C.

Well since we trained the Mujahideen, which funneled into the Taliban, I think the better analysis is that we refuse to realize that the shit we're wallowing in is largely of our own creation.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yes, having military bases around the world and interfering with local politics in cultures we neither know nor understand is what makes a freaking empire. Is that your definition of empire? ARH What would you call interfering with democracy, installing and supporting dictators, handing out the citizen's money and engaging in global real-politik. It is not my definition of the republic laid down by the founders.

Keeping our place in the food chain.

ARH

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yes, having military bases around the world and interfering with local politics in cultures we neither know nor understand is what makes a freaking empire. Is that your definition of empire? ARH What would you call interfering with democracy, installing and supporting dictators, handing out the citizen's money and engaging in global real-politik. It is not my definition of the republic laid down by the founders. Keeping our place in the food chain. ARH

At the top?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yes, having military bases around the world and interfering with local politics in cultures we neither know nor understand is what makes a freaking empire. Is that your definition of empire? ARH What would you call interfering with democracy, installing and supporting dictators, handing out the citizen's money and engaging in global real-politik. It is not my definition of the republic laid down by the founders. Keeping our place in the food chain. ARH At the top?

What do you think?

ARH

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yes, having military bases around the world and interfering with local politics in cultures we neither know nor understand is what makes a freaking empire. Is that your definition of empire? ARH What would you call interfering with democracy, installing and supporting dictators, handing out the citizen's money and engaging in global real-politik. It is not my definition of the republic laid down by the founders. Keeping our place in the food chain. ARH At the top? What do you think? ARH

So we keep our place at the top by interfering with other democratic countries, installing dictators, handing out money and sending our military across the globe.

And we're NOT an empire?

Well since we trained the Mujahideen, which funneled into the Taliban, I think the better analysis is that we refuse to realize that the shit we're wallowing in is largely of our own creation.

Ah... so you're one of those "The United States wore a short skirt and asked for it" people.

So noted.

Quoted: My step-son, a Major (mustang) in the Army just returned, and said the improvement is dramatic.

It's been over a year since I've been there, but even then there was a big change from my 1st tour back in '04. In Al Anbar (at least in the small towns) you started seeing locals becoming more involved in driving the insurgents out of their area.

We had a trust issue with a lot of Iraqis. After DS/DS the US called for the people to rise up and overthrow Saddam, when they did they were slaughtered while the world watched and did nothing. The Iraqis remember this.

In OIF I we rolled in and removed the Government, Army and Police from power and left a vacuum for the insurgents to fill. Many areas did not see an American troop for over a year, this let the AIF to take hold and run large portions of the country. Many Iraqis supported the AIF in order to survive; many sat back and waited to see who was going to come out on top for the same reasons. Of course many also took part in the insurgency for power and money.

In areas where we have had a strong and lasting presence you began to see Iraqis push back against the insurgents. The tribal leaders are beginning to trust us and the people are getting involved policing their towns. Large portions of the country are becoming quiet.


The "failure of the surge" has focused on the Iraqi Government. What they don't talk about is that the National Assembly of Iraq has only been around since December 2005, they are learning to use a government process they have never had and it is manned by many who never held political office until late 2005. There are going to be many growing pains. It took many years before the post WW2 German and Japanese governments were able to “Take off the training wheels”.



I hate to think of the damage we will cause to the image of the US if we leave Iraq prematurely. No longer will the Iraqis trust us again, but even worse is that any country we make promises to will view those promises as empty words for years to come.






ETA: The above ramblings are from the point of view of a lowly enlisted man who did two tours in Iraq. I certainly didn’t have a “Big Picture” view of what was going on but I was more informed than many.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yes, having military bases around the world and interfering with local politics in cultures we neither know nor understand is what makes a freaking empire. Is that your definition of empire? ARH What would you call interfering with democracy, installing and supporting dictators, handing out the citizen's money and engaging in global real-politik. It is not my definition of the republic laid down by the founders. Keeping our place in the food chain. ARH At the top? What do you think? ARH So we keep our place at the top by interfering with other democratic countries, installing dictators, handing out money and sending our military across the globe. And we're NOT an empire?

I do not think you know how to use that word, and yes, we stay at the top any way we need to.

Quoted: Well since we trained the Mujahideen, which funneled into the Taliban, I think the better analysis is that we refuse to realize that the shit we're wallowing in is largely of our own creation. Ah... so you're one of those "The United States wore a short skirt and asked for it" people. So noted.

You're right. That the radical Islamist we created sheltered the radical Islamist group that attacked us are just totally unrelated.

So we keep our place at the top by interfering with other democratic countries, installing dictators, handing out money and sending our military across the globe.

And we're NOT an empire?


No we are not an empire.
An empire would not interfere in local politics, it would dominate them.
Their would be no cultural interference because they would be subjugated.
The local populace would not be allowed to follow Islam and would probably be forced to speak English.
We have hijacked this thread enough.
Why don't you start a thread asking people if the U.S. is an empire, or declaring the U.S. to be an empire and tell people to prove you wrong?


ARH

my wifes cousin is in marine force recon, and he's been in for going on 18 years 2 tours in a-stan and just went back for his seventh tour in iraq 2 weeks ago. jim says things are better, much better in fact. he was telling us at the cookout before he flew out that we can't win over there until iran stops interfering, he wasn't down on the war at all. his theory is why are the assholes that protest, protesting, "i'm the one being shot at, not them" that made me laugh if terrorist blew up american idol, then america would get serious and see that these asshats really want to do us in. until then most americans don't care about anything but there well being sad to say. i don't see how this country is an empire, i really think that is stretching it

Quoted: Ask them if they think Iraq will ever be self reliant allowing a full withdrawal of US troops or will they have to remain forever like Korea.

Korea is pretty damn self-reliant

We have 30,000 over there, total (not just combat)...

They have 1.5 million...

We are in Korea as a strategic base, and because they WANT us there...

Not because the S would HTF if we left....

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: We will be there a long time.  Need a base to strike the Mideast from quickly when necessary.   And as long as we're there playing empire our citizens are going to keep dying. Oh for fuck's sake... If we were there "playing empire" things would probably be a lot better. Free oil, and we'd actually put down rebellions instead of pussyfooting around with them. Please come back to reality. Well that certainly got everyone's panties in a bunch didn't it. Let's examine - first comment "Need a base to strike the Mideast from quickly when necessary." This implies that we're going to hover around the middle east policing it like it's somehow our problem. How is the mid-east our problem unless we're sticking our nose where it doesn't belong? I've made my position on this clear - to hell with the middle east. In 20 years the head hackers will be out of oil and will be living in sandy tents, again. Quit sending our damn military out to irrelevant third-world countries, secure OUR country, fix OUR intelligence agencies, stop the flow across OUR borders, fund the damn missile defense system and let the rest of the world go to hell. Friendly commerce with all nations, entangling alliances with none. Yes, having military bases around the world and interfering with local politics in cultures we neither know nor understand is what makes a freaking empire.

If the rest of the world goes to hell..

WE GO WITH THEM...



You do realize that the US economy is financed by foreign investment, and that we are 100% interdependant with the ROW to maintain our (and their) quality of life...

Being the big dog on the block means we are the only ones who CAN preserve order & make the world safe for free & open international capitalisim...

Which is why we have troops where we do...

And contrary to what you believe, 99% of the places we have troops WANT US THERE... We provide order & stability, etc...

Quoted: Quoted: Because "minding our own business," ignoring them, and leaving them to their own devices worked oh-so-well in Afghanistan. And leaving them alone is working oh-so-well for the Pakistanis. Apparently, we're supposed to "mind our own business" until a nuke goes off in Washington D.C.

I'm afraid a lot of people expect us to do that.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Because "minding our own business," ignoring them, and leaving them to their own devices worked oh-so-well in Afghanistan. And leaving them alone is working oh-so-well for the Pakistanis. Apparently, we're supposed to "mind our own business" until a nuke goes off in Washington D.C. Well since we trained the Mujahideen, which funneled into the Taliban, I think the better analysis is that we refuse to realize that the shit we're wallowing in is largely of our own creation.

We trained the Mujahideen to fight the Soviets...

The Soviets were a far worse & more expensive threat than AQ ever will be...

We accomplished that mission...

Now we're cleaning up the mess left behind from the death of the big red bear...

I hate to think of the damage we will cause to the image of the US if we leave Iraq prematurely. No longer will the Iraqis trust us again, but even worse is that any country we make promises to will view those promises as empty words for years to come.

This is an important point that seems to get glossed over.

Our enemies feel, rightly IMO, that all they have to do is outlast us.  We're no longer the nation that will pay any price, bear any burden, etc.  We haven't been since Vietnam.

Look at the unbelievable human price that was paid after we pulled out of Vietnam, and then defunded the South Vietnamese.  Estimates range up to 1.5 million lives.  I don't know about anyone else, but I remember the boat people, and the killing fields... a precipitous pullout in Iraq will be at least as bad.

It'll be on every TV station, every website, and every internet forum... all painted as a result of the United State's ineptness, impotence, and disregard for human suffering.  The genocide will be shown in all its high-def, color-corrected, blood-dripping horror, and we will have no excuse when it happens; after all, we have the Vietnam example to guide us.

We've been here before as a nation, and I'd like to see this one turn out better than the last one.

We must keep our word.  Credibility matters on the world stage.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Because "minding our own business," ignoring them, and leaving them to their own devices worked oh-so-well in Afghanistan. And leaving them alone is working oh-so-well for the Pakistanis. Apparently, we're supposed to "mind our own business" until a nuke goes off in Washington D.C. I'm afraid a lot of people expect us to do that.

There is a significant number, especially on this website...

They want us to mind our own business until we get smashed in the back of the head, and then turn around and eradicate everything related to the attacker with air-delivered (possibly nuclear) weapons...

They don't want us to try and fix or improve the situations, or confront possible threats in time to stop them from becoming serious problems...

As an example, if we had FIXED Iraq back in 1991 we wouldn't need to be there now...

If we had accepted Osama's head on a platter back in the 90s, invaded A-stan back when the Taliban started blowing up statues, and so on...

Al Queda would be a minor fringe group....

P.S.

Jonas, what DEMOCRATIC government have we interfered with?

Iraq? Nope (Dictatorship)
Iran? Nope (Theocracy)
Venezuela? Nope (Communist)
Chile? Nope (Communist)
Cuba? Nope (Communist)
Vietnam? Nope (Communist)
N Korea (50s)? Nope (Communist)

We don't interfere with S Korean politics, so don't even try that one - they have more control over the actions of our military in their country than the PTBs back home (at least in peacetime, regulation-wise)...

Quoted: Well since we trained the Mujahideen, which funneled into the Taliban, I think the better analysis is that we refuse to realize that the shit we're wallowing in is largely of our own creation. Ah... so you're one of those "The United States wore a short skirt and asked for it" people. So noted.

Ugh... so you're one of those "Motive is irrelevent in prosecuting a crime" people, so much so that you even equate investigating motive with blaming the victim.

Nice job on the talking point though, very emotionally persuasive. That would have played well in the drive by media.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Because "minding our own business," ignoring them, and leaving them to their own devices worked oh-so-well in Afghanistan. And leaving them alone is working oh-so-well for the Pakistanis. Apparently, we're supposed to "mind our own business" until a nuke goes off in Washington D.C. I'm afraid a lot of people expect us to do that. There is a significant number, especially on this website... They want us to mind our own business until we get smashed in the back of the head, and then turn around and eradicate everything related to the attacker with air-delivered (possibly nuclear) weapons... They don't want us to try and fix or improve the situations, or confront possible threats in time to stop them from becoming serious problems... As an example, if we had FIXED Iraq back in 1991 we wouldn't need to be there now... If we had accepted Osama's head on a platter back in the 90s, invaded A-stan back when the Taliban started blowing up statues, and so on... Al Queda would be a minor fringe group....

Right, because you guys who were ten years old at the time know so much better than we who were there what the right course of action was in '91.

I bet it was looked really cool on TV huh?

SecDef Cheney laid out very well why it was a really bad idea to invade Iraq.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: We will be there a long time.  Need a base to strike the Mideast from quickly when necessary.   And as long as we're there playing empire our citizens are going to keep dying. Oh for fuck's sake... If we were there "playing empire" things would probably be a lot better. Free oil, and we'd actually put down rebellions instead of pussyfooting around with them. Please come back to reality. Well that certainly got everyone's panties in a bunch didn't it. Let's examine - first comment "Need a base to strike the Mideast from quickly when necessary." This implies that we're going to hover around the middle east policing it like it's somehow our problem. How is the mid-east our problem unless we're sticking our nose where it doesn't belong? I've made my position on this clear - to hell with the middle east. In 20 years the head hackers will be out of oil and will be living in sandy tents, again. Quit sending our damn military out to irrelevant third-world countries, secure OUR country, fix OUR intelligence agencies, stop the flow across OUR borders, fund the damn missile defense system and let the rest of the world go to hell. Friendly commerce with all nations, entangling alliances with none. Yes, having military bases around the world and interfering with local politics in cultures we neither know nor understand is what makes a freaking empire.

Uh, the shitheads on 9-11 didn't come from fucking China, did they? Iran isn't in Europe, is it?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Because "minding our own business," ignoring them, and leaving them to their own devices worked oh-so-well in Afghanistan. And leaving them alone is working oh-so-well for the Pakistanis. Apparently, we're supposed to "mind our own business" until a nuke goes off in Washington D.C. Well since we trained the Mujahideen, which funneled into the Taliban, I think the better analysis is that we refuse to realize that the shit we're wallowing in is largely of our own creation.

Ron, is that you?

Quoted: P.S. Jonas, what DEMOCRATIC government have we interfered with? Iraq? Nope (Dictatorship) Iran? Nope (Theocracy) Venezuela? Nope (Communist) Chile? Nope (Communist) Cuba? Nope (Communist) Vietnam? Nope (Communist) N Korea (50s)? Nope (Communist) We don't interfere with S Korean politics, so don't even try that one - they have more control over the actions of our military in their country than the PTBs back home (at least in peacetime, regulation-wise)...

dave a, you hit the nail on the head

Quoted: Well since we trained the Mujahideen, which funneled into the Taliban, I think the better analysis is that we refuse to realize that the shit we're wallowing in is largely of our own creation.

... is that supposed to be hyperbole, or do you actually believe that stuff? An even better analysis would be to get off the liberal info-teet you apparently subscribe to and realize most of those muj we trained were Ahmed Shah Massoud's boys, later known as the ones who were resisting and later helped us defeat the Taliban offshoot of the original muj, and are currently running the Afghan government and military. Yeah, that sure was a bad investment!

Oh I'm sorry, did I hurt your selective history? Obviously you would've preferred we minded our own business back then too, until the Russians either had a warm water port or the muj eventually won and then it was all Taliban with none of our support going to the good guys at any point.

God, not even hindsight is 20/20 on this forum anymore.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and what shit did we create? 9/11 was done by Saudis. OBL is a Saudi. He did it and runs AQ with Saudi money. I don't see how training the Afghan muj to fight the Soviets affects that in any way. But hey, don't let me stop the Blame America bandwagon with facts or anything.