Do you have any idea what you're saying at all? The Taliban is in Afghanistan not Iraq.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Dinner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 4:54 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Today's Patraeus: Wow. > > Robert, I'm surprised you don't see the contradiction in your > statements. > (like I'm one to talk ! =) ) > > Apparently we know what al-Q's main goal is - Iraq (ha! ;) > > What, exactly, is *our* objective, again? > > And I think it's sorta sad, that we're like "we're doing this to like, > give you > a taste of the good life, and whatnot" and at the same time saying > stuff > like "we're doing it over here so we don't have to mess up our house". > > And it's sickening how "terror" has been used and abused- seriously, > I've never seen a reality closer to "1984" than I have now- it would be > terrible to gout like that. > > Removing the tally-ban's sources of $$ WILL put us closer to defeating > them in Iraq. Obviously! Starving people isn't a good way of > lessening > terrerists-ish-ness, tho. Like Judah says (nicely put, btw, J!)- the > strats > behind the whole deal are suspect. > > Just a total cluster-fsck, which good men and women are paying for, > with their lives. Every day. Are we /really/ at war? Oh, yeah, how > for fucks sake can you be at war with an idea. Fear fear itself, I > say. > *Don't coddle it and try to win elections with it.* > > I want the republicans to apologize for screwing over everything they > said they stood for- democrats can't get it together enough to deserve > the kind of crap the repubs do. I mean, this was concerted, and pretty > damn lame (no offense to cripples). They're* all bastards, and in on > the > circular back-patting (or jerking, as the case may be). > *"both" parties =] (especially the organized parts of the two- sickos!) > > Hell, my heart wanted to vote for Nader, back when- not cuz I really > thought he was the best, but because I wanted to see the whole sad > excuse of a "two party" system get shook up. Bad. > > Instead I voted defensively, fearing by some crazy chance Bush would > get in there. I mean, come on! An Onion article too accurate to be > funny? That's sickening. Even Clinton wasn't that predictable. :-) > > Then there's the arrogance, see, which just pisses me off. > > And the lack of public outcry- perhaps due to a suck-ass media, but > none-the-less, you've got people who still try to defend the heinous > crap that's gone down... instead of challenging the arrogance, like > all Good Americans should. What, are we fighting for? > > Guess we want everyone to have to submit to anal searches, and > lock their doors, because, well- "the times have changed" *fnord*. > > Sure, we've had our heads up our arses for a while- alcohol kills > how many more people than other drugs combined? Bah. > > It's still especially grotesque what's gone down in the last 8 years. > > It's not like Bush2 can get elected again- why the lack of going > out with a bang? I disliked a local politician's policy, but when > he had no more time left, he was like "legalize! And I'm out!", > whitch I thought was just freaking funny and kewl as hell. > Bit sad too, but hey. > > Oh well. > __ > Surfs up! =] > > On 9/14/07, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Oil is at $80 because of speculation and profiteering, but it would > still be > > at $70 without those factors. I'd like to see it closer to $50, and > > stabilizing Iraq will help to do that. > > > > I am not concerned about opium production in the short term. We can't > wipe > > out their crops without substituting something else for them to live > on. > > Yes, we are allowing the enemy a source of funding, but that is a > choice > > driven by circumstances. Oil makes more money than opium, and we can > still > > bring the price of oil down. Stabilizing Iraq is a necessary part of > that > > objective. Preventing a wider war in the Middle East is another part > of that > > objective. Both of those things require us to be in Iraq, not > Afghanistan. > > > > Then there is the remaining question of the ideological war against > Al > > Qaeda. Their main goal today is to defeat the U.S. in Iraq. It is a > goal > > driven by their plan to use Iraq as the launching pad for a world- > wide > > Islamic state by taking over the MIddle East and holding the rest of > the > > world hostage to its oil supplies. Wiping out poppy plants in > Afghanistan > > puts us no closer to defeating Al Qaeda in Iraq. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Get involved in the latest ColdFusion discussions, product development sharing, and articles on the Adobe Labs wiki. http://labs/adobe.com/wiki/index.php/ColdFusion_8 Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:242466 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
