Nov 18 2006
The Whimps Of NATO
It seems those brave NATO forces trying to stabilize Afghanistan are pretty much just for show since they refuse to engage the enemy:
The NATO-led force in Afghanistan would be more effective if member countries lifted restrictions that prevent their troops from fighting insurgents in the country’s restive south, a senior Canadian officer said Saturday.
Many of the 37 troop-contributing nations serving with the 31,000-strong force have refused to join the fight against Taliban and other insurgents in the south, leaving the task to Canadian, American, British and Dutch soldiers.
The French, German and Italian forces patrol relatively quiet sectors in the north under self-imposed limitations, known in NATO as “caveats,” that keep them out of combat operations.
Obviously this is a version of the Democrats Phased Surrender – Redeploy gambit where you show off defending the country by marching around in regions where there are not threats, hoping the awesomeness with which the soldiers march is enough to deter attack. We should call this the Peacock manueaver – where military might is conveyed by waving the guns around in the air. It has the benefit of doubling as phased retreat by simplying appending a white cloth to the end of the weapon as it is waved. Very French!
Obsession, or at least excerpts from it, have played several times on Fox, and will likely be repeated. Gabriel’s book title is “Because They Hate,” and her own background makes her a highly credible source — her father was an Islamist “martyr,” and she’s been trying to sound alarms about Islamist Madrassa schools right here in the US that are feeding another generation of toddlers hatred for all non-Muslims.
I can’t leave this site for a half day w/o a slew of ludicrous escapist
remarks being made about my truthtelling-and lies from “For Enforcement” (of sophistry) to boot,as usual. FE told a deliberate lie about a USA Today story I linked replete with specific pre-war quotes of Rummy Cheney and Wolfowitz predicting a six month long war at the longest with a stable new government in place by January 2004FE casserting the story only “claimed” they said it rather than quoting them. They quoted them.
Before I address my critics let me dispense with MOMDEARONE
with two sentences: We did not save Europe from itself in World War
Two. We lengthened what would have been a shorted more limited war with Stalin and Hitler exhausting themselves and in so doing turned over eastern Europe to Stalin. And Europe owes us nothing.
Cochino
Several days ago a hundred or more “Federal” employees were kidnapped and many killed…from a government bldg in the
heart of Baghdad. Hundreds of thousands have been ethnically cleansed from their homes. This is anarchy. And large numbers have
gone to Syria, a fact less noted around Strata-sphere Fantasyland
than the myth of the WMDS “going to Syria.” Hinting at the
amorality of most on this site who could care less about the destruction the US has caused.
Retired Spook
Tony Blair will prevaricate his way out of anything. After David Frost called the Iraq invasion ” a disaster.” Blair can clearly be heard on tape saying “It is….” but then blaming native Iraqi resistors rather
than the war criminals—he and Bush. His own citizens disagree…Blair’s approval ratings are in the pits, comparable to Bush’s 31%.
And to all…yes the US should get out of Europe. It has stayed
for the same reason it went there in the first place–power,
not democracy and not to “save” Europe.
Ken, back to trying your hand at comedy again?
you said:I can’t leave this site for a half day w/o a slew of ludicrous escapist
remarks being made about my truthtelling-and lies from “For Enforcement†(of sophistry) to boot,as usual. FE told a deliberate lie about a USA Today story I linked replete with specific pre-war quotes of Rummy Cheney and Wolfowitz predicting a six month long war at the longest with a stable new government in place by January 2004FE casserting the story only “claimed†they said it rather than quoting them. They quoted them.
I posted every quote from those people and asked you which of them supported what you said. I notice you didn’t respond.
Since all of them were of the “it’ll be long and hard” nature, I can see why you didn’t
Also Ken: When are you going to name the countries that left the British Empire during Churchill’s years.
You said it, I’ve challenged you every since. Why are you ignoring it. You want people to believe you. Here is your opportunity. Name the countries.
Ken, don’t you get tired of never being right? Seems like you could at least bring up one subject that you have a walking around knowledge of. Not so far.
You did NOT post every quote from the US Today article and I
long since pointed out the exact quotes that somehow escaped your notice,as Rumsfeld’s 6 months at-the-outsideprediction of the Iraq war length. Moreover, however in a disgracefully low-key way,most of the villains in question here have admitted they were wrong about the war’s duration, so for you to keep banging your head against the wall defending them is about as pointless as an autistic child doing the same.
And For Enforcement…under LBJ’s presidency with its “civil rights” emphasis came the unloosening of the wave of welfare statism, minority racism and revenge against the majority present to this day,just as under the reign of Churchill and his war came the unloosening of the grip of the British Empire which could have been
salvaged with rapprochment (Like that French word, peon?)
between England and Germany.
Ken, and so, those countries that left the empire under churchill?
Why are you avoiding that? don’t you know the answer? Surely you do?
What does all that about LBJ have to do with anything? Doesn’t matter, we can be sure it is BS.
Any former member of the British Empire which left during
the events surrounding and including Churchill’s War left in large part due to Churchill’s failure to come to terms with Germany.
Clear enough? Probably not to a dissembler who purposely hid Rumsfeld’s pre-war quoted prediction from any gullible readers foolish enough to trust your judgement.
And For Enforcement, if the BBC puts it in quotes, they said it.
Ken, and those countries are? I notice you still didn’t name ANY. I do notice you now want to change it to the period of time AROUND Churchill That won’t wash.
The BBC is more of a liberal rag than either the NYT and WaPo. If you can find any news item ever published in them that was not 100% liberal version,(which means not the truth). So if the BBC quotes something, it like you is exactly backassward.