T1B

The current occupant of the White House said that he is not looking for victory in our current conflicts--- not wanting to have it like Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender--- etc.
Is that really what happened back in 1945 ??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan

Amazing-- him saying we do not want victory as he himself sends more troops into war. What an irresponsible thing to say. I hope none of you have friends or relatives in harm's way who are being told we don't want victory.

Needless to say, I did not vote for this guy and if you did, are you not at least beginning to wonder ?

Wolfman wrote: Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender

He and his people decided to end things peacefully

Wolfman wrote:The current occupant of the White House said that he is not looking for victory in our current conflicts

Is there a link for this?

I'd like to see (or hear) the comments and be able to place them in context of what he wast talking about.

Having 'terror' show up for an armistice signing sounds weird. Instead of taking photographs, Dali could paint it.

Terror signs surrender on HMS Deathship

Good Luck Comrade Phibes.

Though we have different ideologies, I love you as a man.

Sin,

josef poptart

^^^^^^

How you ever got access to the Pickkkle Family Archives is beyond me.

Wolfman, I voted for Barry, and when I did so, I didn't imagine he'd be free of the occasional gaffe. I doubt that gaffes kept you from voting for W. Also, I don't expect to agree with Barry on every single issue. I'm still certain, though, that Obama/Biden was far the better choice than McCain/Palin.

Wolfman's visceral hate for Obama will not end until one of them dies.

I wonder which one will be first.

mvscal wrote:

Wolfman wrote:The current occupant of the White House said that he is not looking for victory in our current conflicts--- not wanting to have it like Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender--- etc.

That's not what he said or what he meant. Yes, it was technically inacurate in that Hirohito did not sign the surrender document on the 'Mo. The point he was trying to make is that there won't be such a clearly definitive moment or even outcome in Afghanistan and he is correct.

If you are capable of it, you need to start thinking about what our objectives are in Afghanistan. What is victory in Afghanistan? Let's hear your definition.

Why did you throw the military under the bus to protect a rapist?

Well I'm waiting.

How come you're not responding to MY posts?

Fucking hack.

Victory in Afghanistan is a "capitalist" friendly government. That would mean, primarily, that farmers are free/not free to continue to grow Opium in such quantities that "legitimate" and "illegitimate" trade of same can continue and flourish.

The Taliban imposed bans on the cultivation of Opium. This severely put a crimp on the mass amounts of cash infused into the global economy in order to get laundered.

Most capital, like gold, comes from dirt.

So "winning" in Afghanistan is having a place free to cultivate a plant that fuels "Drug Wars", Pharmacy, potentially childrens bubble gum (can't get them hooked on smokes anymore), and preserves the money and jobs that creates.

The smart people, i.e. the ones that don't spend too much time on a bulletin board are investing and making money on both sides. Think of Al Gore. Son of "Big Tobacco", raised with money from "Big Oil" and he's preserving his money taking both down. Bush, grandson of a man who made money on both sides of WWII. Those are just a few examples. The beauty of America is a story like Joe Kennedy. In a few generations the sons and daughters of the Crips, Bloods, and MS13 will run this country just like previous generations.

To conclude, "Victory" in Afghanistan, is the preservation of access and trade to a natural resource that directly and indirectly fuels economies around the world.

mvscal wrote:...that using their territory to stage international terrorist attacks is unacceptable. Period. Full stop.

That's it. Nothing more.

So...

...stop using their territory to stage international terrorist attacks.


Simple.

Guess I've been reading too much Ruppert again. :D

mvscal wrote:Wrong, Tom. Victory in Afghanistan means coming to an understanding with the natives (including the Taliban) that using their territory to stage international terrorist attacks is unacceptable. Period. Full stop.

That's it. Nothing more.

Why did you throw the military under the bus to protect a rapist?

Well I'm waiting.

How come you're not responding to MY posts?

Fucking hack.

mvscal wrote:Wrong, Tom. Victory in Afghanistan means coming to an understanding with the natives (including the Taliban) that using their territory to stage international terrorist attacks is unacceptable. Period. Full stop.

That's it. Nothing more.

Do you actually believe the shit that dribbles out of your ass onto the keyboard? Seriously, do you really pretend to believe in some alternate universe where the actual "natives" of Afghanistan have --or had--any idea whatsoever as to what Taliban officials are sanctioning whatever shadowy "al qaeda" operatives in some U.S. built camp--to jump through tires and do price comparisons on airliner simulator classes in Florida? Seriously, when does the rubber of your addled noodle meet the road?