Web Images News Groups Books Scholar Gmail more »
Recently Visited Groups | Help | Sign in
Google Groups Home
Why are more US troops needed in Afghanistan?
There are currently too many topics in this group that display first. To make this topic appear first, remove this option from another topic.
There was an error processing your request. Please try again.
flag
  19 messages - Collapse all  -  Translate all to Translated (View all originals)
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Major Debacle  
View profile  
 More options Nov 7, 7:38 pm
Newsgroups: alt.politics, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.military, alt.politics.obama, talk.politics.misc
From: Major Debacle <major_debacle@The_Pentagon.invalid>
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 06:38:09 -0800
Local: Sat, Nov 7 2009 7:38 pm
Subject: Why are more US troops needed in Afghanistan?
Because Bush pulled out the bulk of the fighting force there and sent
them to Iraq where they are bogged down to this day.

Nobody messes with Dubya's Daddy.


    Reply    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head  
View profile  
 More options Nov 7, 8:11 pm
Newsgroups: alt.politics, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.military, talk.politics.misc
From: Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head <messiah2...@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 07:11:13 -0800 (PST)
Local: Sat, Nov 7 2009 8:11 pm
Subject: Re: Why are more US troops needed in Afghanistan?
> Because Bush pulled out the bulk of the fighting force there and sent
> them to Iraq where they are bogged down to this day.

Oh is that to be the excuse you guys are going to use now? Marxist
Obama isn't sending troops because he is a moron...No it's because of
Iraq. [It's laughable what you apologist will say and do to excuse
doofus Obama's daily failures]

Why didn't corrupt Obama, who said Afghanistan is the real priority,
send em back when he designed the new war plan?
Why isn't he sending em now?
Why hasn't he fired McChrystal for helping him construct such a shitty
war plan?
Why are things worse in Afghanistan and Pakistan under "I need to go
golfing" Obama's plan?
Why aren't libs breaking their backs to sign up for their messiah's
war?

> Nobody messes with Dubya's Daddy.

But clearly America hating Obama thinks it's ok for terrorist to wipe
out our troops in Afghanistan. [How can he sit down with the Taliban
if he sends more troops in to wipe em out, right?]

-----
On March 27 Obama stated, "Today, I am announcing a comprehensive, new
strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan....So I want the American people
to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt,
dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to
prevent their return to either country in the future....I have already
ordered the deployment of 17,000 troops..."

Note: He also replaced General McKiernan with his man General
McChrystal.
-----------


    Reply    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Al Smith  
View profile  
 More options Nov 7, 11:07 pm
Newsgroups: alt.politics, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.military, alt.politics.obama, talk.politics.misc
From: Al Smith <inva...@address.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:07:44 -0400
Local: Sat, Nov 7 2009 11:07 pm
Subject: Re: Why are more US troops needed in Afghanistan?
On 11/7/2009 10:38 AM, Major Debacle wrote:

> Because Bush pulled out the bulk of the fighting force there and sent
> them to Iraq where they are bogged down to this day.

> Nobody messes with Dubya's Daddy.

No, it's because the Zionist-controlled military-industrial complex
in America needs constant warfare to maximize its profits. That's
all the military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan have ever been
about -- making money for the corporate cocksuckers who run the
United States.

-Al-


    Reply    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Major Debacle  
View profile  
 More options Nov 8, 12:46 am
Newsgroups: alt.politics, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.military, talk.politics.misc
From: Major Debacle <major_debacle@The_Pentagon.invalid>
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:46:47 -0800
Local: Sun, Nov 8 2009 12:46 am
Subject: Re: Why are more US troops needed in Afghanistan?
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head wrote:

>> Because Bush pulled out the bulk of the fighting force there and sent
>> them to Iraq where they are bogged down to this day.
> Oh is that to be the excuse you guys are going to use now? Marxist
> Obama isn't sending troops because he is a moron...No it's because of
> Iraq. [It's laughable what you apologist will say and do to excuse
> doofus Obama's daily failures]

> Why didn't corrupt Obama, who said Afghanistan is the real priority,
> send em back when he designed the new war plan?

Yer not too bright, are you?

Didn't I inform yer dumb *fucking* ass that these troops are bogged
*fucking* down in Iraq?

What part of "bogged *fucking* down" don't you understand?


    Reply    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Major Debacle  
View profile  
 More options Nov 8, 12:52 am
Newsgroups: alt.politics, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.military, alt.politics.obama, talk.politics.misc
From: Major Debacle <major_debacle@The_Pentagon.invalid>
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:52:07 -0800
Local: Sun, Nov 8 2009 12:52 am
Subject: Re: Why are more US troops needed in Afghanistan?

Al Smith wrote:
> On 11/7/2009 10:38 AM, Major Debacle wrote:
>> Because Bush pulled out the bulk of the fighting force there and sent
>> them to Iraq where they are bogged down to this day.

>> Nobody messes with Dubya's Daddy.

> No, it's because the Zionist-controlled military-industrial complex...

Another Jew-obsessed loon... how sad

    Reply    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
None4U  
View profile  
 More options Nov 8, 12:53 am
Newsgroups: alt.politics, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.military, alt.politics.obama, talk.politics.misc
From: "None4U" <nos...@nospam.none>
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 14:53:56 -0500
Local: Sun, Nov 8 2009 12:53 am
Subject: Re: Why are more US troops needed in Afghanistan?

"Al Smith" <inva...@address.com> wrote in message

news:hd4d08$qll$5@news.eternal-september.org...

> On 11/7/2009 10:38 AM, Major Debacle wrote:
>> Because Bush pulled out the bulk of the fighting force there and sent
>> them to Iraq where they are bogged down to this day.

>> Nobody messes with Dubya's Daddy.

> No, it's because the Zionist-controlled military-industrial complex in
> America needs constant warfare to maximize its profits. That's all the
> military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan have ever been about --  
> making money for the corporate cocksuckers who run the United States.

> -Al-

Dont be simple minded.  Its about oil.  The military is the easiest way to
get it. Because our government has no foreign policy ability towards enemies
that hate us, but have the oil.  We are a warring nation. And the last free
country.  All jobs and I mean all jobs are provided by corporations and
government.  Theres no other options but government mandated poverty or
death.

The government caused all the problems ,by forcing wages down , offering
welfare, and not protecting the middle class wages from overseas slave
labor.   Not the Corporations.

So why you calling them cocksuckers.


    Reply    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Al Smith  
View profile  
 More options Nov 8, 1:41 am
Newsgroups: alt.politics, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.military, alt.politics.obama, talk.politics.misc
From: Al Smith <inva...@address.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:41:27 -0400
Local: Sun, Nov 8 2009 1:41 am
Subject: Re: Why are more US troops needed in Afghanistan?
On 11/7/2009 3:53 PM, None4U wrote:

It's not about oil. That's a false understanding of why the United
States is in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's about keeping the money
flowing into the military-industrial complex -- the American and
Israeli companies that make the weapons that are used to kill people
in randomly selected third-world countries.

The Zionists and the weapons-makers are in bed together. It works
this way. The US gives around 5 billion in free money, from the
pockets of American taxpayers, to Israel each year, but Israel must
use a large chunk of that money to buy American-made weapons. The
weapons-makers are happy because they are selling weapons and
getting rich. The Zionists in Israel are happy because they are
getting free money from Washington, and free weapons with which to
intimidate and dominate the Middle East.

To insure that this flow of money and weapons never gets cut off,
Israel has AIPAC and numerous other organizations lobbying American
politicians. Israel controls Washington. Don't be in any doubt about
this, Israel owns the White House, the House of Congress and the Senate.

The rich cocksuckers in American don't mind because they are making
money from the arrangement -- the Zionists have set it up this way
... they allow the rich cocksuckers in the USA to make some money as
a way of keeping them docile and obedient.

Afghanistan and Iraq are not about oil. They were never about oil.

-Al-


    Reply    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
None4U  
View profile  
 More options Nov 8, 3:40 am
Newsgroups: alt.politics, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.military, alt.politics.obama, talk.politics.misc
From: "None4U" <nos...@nospam.none>
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 17:40:22 -0500
Local: Sun, Nov 8 2009 3:40 am
Subject: Re: Why are more US troops needed in Afghanistan?

"Al Smith" <inva...@address.com> wrote in message

news:hd4m0h$90k$1@news.eternal-september.org...

The military industrial complex is not the root of our problems.  It feeds
the warring nation that we are. The military complex will shrink if demand
does. And America and Isreal are not the root problem with arms either.
Every nation in the world has the same arrangment towards arms.  And  the
five permanent members of the UN are the five highest arms producers.  Lets
shut down the UN and resolve the issue.  After all. It is the arena of
dictators and criminals. But you wont agree with that. Because the UN steals
from America to give to foreigners.

    Reply    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Al Smith  
View profile  
 More options Nov 8, 4:00 am
Newsgroups: alt.politics, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.military, alt.politics.obama, talk.politics.misc
From: Al Smith <inva...@address.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:00:15 -0400
Local: Sun, Nov 8 2009 4:00 am
Subject: Re: Why are more US troops needed in Afghanistan?
On 11/7/2009 6:40 PM, None4U wrote:

The UN isn't perfect, but it is one of the few checks on the
unbridled greed and viciousness of America and Israel. The UN can't
stop them, but it can at least point out their crimes against
humanity when they are committed, as it did recently by highlighting
the crimes against humanity committed by Israel in Gaza.

The simple fact is that America is IN THE WRONG in her continuing
occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq. The only sane course is for the
US to get out of both countries, and get out quickly. Enough human
beings have died for nothing.

-Al-


    Reply    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
None4U  
View profile  
 More options Nov 8, 4:51 am
Newsgroups: alt.politics, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.military, alt.politics.obama, talk.politics.misc
From: "None4U" <nos...@nospam.none>
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 18:51:16 -0500
Local: Sun, Nov 8 2009 4:51 am
Subject: Re: Why are more US troops needed in Afghanistan?

"Al Smith" <inva...@address.com> wrote in message

news:hd4u4p$9e8$1@news.eternal-september.org...

The UN   is a playground of dictators and criminals. And its financed by the
US.   Your partisan opinion towards so called crimes is duly noted.   Arabs
will fully attack women and humanity to save face,, and nothing more.    Not
perfect doesnt even belong in the same sentence.   Profit is not greed. If
all foreigners arent allowed in the US. We wouldnt need to be in Iraq and
Afghanistan.   But the government would rather allow foreigners in at their
leisure and wipe out  those it feels they dont want bringing their BS here
on their own turf.   The root of the problem your discussing is foreigners
who wish to destroy the US , and the government not checking them at the
border.   Then wanting to get them on their turf.

Occupation of lands is not wrong. Its life. I would like to see us get out
but the cost of getting out far outweighs the consequences of leaving with
our government refusing to protect our borders .

The government wants open borders but not the war or a war here.  Therefore
they go over there.  Afghanistan and Iraq to kill enemies that cant cross
our borders anymore.

Resolve that issue , That the government doesnt wish  wish to resolve . And
we can leave.


    Reply    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head  
View profile  
 More options Nov 8, 10:42 am
Newsgroups: alt.politics, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.military, talk.politics.misc
From: Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head <messiah2...@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 21:42:42 -0800 (PST)
Local: Sun, Nov 8 2009 10:42 am
Subject: Re: Why are more US troops needed in Afghanistan?
> > Why didn't corrupt Obama, who said Afghanistan is the real priority,
> > send em back when he designed the new war plan?

> Yer not too bright, are you?

> Didn't I inform yer dumb *fucking* ass

For listening to your messiah? [If I"m dumb for listening to him
(Corrupt Obama) on Iraq...What does that say about you for taking
everything he says as the gospel?]

> that these troops are bogged *fucking* down in Iraq?

Bogged down??? But Marxist Obama said he could move em, did he lie?

> What part of "bogged *fucking* down" don't you understand?

Did Marxist Obama lie?

-----
On March 27 Obama stated, "Today, I am announcing a comprehensive, new
strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan....So I want the American people
to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt,
dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to
prevent their return to either country in the future....I have already
ordered the deployment of 17,000 troops..."

Note: He also replaced General McKiernan with his man General
McChrystal. The guy he ignores.
-----------
Hope and change: Afghanistan and Pakistan are worse now that we are
using Marxist Obama's comprehensive new strategy.


    Reply    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Jerry Okamura  
View profile  
 More options Nov 9, 8:04 am
Newsgroups: alt.politics, alt.military, alt.politics.obama, talk.politics.misc
From: "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 17:04:15 -1000
Local: Mon, Nov 9 2009 8:04 am
Subject: Re: Why are more US troops needed in Afghanistan?

"Al Smith" <inva...@address.com> wrote in message

news:hd4d08$qll$5@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 11/7/2009 10:38 AM, Major Debacle wrote:
>> Because Bush pulled out the bulk of the fighting force there and sent
>> them to Iraq where they are bogged down to this day.

>> Nobody messes with Dubya's Daddy.

> No, it's because the Zionist-controlled military-industrial complex in
> America needs constant warfare to maximize its profits. That's all the
> military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan have ever been about --  
> making money for the corporate cocksuckers who run the United States.

Are you saying that liberal democrats and democrats are helping big
business?  I thought they thought that big business was the enemy?

    Reply    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Al Smith  
View profile  
 More options Nov 9, 10:07 am
Newsgroups: alt.politics, alt.military, alt.politics.obama, talk.politics.misc
From: Al Smith <inva...@address.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 01:07:36 -0400
Local: Mon, Nov 9 2009 10:07 am
Subject: Re: Why are more US troops needed in Afghanistan?
On 11/8/2009 11:04 PM, Jerry Okamura wrote:

Liberal, conservative, Republican, Democrat -- those are only words.
The rulers are the wealthy elite, and the only allegiance they know
is money. Wherever the money is, they will follow. Money is their
power, and power is their way to the money. When the Democrats in
Washington stand up to Israel and AIPAC, I may start to believe that
they oppose big business ... but that is never going to happen.

-Al-


    Reply    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Libcrusher Smith  
View profile  
 More options Nov 9, 11:03 am
Newsgroups: alt.politics, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.military, alt.politics.obama, talk.politics.misc
From: Libcrusher Smith <libscrus...@usenetall.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 22:03:56 -0800
Local: Mon, Nov 9 2009 11:03 am
Subject: Re: Why are more US troops needed in Afghanistan?
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 06:38:09 -0800, Major Debacle

<major_debacle@The_Pentagon.invalid> wrote:
>Because Bush pulled out the bulk of the fighting force there and sent
>them to Iraq where they are bogged down to this day.

They're needed because the liberal pussies in Europe won't fight
terrorism.

If Obama had a clue, he'd pullout and let Europe worry about it. We
need to pull everything out of everywhere and let those asshole
anti-American countries defend themselves.

>Nobody messes with Dubya's Daddy.

Too bad you can't say the same for Obama's.... LOL

    Reply    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Kevin Cunningham  
View profile  
 More options Nov 9, 7:56 pm
Newsgroups: alt.politics, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.military, talk.politics.misc
From: Kevin Cunningham <sms...@mindspring.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 06:56:09 -0800 (PST)
Local: Mon, Nov 9 2009 7:56 pm
Subject: Re: Why are more US troops needed in Afghanistan?
On Nov 9, 1:03 am, Libcrusher Smith <libscrus...@usenetall.com> wrote:

So  why did Cheney and Bush invade Iraq?  Got a clue?  I don't.

    Reply    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head  
View profile  
 More options Nov 9, 8:01 pm
Newsgroups: alt.politics, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.military, talk.politics.misc
From: Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head <messiah2...@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 07:01:56 -0800 (PST)
Local: Mon, Nov 9 2009 8:01 pm
Subject: Re: Why are more US troops needed in Afghanistan?
On Nov 7, 9:42 pm, Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head

<Bump>...Still waiting for cowardly MD to answer my question.

    Reply    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Dave Heil  
View profile  
 More options Nov 9, 11:48 pm
Newsgroups: alt.politics, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.military, talk.politics.misc
From: Dave Heil <k...@frontiernet.net>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:48:25 +0000
Local: Mon, Nov 9 2009 11:48 pm
Subject: Re: Why are more US troops needed in Afghanistan?
Kevin Cunningham wrote:

  Got a clue?  I don't.

Priceless!


    Reply    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head  
View profile  
 More options Nov 10, 11:39 am
Newsgroups: alt.politics, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.military, talk.politics.misc
From: Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head <messiah2...@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 22:39:08 -0800 (PST)
Local: Tues, Nov 10 2009 11:39 am
Subject: Re: Why are more US troops needed in Afghanistan?
On Nov 9, 7:01 am, Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head

<Bump>...Still waiting for cowardly MD to answer my question.

    Reply    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head  
View profile  
 More options Nov 12, 8:43 am
Newsgroups: alt.politics, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.military, talk.politics.misc
From: Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head <messiah2...@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:43:02 -0800 (PST)
Local: Thurs, Nov 12 2009 8:43 am
Subject: Re: Why are more US troops needed in Afghanistan?
On Nov 9, 10:39 pm, Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking

<Bump>...Still waiting for cowardly MD to answer my question.

    Reply    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
End of messages
« Back to Discussions « Newer topic     Older topic »

Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2009 Google