It's official. Obama is a total n00b thinking he can win this was with just 40K more. This is just throwing our boys into a meat grinder

1 termer. calling it now.

The Middle East will be like Wack-a-mole...Watch Iraq fall apart now....

Face it guys...we need a draft if we are going to win both wars. Sad but true. We just don't have the boots on the ground to do what we want.

Fucking cleaning up another Republican mess!

I don't understand they never define the object - how are we going to "win" Afghanistan. What will the 40k additional troops do to meet our objectives? We should be pulling out of both countries not investing more into them. We can't rebuild New Orleans, how do you think we're going to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan. It's a lose-lose across the board (except for those corps profiting off this).

You know, Obama may very well be a one timer - he was voted in on a sea of hope and change from the status quo. Instead we get more of the same. The Republicans will think it's a mandate for them - it's not. It's a mandate that both parties suck and people like myself - in the millions - won't vote because we're fed up with this two party system of suck.

fucking idiot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Middle East will be like Wack-a-mole...Watch
> Iraq fall apart now....
>
> Face it guys...we need a draft if we are going to
> win both wars. Sad but true. We just don't have
> the boots on the ground to do what we want.


No, Vince ... I mean "f'ing idiot'", we don't need a draft. Instead, like all situations involving supply and demand, "we" merely need to set the level of compensation appropriately to cause more "boots" to sign up. Heck - $1,200,000,000,000 for health care; surely, a fraction of that for "boots."

Lopter39 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fucking cleaning up another Republican mess!


40K more wont "win" this war any more than the 60K we have now. We are almost doubling our forces. We can't kill two birds with one stone.

Obama does not have to put our boys back in. This is all for naught.

DOES ANYBODY ACTUALLY BELIEVE THIS WILL WORK?

It will just "undo" THE SURGE that was used in Iraq. not enough men on the baseball diamond...

I don't necessarily agree with the move. But politically speaking, Obama really has little choice. He's risking defeat versus admitting defeat.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Lopter39 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fucking cleaning up another Republican mess!

like Vietnam? Oh wait, that was Kennedy and Johnson who were Dems. My bad. Continue being a moron, Lopter. The rest of us get a kick out of it! Are you done crying from last week? Maybe you still think Deeds can pull this one off! LOL.

lippy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lopter39 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Fucking cleaning up another Republican mess!
>
> like Vietnam? Oh wait, that was Kennedy and
> Johnson who were Dems. My bad. Continue being a
> moron, Lopter. The rest of us get a kick out of
> it! Are you done crying from last week? Maybe
> you still think Deeds can pull this one off! LOL.

Vietnam was split in two under Eisenhower.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't necessarily agree with the move. But
> politically speaking, Obama really has little
> choice. He's risking defeat versus admitting
> defeat.


Wow. Obama would rather have Americans killed than risk a political defeat?!!?

What an ass.

Roger Penske Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I don't necessarily agree with the move. But
> > politically speaking, Obama really has little
> > choice. He's risking defeat versus admitting
> > defeat.
>
>
> Wow. Obama would rather have Americans killed
> than risk a political defeat?!!?
>
> What an ass.

Ummm, you don't think the War on Iraq was a political calculation by Bush? Fuck, in 2002, Andy Card described the impending invasion as "rolling out the newest product line" to the American voters!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Roger Penske Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I don't necessarily agree with the move. But
> > > politically speaking, Obama really has little
> > > choice. He's risking defeat versus admitting
> > > defeat.
> >
> >
> > Wow. Obama would rather have Americans killed
> > than risk a political defeat?!!?
> >
> > What an ass.
>
> Ummm, you don't think the War on Iraq was a
> political calculation by Bush? Fuck, in 2002, Andy
> Card described the impending invasion as "rolling
> out the newest product line" to the American
> voters!


Once again, excusing bad behavior by pointing out bad behavior of someone else!

Not too convincing.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> lippy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Lopter39 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Fucking cleaning up another Republican mess!
> >
> > like Vietnam? Oh wait, that was Kennedy and
> > Johnson who were Dems. My bad. Continue being
> a
> > moron, Lopter. The rest of us get a kick out
> of
> > it! Are you done crying from last week? Maybe
> > you still think Deeds can pull this one off!
> LOL.
>
> Vietnam was split in two under Eisenhower.

and Truman was complicit with the French to go in after WWII in an attempt to reestablish colonial rule. Still, neither is more responsible than Kennedy and Johnson in the fuck up that ensued.

OnceAgain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> > >
> > >
> > > Wow. Obama would rather have Americans
> killed
> > > than risk a political defeat?!!?
> > >
> > > What an ass.
> >
> > Ummm, you don't think the War on Iraq was a
> > political calculation by Bush? Fuck, in 2002,
> Andy
> > Card described the impending invasion as
> "rolling
> > out the newest product line" to the American
> > voters!
>
>
> Once again, excusing bad behavior by pointing out
> bad behavior of someone else!
>
> Not too convincing.

So you admit that Bush was an ass? As was Reagan (was there any reason besides political ones to invade Grenada?)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> (was there any reason besides political ones to
> invade Grenada?)

It was easily winnable and the poor medical students.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OnceAgain Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Wow. Obama would rather have Americans
> > killed
> > > > than risk a political defeat?!!?
> > > >
> > > > What an ass.
> > >
> > > Ummm, you don't think the War on Iraq was a
> > > political calculation by Bush? Fuck, in 2002,
> > Andy
> > > Card described the impending invasion as
> > "rolling
> > > out the newest product line" to the American
> > > voters!
> >
> >
> > Once again, excusing bad behavior by pointing
> out
> > bad behavior of someone else!
> >
> > Not too convincing.
>
> So you admit that Bush was an ass? As was Reagan
> (was there any reason besides political ones to
> invade Grenada?)


Hahaha. Irrelevant to the issue at hand.

lippy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lopter39 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Fucking cleaning up another Republican mess!
>
> like Vietnam? Oh wait, that was Kennedy and
> Johnson who were Dems. My bad. Continue being a
> moron, Lopter. The rest of us get a kick out of
> it! Are you done crying from last week? Maybe
> you still think Deeds can pull this one off! LOL.

You are comparing invading Iraq to the Vietnam? Go take a history class.

Surprised by this move. Of course, if Boohoo didnt send the troops, he'd be seen as buckling after having declared Afghanistan a "just war."

That's right ... it's all about O'Bama and his ego, that narcissist.

And it's all about me being fabulously GAY! Weeeeeeee!

Lopter40 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> lippy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Lopter39 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Fucking cleaning up another Republican mess!
> >
> > like Vietnam? Oh wait, that was Kennedy and
> > Johnson who were Dems. My bad. Continue being
> a
> > moron, Lopter. The rest of us get a kick out
> of
> > it! Are you done crying from last week? Maybe
> > you still think Deeds can pull this one off!
> LOL.
>
> You are comparing invading Iraq to the Vietnam? Go
> take a history class.

The conversation is about Afghanastan - take a reading comp class. Also, You made a stupid blanket statement that had no real value. I responded in kind. If you want to have a real conversation about the topic, let me know. I have no qualms about beating up on a mental midget like you.

Twice Again Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> Hahaha. Irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Because we all know that using examples of Presidents making similar decisions for political reasons in the past is somehow "irrelevant."

I'm coming to the conclusion that you don't understand what the word "irrelevant" means.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Twice Again Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> >
> > Hahaha. Irrelevant to the issue at hand.
>
> Because we all know that using examples of
> Presidents making similar decisions for political
> reasons in the past is somehow "irrelevant."
>
> I'm coming to the conclusion that you don't
> understand what the word "irrelevant" means.


... u can't argue rite.

hahaha ...

ITRADE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Surprised by this move. Of course, if Boohoo
> didnt send the troops, he'd be seen as buckling
> after having declared Afghanistan a "just war."

This is exactly right - the dems decried the Iraq war and embraced Afghanistan as the "right" war. They backed themselves into a corner.

I like being backed into a corner by big, sweaty manly men. I'm not a manly man. I'm more of an effiminate man with feelings.

Nobel Piece Prize Weiner.

Ha.

You're Always a Weiner at Pedro's!

The initial attack upon Afghanistan was just cause. The Taliban was harbouring someone that made a direct attack upon our country. They wouldn't give the Al-Qaeda leadership over to us and so imo we were absolutely justified in going there.

But we've lost sight of this completely. We have been in Afghanistan now for over 7 years. Our original intent was to oust the Taliban and get rid of Al-Qaeda. We've accomplished neither. Certainly Al-Qaeda is on the periphery now, the Taliban is just as strong, and the Afghan nation still remains in tatters.

What is our answer after 7 years of this? Not wind-down and focus on keep Al-Qaeda a bit player, no, our answer is to send more troops in there to try and "nation build". You can't nation build a country that neither has the means, nor the will to build itself. Furthermore, the vast majority of Afghanis don't trust this whole shebang and they have good reason not to.

For us as Americans, I find the whole exercise utterly futile, sadness at the prospect of more Americans dying needlessly, and contempt that in this age when our nation is bankrupt we decide to keep waging an "unwinnable" war. Unwinnable in quotes because there is no win to this exercise. At what point have we won?

With Hitler it was easy - defeat Nazism and destroy his machine and we win. With Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, militant Islam - it's impossible to achieve the same goal in one country such as Afghanistan. The biggest hotbeds of extremism are located with our "allies" - Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (also Iran, Algeria, Egypt, pockets of Indonesia, Yemen). It would be the equivalent of us attacking the Netherlands only during WW2 to rout Nazism - it's an impossibility that's why we will never "win" this war.

In Afghanistan we should make a deal with the Taliban. Hand over Bin Laden and Zawahiri, and we will leave your country. The rest is up to you.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In Afghanistan we should make a deal with the
> Taliban. Hand over Bin Laden and Zawahiri, and we
> will leave your country. The rest is up to you.


Now there's an idea I think all sides of the political landscape can agree upon!

Listening, Hillary. Get your big ass over there and do sumthin'.

NowThere Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Now there's an idea I think all sides of the
> political landscape can agree upon!


It wouldn't work. The Taliban is loosely organized and the factions aligned with al-Qaeda would never agree to those terms. They'd actually prefer to fight the US for the next hundred years. They have no wish for peace in their country, they'd rather be freedom-fighters for Allah seeking martyrdom.

Why can't CTU find BinLaden?

Or Chloe can help Jack Bauer without implicating CTU, like she often does.

> > > Lopter39 Wrote:
> > > Fucking cleaning up another Republican
> mess!
> > >

> > lippy Wrote:
> > > like Vietnam? Oh wait, that was Kennedy and
> > > Johnson who were Dems. My bad. Continue
> being
> > a
> > > moron, Lopter. The rest of us get a kick out
> > of
> > > it! Are you done crying from last week?
> Maybe
> > > you still think Deeds can pull this one off!
> > LOL.
> >

> Lopter40 Wrote:
> > You are comparing invading Iraq to the Vietnam?
> Go
> > take a history class.
>

> > lippy Wrote:
> The conversation is about Afghanastan - take a
> reading comp class. Also, You made a stupid
> blanket statement that had no real value. I
> responded in kind. If you want to have a real
> conversation about the topic, let me know. I have
> no qualms about beating up on a mental midget like
> you.

Lippy you are the person who started talking about Vietnam. I guess you were trying to prove some point RV? I just responded to your post. Easy on your meds today please!

Britdrnva~ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't understand they never define the object -
> how are we going to "win" Afghanistan. What will
> the 40k additional troops do to meet our
> objectives? We should be pulling out of both
> countries not investing more into them. We can't
> rebuild New Orleans, how do you think we're going
> to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan. It's a lose-lose
> across the board (except for those corps profiting
> off this).
>
> You know, Obama may very well be a one timer - he
> was voted in on a sea of hope and change from the
> status quo. Instead we get more of the same. The
> Republicans will think it's a mandate for them -
> it's not. It's a mandate that both parties suck
> and people like myself - in the millions - won't
> vote because we're fed up with this two party
> system of suck.


Yes, because we all know that pulling out of Afghanistan last time was the best move ever:

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In Afghanistan we should make a deal with the
> Taliban. Hand over Bin Laden and Zawahiri, and we
> will leave your country. The rest is up to you.


We already attempted that before invading.

ThePackLeader Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Britdrnva~ Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I don't understand they never define the object
> -
> > how are we going to "win" Afghanistan. What
> will
> > the 40k additional troops do to meet our
> > objectives? We should be pulling out of both
> > countries not investing more into them. We
> can't
> > rebuild New Orleans, how do you think we're
> going
> > to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan. It's a
> lose-lose
> > across the board (except for those corps
> profiting
> > off this).
> >
> > You know, Obama may very well be a one timer -
> he
> > was voted in on a sea of hope and change from
> the
> > status quo. Instead we get more of the same.
> The
> > Republicans will think it's a mandate for them
> -
> > it's not. It's a mandate that both parties
> suck
> > and people like myself - in the millions -
> won't
> > vote because we're fed up with this two party
> > system of suck.
>
>
> Yes, because we all know that pulling out of
> Afghanistan last time was the best move ever:
>
> http://www.nocaptionneeded.com/wp-content/uploads/
> 2007/09/wtc-9-11.jpg
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/images/204358/4_24_pentagon
> _911_still.jpg
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thum
> b/4/46/UA93_crash_site_noborder.jpg/800px-UA93_cra
> sh_site_noborder.jpg
>
> http://stj911.org/evidence/docs/P200059_1.jpg

What are the photos of that dirt? What does that have to do with Afghanistan? I see WTC and pentagon pics, not sure of what dirt is

fucking idiot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lopter39 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Fucking cleaning up another Republican mess!
>
>
> 40K more wont "win" this war any more than the 60K
> we have now. We are almost doubling our forces. We
> can't kill two birds with one stone.
>
> Obama does not have to put our boys back in. This
> is all for naught.
>
> DOES ANYBODY ACTUALLY BELIEVE THIS WILL WORK?
>
> It will just "undo" THE SURGE that was used in
> Iraq. not enough men on the baseball diamond...


I can tell you from experience that we are actually making some truly positive moves in Afghanistan. An acquaintance of mine happens to have been in OIF a few times, and OEF more recently, and he actually enjoyed working with the people over there, and (surprise, surprise), he wants to go back. You shouldn't act as if this is a lost cause, especially given the fact that 9/11 emanated from that Nation, and we owe it to thousands of dead to see that we succeed there.

WTF is that? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ThePackLeader Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Britdrnva~ Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I don't understand they never define the
> object
> > -
> > > how are we going to "win" Afghanistan. What
> > will
> > > the 40k additional troops do to meet our
> > > objectives? We should be pulling out of both
> > > countries not investing more into them. We
> > can't
> > > rebuild New Orleans, how do you think we're
> > going
> > > to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan. It's a
> > lose-lose
> > > across the board (except for those corps
> > profiting
> > > off this).
> > >
> > > You know, Obama may very well be a one timer
> -
> > he
> > > was voted in on a sea of hope and change from
> > the
> > > status quo. Instead we get more of the same.
>
> > The
> > > Republicans will think it's a mandate for
> them
> > -
> > > it's not. It's a mandate that both parties
> > suck
> > > and people like myself - in the millions -
> > won't
> > > vote because we're fed up with this two party
> > > system of suck.
> >
> >
> > Yes, because we all know that pulling out of
> > Afghanistan last time was the best move ever:
> >
> >
> http://www.nocaptionneeded.com/wp-content/uploads/
>
> > 2007/09/wtc-9-11.jpg
> >
> >
> http://www.foxnews.com/images/204358/4_24_pentagon
>
> > _911_still.jpg
> >
> >
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thum
>
> >
> b/4/46/UA93_crash_site_noborder.jpg/800px-UA93_cra
>
> > sh_site_noborder.jpg
> >
> > http://stj911.org/evidence/docs/P200059_1.jpg
>
> What are the photos of that dirt? What does that
> have to do with Afghanistan? I see WTC and
> pentagon pics, not sure of what dirt is


It's the hole that Bin Laden was living in (Nah, I wish though). It's the crash site of FLT 93, in Shanksville, PA.

fucking idiot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Middle East will be like Wack-a-mole...Watch
> Iraq fall apart now....
>
> Face it guys...we need a draft if we are going to
> win both wars. Sad but true. We just don't have
> the boots on the ground to do what we want.


You can thank Clinton for that. Before his Presidency, we had 500,000 personnel involved in Operation Desert Storm (That's ONE Theater of Operation), whereas now we can hardly muster HALF that number total, in TWO Theaters.

Lopter41 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Lopter39 Wrote:
> > > > Fucking cleaning up another Republican
> > mess!
> > > >
>
> > > lippy Wrote:
> > > > like Vietnam? Oh wait, that was Kennedy
> and
> > > > Johnson who were Dems. My bad. Continue
> > being
> > > a
> > > > moron, Lopter. The rest of us get a kick
> out
> > > of
> > > > it! Are you done crying from last week?
> > Maybe
> > > > you still think Deeds can pull this one
> off!
> > > LOL.
> > >
>
> > Lopter40 Wrote:
> > > You are comparing invading Iraq to the
> Vietnam?
> > Go
> > > take a history class.
> >
>
> > > lippy Wrote:
> > The conversation is about Afghanastan - take a
> > reading comp class. Also, You made a stupid
> > blanket statement that had no real value. I
> > responded in kind. If you want to have a real
> > conversation about the topic, let me know. I
> have
> > no qualms about beating up on a mental midget
> like
> > you.
>
> Lippy you are the person who started talking about
> Vietnam. I guess you were trying to prove some
> point RV? I just responded to your post. Easy on
> your meds today please!


LOL, it is obvious you are still stinging from last week.

"C'mon, lets pull one over on the GOP. If we all vote, Deeds can win. There is a double secret strategy with an even more damaging secret about McDonnell to be revealed!"

Speaking of meds, professionals call your condition delusional.

ThePackLeader I am fully aware of why we went to Afghanistan you need not mock my intelligence with pithy photographs. You will note that in my second posting under this forum my first comment was the invasion of Afghanistan was just cause.

Perhaps your reading comprehension or geopolitical sense is lacking, because as I wrote, if our intention is to go after Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden then this war in Afghanistan is lost. Bin Laden isn't in Afghanistan. Our war against the Taliban continues strong to this day and will never end. At what point do we say enough is enough. If we want to hunt Bin Laden down we should (and we are to a small degree) be in northern Pakistan.

If we wanted to hunt all the perpetrators of Sept 11th, we should have invaded Saudi Arabia the vast majority of terrorists came from there. If we want to prevent future terrorist attacks either we make peace with Islam or we fight it on all fronts - and Afghanistan is a drop in the bucket (see my WW2 Netherlands analogy).

Remaining with the status quo in Afghanistan solves nothing except kills more of us, sows greater hatred and costs us vast sums of money we can't afford to spend.

AP Just reported Obama has rejected all options given to him by his advisors. Back to the drawing board rightards.

While I agree Obama is fronting for all the Imperialist corporation interests in the US you have to admit he is a real Communist bastard.

just saying

dono Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> While I agree Obama is fronting for all the
> Imperialist corporation interests in the US you
> have to admit he is a real Communist bastard.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
Attachments:

Can I assume this already happened?

I don't think Obama has much choice.

Britdrnva~ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ThePackLeader I am fully aware of why we went to
> Afghanistan you need not mock my intelligence with
> pithy photographs. You will note that in my
> second posting under this forum my first comment
> was the invasion of Afghanistan was just cause.
>
> Perhaps your reading comprehension or geopolitical
> sense is lacking, because as I wrote, if our
> intention is to go after Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden
> then this war in Afghanistan is lost. Bin Laden
> isn't in Afghanistan. Our war against the Taliban
> continues strong to this day and will never end.
> At what point do we say enough is enough. If we
> want to hunt Bin Laden down we should (and we are
> to a small degree) be in northern Pakistan.
>
> If we wanted to hunt all the perpetrators of Sept
> 11th, we should have invaded Saudi Arabia the vast
> majority of terrorists came from there. If we
> want to prevent future terrorist attacks either we
> make peace with Islam or we fight it on all fronts
> - and Afghanistan is a drop in the bucket (see my
> WW2 Netherlands analogy).
>
> Remaining with the status quo in Afghanistan
> solves nothing except kills more of us, sows
> greater hatred and costs us vast sums of money we
> can't afford to spend.


"Status quo" is the definition of failing to send more grunts into OEF. Full commitment needs to be given to the war, and the only reason we have failed to do so as of yet, is blatantly visible through the indecisiveness of our CIC, and the failure of certain individuals at understanding just what exactly is at stake right now.

ThePackLeader Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> "Status quo" is the definition of failing to send
> more grunts into OEF. Full commitment needs to be
> given to the war, and the only reason we have
> failed to do so as of yet, is blatantly visible
> through the indecisiveness of our CIC, and the
> failure of certain individuals at understanding
> just what exactly is at stake right now.

I say pull out (which is what your dad should have done dumbass). Fuck you and your win at all cost mentality.

ThePackLeader Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Status quo" is the definition of failing to send
> more grunts into OEF. Full commitment needs to be
> given to the war, and the only reason we have
> failed to do so as of yet, is blatantly visible
> through the indecisiveness of our CIC, and the
> failure of certain individuals at understanding
> just what exactly is at stake right now.

i agree that a "surge" of troops would be a good course of action if we could go into pakistan along side the pakistani army and utterly crush the opposition. however, a massive effort to find the gigantic weapon caches in afghanistan that are used to resupply the taliban would help a LOT. i think we need a lot of drones on autopilot looking for people traversing the border (and take them out) instead of picking people off inside of pakistan which has gone poorly. pakistan and the US need to coordinate their efforts in order to cauterize afghanistan and pakistan to destroy the taliban.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."