US/NATO Launches a 'Different Kind' of Afghan Offensive

[Nickdfresh]

http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2009/0907/helmand_0704.jpg
Why Obama's Afghan War is Different
By Aryn Baker / KABUL Sunday, Jul. 05, 2009
Marines take cover as a 500 lb bomb explodes on a compound after the Marines took two days of enemy fire from the position on July 3, 2009 in Main Poshteh, Afghanistan.
Joe Raedle / Getty

So far, so good in the first major offensive of President Barack Obama's war in Afghanistan. For the past four days, 4,000 U.S. Marines and 650 Afghan soldiers have been fighting their way into the southern reaches of Afghanistan's Helmand River Valley, hoping to clear out insurgents there. But other than one limited area of fierce resistance, the fighting has generally been limited to small-scale skirmishes in which few Taliban have been killed, because most of the insurgents appear to have slipped away — as guerrillas tend to do when confronted by overwhelming firepower. More important to U.S. goals, however, is that no civilians have been hurt, because the purpose of the operation is to secure the local population against the Taliban.

Even though he says it's too early to predict success, General Stanley McChrystal, the new commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, is satisfied that the Helmand mission is moving in the right direction. "The operations are not aimed at the enemy force; they are aimed at taking away the population from the enemy," he told TIME. "What we are trying to do is change the dynamics in the area where we are operating." In order to do that, Marines are leaving their armored Humvees and sitting down with village elders and tribal leaders to assess their needs, and assuring them that this time, the Americans will be sticking around. (See pictures of the new U.S. offensive.)

Operation Khanjar — Pashto for "dagger" — is the first test of the Obama Administration's new strategy for Afghanistan. No longer treated as a secondary concern to Iraq, the Afghanistan theater will have been by 17,000 more American soldiers by this fall. And under McChrystal, they'll be waging a different kind of war. Limited troop availability in the past meant that while NATO forces could clear an area of insurgents, they had been unable to hold the terrain. Now, the plan is for the Marines to set up combat posts in villages to provide the residents with lasting security. Still, some Afghans are skeptical. "I hope this operation gives a positive result," says Haji Nimatullah, a businessman in Lashkar Gah, the capital of Helmand province, by telephone. "But I am not optimistic. [These] operations are like the cat-and-mouse cartoon where the mouse escapes when the cat attacks, but when the cat is gone the mouse comes back and starts again." (See pictures of challenges British troops were facing in Helmand in 2008.)

But the U.S. forces are aware of the danger cited by Nimatullah. "What makes Operation Khanjar different from those that have occurred before is the massive size of the force introduced, the speed at which it will insert, and the fact that where we go we will stay, and where we stay, we will hold, build and work toward transition of all security responsibilities to Afghan forces," said Brigadier General Larry Nicholson, the Marine Commander, in a statement.

So far, only one Marine has been killed, and several have been wounded. (In eastern Afghanistan a U.S. soldier appears to have been captured by the Taliban, in an event unrelated to the Helmand operation.) Casualty figures are likely to rise, however, because the Taliban, having declined to go toe-to-toe with the Marines and instead melted into the civilian population, are likely to resort to asymmetrical warfare tactics such as Improvised Explosive Devices. On Saturday an IED strike killed two U.S. troops in eastern Afghanistan, while another on Thursday killed two British troops elsewhere in Helmand. Stationing the Marines among the local population will increase the risk of such attacks, until the U.S. forces are able to win over residents through providing development aid and security. To do so, they will have to overcome deeply entrenched suspicions of American aims in the region, and resentment over civilian casualties inflicted during previous U.S. operations. "This operation will cause even more insecurity," says Joma Khan, a 32-year old unemployed man in Lashkar Gah. "Because when people lose their family members or their houses gets destroyed, then they join Taliban." (Read "Diplomatic Surge: Can Obama's Team Tame the Taliban?")

Aware of the danger, McChrystal has made the protection of civilians the central tenet of his new approach to fighting the Taliban, even going so far as to limit the use of aerial bombardment to the most extreme circumstances — a turnabout for U.S. ground forces that have grown dependent on air support. McChrystal has also declared in a soon-to-be-released tactical directive that soldiers should hold their fire if there is even the slightest risk of a civilian presence in the target zone. "Suppose the insurgent occupies an enemy home or village and engages you from there, with the clear idea that when you respond you are going to create collateral damage," explains McChrystal. "He's going to blame that on you. Even if you kill the insurgents, what happens is you have made the insurgency wider. You are going to run into more IEDs. You are going to run into more insurgents, [and] at the end of the day you are going to suffer more casualties."

The new directive will certainly make the fight harder in the short term, but already it is winning kudos from Afghans. "Already I am hearing a lot of positive feedback [about the Helmand operation]," says Afghanistan's Interior Minister, Hanif Atmar. "What was actually very well received and welcomed by the Afghan people was that [McChrystal] placed a bench mark for his success: He would like to measure his success in terms of how much he has protected the population, how much security he is providing them."

The Marines, however, are a temporary solution. They will remain in Helmand at least through the Afghan presidential elections slated for August 20, where they will assist the Afghan security forces secure polling places in anticipation of Taliban attacks. What happens beyond that, however, remains a question. "The military can help set the conditions for success but it is not sufficient for success," U.S. Ambassador, and former ISAF commander, Karl Eikenberry told TIME. "The military can help deliver security, but the military in and of itself cannot deliver a lasting peace, cannot deliver an accountable respected government, cannot deliver the necessary set of social services and sustainable economy that only the civilian side can provide for."

The next step in the new Afghan war will be a comprehensive strategy that helps the Afghan government deliver the stability that comes from economic opportunity and a working justice system that allows Afghans to benefit from those opportunities. That kind of strategy, however, takes far more time than a military operation and requires patience — both for Afghans and the U.S. administration that is footing the bill.

—With reporting by Shah Mahmood / Kabul

Time Magazine (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1908724,00.html)

[Va Beach VH Fan]

Wait a second.... NATO is still around ??

Who knew ?

[BITEYOASS]

http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2009/0907/helmand_0704.jpg
Why Obama's Afghan War is Different
By Aryn Baker / KABUL Sunday, Jul. 05, 2009
Marines take cover as a 500 lb bomb explodes on a compound after the Marines took two days of enemy fire from the position on July 3, 2009 in Main Poshteh, Afghanistan.
Joe Raedle / Getty


Ah, I remember building many of those bombs! :biggrin:

I regret nothing!

[Dolemite!]

This is no better than the sort of news we heard during Bush's time. This time it's working, now is the time we'll really find the wmd. Read about the general that said they let Ladin get away in 2007? I do think the US wants Afghanistan to be stable so they can run oil pipelines through it from Uzbek, but on the other hand some conflicts are designed to carry on forever; which it is perhaps is known only to a few. It's how you maintain order... the new world order is the only real issue. Everything else is propaganda.

A completely different offensive this time
Washington Post article, 19 Nov. 2048:

President Chelsea Clinton announces that the Afghan war might be over within the next two years and that things could not be better. It looks like having 50,000 extra troops might actually have paid off. Meanwhile as Afghans rejoiced at this news, a raid at a wedding party...

[Blackflag]

So much for ending the wars, I guess.

[Nickdfresh]

This is no better than the sort of news we heard during Bush's time. This time it's working, now is the time we'll really find the wmd. Read about the general that said they let Ladin get away in 2007? I do think the US wants Afghanistan to be stable so they can run oil pipelines through it from Uzbek, but on the other hand some conflicts are designed to carry on forever; which it is perhaps is known only to a few. It's how you maintain order... the new world order is the only real issue. Everything else is propaganda.

A completely different offensive this time
Washington Post article, 19 Nov. 2048:

President Chelsea Clinton announces that the Afghan war might be over within the next two years and that things could not be better. It looks like having 50,000 extra troops might actually have paid off. Meanwhile as Afghans rejoiced at this news, a raid at a wedding party...

WTF are you talking about?

[Nickdfresh]

So much for ending the wars, I guess.

He never said anything of the sort regarding Afghanistan - in fact he clearly stated he goes going to expand it as the central front in the War against al Qaida...

[Blackflag]

He never said anything of the sort regarding Afghanistan - in fact he clearly stated he goes going to expand it as the central front in the War against al Qaida...

Sure, why not? Plenty of money for more wacky adventures. I know China will be thrilled to loan us money for another 10 yrs. in Afghanistan.

Somebody needs to remind me how this guy is different from Bush.

[Nickdfresh]

He not as fucking dumb, and he realizes where we were attacked from on 9/11....

[Blackflag]

He not as fucking dumb, and he realizes where we were attacked from on 9/11....

Yeah, I heard that pretense the first time...when Bush used it... :umm: And, apparently, he is just dumb enough to think he can win in Afghanistan.

[letsrock]

Sure, why not? Plenty of money for more wacky adventures. I know China will be thrilled to loan us money for another 10 yrs. in Afghanistan.

Somebody needs to remind me how this guy is different from Bush.

there is no difference.

[Nickdfresh]

Yeah, I heard that pretense the first time...when Bush used it... :umm: And, apparently, he is just dumb enough to think he can win in Afghanistan.


We already did win in Afghanistan, then just ignored it and allowed it to fall apart...

[Blackflag]

We already did win in Afghanistan, then just ignored it and allowed it to fall apart...

You think Bush won in Afghanistan? What did he win?

[Nickdfresh]

You think Bush won in Afghanistan? What did he win?

I think the Northern Alliance drove the Taliban from power with minimal assistance from the US based largely on operational planning done before Bush was king...

[Blackflag]

I think the Northern Alliance drove the Taliban from power with minimal assistance from the US based largely on operational planning done before Bush was king...

Which got us...what? Which resulted in...what? You said "we" won in Afghanistan.

[Nickdfresh]

Which got us...what? Which resulted in...what? You said "we" won in Afghanistan.

It got us a "bestest country" sticker to proudly display on our nat'l book bag. It also scattered the Taliban and whatever constituted al Qaida effectively completely disrupting them and preventing any follow-on attacks...

It wasn't perfect, but it was done on a shoestring budget and the infamous "nation-building" that followed was completely botched largely because of Bush's obsession with Iraq and the Oil for occupation scandal...

BTW, what was your big alternative plan?

[Blackflag]

effectively completely disrupting them and preventing any follow-on attacks...

So, in defending Obama's action, you've actually adopted the position of the Bush supporters. How interesting.

:cincodemayo:

[Nickdfresh]

So, in defending Obama's action, you've actually adopted the position of the Bush supporters. How interesting.

:cincodemayo:


Well genius, you see, "Bush's position" was actually both Obama's and Kerry's "position." That we should transition out of Iraq and focus on the actual cluster fuck of a country that allowed Bin Laden and his disparate collection of ragtag fuckers to launch the 9/11 attacks. Most Bush supporters couldn't find Afghanistan on a map - mostly because it doesn't contain any oil wells...

I've never said anything different. I been saying that here since I started. That the War in Iraq was all bullshit about oil and using a national tragedy and atrocity to justify the seizing of oil in the middle east.

But thank you for distilling everything down the the most black and white, lowest common denominator and ignoring several years of statements core beliefs...

[Blackflag]

http://www.theshadowconspiracy.com/zine/canada/backpeddling.jpg

[Nickdfresh]

http://www.theshadowconspiracy.com/zine/canada/backpeddling.jpg

Oh, okay, dick. Please show me one response where I, or Obama for that matter, have said we should withdraw from Afghanistan...

You'd have to enter somewhere to have to backpedal out of it, fudge-junkie...

http://i524.photobucket.com/albums/cc329/all-in-flynn/TheStrawman.jpg

[Blackflag]

http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/4757/douche2zg.jpg

[Nickdfresh]

Don't hurt yourself. :)

[Blackflag]

Go to Kabul.

[hideyoursheep]

there is no difference.

Wow...that was well thought out.




:rolleyes:

[hideyoursheep]

So, in defending Obama's action, you've actually adopted the position of the Bush supporters. How interesting.


Bush had supporters?

[Dolemite!]

Same shit, yet another asshole.

[Nickdfresh]

Go to Kabul.

That would be cool, but I'm sort of busy...

[ELVIS]

He never said anything of the sort regarding Afghanistan - in fact he clearly stated he goes going to expand it as the central front in the War against al Qaida...

WRONG

What Obama clearly stated was that winning in Afghanistan will "allow us to free up resources that will make us safer here at home."

Whatever that means...


:elvis:

[Nickdfresh]

WRONG

What Obama clearly stated was that winning in Afghanistan will "allow us to free up resources that will make us safer here at home."

Whatever that means...


:elvis:

Um, did you actually read my post?

[ELVIS]

Of course...

You said Al-Qaeda. The article you posted talks about Taliban and insurgents. Which is it ??

[Nickdfresh]

Of course...

You said Al-Qaeda. The article you posted talks about Taliban and insurgents. Which is it ??

Which came first, the chicken of the egg?

[ELVIS]

You mean when did the "brand name" Al-Qaeda come about ??

Late 80's I think...

The Taliban which is a Sunni Islamist political movement (at least I can define what it is) that came about in the 90's...


Neither chicken or egg...

[Blackflag]

Don't distract him with logic... I'm still waiting for him to tell me what we "won" in Afghanistan.

[Blackflag]

And, this doesn't have anything to do with the topic...I just really like the picture:

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20090706/capt.12db7f09c5dd41a1acaa6270dc28d014.people_dewit t_la101.jpg?x=275&y=345&q=85&sig=V68xKBqjms_BNagjU40aBA--

[Nickdfresh]

And, this doesn't have anything to do with the topic...I just really like the picture:

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20090706/capt.12db7f09c5dd41a1acaa6270dc28d014.people_dewit t_la101.jpg?x=275&y=345&q=85&sig=V68xKBqjms_BNagjU40aBA--

That would be the running theme of about 90% of your posts...



Don't distract him with logic... I'm still waiting for him to tell me what we "won" in Afghanistan.

And I'm still waiting for you to stop pissing yourself with fake statistics, strawman arguments, and argumentum ad hominem...

[hideyoursheep]

And, this doesn't have anything to do with the topic...I just really like the picture:

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20090706/capt.12db7f09c5dd41a1acaa6270dc28d014.people_dewit t_la101.jpg?x=275&y=345&q=85&sig=V68xKBqjms_BNagjU40aBA--


You were busted for prostitution again?

:blow:

[ELVIS]

I don't think you understand the climate change argument never mind the proof.

Proof of what, exactly ??

And I do understand the argument...Among the many sources of CO2production, humans exhale it and plants use it to produce Oxygen through photosynthesis...and I know this a simplification, but it's to make the following points...

There's a part of the argument thats gaining some traction in the scientific community, and that is - one of the best-kept secrets in the global warming debate is that the plant life of the planet would benefit greatly from a higher level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere...

There is a lot of scientific evidence that shows that if CO2 were to rise above its current ambient level of 360 parts per million, most plants would grow faster and larger because of more efficient photosynthesis and a reduction in water loss. There would also be many other benefits for plants, among them greater resistance to temperature extremes and other forms of stress, better growth at low light intensities, improved root/top ratios, less injury from air pollutants, and more nutrients in the soil as a result of more extensive nitrogen fixation...

In addition...

Greenhouse farmers have been adding carbon dioxide to their greenhouses to raise the yields of vegetables, flowers, and ornamental plants. And for decades, it has been well known among botanists, biochemists, agriculturalists, and foresters that a shortage of carbon dioxide is the most common limiting factor preventing photosynthesis from proceeding more efficiently...

So, my point is that an increase in CO2 results in greener, healthier, faster growing crops with a high and consistant...


Peace!

:elvis:

[Seshmeister]

Did you see this in a recent peer reviewed journal?

Because it was disproved back in 2002 by a big study at Stanford.

Climate change surprise: High carbon dioxide levels can retard plant growth, study reveals : 12/02 (http://news.stanford.edu/pr/02/jasperplots124.html)


"Most studies have looked at the effects of CO2 on plants in pots or on very simple ecosystems and concluded that plants are going to grow faster in the future," said Field, co-author of the Science study. "We got exactly the same results when we applied CO2 alone, but when we factored in realistic treatments -- warming, changes in nitrogen deposition, changes in precipitation -- growth was actually suppressed."

Anyway does it matter if the cacti in the new deserts of Lousiana grow a little bigger?

[ELVIS]

Anyway does it matter if the cacti in the new deserts of Lousiana grow a little bigger?

Yes, because it's a source of healthy water for many animals...

And, yes I read it from different reports and papers. Two of which I had saved and read several times...but the paper you tried to debunk it with could also be used to argue against "climate change" in general...

How about ice core samples Antarctica ??

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png


:elvis:

[letsrock]

what does the red, green and blue represent?

[Seshmeister]

420,000 years of atmospheric history revealed by the Vostok ice core, Antarctica.

Paris, June 3, 1999



French, Russian and American researchers have measured the temperature, the aerosol and greenhouse gas concentration and various other climate and environmental parameters over the last four climate cycles. The results confirm the idea that climate variations are caused by the Earth’s orbital changes and to a large extent amplified by greenhouse gases. The high concentrations of greenhouse gases, unprecedented in the past 420,000 years, underscore their role in the possible warming of the planet’s climate. This study was published in Nature by 19 researchers from three participating countries. They include thirteen glaciologists and climatologists from CNRS laboratories in Grenoble and the joint CEA-CNRS unit in Saclay (1).

The 3,623 meters of ice core bored in Vostok, Antarctica, are the result of a 10-year collaboration between Russia, France and the United States (2). The Vostok site is considered one of the least hospitable on Earth, since its altitude is 3,500 meters and its average yearly temperature is minus 55° C.
The analysis of this ice core provides a record of the atmosphere during the last four climatic cycles. For the first time, researchers were able to establish, over such a long period, a simultaneous record of temperature variations, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and oxygen proportions in the atmosphere, of the quantity of dust blown from the desert and aerosols from sea spray.
The climate and environment parameters show the existence of four major cycles, with a periodicity of 100,000, 40,000 and 20,000 years. During the four cycles, the atmospheric characteristics varied within rather stable limits, with a temperature amplitude variation in Antarctica of about 12°C at land level and 8°C in the troposphere. Between cold and hot periods, the greenhouse gas concentrations in the global atmosphere varied between 180 (ppmv (parts per million in volume) and 280 ppmv for carbon dioxide, and between 350 ppbv (parts per billion in volume) and 700 ppbv for CH4.
According to these findings, the greenhouse gas concentrations are correlated to the Antarctic temperature over the entire period under study, which confirms previous observations made for the last 150,000 years. This link also appears during the warmest interglacial periods, when greenhouse gas concentrations were at their highest (300 ppmv of CO2 and 750 ppbv of CH4). These values are nevertheless far below the level of present concentrations — 360 ppmv of CO2 and 1,700 ppbv of CH4. Such levels are unprecedented during the past 420,000 years.
Each of the four large glaciation periods was followed by a transitional interglacial period, towards the years – 310,000, -240,00, -135,000 and –15,000. The end of the glacial period was usually the coldest, and the transition towards a warmer climate took 5 to 10,000 years. In each of the four transitional periods, according to the analysis of the ice samples, the same sequence of events took place: the increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases (CO2 and CH4) was almost immediately (more or less 1,000 years) followed by the warming of the upper southern latitudes. And only several thousand years later, the Northern hemisphere warmed up and the ice caps that had formed massively merged. These findings show how the climate transmission system between the two hemispheres worked, and will serve as a basis for climate modelling systems.
The climate cycles, just as those observed for marine sediments, show the impact of the changes, however slight, in the Earth’s orbit on climate variations. But yet more has been discovered. Our warm period, which began 11,000 years ago, seems to be longest ever in 420,000 years. The sunshine variations are not significant enough to explain the amplitude of the observed climate changes. These findings confirm the idea, suggested a decade ago, that greenhouse gases, by amplifying the variations initiated by the orbital variations of the Earth, were also responsible for the glacial/interglacial changes. The actual mechanisms still remain to be determined.

(1) Climate and Atmospheric History of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok Ice Core, Antarctica, by Petit J.R., Jouzel J., Raynaud D., Barkov N.I., Barnola J.M., Basile I., Bender M., Chappellaz J., Davis J. Delaygue G., Delmotte M. Kotlyakov V.M., Legrand M., Lipenkov V.M., Lorius C., Pépin L., Ritz C., Saltzman E., Stievenard M., Nature, 3 June 1999.

(2) The project is supported by the Russian Ministry of Sciences, and in the United States, by the Office of Polar Programs of the NSF. In France, the project is coordinated by the Laboratoire de Glaciologie et Géophysique de l’Environnement du CNRS and carried out in the framework of a close collaboration between the CNRS/INSU, the CEA/DSM and the Institut français de recherche et technologie polaire in Brest. It is also supported by the National Programme for the study of climate dynamics of the European Commission, the Fondation de France, the Rhônes-Alpes region and the J. Fourrier University in Grenoble.

[Nickdfresh]

what does the red, green and blue represent?

Don't ask Elvis questions - he just posts this shit, he doesn't understand it!

[ELVIS]

Don't ask Elvis questions - he just posts this shit, he doesn't understand it!

I left it out by accident...

[ELVIS]

Yes, because it's a source of healthy water for many animals...

And, yes I read it from different reports and papers. Two of which I had saved and read several times...but the paper you tried to debunk it with could also be used to argue against "climate change" in general...

How about ice core samples Antarctica ??

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png


CO2 (Green graph)

Temperature (Blue graph),

Dust concentration (Red graph)


:elvis:


Satisfied ??

[Blackflag]

I can't believe you douchebags needed somebody to explain that to you. :hee:

[ELVIS]

420,000 years of atmospheric history revealed by the Vostok ice core, Antarctica.

Paris, June 3, 1999



Did you make that stuff up yourself ??

[Seshmeister]

I cut an pasted a summary of the research paper written by the guys that got your sample.

They thought it proved the opposite of what you did.

If you want to know who to trust with this shit it's quite simple.

Look for the word 'climatologist' which is what they call people who specialize in this stuff.

It's not rocket science...

[ELVIS]

Look for the word 'climatologist' which is what they call people who specialize in this stuff.



I gess hower merikin raidneck braynz caint figur out all dat smurt shtuff...

[Seshmeister]

Apparently not. :)

Find me a climatologist that says there is no link between CO2 and climate change.

Incifuckingdently can you not see a pattern between the green line and the blue one in your graph?

You are arguing one thing whilst completely proving the opposite. :)

[ELVIS]

Seems to me you were doing the same...

[Dolemite!]

What was causing Co2 levels to peak like that thousands of years ago?

[Seshmeister]

The illuminati global jewish conspiracy alien lizards?

[letsrock]

Satisfied ??

Thanks.

[letsrock]

Most charts have a key.

[ELVIS]

Blah...

[ELVIS]

The illuminati global jewish conspiracy alien lizards?

That's as good an answer as any...

[standin]

What was causing Co2 levels to peak like that thousands of years ago?

Here is a off the top of my head source for your answer.

The Danish revolution, 1500-1800: an ... - Google Books (http://books.google.com/books?id=38nsztf3FcgC&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=wood+crisis+1800&source=bl&ots=vqi8JxVBJe&sig=F7XTnES0iMEfRrP20126IS2TZiQ&hl=en&ei=MlJfSqzvJ9OJtgfM9bWCDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1)


Sorry, I can't quote from it easily.


During the time period of about 1000 yeas ago would put they time line at the early 1900's. Ecology, generally, moves slower than world events. It was during that grand era that the major deforestation happened for fuel and resource reason. Furthermore, there was no reforestation ethics or mandates.
It would take the ecosystem a flip or two to level out and recover to the next point (for good or bad).

[standin]

Those facts does not change the fact that I want to see the Antarctic ice caps gone, at least enough to see the Antarctica ground.

[letsrock]

How much ground is guessed to be there?

[letsrock]

New housing allotment?

[standin]

Let's Rock, your brutish ways are nothing new.
Same story, different person, and scene change.
It does not even matter at what level of presentation.
You are not incomparable, nor is your views, ideas or aura.

Simply because you will retaliate if ignored or disassociated, is not the reason you are not ignored or disassociated. A predator is a predator and each is handled in it's own way. Moreover, it shows your need of dogma (for good or bad). Don't fool yourself you are neither, angel nor demon, you are human. And no amount of refinement of skills changes that fact.

Had you been shown or learned what care and concern actually is, you would not have to prove to yourself time and over that care and concern is for you. You would know what it is and have it. And when you have it, no one needs to be sold on the idea that they care or concern for you. It will come naturally, not only through false or misleading propaganda (no matter what sort).

[letsrock]

Let's Rock, your brutish ways are nothing new.
Same story, different person, and scene change.
It does not even matter at what level of presentation.
You are not incomparable, nor is your views, ideas or aura.

Simply because you will retaliate if ignored or disassociated, is not the reason you are not ignored or disassociated. A predator is a predator and each is handled in it's own way. Moreover, it shows your need to cling to dogma ways. Don't fool yourself you are neither, angel nor demon, you are human. And no amount of refinement of skills changes that fact.

Had you been shown or learned what care and concern actually is, you would not have to prove to yourself time and over that care and concern is for you. You would know what it is and have it. And when you have it, no one needs to be sold on the idea that they care or concern for you. It will come naturally, not only through false or misleading propaganda (no matter what sort).

No idea what your talking about here.
If your having a bad day, sorry to hear that.

I asked simply "how much land is there".
So now i'm being a predator?

Interesting, i thought i was suppose to make this stuff up.

[standin]

I am not having a bad day at all. Good day actually...

Here is a beginning resource for you.

Antarctica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica)

[letsrock]

Thanks for sharing the info.

[Seshmeister]

Those facts does not change the fact that I want to see the Antarctic ice caps gone, at least enough to see the Antarctica ground.

At that point warming increases because there is no white snow and ice to reflect the sun rays.

In any case you will either be under water if you live near a coast or paying massive taxes to your government to build defences for yhose who are.

[letsrock]

according to the link that is above it will take thousands of years for the sea to rise 2 meters.

[Nickdfresh]

A few inches will pretty much flood coastal cities...

[letsrock]

Only if they are built like New Orleans, under sea level. But think of the Atlantic coast.
They are more than a few inches off the mark.

[Seshmeister]

according to the link that is above it will take thousands of years for the sea to rise 2 meters.

The wikipedia link?

[Seshmeister]

This is one of the happier ones...

Sea level rise from Antarctic melt less severe than previously predicted: Scientific American Blog (http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=sea-level-rise-from-antarctic-melt-2009-05-14)



Sea level rise from Antarctic melt less severe than previously predicted


A new estimate puts maximum global sea level rise from the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet at 10.5 feet (3.2 meters)—not the 16 feet (five meters) or more predicted in the past.

The latest research indicates that this massive ice sheet is unlikely to disappear completely, limiting the damage as it melts. Glaciologist Jonathan Bamber of the University of Bristol in England and his colleagues modeled the collapse of the ice sheet based on the relative likelihood of a given section vanishing completely.

Their work suggests only those parts of the ice sheet that are grounded below sea level or sloping downwards would collapse. Those parts of the sheet grounded above sea level or on bedrock that slopes upwards would remain in place.

If that theory holds, the maximum sea level rise in the next century would be nearly three feet (81 centimeters), the researchers write in Science.

The results say nothing about disappearing ice sheets elsewhere. Bolivia's Chacaltaya Glacier has already melted away. And Greenland, which holds enough ice to raise sea levels by 23 feet (seven meters), is shrinking. Change can happen quickly. Fossil coral and other records show historic sea level rises of more than six feet (two meters) in as little as 50 years.

Given that West Antarctica, where this ice sheet is located, is warming faster than the rest of the icy continent and gravitational effects from less ice there would change the Earth's rotation and boost sea levels from Boston to Jacksonville by as much as 23 feet (seven meters), residents might want to prepare for a more watery future.

[standin]

At that point warming increases because there is no white snow and ice to reflect the sun rays.

In any case you will either be under water if you live near a coast or paying massive taxes to your government to build defences for yhose who are.

I know, and I feel awful about having a want (a profound desire) to see that ground. Maybe, if I just got a significant soil sample from a bore that might satisfy me. In addition, most likely, I would be very concerned for those living close to today's era sea level. I do not think I would put my desire to see the ground of the Antarctica before whole cities and regions. Nevertheless, if it were to happen, they would migrate, recover, or go away.

Really, to get a solid ice clearing an event shifting the Earth's axis 67 degree would do nicely. In addition, that would clear the Siberian spot I want to see.

However, eh, science fiction, most likely an event will not occur for a partial axis shift.


:umm:

[hideyoursheep]

Bin Laden is in Antartica.


:lookie:

[Dolemite!]

Here is a off the top of my head source for your answer.

The Danish revolution, 1500-1800: an ... - Google Books (http://books.google.com/books?id=38nsztf3FcgC&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=wood+crisis+1800&source=bl&ots=vqi8JxVBJe&sig=F7XTnES0iMEfRrP20126IS2TZiQ&hl=en&ei=MlJfSqzvJ9OJtgfM9bWCDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1)


Sorry, I can't quote from it easily.


During the time period of about 1000 yeas ago would put they time line at the early 1900's. Ecology, generally, moves slower than world events. It was during that grand era that the major deforestation happened for fuel and resource reason. Furthermore, there was no reforestation ethics or mandates.
It would take the ecosystem a flip or two to level out and recover to the next point (for good or bad).



I thought that graph was looking at figures in the thousands, not a few thousand years ago.

Why do you want to see the ground in Antartica?

[standin]

Here's more complete data.
Note Ice Core Analysis is a new Field. The further back in time, means deeper samples and the less reliable the date is. Losing approx 10,000 consistently on a regular basis it is estimated, but not known. It is still being researched how to depressurize Ice Core samples for accurate time data. Furthermore ice is a fluid nature that conforms to its directional flow and pressures, such as shifts in the tectonic plates creating new pressures or releases.
That said~


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg

420,000 years of ice core data from Vostok, Antarctica research station.

Current period is at left.

From bottom to top: Solar variation at 65°N due to Milankovitch cycles (connected to 18O). 18O isotope of oxygen. Levels of methane (CH4). Relative temperature. Levels of carbon dioxide (CO2).

I favor the Antarctica, Dolomite.

[ELVIS]

Big enough for ya ??

There's a way (right there on the site) to change the size of that graph...

[letsrock]

Please make it bigger.

[Blackflag]

Please make it bigger.

Probably not the first time you've said that.

[Nickdfresh]

At the risk of getting this thread back on topic, an interesting Newsweek article By Ron Moreau (http://www.newsweek.com/id/208637) on the 'new' Taliban:


(5th para.) Yet while Taliban fighters are reluctant to be seen criticizing Omar in any way, they clearly imply that his deputy has a more modern, efficient style of command. Baradar is consistently described as more open, more consultative, more consensus-oriented, and more patient than Omar. Taliban operatives say he's less mercurial and more willing to hear different views rather than act on hearsay, emotion, or strict ideology. "Baradar doesn't issue orders without understanding and investigating the problem," says a commander from Zabul province who met with him in March and asked not to be named so he could speak freely. "He is patient and listens to you until the end. He doesn't get angry or lose his temper."

That's raised another question: whether the Americans and the Afghan government of President Hamid Karzai might ultimately be able to strike a deal with Baradar. His influence among the insurgents—and with Mullah Omar—is unmatched, and he's not as close-minded as many of the leaders in Quetta are. Back in 2004, according to Maulvi Arsala Rahmani, a former Taliban cabinet minister who now lives in Kabul, Baradar authorized a Taliban delegation that approached Karzai with a peace offer, even paying their travel expenses to Kabul. That outreach fizzled, but earlier this year another two senior Taliban operatives sent out separate peace feelers to Qayyum Karzai, the Afghan president's older brother, apparently with Baradar's approval, according to three ranking Taliban sources.

[The Elfoid_TFS]

Sure, why not? Plenty of money for more wacky adventures. I know China will be thrilled to loan us money for another 10 yrs. in Afghanistan.

Somebody needs to remind me how this guy is different from Bush.

Cleaning up your mess after you go to war is completely different to starting one. He's still trying to clean up America's mess there.

To ensure long term security in the States, the terrorists operating there have to be shut down. Furthermore, if they achieve peace/safety/security and look to be working for the people then it will stop the Afghanis joining terrorist movements - they'll be happy.

Plus, just about everyone - the UN, NATO, the EU, all the major powers - approved of the Afghan war. It was direct retaliation at a country that allowed a group of people to attack the USA. Though expense and popularity at home is a big part of why they want to stop going to war again anytime soon, another reason is to keep America popular abroad with foreign powers. Remaining in Afghanistan won't harm America's relations with the rest of the world, unlike Iraq which is a far more complex issue.

Obama has said repeatedly he wants to pull out of this war people claim...actually he's said he wants to finish it. That means changes in tactics, a more concentrated effort and more money spent on it to get it done and move on. Internationally and at home, America would not benefit from being seen to walk away and lose. They've already lost Iraq and no one'll ever believe otherwise, if they can save this state it'll not look so bad.


You think Bush won in Afghanistan? What did he win?

He was winning in 2003, but they moved on before finishing the job. Depends how you look at it. I'd say that's not quite winning, it's almost winning.


That's raised another question: whether the Americans and the Afghan government of President Hamid Karzai might ultimately be able to strike a deal with Baradar.

Heard about this on the radio yesterday. For now, we must keep fighting and keep talking. Thus far, the negotiators have been trying to convince the Taliban to stop fighting. Now it's recognised that an army that is perceived to be winning (or at least is far from losing) a war, especially one not afraid of the loss of human life, is not going to give up. The NATO forces have to get into a strong enough position, millitary wise, to have the upper hand in the debate, before anything can happen.

[Blackflag]

He was winning in 2003, but they moved on before finishing the job.

I didn't say 'when,' dickboy, I said, "what." Neither you nor Nickipedia can answer what it is you think was 'won' in Afghanistan.

[ELVIS]

In any case you will either be under water if you live near a coast or paying massive taxes to your government to build defences for yhose who are.

Sounds like you believe the BS...

[LoungeMachine]

I didn't say 'when,' dickboy, I said, "what." Neither you nor Nickipedia can answer what it is you think was 'won' in Afghanistan.

We invaded, conquered, and occupied an entire country which is still somewhere in the mid-nineteenth century technology wise......

Oh, and we installed our hand-picked puppet leader.....

Then we fucked up.

:gulp:

Mission Accomplished, I'd say....

[Blackflag]

So that's winning - occupying a country?

[LoungeMachine]

So that's winning - occupying a country?

They dont teach sarcasm in Yakima Public Schools?

:lmao:

moron

[Nickdfresh]

I didn't say 'when,' dickboy, I said, "what." Neither you nor Nickipedia can answer what it is you think was 'won' in Afghanistan.

I've describe my take several times, Blackfagitry, you're just too thick...and typically distill it down to a "black-and-white" bottom line, like most morons...

[Blackflag]

They dont teach sarcasm in Yakima Public Schools?

:lmao:

moron

Sorry, apparently not... And I went to Yakima Country Day School, for your information...where the upper crust of Yakima sends their brats...

[LoungeMachine]

Sorry, apparently not... And I went to Yakima Country Day School, for your information...where the upper crust of Yakima sends their brats...

Long Live the One Room Schoolhouse!!

:gulp:

[hideyoursheep]

Oh, and we installed our hand-picked puppet leader.....

Who is pulling the strings?

[Nickdfresh]

Sorry, apparently not... And I went to Yakima Country Day School, for your information...where the upper crust of Yakima sends their brats...

And them pull them out come harvest time...

[Nickdfresh]

Who is pulling the strings?

Iran or dope dealers, depending on which country...

[The Elfoid_TFS]

I didn't say 'when,' dickboy, I said, "what." Neither you nor Nickipedia can answer what it is you think was 'won' in Afghanistan.

My point was that the Taliban were on the run, they were being defeated and had control of no major regions of the country. While they still had numbers, they weren't actively making many attacks, were able to move far less freely, and had control over a meaningless amount of land. They won the battle, the reason they have been losing the war is because they declared the job done, shifted focus to Iraq and left the Taliban to regroup and reclaim power. With the media storm surrounding Iraq, even when the Taliban's renewed strength became obvious, the military continued to treat it as a second-rate threat when they shouldn't have. Probably didn't want to admit they'd said the job was done when it wasn't, to add to their already miserably tarnished record in the War On Terror.

I didn't check Wikipedia once just then, a lot of my knowledge comes from elsewhere. I'm new to this forum - you don't know me or what I know. And just because I disagree with you doesn't mean you should lower the tone and make insults - let's have a nice, friendly discussion like the mature adults I'd hope we can be, or fuck off kindly.


They dont teach sarcasm in Yakima Public Schools?

:lmao:

moron

Hilarious :P

For the record, I wasn't stating winning the initial stages was an achievement - when America went into Afghanistan they ate the Afghan forces for breakfast without any difficulty.

My point was that Blackflag said "what did we win?" and I was explaining that the war was won - the Taliban decimated. They disappeared for two years. The fight should have continued then, to track down what was left, but really when the Taliban returned in September 2003, it was a new fight and a new war. That war, NATO lost pretty shockingly. And with the media storm having shifted to Iraq by that point, not an awful lot of people cared about Afghanistan then - it was old news, and we had a new war to pay attention to.


I've describe my take several times, Blackfagitry, you're just too thick...and typically distill it down to a "black-and-white" bottom line, like most morons...

Replying to an argument with insults like that is fine, since you've attempted to offer a constructive discussion. Unlike BlackFlag, who in his first response to a post of mine instantly had such a feeble argument in his favour that he had to rely on petty insults to support his case. Which, when I'm a complete newcomer here, is pretty shocking. I don't meet people like that very often, I forget such lower echelons of society haven't been culled yet.

[Blackflag]

My point was that Blackflag said "what did we win?" and I was explaining that the war was won - the Taliban decimated. They disappeared for two years.

You lost once you contradicted yourself. Were they decimated? Because that could be construed as 'winning,' I supposed. But they weren't. They were allowed to "disappear." So, unless you plan on occupying forever, nothing was won. Unless you plan on occupying Pakistan, also, nothing was won. Nothing is ever won in occupation, as Iraq shows. There's nothing different about Afghanistan. You can occupy that place forever, and you'll still never win anything.

The only reason people want to think something is "winnable" in Afghanistan, as opposed to Iraq, is because they'll agree with whatever Obama says. And that's just fucking pathetic.

Dickboy. :fufu:

[The Elfoid_TFS]

I didn't say it was winnable. The chance has been lost now.

They were decimated. For two years they couldn't make any major constructive moves and were forced into hiding. I don't know how else you could define that.

I love how you've now changed the topic completely, and attempted to make it look like I think it's a winnable war, that I'm an Obama supporter (when I've yet to state any political views whatsoever, and believe you me plenty of people hate him even if plenty of people love him). You're telling me that occupation won't get 'us' anywhere, when I never said it would. You're creating all this, when I haven't said anything of the like. It is perplexing.

Nice attempt at shifting the argument to a completely different one where you know you can win it, but I saw the move and shifting to a topic where I agree with you isn't a wise move.

I give everyone a chance...from what I can tell, most people on here don't think I should give you one...I'll play your silly little game a while longer.

[Va Beach VH Fan]

Friendly bit of advice, Junior....

If you get offended easily, this is not the forum for you....

[Blackflag]

I didn't say it was winnable.


He was winning in 2003,

Douchebag.

[The Elfoid_TFS]

Friendly bit of advice, Junior....

If you get offended easily, this is not the forum for you....

I don't get angered, offended or upset easily. I just get disappointed in being reminded I'm of the same species as these rejects. They piss all over Darwin's theory of evolution by existing.


Douchebag.

"was" not "can"

You're failing beautifully here. If this wasn't my argument, I'd post an epic fail image here, hopefully someone else will.

[hideyoursheep]

You're failing beautifully here. If this wasn't my argument, I'd post an epic fail image here, hopefully someone else will.

He's collected all of them already.

Soon his av will be added to FailBlog as an example of fail.

[Blackflag]

Soon his av will be added to FailBlog as an example of fail.

Considering Obama's in my avatar, I'd say you're right.

[hideyoursheep]

Considering Obama's in my avatar, I'd say you're right.

Doesn't matter which one you use.....cock hunter.

I actually googled "The Biggest Loser" and all of your posts come up, along with NORAD's picture of your house.

Gimp.