PDA

View Full Version : U.S. defense bill would pay Taliban to switch sides



Blackflag
10-28-2009, 02:35 AM
U.S. defense bill would pay Taliban to switch sides - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091027/pl_nm/us_afghanistan_usa_taliban)

I busted out laughing when I read this, and I just had to share.

Go Barack!

hideyoursheep
10-28-2009, 05:35 AM
February 19, 2008

A Bush / Sunni Alliance Against the Shia?
Paying Insurgents Not to Fight
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

It is impossible to keep up with all the Bush regime's lies. There are simply too many. Among the recent crop, one of the biggest is that the "surge" is working.
Launched last year, the "surge" was the extra 20,000 - 30,000 US troops sent to Iraq. These few extra troops, Americans were told, would finally supply the necessary forces to pacify Iraq.

This claim never made any sense. The extra troops didn't raise the total number of US soldiers to more than one-third the number every expert has said is necessary in order to successfully occupy Iraq.

The real purpose of the "surge" was to hide another deception. The Bush regime is paying Sunni insurgents $800,000 a day not to attack US forces. That's right, 80,000 members of an "Awakening group," the "Sons of Iraq," a newly formed "US-allied security force" consisting of Sunni insurgents, are being paid $10 a day each not to attack US troops. Allegedly, the Sons of Iraq are now at work fighting al Qaeda.

This is a much cheaper way to fight a war. We can only wonder why Bush didn't figure it out sooner.

BlackFag Fails again... (http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02192008.html)

Nickdfresh
10-28-2009, 09:21 AM
U.S. defense bill would pay Taliban to switch sides - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091027/pl_nm/us_afghanistan_usa_taliban)

I busted out laughing when I read this, and I just had to share.

Go Barack!

Um, that's what we did in Iraq for "The Surge"....

It's called "counterinsurgency" and has little to do directly with "Barack."

Blackflag
10-28-2009, 09:56 AM
And how did that work out? When Bush did it, it was "lies" and "deception."

Now "it's called counterinsurgency?" Sure... :lmao

ELVIS
10-28-2009, 10:27 AM
LMAO!

Nick sucks dick...again...


:elvis:

bueno bob
10-28-2009, 10:57 AM
LOL...if there's one thing that'll convert a religious fanatic, it's cold, hard cash...

WACF
10-28-2009, 11:40 AM
LOL...if there's one thing that'll convert a religious fanatic, it's cold, hard cash...

Yup....

thome
10-28-2009, 01:42 PM
bueno bob; LOL...if there's one thing that'll convert a religious fanatic, it's cold, hard cash...


Yup....


FIVE

and

FIVE

P.S. Cause it shure ain't Women. I mean if some fine white chicks at a strip club before 911 won't get these, -Children of "The" Better God- to mellow out maybe some cold hard cash will.

P.S.S. Or maybe we could go blow thier fukking heads off, and coral some of them in Cuba.....oh wait, this works too.

Nickdfresh
10-28-2009, 02:21 PM
And how did that work out? When Bush did it, it was "lies" and "deception."

Now "it's called counterinsurgency?" Sure... :lmao

Now, that's a "strawman argument!" :) Because I said the military should do JUST THAT as early as 2005 here --and I was of course labeled a "terrorist sympathizer" by the then flock of Neo Con dickheads for saying that instead of trying to exterminate the Sunni fighters and effectively side with the Shiites in their civil war, we should make common cause with them against al Qaida and pressure the Iraqi Shiite militia gov't to accept greater plurality. Then after the Bush Admin allowed this as they ceded the running of the war to the "dissenters" (that were initially against it) and effectively let the counterinsurgency brains fight the war in a more sophisticated manner, the same Neofuckwits crowed about a "great victory." (which it wasn't, we could have done it from the beginning)...

It's part of acknowledging that you pacify people by delegating authority and resources to them, not by using massive firepower and attrition...

Nickdfresh
10-28-2009, 02:23 PM
LMAO!

Nick sucks dick...again...


:elvis:

You suck dick continuously, bedpan switcher...

Blackflag
10-28-2009, 02:45 PM
Now, that's a "strawman argument!" :) Because I said the military should do JUST THAT as early as 2005 here --and I was of course labeled a "terrorist sympathizer" by the then flock of Neo Con dickheads for saying that instead of trying to exterminate the Sunni fighters and effectively side with the Shiites in their civil war, we should make common cause with them against al Qaida and pressure the Iraqi Shiite militia gov't to accept greater plurality. Then after the Bush Admin allowed this as they ceded the running of the war to the "dissenters" (that were initially against it) and effectively let the counterinsurgency brains fight the war in a more sophisticated manner, the same Neofuckwits crowed about a "great victory." (which it wasn't, we could have done it from the beginning)...

It's part of acknowledging that you pacify people by delegating authority and resources to them, not by using massive firepower and attrition...

It hasn't worked in Iraq, and it won't work here. Not only is it pathetic to try and bribe your enemy to stop fucking with you, it's just plain fucking stupid and doesn't work.

Nickdfresh
10-28-2009, 02:49 PM
It hasn't worked in Iraq, and it won't work here.

Um, actually it did. It dramatically dropped levels of violence and has reduced US casualties there to almost nothing. What actually hasn't worked in the shitty Iraqi gov't, which is why we should leave...


Not only is it pathetic to try and bribe your enemy to stop fucking with you, it's just plain fucking stupid and doesn't work.

It's not that simple dummy. It's about reaching out and engagement. Read an actual book on what does and doesn't work (Fiasco by Thomas Ricks for starters). But dividing and conquering/carrot and stick does work. It's the only way to work at this point because we're not really their enemy, their Afghan competitors are. And furthermore the Taliban are not some monolithic movement where every commander/warlord is the same...

hideyoursheep
10-28-2009, 02:49 PM
It hasn't worked in Iraq, and it won't work here. Not only is it pathetic to try and bribe your enemy to stop fucking with you, it's just plain fucking stupid and doesn't work.

Gimme your lunch money, punk!

Blackflag
10-28-2009, 03:00 PM
Um, actually it did. It dramatically dropped levels of violence and has reduced US casualties there to almost nothing. What actually hasn't worked in the shitty Iraqi gov't, which is why we should leave...

You mean where 150 people were blown up on Monday? Occupation never works. It doesn't matter if you pay off one side, or install your own leaders. Never works.

And stop beginning sentences with "um," it's weak.




It's not that simple dummy. It's about reaching out and engagement. Read an actual book on what does and doesn't work (Fiasco by Thomas Ricks for starters). But dividing and conquering/carrot and stick does work. It's the only way to work at this point because we're not really their enemy, their Afghan competitors are...

It was your favorite president who said he wanted to change their society and not have the Taliban go back to their old insane ways. Now they're going to be our allies? Sure, whatever. That's not war, that's politics.

Blackflag
10-28-2009, 03:01 PM
Gimme your lunch money, punk!

Point your mancrush in another direction, buttpirate.

hideyoursheep
10-28-2009, 03:08 PM
Point your mancrush in another direction, buttpirate.

Aim your ignorance where I can't see it splatter against my monitor, Ass Helmet.

Nickdfresh
10-28-2009, 03:09 PM
You mean where 150 people were blown up on Monday?

Occupation never works. It doesn't matter if you pay off one side, or install your own leaders. Never works.

Of course, because we largely pacified the country, then withdrew from the cities and they essentially fucked everything up by marginalizing the Sunni militias and continuing to prevent a long term peace settlement...

Many Sunnis, including former insurgents, think more highly of Washington DC than they do of Baghdad...

And for all practical purposes, our occupation is limited with a gradual withdrawal out of the cities...

And occupation worked very well in Germany and Japan.


And stop beginning sentences with "um," it's weak.

That's because you're a philistine douche...


It was your favorite president who said he wanted to change their society and not have the Taliban go back to their old insane ways. Now they're going to be our allies? Sure, whatever. That's not war, that's politics.

He's never quite said as much, he's no more "my" president than he is your president. And you're a thick simpleton that sees only in stark black-and-white terms.

Nickdfresh
10-28-2009, 03:12 PM
BTW, I am not arguing for a "Afghan Surge" nor a continuation of the War there outside the strict US interests of killing al Qaida members and supporting the Pakistani military in their offensives...

Blackflag
10-28-2009, 04:41 PM
That's because you're a philistine douche...

So you actually type things like that as some misguided attempt to appear as an intellectual? That's illuminating.

Nickdfresh
10-28-2009, 08:57 PM
Illuminati actually, card carrying member since 1797...