Comments on: Yes we can and no, they can’t

By: buddy larsen

buddy larsen — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 20:38:20 +0000

but, these admin people love crisis –they’re all Cloward-Piven people (did you know that professors Cloward and Piven were standing behind –on the stage i mean –Bill Clinton as he signed ‘motor-voter’?). Gen’l Petraeus needs to expand his strategic vision into places few commanders have ever been before, at least since the Thirty Years War, when personal armies and duchies flipped on whim and better offer.

Note that the three week market rally collapsed badly today, on O’s public beheading of Prince Rick of Wagoner. The traders reacted not to the firing, but to the intended signal sent in doing it so publicly. The signal the traders hear is “whim is coming”. Cloward-Piven. Crisis, upset, inability to plan, demoralization –all seem intended. Esp when one considers that had AIG been allowed to mark to model, as it was for the previous 70 years before mid-2007, the recovery would’ve started months ago, from a higher base, with far less ruin.

By: buddy larsen

buddy larsen — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 20:23:25 +0000

i wish i could laugh at Whiskey and call him a nutcase.

By: buddy larsen

buddy larsen — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 20:18:42 +0000

Got to nod along with Walt @ #5 –we’re dealing with hostage masters. Hostages are the notorious weak link of individual-worth peoples. Iran clearly but the Kremlin too –witness Georgia, with the high ground of Russian-occupied South Ossetia the site of missile batteries pointed down at Tbilisi. The Russians have as well as interdicted the pipelines further south, as they’re now on the south side of the mountains and an easy march away from cutting off Europe from fuel, should something displease them, as anything can be shaped into pretext, and now with Georgia a hostage, Kremlin can pick and choose if and when. Meanwhile, the west walks on eggshells, as always when the bad guys have the drop on your people.

By: veracious

veracious — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 19:40:19 +0000

Alex 19,

Totally… Pak either controls it’s territorial claims or it is by definition, no-man’s land; real simple.

By: SpeakEasy

SpeakEasy — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 19:18:37 +0000

Pakistan is the target. Afghanistan can wait. A true comparison of the two, logistically, shows only one true option. Securing nuclear weapons in the hands of extremists is compelling enough a reason to start. After taking control of Pakistan, and I mean full-out, overrun of the first order, Afghanistan can be engaged effectively with plenty of options. It is the only move that makes sense to me.(And that an opening move)

By: Alexis

Alexis — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:44:41 +0000

Either Pakistan will assert complete sovereignty over the Northwest Frontier or it will not. One or the other. If Pakistan is responsible for what happens in the Northwest Frontier Province, it must be held responsible for what comes out of there. If Pakistan is not responsible for what happens there, Pakistan’s claim over the Northwest Frontier Province is null and void.

It is critically important that we not allow al-Qaeda to hide under a Pakistani nuclear umbrella. It is also critically important that we not allow al-Qaeda to hide under the ambiguousness of Pakistani sovereignty. If Pakistan is truly interested in stopping the Taliban, it must do it. There is no room for excuses.

By: bear1909

bear1909 — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:18:24 +0000

I dont trust our ineligible foreign born commander in cheats. Afghanistan will be an unmitigated disaster: i predict 20,000 dead. And the little bitch will say that it was Bush’s fault for getting us involved in the first place.

70,000 troops in Afghanistan is sheer lunacy. the supply lines entrusted to Iran- are you shitting me?

By: Xena

Xena — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:23:17 +0000

One guy (Osama bin Laden) is tying down 70,000 US troops in Afghanistan looking for him? Strategic victory for al-Qaeda.

By: dan

dan — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:05:01 +0000

Habu – i think maybe some smallpox, preferably stolen from the former USSR, would be a better weapon? It’s probably true though: we’ve just got to kill a ton of the f-ckers.

Sorry, censor. This is the ancient world here, not the modern, and that’s how the modern was born. It ain’t our fault.

By: Jules Crittenden » About That ISI Problem

Jules Crittenden » About That ISI Problem — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:40:12 +0000

[...] housecleaning topping both lists, and holding back any payments until that happens. Discussion at Belmont Club