Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JF Quinnelly who wrote (14271)	10/28/2003 10:40:32 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793725

but I heard Afganistan is going swimmingly for the US according to Fox news. Trouble in paradise? Say it aint so! <gg>

To: JF Quinnelly who wrote (14271)	10/29/2003 12:20:03 AM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793725

But the problem is you only rent the warlords, you don't buy them. Eventually they tire of the game and go back to doing what they damn well please. What would you do about this? Bring more daisy cutters/ or sit in the sand and talk?

To: JF Quinnelly who wrote (14271)	10/29/2003 12:42:13 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793725

The hinterlands belong to the warlords, like they always have, no matter who ostensibly rules Afghanistan. That's right. The "Warlords" are really local Clan Chiefs. Afghanistan is a very wild place, and it will never be "Peoria." We keep our guys in Kabul or separate bases and slap the oppo down whenever they bunch up. I have had a running argument here with people who want to pour aid money into the place. Money down an Afghanistan rathole. It hasn't changed since Kipling's time. If you are wounded and left on Afganistan's plain and the women come out to cut up what remains, roll on your rifle and blow out your brains, and go to your God like a soldier.