Comments on: No Mercy

By: Bob from Ohio

Bob from Ohio — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:51:02 +0000

According to the Christian Science Monitor:

“However, the actual impact of the war on the economy is different than in the past, largely because the US economy is so much bigger now. During World War II, some analysts calculate that the US spent as much as 30 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on the war effort. The Korean War, at its spending peak in 1953, represented 14 percent of GDP; Vietnam was about 9 percent. The current war, however, is less than 1 percent of America’s annual $13 trillion.”

So, I think Bin Laden (if alive) will wait quite a while for the spending to hurt us, let alone “bleed us dry”.

By: Purple Avenger

Purple Avenger — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:06:53 +0000

We need more troops there

How will you supply them? You need to look at a topo map of Afghanistan.

By: Bill Franklin

Bill Franklin — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 08:12:37 +0000

Do you think those men in that boat hate the US because of our freedom? More specifically, why do you think these men decided to join the Taliban? The standard right-wing response of “they hate our freedom” is an insufficient (and wrong) answer.

When the US stops focusing on these type of “whack-a-mole” killings and focuses on how the Taliban is financed and what motivates people joining the movement, then we’ll have a chance of eliminating the Taliban. But for now, this “war” will go on forever, because all it takes is three guys to decide they’re Taliban and boom you’ve got three more to kill. I think this is what Jim is alluding to by the popular movement comments. You won’t ever see a Taliban head of state sign a surrender document aboard a US carrier, officially ending the war between the US and the Taliban. They will continue to pop up as long as conditions allow for it.

Bin Laden actually wants us over there (Iraq and Afghanistan), burning up a billion+ a week, while the dollar falls to new lows against other world currencies and the price of gold keeps going up. The Taliban are spending 1 dollar for every 10,000 we spend. They know if they keep us over there long enough they’ll bleed us dry financially.

By: Gaius

Gaius — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 01:17:12 +0000

Help me out, Jim. Afghanistan is the essential war according to the Democrats. What, exactly, is your problem with it?

By: Robert B. Steely, MSgt, USAF

Robert B. Steely, MSgt, USAF — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 01:04:22 +0000

Thunderstruck = Helo Thunder!…

A most bodacious post from the mighty Jawa. You want some awesome news and some kick a** video? I leave you on Sunday night with this, again, seriously cool post. Enjoy!Exit Question: How exactly is this losing?Mullah Najibullah, You’ve……

By: Jim Martin

Jim Martin — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 00:26:19 +0000

Help me out here. Are you saying the Afghans defeated the Soviets because of their indiscriminate killing?
The Afghans have a long history of throwing out occupiers. Where does the combatant end and the civilian begin in a popular movement?

By: The Jawa Report

The Jawa Report — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 23:57:37 +0000

Mullah Najibullah, You’ve Been….Thunderstruck…

Our Boy kicking ass from the air in Afghanistan, The taliban can skean in but it’s a bit tougher to sneak out after their lame ambushes.Via The Telegraph: Smoke from the ambush they had just sprung on American special forces……

By: Gaius

Gaius — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 22:56:39 +0000

But Jim, the Soviets made no distinction between combatants and civilians from what I have read. Sherman did not advocate for war on civilians – but on the means to make war. He offered the civilians safe passage and US Army assistance in getting out. There is always the risk that civilians will be killed anytime armed opponents are shooting at one another.

By: Jim Martin

Jim Martin — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 22:44:08 +0000

It’s about time, but remember, the Soviets were as ruthless as an army could be. They won every major engagement yet they could not succeed against a popular movement.
We need more troops there, but none are to be had.