USMC General: U.S. Forces To Remain in Afghanistan Past 2014

[figatova]

Originally Posted by marinemom

And, like the other quote I gave you, because the taliban did not think a muslim should be subject to a non-muslim court. Point being, the evidence didn't matter. The taliban wouldn't turn him over for the embassy bombings, and they weren't going to turn him over for 9/11.

The Taliban wanted Bin Laden tried in a court of law in Afghanistan. EXACTLY like you do with your troops when your refuse to have them tried in Afghanistan, Iraq or any of the countries you invade and only agree to try them in a US court and only when there's so much evidence and when it has gone to the press so you can't avoid it. Even then and more often than not you still refuse.

The only thing the Taliban was asking for is for you to provide evidence of OBL's link to 9/11 which like I said before you didn't have. Not even after the bombing of Afghanistan started.
Your response to the Taliban's offer was this:

"The president's message to the Taleban is very simple - it's time for action not negotiations," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said.

As the bombing started the Taliban even offered to extradite him and have him tried in a neutral country. Another offer which you blankly refused.

Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001...tan.terrorism5

The Taliban also offered to have him extradited even if you didn't provide any proof or evidence of his involvement. An offer which you also refused because quite clearly you weren't interested in OBL and only wanted to use him as the excuse to go into Afghanistan. Same bullshit excuses you used to attack Iraq.

New offer on Bin Laden

For the first time, the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden for trial in a country other than the US without asking to see evidence first in return for a halt to the bombing, a source close to Pakistan's military leadership said.

But US officials appear to have dismissed the proposal and are instead hoping to engineer a split within the Taliban leadership.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001...an.terrorism11

Originally Posted by marinemom

I'd like to see your source for that so I can see it in context.

On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_ter...sama-bin-laden

The political analyst also said that nonexistence of such evidence was confirmed by FBI eight months later.

“The head of FBI, after the most intense international investigation in history, informed the press that the FBI believed that the plot may have been hatched in Afghanistan, but was probably implemented in the United Arab Emirates and Germany.”

Larry C. Johnson, a former CIA officer who was deputy director of the U.S. State Department Office of Counterterrorism from 1989 to 1993, said in a Sept. 12 interview conducted by
Frontline
that there is no concrete proof that bin Laden is responsible for the USS Cole and the 1993 WTC attacks, but bin Laden celebrates those attacks and associates himself with people who are responsible for it.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/...1-attacks.html

Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban “turn [bin Laden] over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over.” He added, “There’s no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he’s guilty” …

Afghanistan’s deputy prime minister, Haji Abdul Kabir, told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US.

“If the Taliban is given evidence that Osama bin Laden is involved” and the bombing campaign stopped, “we would be ready to hand him over to a third country”, Mr Kabir added.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001...tan.terrorism5

Originally Posted by marinemom

There you go again, cleverly twisting words. We didn't just arbitrarily drop bombs to force the Afghans to topple their government.

“a British officer announced that the US and Britain would continue bombing, until the people of Afghanistan overthrew the Taliban… That was later turned into the official justification for the war.”

Originally Posted by marinemom

If we can't beat them, why don't they just take over the country by force? What you mean is we can't wipe out every last one of them. And you know what? I don't care. That will be an Afghan issue to sort out in the future. As I said a long time ago in this discussion, whatever they make of their country in the future is to their credit or their blame. It's their country. It's up to them.

The Taliban still control most of the country and have the support of the vast majority of the Afghan population.

Serious question. Not trying to curse or have a go at you but really, how can you be so arrogant?

You attack and invade their country, topple their government. Install a puppet government and give it billions of dollars in cash and weapons so it can stay in power against the wishes of the vast majority of the Afghan population and when it all goes tits up you say you don't care and that it's up to the Afghans to sort it out and they can take the blame for this mess?

You bombed the shit out of Afghanistan. You've killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Afghans that wait for it...they don't have a fucking clue what 9/11 is all about, they haven't even heard of 9/11. And to top it off if they try to defend their country and fight off your occupation you call them terrorists.

Survey Reveals 92 Percent of Young Afghan Men Have Never Heard of 9/11

http://forums.liveleak.com/showthread.php?t=84866

And you wonder why they fucking hate America and your troops.

Originally Posted by marinemom

No, it is a deflection. I don't know the first thing about Carriles and Bosch.

Of course you don't because no matter how many links I give you you'll just put your finger in your ears and go la la la la whenever reality doesn't conform with your view of your foreign policy saving the world, killing evil terrorists and protecting your freedom. You do exactly the same when we discuss Iran.
It's called willful ignorance MM.

Originally Posted by marinemom

You're all worried about whether we're hypocritical because you can cite something inconsistent or wrong that this country has done in the past.

Wakey wakey, I'm not talking about the past. I'm talking about TODAY.
And what I'm getting at is your (marinemom) blatant double standards and hypocrisy with the reasons you use in order to justify the attack and invasion of Afghanistan.
It's like your sense of entitlement knows no limits. It truly is like you do indeed believe the world belongs to you and you can do whatever you want with it.

Originally Posted by marinemom

So what? I don't care, Fig.

That's blatantly clear.

Originally Posted by marinemom

So the invasion of Germany and toppling of its government was not terrorism. It was justified. That's what you're saying. So toppling a government and invading another country is justified sometimes, and not an act of terrorism. At least we found one thing tonight we can agree on. Oh wait .....



No, it was neither ridiculous or childish. I wanted to know if you are absolutely perfectly consistent in every case, or if you have the ability to sift and weigh on a case by case basis.



So apparently that comparison was relevant, for that's what you said, and then you said something different about Germany and the Nazis. Apparently that invasion was OK with you. Which is not a bad thing, Fig. It shows that you can sift and weigh, and it shows that you think each case should be decided on its own merits. So do I.

So it's a matter of opinion if this invasion is OK, and that invasion is not OK.

And I happen to think the invasion of Afghanistan and the toppling was justifiable and necessary in our own self defense.

Oh, and btw,...

... my opinion is the right one.

Once again, which country/countries did Afghanistan attack/invade?

[Tinbuk3]

I look at all the the unrest there and what I see is the same thing many others here see.
The people there want social and political reform and economic opportunities and thats pretty much it.
But there is another side to this that many cant or wont see.
The extremist organizations are gaining ground there once again and all over the ME.
And if we are not helping them to achieve it then the extremist will move in to take it back once again.
The facts that the UN and Obama are losing ground there is telling in that they don't want to help those reforms and opportunity's for them plain and simple, it sticks out like a turd in a punch bowl.
They say they do but their actions and the results speak much louder to those who can listen.
So opinions don't mean shit without works to back them and that to is plain and simple.
There you have it take it and click it a few times maybe it will sink in but I ain't holding my breath.
click click.

[figatova]

Originally Posted by Tinbuk3

I look at all the the unrest there and what I see is the same thing many others here see.
The people there want social and political reform and economic opportunities and thats pretty much it.
But there is another side to this that many cant or wont see.
The extremist organizations are gaining ground there once again and all over the ME.
And if we are not helping them to achieve it then the extremist will move in to take it back once again.
The facts that the UN and Obama are losing ground there is telling in that they don't want to help those reforms and opportunity's for them plain and simple, it sticks out like a turd in a punch bowl.
They say they do but their actions and the results speak much louder to those who can listen.
So opinions don't mean shit without works to back them and that to is plain and simple.
There you have it take it and click it a few times maybe it will sink in but I ain't holding my breath.
click click.

When your country threatened to start bombing Afghanistan, the political opposition to the Taliban pleaded to your administration not to do it as that would feed support for the more extremist side of the Taliban and give the religious fundamentalists the perfect excuse recruit more support for their cause. And guess what? that's exactly what has happened.

[Tinbuk3]

Originally Posted by figatova

When your country threatened to start bombing Afghanistan, the political opposition to the Taliban pleaded to your administration not to do it as that would feed support for the more extremist side of the Taliban and give the religious fundamentalists the perfect excuse recruit more support for their cause. And guess what? that's exactly what has happened.

Works both ways .. no guessing.
We gave them a taste ...

[marinemom]

Originally Posted by figatova

The Taliban wanted Bin Laden tried in a court of law in Afghanistan. EXACTLY like you do with your troops

OBL was one of Afghanistan's troops?

Originally Posted by figatova

The only thing the Taliban was asking for is for you to provide evidence of OBL's link to 9/11 which like I said before you didn't have. Not even after the bombing of Afghanistan started.

In the U.S. a prosecutor needs enough "hard evidence" to convict a defendant in a court of law. If the police don't give him enough evidence, he doesn't even take the case to trial.

Proving beyond reasonable doubt is the standard set in U.S. courts. One of the most difficult cases to prove is conspiracy when the case is aimed at the top man in a criminal organization. Cases like that take literally years to put together. They usually entail arresting underlings, turning them into informants, getting them to testify against the next higher guy in the chain, arresting him, getting him to turn into an informant, and so on. The police eventually get court-ordered wiretaps and listen to conversations and do surveillance. By the time they're ready to arrest the top guy, years have passed. Common knowledge and hearsay don't cut it, even if everyone really knows that Don Corleone is the boss.

Clearly, an investigation like that could not be carried out against OBL. But some very good evidence pointing at him was quickly turned up. From Wiki:

Immediately after the attacks, the Federal Bureau of Investigation started PENTTBOM, the largest criminal inquiry in the history of the United States. At its height, more than half of the FBI's agents worked on the investigation and followed a half-million leads.[253] The FBI concluded that there was "clear and irrefutable" evidence linking al-Qaeda and bin Laden to the attacks.[254] The FBI was quickly able to identify the hijackers, including leader Mohamed Atta, when his luggage was discovered at Boston's Logan Airport. Due to a mix-up, the luggage failed to make it aboard American Airlines Flight 11 as planned. The luggage contained the hijackers' names, assignments and al-Qaeda connections. "It had all these Arab-language (sic) papers that amounted to the Rosetta stone of the investigation", said one FBI agent.[255]

Within hours of the attacks, the FBI released the names and in many cases the personal details of the suspected pilots and hijackers.[256][257] By midday, the U.S. National Security Agency and German intelligence agencies had intercepted communications pointing to Osama bin Laden.[258][25]

Furthermore, the president and the public did not see the attacks as a crime, but as an act of war, which it was. Few people in the U.S. were interested in pursuing whoever did this with a criminal investigation that had little to no chance of success using the criminal system.

Originally Posted by figatova

Your response to the Taliban's offer was this:

"The president's message to the Taleban is very simple - it's time for action not negotiations," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said.

Yes. What was there to negotiate?

Originally Posted by figatova

As the bombing started the Taliban even offered to extradite him and have him tried in a neutral country. Another offer which you blankly refused.

What other country would have taken him? Besides, Afghanistan was the host country. He was their baby, their responsibility.

Originally Posted by figatova

The Taliban also offered to have him extradited even if you didn't provide any proof or evidence of his involvement.

What they were trying to do was to get the bombing stopped and save their own skins, while, at the same time, trying not to turn OBL over to us. They would have liked to have sent him to some other muslim country - not to us - in the hopes that they could get the U.S. to stop the bombing while still allowing OBL to escape, or at least not appearing to have turned him over to the U.S. Basically trying to shirk responsibility for him.

The U.S. was not interested in having him tried under islamic law in an islamic country. It was our country that he attacked, not someone else's.

The U.S. was right in holding the government of Afghanistan responsible for turning him over to us or not turning him over to us.

Originally Posted by figatova

An offer which you also refused because quite clearly you weren't interested in OBL and only wanted to use him as the excuse to go into Afghanistan. Same bullshit excuses you used to attack Iraq.

Pfft. It wasn't much of an offer. It was an offer to place the turd into someone else's dinner plate. As I think about it, I find it kind of disgusting how the taliban government tried to manipulate and squirm their way out of this.

On the videos you attached, the first one alludes to what I was talking about at the start of this message about prosecuting a criminal conspiracy. The second one was Dick Cheney getting his names mixed up. He simply said OBL when he meant Saddam Hussein.
The third one and those quotes are related to stuff I've discussed already in this message.

Originally Posted by figatova

The Taliban still control most of the country and have the support of the vast majority of the Afghan population.

Oh really? You've asked them?

Originally Posted by figatova

Serious question. Not trying to curse or have a go at you but really, how can you be so arrogant?

That's just you projecting.

Originally Posted by figatova

You attack and invade their country, topple their government. Install a puppet government and give it billions of dollars in cash and weapons so it can stay in power against the wishes of the vast majority of the Afghan population and when it all goes tits up you say you don't care and that it's up to the Afghans to sort it out and they can take the blame for this mess?

It's just like with Iraq. They have had one year now of independence without U.S. troops on their soil. They have serious problems there too. They still have terrorism, and they still have serious political and religious division in their country. There continues to be tension between the 3 major groups there.

But on the other hand, they have not fallen into a 3-way civil war as so many predicted. Their oil production is up. Their civil police are taking over more and more area where the army is no longer needed.

I'm not going to look at the positives and take credit for them. Those are Iraqi accomplishments, not American ones. By the same token, it is up to the 3 major groups there to get along and accommodate each other, be fair with each other, and cooperate with each other. To the extent that they do, that is to their credit, not America's. To the extent that they don't, that is also theirs to own, not mine.

Now, coming back to Afghanistan, I feel no guilt about going to war there. But I don't want our troops there forever. Afghanistan is not my country. I want Afghans to run Afghanistan, and I want them to be at peace with us. My hope for Afghanistan is for peace and a better life for their people than they've had for the past many decades of war. That truly is my hope for them.

I see nothing wrong in hoping for the best for them ... peace and independence from foreign occupation/interference and more.

But it is their country. Peace in Afghanistan can only really be achieved by the Afghans themselves. Not the U.S., not anyone but them in the end.

Originally Posted by figatova

Of course you don't because no matter how many links I give you you'll just put your finger in your ears and go la la la la whenever reality doesn't conform with your view of your foreign policy saving the world, killing evil terrorists and protecting your freedom. You do exactly the same when we discuss Iran.
It's called willful ignorance MM.

I was being honest with you when I said I didn't know anything about Carriles and Bosch. What kind of debate partner do you want? I also told you, and I'll say again, that I don't agree with everything my government does. Nevertheless, everything it does should be judged on its own merits. If we're wrong on something, we're wrong. If we're right on something, we're right.

Originally Posted by figatova

It's like your sense of entitlement knows no limits. It truly is like you do indeed believe the world belongs to you and you can do whatever you want with it.

It's true! As a matter of fact, I'm on the phone right now telling my Marines to go get Tahiti for me.

[figatova]

Originally Posted by marinemom

OBL was one of Afghanistan's troops?

What difference does it make?

Originally Posted by marinemom

In the U.S. a prosecutor needs enough "hard evidence" to convict a defendant in a court of law. If the police don't give him enough evidence, he doesn't even take the case to trial.

And that's why you take those goat herders to Guantanamo. So you can bypass US and international law.

Originally Posted by marinemom

Proving beyond reasonable doubt is the standard set in U.S. courts. One of the most difficult cases to prove is conspiracy when the case is aimed at the top man in a criminal organization. Cases like that take literally years to put together. They usually entail arresting underlings, turning them into informants, getting them to testify against the next higher guy in the chain, arresting him, getting him to turn into an informant, and so on. The police eventually get court-ordered wiretaps and listen to conversations and do surveillance. By the time they're ready to arrest the top guy, years have passed. Common knowledge and hearsay don't cut it, even if everyone really knows that Don Corleone is the boss.

Clearly, an investigation like that could not be carried out against OBL. But some very good evidence pointing at him was quickly turned up. From Wiki:

No there wasn't. As admitted by the FBI, the CIA and Dick Cheney.

And no one demanded irrefutable evidence, you just made that up.
In fact the Taliban went as far as not demanding any proof at all.

Originally Posted by marinemom

Furthermore, the president and the public did not see the attacks as a crime, but as an act of war, which it was.

An act of war by who? You attacked and invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, neither of which did an act of war against your country.

Originally Posted by marinemom

Few people in the U.S. were interested in pursuing whoever did this with a criminal investigation that had little to no chance of success using the criminal system.

What few people in the US were or weren't interested in pursuing is irrelevant. Guess why? Because the world doesn't belong to the US and the world isn't just there so the US can do whatever it wants with it.

Originally Posted by marinemom

Yes. What was there to negotiate?

Did you not read ANY of my links? why should I bother?

-The Taliban agreed to an extradition as long as you provided evidence for such extradition.
-The Taliban did agree to an extradition to a neutral country and for OBL to be tried in a neutral country.
-Once the bombing started, the Taliban offered once again to hand over OBL as long as the bombing stopped and this time it didn't even demand any evidence to go with the extradition.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

ALL OF THE ABOVE WAS THERE TO NEGOTIATE AS STATED BY THE SEVERAL LINKS I POSTED ON MY PREVIOUS REPLY

Originally Posted by marinemom

What other country would have taken him? Besides, Afghanistan was the host country. He was their baby, their responsibility.

Saudi Arabia, your ally.

AS STATED BY THE SEVERAL LINKS I POSTED ON MY PREVIOUS REPLY

Originally Posted by marinemom

What they were trying to do was to get the bombing stopped and save their own skins, while, at the same time, trying not to turn OBL over to us.

How so? What would be the point of that when you could just start the bombing straight away? You're not making any sense.

Originally Posted by marinemom

They would have liked to have sent him to some other muslim country - not to us - so they get the U.S. to stop the bombing while allowing OBL to escape, or at least not appearing to have turned him over to the U.S. Basically trying to shirk responsibility for him.

And how would he escape when sent to Saudi Arabia? your ally, your proxy state, your client state, your best and longest standing ally in the Middle East, your main petrodollar state since Kissinger signed the deal.
THINK!

Originally Posted by marinemom

The U.S. was not interested in having him tried under islamic law in an islamic country. It was our country that he attacked, not someone else's.

By your own statements and your government statements you didn't give a shite about trying him, you just wanted to get him no matter the cost, hell, you invaded two countries under a pack of lies and the main reason for bombing the shit out of Afghanistan was to get OBL. What makes you think you could've not got him straight away if he had been handed over to Saudi Arabia or any Muslim country? I mean you've bombed the shit out of half the countries on that region without thinking twice about it.

Please, think before you reply.

Originally Posted by marinemom

The U.S. was right in holding the government of Afghanistan responsible for turning him over to us or not turning him over to us.

Really? like Carriles, Bosch and countless other convicted (not suspected like OBL) terrorists your harbouring TODAY in your country and which you refuse to turn over? So should the world apply your same standards and bomb the shit out of Washington, topple your government and kill thousands of innocent Americans in the process?

Originally Posted by marinemom

Pfft. It wasn't much of an offer. It was an offer to place the turd into someone else's dinner plate. As I think about it, I find it kind of disgusting how the taliban government tried to manipulate and squirm their way out of this.

Not one offer but three offers which your government acknowledged and blankly refused to even negotitate because quite clearly it wasn't interested in getting OBL and OBL was just the excuse for military intervention in Afghanistan.

Originally Posted by marinemom

On the videos you attached, the first one alludes to what I was talking about at the start of this message about prosecuting a criminal conspiracy. The second one was Dick Cheney getting his names mixed up. He simply said OBL when he meant Saddam Hussein.
The third one and those quotes are related to stuff I've discussed already in this message.

The videos provide the evidence you demanded. Go la la la all you want.

Originally Posted by marinemom

Oh really? You've asked them?

No, the Pentagon has and Congress has so a report was presented which stated just as much. I guess this is another wee bit of information you happily glossed over.

Afghan Taliban getting stronger, Pentagon says

A Pentagon assessment, while expressing confidence in U.S. strategy, says the movement has flourished despite repeated assaults.

...

The report, requested by Congress, portrays an insurgency with deep roots and broad reach, able to withstand repeated U.S. onslaughts and to reestablish its influence, while discrediting and undermining the country's Western-backed government.

...

The new report offers a grim take on the likely difficulty of establishing lasting security, especially in southern Afghanistan, where the insurgency enjoys broad support. The conclusions raise the prospect that the insurgency in the south may never be completely vanquished, but instead must be contained to prevent it from threatening the government of President Hamid Karzai.

The report concludes that Afghan people support or are sympathetic to the insurgency in 92 of 121 districts identified by the U.S. military as key terrain for stabilizing the country. Popular support for Karzai's government is strong in only 29 of those districts, it concludes.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr...fghan-20100429

Originally Posted by marinemom

It's just like with Iraq. They have had one year now of independence without U.S. troops on their soil.

False. The haven't had independence since you toppled Saddam and they won't have independence for as long as you control their government.

Originally Posted by marinemom

They have serious problems there too.

Orly?

Originally Posted by marinemom

They still have terrorism, and they still have serious political and religious division in their country. There continues to be tension between the 3 major groups there.

But on the other hand, they have not fallen into a 3-way civil war as so many predicted.

And the reason why they have all that violence is because you destroyed their military, their police and installed an alien government which doesn't reflect the reality on the ground nor the ethnic/religious reality.

Originally Posted by marinemom

Their oil production is up.

No shit! That's the reason why you went into Iraq in the first place, the oil wells were the first objective you sent thousands of troops to protect.
Just a reminder, despite your government's propaganda you didn't go into Iraq because of the 9/11 attacks, you didn't go into Iraq because of WMD, you didn't go into Iraq because of AQ, you didn't go into Iraq because of evil Saddam and you didn't go into Iraq to liberate no one. You went into Iraq to control oil production and oil trading currency just after you stabbed Saddam (your fuckbuddie) in the back and he decided to sell his oil in euros instead of dollars.

Originally Posted by marinemom

By the same token, it is up to the 3 major groups there to get along and accommodate each other, be fair with each other, and cooperate with each other. To the extent that they do, that is to their credit, not America's. To the extent that they don't, that is also theirs to own, not mine.

You attack and invade their country, topple their government. Install a puppet government and give it billions of dollars in cash and weapons so it can stay in power against the wishes of the vast majority of the Iraqi population and when it all goes tits up you say you don't care and that it's up to the Iraqis to sort it out and they can take the blame for this mess?

Originally Posted by marinemom

Now, coming back to Afghanistan, I feel no guilt about going to war there.

Of course you don't because you consider Afghans as subhumans and you see Afghanistan as a lesser country which America can do whatever it wants with, just like you see most other countries around the world.

Originally Posted by marinemom

But I don't want our troops there forever. Afghanistan is not my country. I want Afghans to run Afghanistan, and I want them to be at peace with us.

Shame you didn't think about it in regards to your country bombing the shit out of Afghanistan, toppling their government, spending billions of dollars in keeping that crook Karzai in power and killing thousands of innocent Afghans.
It should be blatantly obvious to you and anyone for that matter that your wish for them to be at peace with you and for them to run their country is not only laughable but would be probably met with a wee more than a laugh if you told this dribble to an Afghan that's on the receiving end of your warmongering adventure in their country. You seem to be living in a total state of denial.


Look I'm going to stop here because we're just repeating ourselves and we keep going round in circles.

I'll end with this though.

Think about your claim that you went into Afghanistan because the Taliban refused to extradite OBL, then think about the repeated offers, three by my count, the Taliban made in regards to extraditing and even handing you out OBL without you having to present evidence for an extradition order.
Think about how your government blankly refused those offers, think about how nonsensical that makes your claim.
You didn't believe the Taliban would've handed over OBL so you decided to send hundreds of thousands of troops into Afghanistan, have thousands of Americans killed in the process, have hundreds of thousands of Afghans killed in the process, spend trillions of dollars in your military AND ALL OF THIS JUST IN CASE THE TALIBAN WAS LYING ABOUT GIVING YOU OSAMA BIN LADEN? ALL OF THIS BECAUSE IT WASN'T WORTHY ACCEPTING AT LEAST ONE OF THE THREE TALIBAN OFFERS ON EXTRADITING BIN LADEN?

Do you realise how crazy that sounds?

Anyway, good talking to ya, I enjoyed this one but it has run its course as far as I'm concerned. I'll leave you to hug your flag and sing about fweedom and stuff

[marinemom]

Originally Posted by figatova

Anyway, good talking to ya, I enjoyed this one but it has run its course as far as I'm concerned. I'll leave you to hug your flag and sing about fweedom and stuff

Cheers, Fig

Time to get back to the farm anyway.