Suspected U.S. missile strike kills 3 in Pakistan

This is not the first time, nor will it be the last. Obama, as chief commander of the US military, should be brought to the Hague! Instead he is being awarded the Nobel peace prize!

Dude whats with you and the yankees?
All you talk is about dead soldiers in body bags.
Do you have a bad experience with them or what?
Do you know what the talibans do to their fellow country men and women who refuse the sharia law? They beat them to death or shoot them in the face.
(Whatever you say, 8 December 2009 16:46)

Yes, you are right. Just these "yankees" were called "russikes" during the 1980-s. Hope your stance is consistent anti-Taliban. Because there is no "bad anti-American Taliban" and "good anti-Russian Taliban". Just "bandits and terrorists of Taliban".

------

I am not surprised that your heart goes out for these "poor" militants, whose "only" crime is to kill hundreds of their innocent countrymen by indiscriminated bombing.
(Joe, 8 December 2009 16:01)

Joe, these "poor" militants are actually "poor" bandits. The only problem I have: they are probably sons of "poor" militants who during 1980-s made it sure, Soviet soldiers return back home inside body bags.

I am glad, you are firmly on Russia's side this time and I can assure you about me agreeing with you, as rare as it happens. We aren't talking about double standards - aren't we?

lowe,

I am not surprised that your heart goes out for these "poor" militants, whose "only" crime is to kill hundreds of their innocent countrymen by indiscriminated bombing.

"I am not surprised that your heart goes out for these "poor" militants, whose "only" crime is to kill hundreds of their innocent countrymen by indiscriminated bombing.
(Joe, 8 December 2009 16:01)"

And I am not surprised that you conveniently forgot that all this happened AFTER the US invaded Afghanistan.

"Dude whats with you and the yankees?
All you talk is about dead soldiers in body bags.
Do you have a bad experience with them or what?
Do you know what the talibans do to their fellow country men and women who refuse the sharia law? They beat them to death or shoot them in the face.
(Whatever you say, 8 December 2009 16:46)"

Yes, I was talking about dead Yankee soldiers in body bags. And they and their families have no one to blame but themselves for voting in a too-clever-by-half government.

Ataman,

The Russian invasion of the 80's and the American intervention can not be put on egual footing. The INTENTION of the two countries was TOTALY different from the beginning. The intention of the Russians was to get closer to warmer sees (Persian Gulf, Indian Ocean..old Russian dream) and to incorporate Afghanistan into the Sovietunion as an additional republic. It was a naked old-fashioned imperialistic agression. The US intervention was limited in scope against a very dark Middle Age type regime harboring Bin Laden and treating their own people (specially women) in a way not acceptable in the XXI century.
I would have had no problem to be on the Russian side this time if their action of the 80's would have been humanitarian in nature.

Dude whats with you and the yankees?
All you talk is about dead soldiers in body bags.
Do you have a bad experience with them or what?
Do you know what the talibans do to their fellow country men and women who refuse the sharia law? They beat them to death or shoot them in the face.

I could write:

Joe,

The American invasion of 2001 and the Soviet intervention can not be put on egual footing. The INTENTION of the two countries was TOTALY different from the beginning. The intention of Americans was to get closer to Pamir and encircle Russia..old American dream) and to incorporate Afghanistan into their sphere of influence. It was a naked old-fashioned imperialistic agression. The Soviet intervention was limited in scope against very dark Middle Age type rulers treating their own people (specially women) in a way not acceptable in the XXI century.
I would have had no problem to be on the American side - if their action of 2001 would have been humanitarian in nature.


Unfortunately the phrase

"The Soviet intervention was limited in scope against very dark Middle Age type rulers treating their own people (specially women) in a way not acceptable in the XXI century."

is straight from Soviet propaganda book.
Now - why would I ever trust a phrase like

"The US intervention was limited in scope against a very dark Middle Age type regime harboring Bin Laden and treating their own people (specially women) in a way not acceptable in the XXI century."

That sounds straight from a Bush propaganda speech.

And the first part (white-washing own intentions) is 50-50 as well.

Let put it this way: Afghanistan under total US control or as 16th republic of Sviet Union would mean much better human rights, in particular of women. Much better infrastructure. Some corrupt-as-usual puppets or apparatchiks instead of "Allahu akbar" madmen.

Unfortunately, inshallah, they stuck with (worst of) "Allahu akbar". British had the same problem 100 years ago with them. Moghuls had the same problem before. Mongols had the same problem. Huns had the same problem. Persian Sassanid empire had the same problem. Tibetians, Chinese had the same problem. Alexander the Great had the same problem.

My gut feeling is, this won't going to work out good either. Dealing with these Pashtuns is simply a bad omen. We can't force-feed them with equal rights of women, high-speed rails, laptops with internet and universities. These are not of any value for them. Neither was the comfy Greek lifestyle from the time of Alexander the Great.

The big mistake of USA was that they did over-react in 80-s. Without USA things would be probably a half-success for Soviets and we would have a mildly corrupt "stan" today. Instead, USA did EVERYTHING to train a generation of very special madman in the hope, they will make the life of Soviets tough, but will stay loyal to USA. That idea not just proved to be an insanity: much worse, regarding Afghanistan USA now can't look straight in Russia eyes without blushing.

lowe,

I am not surprised that your heart goes out for these "poor" militants, whose "only" crime is to kill hundreds of their innocent countrymen by indiscriminated bombing.

Dude whats with you and the yankees?
All you talk is about dead soldiers in body bags.
Do you have a bad experience with them or what?
Do you know what the talibans do to their fellow country men and women who refuse the sharia law? They beat them to death or shoot them in the face.

"Dude whats with you and the yankees?
All you talk is about dead soldiers in body bags.
Do you have a bad experience with them or what?
Do you know what the talibans do to their fellow country men and women who refuse the sharia law? They beat them to death or shoot them in the face.
(Whatever you say, 8 December 2009 16:46)"

Yes, I was talking about dead Yankee soldiers in body bags. And they and their families have no one to blame but themselves for voting in a too-clever-by-half government.

"I am not surprised that your heart goes out for these "poor" militants, whose "only" crime is to kill hundreds of their innocent countrymen by indiscriminated bombing.
(Joe, 8 December 2009 16:01)"

And I am not surprised that you conveniently forgot that all this happened AFTER the US invaded Afghanistan.

Ataman,

The Russian invasion of the 80's and the American intervention can not be put on egual footing. The INTENTION of the two countries was TOTALY different from the beginning. The intention of the Russians was to get closer to warmer sees (Persian Gulf, Indian Ocean..old Russian dream) and to incorporate Afghanistan into the Sovietunion as an additional republic. It was a naked old-fashioned imperialistic agression. The US intervention was limited in scope against a very dark Middle Age type regime harboring Bin Laden and treating their own people (specially women) in a way not acceptable in the XXI century.
I would have had no problem to be on the Russian side this time if their action of the 80's would have been humanitarian in nature.

This is not the first time, nor will it be the last. Obama, as chief commander of the US military, should be brought to the Hague! Instead he is being awarded the Nobel peace prize!

Dude whats with you and the yankees?
All you talk is about dead soldiers in body bags.
Do you have a bad experience with them or what?
Do you know what the talibans do to their fellow country men and women who refuse the sharia law? They beat them to death or shoot them in the face.
(Whatever you say, 8 December 2009 16:46)

Yes, you are right. Just these "yankees" were called "russikes" during the 1980-s. Hope your stance is consistent anti-Taliban. Because there is no "bad anti-American Taliban" and "good anti-Russian Taliban". Just "bandits and terrorists of Taliban".

------

I am not surprised that your heart goes out for these "poor" militants, whose "only" crime is to kill hundreds of their innocent countrymen by indiscriminated bombing.
(Joe, 8 December 2009 16:01)

Joe, these "poor" militants are actually "poor" bandits. The only problem I have: they are probably sons of "poor" militants who during 1980-s made it sure, Soviet soldiers return back home inside body bags.

I am glad, you are firmly on Russia's side this time and I can assure you about me agreeing with you, as rare as it happens. We aren't talking about double standards - aren't we?

I could write:

Joe,

The American invasion of 2001 and the Soviet intervention can not be put on egual footing. The INTENTION of the two countries was TOTALY different from the beginning. The intention of Americans was to get closer to Pamir and encircle Russia..old American dream) and to incorporate Afghanistan into their sphere of influence. It was a naked old-fashioned imperialistic agression. The Soviet intervention was limited in scope against very dark Middle Age type rulers treating their own people (specially women) in a way not acceptable in the XXI century.
I would have had no problem to be on the American side - if their action of 2001 would have been humanitarian in nature.


Unfortunately the phrase

"The Soviet intervention was limited in scope against very dark Middle Age type rulers treating their own people (specially women) in a way not acceptable in the XXI century."

is straight from Soviet propaganda book.
Now - why would I ever trust a phrase like

"The US intervention was limited in scope against a very dark Middle Age type regime harboring Bin Laden and treating their own people (specially women) in a way not acceptable in the XXI century."

That sounds straight from a Bush propaganda speech.

And the first part (white-washing own intentions) is 50-50 as well.

Let put it this way: Afghanistan under total US control or as 16th republic of Sviet Union would mean much better human rights, in particular of women. Much better infrastructure. Some corrupt-as-usual puppets or apparatchiks instead of "Allahu akbar" madmen.

Unfortunately, inshallah, they stuck with (worst of) "Allahu akbar". British had the same problem 100 years ago with them. Moghuls had the same problem before. Mongols had the same problem. Huns had the same problem. Persian Sassanid empire had the same problem. Tibetians, Chinese had the same problem. Alexander the Great had the same problem.

My gut feeling is, this won't going to work out good either. Dealing with these Pashtuns is simply a bad omen. We can't force-feed them with equal rights of women, high-speed rails, laptops with internet and universities. These are not of any value for them. Neither was the comfy Greek lifestyle from the time of Alexander the Great.

The big mistake of USA was that they did over-react in 80-s. Without USA things would be probably a half-success for Soviets and we would have a mildly corrupt "stan" today. Instead, USA did EVERYTHING to train a generation of very special madman in the hope, they will make the life of Soviets tough, but will stay loyal to USA. That idea not just proved to be an insanity: much worse, regarding Afghanistan USA now can't look straight in Russia eyes without blushing.