...but I brought some corn for popping.

(sorry, must be that time of year)

Arrrgh....WTF people...

Will anyone invade us and help protect our borders and give our poor humanitarian aid?

F$%# me we don't have money for this shiat.

Well of course they do.
They're the military.

/They're not going to suggest being replaced by the Red Cross.
//Job security and making career bones, how does that work?

PWNED by Bin Ladin.

oldernell: Well, the money we were spending in Iraq is now available, as are the troops who are now out, so, WTF, we might as well keep on going. Hopefully we can clean up In Afghanistan before the nopublicans decide to invade Iran. What's another trillion or so when you can wage another holy war.

Sure you can. If you use "should" in the moral sense, as in "You should eat your peas", it makes perfect sense.

People have gotten into the bad habit of using "should" in the predictive sense or normative or something like that ; i.e., "If I put gas in the tank, the car should start." Obviously, the car isn't bound by the moral "should" here.

But yeah, this should (moral) end well even if we can't say "this should (normative sense) end well."

Afghanistan: It's not called the Graveyard of Empires for nothing, you know!

I think we still have boots on the ground in Germany! Will this madness never end?!?!

2014 is when they are supposed to have the Trans-Afghanistan pipeline operational. I'm sure that is just a coincidence though.

November's loya jirga, a national gathering of Afghan elders, confirmed that Afghan leaders want a long-term relationship with the West beyond 2014,

So the American puppet government doesn't want their gravy train to end? How very surprising.

And America's most senior officers are making a big push to keep it going as well, without actually stating what is going on over there? The most compelling reason that they have to keep it going is that once the USA pulls out of there, the entire effort will be seen as a loss, which will cause the general public to closely examine the money poured into that wasteland. In a sane world this would directly lead to the cutting of military funding and endanger the main perque of the senior officers, consulting work for the military industrial complex and the news media. However, with the American news media controlled like TASS or PRAVDA, and the American Congress and President beholden to MIC lobbyists, I am no longer convinced that the USA government is sane.

Eisenhower warned us against this crap in 1960. The Powell document warned us about this crap in the 1980's.
The tail is now wagging the dog over there. Get the hell out of Afghanistan.

Bhasayate: Sure you can. If you use "should" in the moral sense, as in "You should eat your peas", it makes perfect sense.

People have gotten into the bad habit of using "should" in the predictive sense or normative or something like that ; i.e., "If I put gas in the tank, the car should start." Obviously, the car isn't bound by the moral "should" here.

But yeah, this should (moral) end well even if we can't say "this should (normative sense) end well."

...and that's all I have to say about the war in vietnam

Maybe the military figures "As long as we're flushing money down the toilet, let's give the troops something to do.". It's poor logic. But it might be their logic. Bin Laden is dead. What the fark else is there to do in Afghanistan? It's not exactly a vacation destination.

Someone's gotta protect the opium traffickers.

Bhasayate: Sure you can. If you use "should" in the moral sense, as in "You should eat your peas", it makes perfect sense.

Getting proper nutrition is now a moral issue?

trappedspirit: Bhasayate: Sure you can. If you use "should" in the moral sense, as in "You should eat your peas", it makes perfect sense.

Getting proper nutrition is now a moral issue?

Yes. Kids should do what their parents say because they know better, and it's their duty to obey (unless the parents tell them do something harmful).

What a joke. It would be funny if we (and the Afghanis) were not the butt of it.

Bhasayate: Sure you can. If you use "should" in the moral sense, as in "You should eat your peas", it makes perfect sense.

People have gotten into the bad habit of using "should" in the predictive sense or normative or something like that ; i.e., "If I put gas in the tank, the car should start." Obviously, the car isn't bound by the moral "should" here.

But yeah, this should (moral) end well even if we can't say "this should (normative sense) end well."

"Should" is the new "shall."

Bhasayate: trappedspirit: Bhasayate: Sure you can. If you use "should" in the moral sense, as in "You should eat your peas", it makes perfect sense.

Getting proper nutrition is now a moral issue?

Yes. Kids should do what their parents say because they know better, and it's their duty to obey (unless the parents tell them do something harmful).

Well now you are talking about following instructions and it has nothing to do with peas. So no, getting proper nutrition is not a moral issue. And you should obey your parents. doody

trappedspirit: Bhasayate: trappedspirit: Bhasayate: Sure you can. If you use "should" in the moral sense, as in "You should eat your peas", it makes perfect sense.

Getting proper nutrition is now a moral issue?

Yes. Kids should do what their parents say because they know better, and it's their duty to obey (unless the parents tell them do something harmful).

Well now you are talking about following instructions and it has nothing to do with peas. So no, getting proper nutrition is not a moral issue. And you should obey your parents. doody

Peas are morally relevant under certain special conditions. Basically, just about anything can be morally relevant under certain special conditions.

And, yes, little stupid kids who don't know any better should obey their parents, in many and various senses of the word.

GranoblasticMan: Bhasayate: Sure you can. If you use "should" in the moral sense, as in "You should eat your peas", it makes perfect sense.

People have gotten into the bad habit of using "should" in the predictive sense or normative or something like that ; i.e., "If I put gas in the tank, the car should start." Obviously, the car isn't bound by the moral "should" here.

But yeah, this should (moral) end well even if we can't say "this should (normative sense) end well."

"Should" is the new "shall."

It shall be that should is the new shall but it shouldn't.

2014?? BS. We're never leaving that place. I'll be going on short tours there in 5 years, guaranteed.

RFC
"MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" (new window)

trappedspirit: RFC
"MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" (new window)

What about modal terms, like "necessary", "possible", and "actual"?

Bhasayate: trappedspirit: RFC
"MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" (new window)

What about modal terms, like "necessary", "possible", and "actual"?

Shall I do the needful and researching the terms for parallel understanding?

Dr Dreidel: Bhasayate: trappedspirit: RFC
"MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" (new window)

What about modal terms, like "necessary", "possible", and "actual"?

Shall I do the needful and researching the terms for parallel understanding?

Yes. I like the needful for more and better understanding of the parallel understanding terms.

kindms

2014 is when they are supposed to have the Trans-Afghanistan pipeline operational. I'm sure that is just a coincidence though.

Which is why we're leaving Iraq now right? "We done stoled all the oilz so there's no reason to stay!!11!"

... your tinfoil hat is slipping

Degenerate Monkey: Someone's gotta protect the opium traffickersCIA.

/ftfy

kindms: 2014 is when they are supposed to have the Trans-Afghanistan pipeline operational. I'm sure that is just a coincidence though.

Really? Have they even STARTED building that thing?

Link (new window)

who actually thought the 0 would bring the troops back in the 1st place?

Back in '03, I called this. I said we were going to be in that country for at least another 15 years.

OnlyM3: kindms

2014 is when they are supposed to have the Trans-Afghanistan pipeline operational. I'm sure that is just a coincidence though.

Which is why we're leaving Iraq now right? "We done stoled all the oilz so there's no reason to stay!!11!"

... your tinfoil hat is slipping

Tinfoil hat ? No

Just completely cynical about the motivations to start shooting

maybe it had nothing to do with it, maybe it did, maybe it was just a nice bonus on top of attacking the Taliban. All we are ever told is it is for US interests. Funny how those interests are never explained. Usually along the lines of, We have a bunch of US multinational corporations doing business with 'X', that business is threatened by 'Y'. Next thing you know it is in the US global interests to eliminate 'Y'.

At least we went into Afghanistan for a good reason.

In early 2009, NATO officially decided to conduct their future construction efforts in the Kabul, Kandahar, Mazar-i-Sharif, and Herat bases on "long-term" sustainment models. Long-term in this sense means they plan to be able to use the facilities for 10 years or longer.
NATO is mostly run by Europe, which has generally been more pragmatic about the whole war thing than we are, so when a decision like that is made, I take it seriously.
People who have not been born yet will be funding and fighting this war.

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Wyalt Derp: At least we went into Afghanistan for a good reason.

To win vengeance against a guy who is dead now, and wasn't in Afghanistan the entire time.

If vengeance was the goal we would've stopped a long time ago and made acquiring Bin Laden and Omar higher priorities, plus we wouldn't have just offed Bin Laden.

We were attacked by a state protected and endorsed paramilitary force. A country is obliged to retaliate.

well, it's nice to know that Armageddon is well on its way

We should be getting out of Afghanistan, simply because the reasons we have to go in there have all been fulfilled.

The Taliban were harboring Osama bin Ladin, we asked them to hand him over, they said no, we said "or else", they still said no, and so we kicked the Taliban's ass. The only reason we stayed afterwards was because no one could find Osama, so there was no guarantee that the Taliban (who would probably return to power once we left) would invite him back in.

Well, Osama's fish-food now, so that worry no longer exists. The US is under no moral obligation to protect the Afghan people from the Taliban. If they want that worthless bit of real estate, who are we to stand in their way?

Of course, we know what a renewed Taliban rule would be like. Sucks to be an Afghan here, but hey--it was their fault they allowed these bozos into power in the first place.