I will say, referring to your last extended comment to me, while stepping down from my pedestal of politeness, that it is one big piece of unmitigated rubbish.

I wouldn't presume to speak for Jebbie, but he might agree with the following: that after 9-11 - a sequence of direct attacks on U.S. territory - it was right and necessary for our military to position ships in the Arabian sea near Afghanistan as soon as they could get there (on an alert basis); that we should have signaled our intentions to take on the Taliban with precision bombing, as ground troops prepared to land for an assault; that the CIA, with the support of ground troops, should have pushed to find out as much as possible about al Qaeda, while we had some element of surprise; that we should have gone right into the mountains to see if we could get OBL and his men, breaking up his command and control, and possibly, while there, taking a hard look at Pakistan, considering the question of the status of its nuclear weapons.

I was okay with that, more so because OBL was taunting us, saying we'd never try to get him. I hope we gave him a few sleepless nights and made him at lease a little bug-eyed that we could get pretty close to his hideout, and quickly.

I was not okay with the sudden order to pull back from the mountains in Afghanistan, or to hold, while another order was given to prepare for an invasion of Iraq.

That never made sense to me under the circumstances, and I have opposed since almost everything that has been done in Iraq, somewhat on the level of sensibility you so pompously parade about.

So, reinforcing what I said to Sinnard: yes, I supported the action in Afghanistan. No, I opposed the action in Iraq, and oppose it today, except that we're there and have to patch it up somehow.

Also, as Jebbie has suggested to heru-ur - who presents himself as some sort of military expert - our presence in Afghanistan is not, strictly speaking, an occupation. It's fair to say we have occupied Iraq, but that doesn't appear to to be the case in Afghanistan.

The tragedy of the last eight years to me is, that after all the effort, good and bad, we're still faced with al Qaeda, sitting in its sanctuary between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and, we still may have to deal with Pakistan's nuclear weapons, if that government fails.

I'd like to think we could have settled al Qaeda's hash had we stuck to the first mission, and that we could have secured the weapons also.

That's my pedestrian take.

Good night and good luck.

Trying to be polite: You are a skilled dissembler.

ondelette

"If that doesn't sound like a war, then maybe it isn't, and we should talk about it differently. There are still some very bad people there, and they will need to be dealt with using force."

As usual you are full of it. "there are still some very bad people there, and they will have to be dealt with using force."

Were the hell did you learn to talk baby talk like that?

You are one of those wretched people who thought it was right to invade because somehow the people would benefit. You and you and are a f--king menace. You have absolutely no idea about true nature of war at all.

I was dead against the war on the soundest and simplest of grounds. You don't attack a whole country if you are only after one man and his followers. No military/police/security people would have ever come up with that idea. This was stark ravingly obvious. So, as they were going to invade it must have been for other reasons than were stated.

But another reason kept protruding in my thinking. That was those poor bastards were only beginning to get over the damage physical/psychological of the long conflict with the Soviets.

They needed time. Like PTSD victims the whole nation needed peace and quite.

But then along come a load of American sort of liberals who somehow think they have some God given right to meddle in other peoples affairs because they know better.

Get it through your thick head once and for all ondelette, you and yours are no more welcome there than a f--king airstrike. Its you not them that don't understand whats going on. People like you were stupid enough to think a war launched by Bush/Cheney had the Afghans best interests at heart.

I told you last week that British troops were on notice NOT to interfere if the saw women being beaten or stoned didn't I? That was government policy not their own.

The non serving war supporting liberal is not only a cretin to himself but a menace to whoever and whatever he touches.

Any psychologist will tell you that when men or monkeys feel powerless they pick on those below them.

Think about it. Foreigners who have invaded your country can at will kill from the air by jet or drone, but they the Afghans can't hit back. What do you think that does to men's minds?

That is what certain sections of the Tali are doing now by victimising women. And it is one of the many, many reasons we should have not gone there in the first place.

-- LondonLad

Above is the complete post from which you cherry-picked an earlier reply to "prove" you were reasonable and polite?

Please note the bold parts.

You are a fucking liar.

I'm sorry if I sound to dismissive but one gets weary. On the matter of logic. The current logic step on the long chain of supposed logical thinking to justify the Afghanistan war starts with the premise that war supporters refuse to even recognize let alone re examine.

When involved in an argument with a long chain of steps in logic its vital to always refer now again to the original premise as a mariner would his compass.

But oh no, fools throughout your country and fools throughout mine refuse to look at 9/11 in spite of no one having been credibly convicted or a credible explanation as to how the damned events were actually planned. We in fact know as little today as we did back in sept 2001.

But, tens or hundreds of thousands of people in Afghanistan and Iraq are now dead, lives ruined and their countries destroyed and cultures skewered by culturally illiterate and arrogant outsiders.

And some want more war even though what has already happened wouldn't pass a basic cost/benefit analysis. They want as it were an unlimited bailout. Bailout failed war by chucking more war where the last lot went.

Sorry, but I'm seriously bored by both those people and their defenders like you.

Dull thinking, its so unattractive, especially when it has blood on its hands and wants more.