Sick Wacko in the Whitehouse

[Ken Brown]

> There's a distinct difference in purpose, theoretically speaking,
> between "invading to control" and "invading to punish and destroy".
> 
> Your operational requirements are significantly different, so I'm
> told by several military folks I've talked to, none of whom attempted
> to play down the Afghan resolve, but simply pointed out that if we
> didn't care about "keeping it", we would not encounter (all of) the
> same difficulties Ivan did.

When we British used to run the biggest empire the world has ever seen,
we used to call them "punitive expeditions".

They never did anyone a bit of fucking good, except a few colonial
administrators.

Oh, and they never worked against Afghanistan. And still won't, for the
same reason. What happens to the Afghans if the US take and burn every
city, bomb every dam, every generator, mine every road? Just what has
been happening to them for the last 30 years, that's what. And Taliban
or worse for another generation.

The only way to change Afghanistan is to let the Afghans do it. And most
of the ones who could are in Iran now, the only country in the world
that helped them when the so-called west was supporting what became the
Taliban.

Bush II isn't behaving like Hitler, but like some British colonial
general circa 1825-1880

We have statues of them dotted around central London. So-and-so the
conqueror of Sind. Whats-his-name the hero of the Punjab. No-one now
remembers who they were, or anything about them, unless they happened to
have a city named for them, or become Prime Minister of some remote
colony, or die nobly surrounded by hordes of locals asking impolitely
for their land back.


Ken Brown