Doonesbury by Garry Trudeau for July 12, 2013

An alternative (i.e not 2012) rerun:http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/1991/07/04Congresswomen Davenport talks with the refugeesMike

Global War On Terror

He called a faux journalist “Sir”?

Remember in Woody Allen “Bananas”, he asks the CIA guy which side we were fighting for. CIA guy says we couldn’t decide, so we’re fighting for BOTH sides.

American Foreign Policy

Afghanistan a major grower of Poppies used in the production of Heroin. Heroin being replaced by crack and cocaine and meth. Which are being produced by Mexican and South American drug cartels.With a little manipulation we could end up with a whole new meaning to the “war on drugs”.Could be interesting to watch the Afghanistan drug producers fight the drug cartels for market share.

“Hopenchangey Hubshi " ? Really? Is that dialogue? Constructive criticism? There seems to be an unwritten rule (or maybe it’s written somewhere; I really don’t know) that if you can come up with a clever “put-down” nickname, you win some points in some game to which only you know the rules. Can’t we at least pretend to be grown up? So there, I’ve said it…. neener, neener…

Political rant in 3…2…

“…what is a Hubshi?”

Means a person from Ethiopia. Tucci is using it as a disingenuous way to call Obama the n-word without actually saying it.

I just highlight and right click copy/paste to address bar

Susan – surely you could copy and paste the URL. In many browsers, double clicking on the URL, then a right click will select the URL and bring up a contextual menu to “go to ”. Or drag-select the URL, then right click to either copy or to bring up the “go to” option.

Most soldiers would address civilians generally as sir or m’am, because they’re trained to be respectful. Quite aside from the fact a lot of them would probably lean to conservative/Faux News perspectives anyway; the flag-waving ultra-nationalism sells well with many young men, especially those who enlist. More generally, many of those soldiers treat political antics and concerns as “above their pay grade” – and are more concerned with the day-to-day of staying alert, staying alive, and getting the job done. Of course, in this case, we have a soldier offering up a nuanced assessment of the situation, which doesn’t fit the Faux “rah-rah” perspective, so that’s the point of the gag – Hedley has no patience for nuance, just like his viewers/followers, and just tells the story he was going to anyway: Boom-boom. Terrorists dead. We win!

Yeah, mowing the grass never works. Especially in the middle of a desert!! Not much grass in the desert! The lawn mowers just kick up a lot of dust and sand, blinding and angering the local warlords!

at least the 1% are getting rich off of the GWOT. and that 34 million dollar base they just finished in Afghanistan, which won’t be used. at least teh Job Creators are getting rich, not that it trickles down. only urine trickles down from the Job Creators/1%. but when you vote Right or Left/Bush or Obama, that is what you get, peed on. that is why they call the 99% peons. lol

Typical Fox News. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

“The Taliban was the good guys back then, wby the heroic resistance-guys? — We supported them and we armed them”-I think the Taliban moved in after the locals drove out the USSR.

mow the grass??!I doubt that they have lawns The only thing they would mow would be hay.but lawns are pretty useless, really.

OK, just buy more heroin.

“Mow the grass” = cut them all down with sheer military might. No lawns harmed.

To Jack Butler: Dude, You need to look up the definition of “irony”; you will find one usage defined as “frustration of hope”. So, Sisterdame is closer than you are. Ironic, huh?

Obama’s right on target here: Get our troops out, even the ‘advisers’, and let A’stan stand or fall on its own. Tough love. Shrubby never should have put us there in the first place. He knew the history of the place (graveyard of empires) and did it anyways. What a moron. (‘moron’ has a specific IQ definition… look it up).The Yew Ess of Aayy has NO legitimate interests in that country. If we want little brass teapots we can get ‘em from India.’War on Drugs’ you say? Let ‘em produce whatever… It’s our job to stop the drugs at OUR border.

Is Karzai worth dying for?

BDS – Barack Derangement Syndrome?

The Taliban in general still ARE the good guys to a certain extent in the Tribal areas. It’s their leaders that sheltered OBL after he declared war on us, not them, and despite his leading them into a massacre at Tora Bora, many ARAB Taliban feel the same way. To the Afghani and some Pakistani Talib however he’s seen as more than a bit of a failure. At this point they’re fighting us because they disagree with us, not because of OBL, and being largely warlike to begin with their method of disagreement is to shoot at you.

The Taliban aren’t fundamentally terrorists, they just have much MUCH looser rules of engagement than we do, and consider civilian administrators and instruments of a hostile government to be legitimate targets, same as we did during WWII.

No, it’s not possible, not without killing the entire local Muslim population, including the Pakistani’s and Iranians. The Indians would love it if we tried however.

I said it in 2002 and I’ll say it again: the war will end when we pull out, “our allies” flee with our money, and the country collapses in flames. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and the next ones. We shall not learn.

Which one was that?

Because that would make sense, and that is a concept foreign to most conservatives.

“The Taliban was the good guys back then, we supported them and we armed them… That is ironic, isn’t it?

Not really – if you look at the recent history, you see that the US has embraced a good many tinpot dictators and other assorted despots.

You might call it a habit, but I think to be accurate, you’d have to call it a vice :-(

You know, it’s quite possible to win in Afghanistan."

Well, I suppose you are in good company. Alexander thought so, the Brits thought so, the Russians thought so …

I don’t think so. I think the result will be exactly the same for the US. and I think we can’t afford the resources to prove it.

Attacking Afghanistan, or dealing with them in any way beyond ordinary trade is foolhardy at best.

“You know, it’s quite possible to win in Afghanistan.”

Because warmondering is more profitable.