heh the allies are *****ed [Archive]

honeybee

Mar 25th, 2003, 06:12 AM

Originally posted by plenderj
The US are extremely patriotic. They would defend their country with their lives.

Are you sure? I doubt it because they didn't expect the same patriotism from the Iraqis. Maybe if some country invaded the US claiming Bush was a lunatic war-monger, the anti-war protesters might join hands with the invaders in order to get rid of Bush. Not that it would be bad, but that wouldn't be too patriotic.

The way this war is being fought, I think the US will be slowly turning wars into business ventures...

.

Maven

Mar 25th, 2003, 06:36 AM

Originally posted by honeybee
Are you sure? I doubt it because they didn't expect the same patriotism from the Iraqis. Maybe if some country invaded the US claiming Bush was a lunatic war-monger, the anti-war protesters might join hands with the invaders in order to get rid of Bush. Not that it would be bad, but that wouldn't be too patriotic.

The way this war is being fought, I think the US will be slowly turning wars into business ventures...

.

I'm willing to bet that at the end of the day, your going to be making excuses why Saddam should HAVE weapons of mass destruction.

plenderj

Mar 25th, 2003, 06:38 AM

Originally posted by Maven
I'm willing to bet that at the end of the day, your going to be making excuses why Saddam should HAVE weapons of mass destruction.

I personally have no problem with him having chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
And don't say that's just because he's not pointing them at us.

We are quite close to the UK.
If somehow a missle managed to get past the myriad of anti-missle defenses en route to the UK, and a major UK city was hit, Ireland could be deastically affected.

We're already suffering because the Irish sea is the most radioactive sea in the workd because of the british dumping radioactive material there.
So we're close enough to be affected.

honeybee

Mar 25th, 2003, 07:51 AM

Originally posted by Maven
I'm willing to bet that at the end of the day, your going to be making excuses why Saddam should HAVE weapons of mass destruction.

I am willing to bet the US government will almost make it justifiable for Iraq to have WMDs and use them against the allied forces. :rolleyes:

.

honeybee

Mar 25th, 2003, 07:55 AM

Originally posted by plenderj
We're already suffering because the Irish sea is the most radioactive sea in the workd because of the british dumping radioactive material there.
So we're close enough to be affected.
In that case I wonder if it would add significantly to your sufferings....

.

plenderj

Mar 25th, 2003, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by honeybee
In that case I wonder if it would add significantly to your sufferings....

.

Probably would

run_GMoney

Mar 25th, 2003, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by honeybee
Are you sure? I doubt it because they didn't expect the same patriotism from the Iraqis. Maybe if some country invaded the US claiming Bush was a lunatic war-monger, the anti-war protesters might join hands with the invaders in order to get rid of Bush. Not that it would be bad, but that wouldn't be too patriotic.

.

That could be the dumbest post I've read yet. You really do know nothing about America if you think that we would rise up against our leader and support an invasion. The FACT remains, we ELECTED our president.. regardless of what you THINK happened in Florida. We want him there.

honeybee

Mar 25th, 2003, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by run_GMoney
That could be the dumbest post I've read yet.
Read the pro-war posts for a change. I am sure you will have to change your opinion :)

Originally posted by run_GMoney
You really do know nothing about America if you think that we would rise up against our leader and support an invasion. The FACT remains, we ELECTED our president.. regardless of what you THINK happened in Florida. We want him there.

And yet your government thinks the Iraqis would welcome the allied forces with "flowers and music" ? At least your president swindled his way to the presidency, Saddam probably didn't...

.

Maven

Mar 25th, 2003, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by honeybee
Read the pro-war posts for a change. I am sure you will have to change your opinion :)

And yet your government thinks the Iraqis would welcome the allied forces with "flowers and music" ? At least your president swindled his way to the presidency, Saddam probably didn't...

.

He just killed his way up the line :rolleyes:

run_GMoney

Mar 25th, 2003, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by honeybee
Read the pro-war posts for a change. I am sure you will have to change your opinion :)

A change of opinion regarding what? Again, America would not support an invasion to overthrow our president, as your original post implied. The last poll I heard had around 70% of Americans supporting the war. I wish I had a link or a reference to give you.

And yet your government thinks the Iraqis would welcome the allied forces with "flowers and music" ?
.

An obvious oversight, but it's how we were welcomed by many throughout Afghanistan.

At least your president swindled his way to the presidency,

Again, your OPINION of how GWB became president surfaces. The votes were counted, re-counted, re-re-counted by third, fourth, fifth and sixth parties including the media, Democrats, Republicans, hell the Whig party probably had a hand in counting those votes. The results never changed. You wanna talk about Gore winning the popular vote? Great, lets have a discussion of election policies and the electoral college. Fine with me. And mind you, this coming for a person that voted for Gore.

Saddam probably didn't...
Saddam, a president of and for the people...:rolleyes:

*EDIT* - http://www.msnbc.com/news/889855.asp

techgnome

Mar 25th, 2003, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by honeybee
Read the pro-war posts for a change. I am sure you will have to change your opinion :)
I'll give you that one.... but I've seen some really dumb posts from both sides.

Originally posted by honeybee
And yet your government thinks the Iraqis would welcome the allied forces with "flowers and music" ? At least your president swindled his way to the presidency, Saddam probably didn't....
You're right, Saddam didn't... he just eliminated the competition....
On the other hand, at this point, I'd rather have Bush than Gore at this point.....

And on another note (back to the origin of this thread).... form here it's only going to get harder.... as the Iraqis consollidate into the larger cities.... it'll be like backing a bear into the corner and poking hiome with a stick.....

Xanith

Mar 25th, 2003, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by run_GMoney
That could be the dumbest post I've read yet. You really do know nothing about America if you think that we would rise up against our leader and support an invasion. The FACT remains, we ELECTED our president.. regardless of what you THINK happened in Florida. We want him there.

I guess you havent read a lot of HB's posts in the past then :p

X

Shaggy Hiker

Mar 25th, 2003, 01:02 PM

The point about the re-counts is incorrect. During the election, only a few counties were ever re-counted. The Dems wanted that. The final count, as has been reported in various news media for months, so it shouldn't be too hard to find, was that a re-count of the counties the Dems wanted recounted would have meant victory for Bush. A re-count of all Florida counties (as the Reps wanted) would have meant a victory for Gore.

Gore would have won Florida if all the state had been re-counted. However, that's pretty academic now. I do find it humorous that if the re-count had been limitted to what the Dems wanted, the Reps would have won, and if the re-count had been the way the Reps wanted, the Dems would have won. That's a form of political intelligence.

I have also heard the 70% figure, but I find it highly suspect. Americans generally support their troops. I suspect that most anti-war protesters support their troops. Ain't their fault. However, whenever I hear that 70% figure, I never hear the question asked. Without knowing the bias of the question, we can't appropriately evaluate the result. You can't survey people on this subject without creating a bias. If the bias is pro-war, the result will be as we see. If the bias is anti-war, and you still see this high a value, that's really significant.

Oh, and just to start some arguing: Anybody who thinks you can survey humans without putting a bias into a question has their heads firmly lodged in their r****m.

run_GMoney

Mar 25th, 2003, 01:10 PM

Ok so we trust no polls at all. Judging from the people that I talk to, the conversations I overhear, etc. I'd say it's about 70% of the people I come across favor the war.

What can we use to accurately gauge the feelings of the American people? The numbers at anti-war protests? People only protest things they are against. So you won't see 100,000 people showing up to protest for the war. It's the same theory for consumer message boards. People come in much larger groups to complain about a product then to say, "Yeah it's nice. It works for me."

Shaggy Hiker

Mar 25th, 2003, 01:19 PM

That's a valid point. I have not talked to anybody who is for the war, but then again, I'm just a liberal scientist with similar friends.

There are plenty of pro-war protests, and they can turn out large crowds (like NY last week), but you are right, neither protest involves a cross-section of the people.

To properly assess a survey, you need a helluva lot better information than just the percent. With repeated surveys over time, you can compare survey to survey and get some view of the trend, but the actual value of any one survey must be tempered by an understanding of the bias in the survey.

By the way, I'm pretty much pissed off at the dumbing down of the news media. I feel quite strongly that these surveys are highly suspect, but that the television media will remove any information that could possibly help evaluate a survey. It may be that they are well done, but we'll never know. It's as if they think that people don't care. Most people probably don't care, but they don't vote either.

techgnome

Mar 25th, 2003, 01:23 PM

Statistics is fictional analysis of numbers... It's all in the questions.... Take the following senario: Call 100 people at random, ask for the eldest male. Ask the following question: "Have you stopped beating your significant other?" Force them to answer Yes or No.
It's meaningless.... unless by some freak of chance you do manage to get a real wife beater, most people will answer "No"... lt's not that they actually beat their wives, but they never started in the first place. Statistically, 100 of males surveyed beat their significant others....
You can ask the same question, two different ways, and get two completly different results from the group of people.
It's an art form....

techgnome

Mar 25th, 2003, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by Shaggy Hiker
That's a valid point. I have not talked to anybody who is for the war, but then again, I'm just a liberal scientist with similar friends.

There are plenty of pro-war protests, and they can turn out large crowds (like NY last week), but you are right, neither protest involves a cross-section of the people.

To properly assess a survey, you need a helluva lot better information than just the percent. With repeated surveys over time, you can compare survey to survey and get some view of the trend, but the actual value of any one survey must be tempered by an understanding of the bias in the survey.

By the way, I'm pretty much pissed off at the dumbing down of the news media. I feel quite strongly that these surveys are highly suspect, but that the television media will remove any information that could possibly help evaluate a survey. It may be that they are well done, but we'll never know. It's as if they think that people don't care. Most people probably don't care, but they don't vote either.
1) I thought the march in NYC was anti-war, not pro war.
2) I haven't heard of any pro-war "protests" :confused: somehow that phrase just doesn't sound right
3) Can you be anti-war, pro-troop?? I think I fall into this category, I don't think we should be there, I don't agree w/ Bush's decision, BUT, I do support the troops over there.

run_GMoney

Mar 25th, 2003, 01:27 PM

You know, it might not be such a bad idea to poll only the voting public. We're probably the only people that pay attention to polls without being swayed by their results...of course I'm generalizing the voting public but you know what? I can, because I vote.

Shaggy Hiker

Mar 25th, 2003, 01:30 PM

A pro-war "protest" followed the anti-war protest the next day. It was a few thousand, I think.

Considering the new meaning of the word protest, the Nuremburg rallies are now pro-nazi protests.

techgnome

Mar 25th, 2003, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by run_GMoney
You know, it might not be such a bad idea to poll only the voting public. We're probably the only people that pay attention to polls without being swayed by their results...of course I'm generalizing the voting public but you know what? I can, because I vote.
You know what, I vote too... .so I will too offer a generalization about voters.... they are apathetic.... unless the incumbant really screws up, and I mean REALLY screws up, that person tends to be re-elected. Can you say "Strom Thurman?" Hell, I vote that way sometimes too... I figure, "hell, he's been in there, knows what he's doing and things seem to be OK. Let'em stay."
I tend to only to do that on the more local elections where the money is scarce and you don't see a lot of campaigning. On a nation level, Congress, Prez, I take a more proactive view of things.... but, considering what I've seen at the pols (and over heared) people just don't pay attention.... a lot has to do with their nature, but a lot of it is the media, and the way campaigns are run sometimes.... I've seen the same issue regarding a cadidate spun both ways. The opposing candidate spun it into a bad thing, while the candidate's team somehow spun it into a good thing.....
Hmmm.... If A = B and B = C Then A = C ... If Statistics = All in how you look at it, and Politics = All in how you look at it; then Statistics = Politics.... odddly enough, that's not far from the truth....

Originally posted by Shaggy Hiker
1) A pro-war "protest" followed the anti-war protest the next day. It was a few thousand, I think.

2) Considering the new meaning of the word protest, the Nuremburg rallies are now pro-nazi protests.
1) Hadn't heard that... buth then I haven't been paying too much attn to the news either (I'm getting tired of the same old rehtoric).
2) :D :p

techgnome

Mar 25th, 2003, 01:46 PM

From Merriam-Webster ( http://www.m-w.com ):

Protest: (as a noun)
1 : a solemn declaration of opinion and usually of dissent: as a : a sworn declaration that payment of a note or bill has been refused and that all responsible signers or debtors are liable for resulting loss or damage b : a declaration made especially before or while paying that a tax is illegal and that payment is not voluntary
2 : the act of objecting or a gesture of disapproval <resigned in protest>; especially : a usually organized public demonstration of disapproval
3 : a complaint, objection, or display of unwillingness usually to an idea or a course of action <went under protest>
4 : an objection made to an official or a governing body of a sport

Protest: (as a verb)
1 : to make solemn declaration or affirmation of <protest my innocence>
2 : to execute or have executed a formal protest against (as a bill or note)
3 : to make a statement or gesture in objection to <protested the abuses of human rights>
intransitive senses
1 : to make a protestation
2 : to make or enter a protest

Maven

Mar 25th, 2003, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by plenderj
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1085007,00.html

http://www.yahoo.com/s/71061

Memnoch1207

Mar 25th, 2003, 04:46 PM

nice one maven....:D

Now who's ****ed? :D

MasterBlaster

Mar 25th, 2003, 05:25 PM

Jamie, BTW. Chances are looking good Saddam is gonna use Chem and Bio rounds on the coalition. I guess you'll finally get proven correct that VX gas and Anthrax really are not very destructive and shouldn't be called WMD's. :rolleyes:

Maven

Mar 25th, 2003, 05:53 PM

Maven

Mar 25th, 2003, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by Maven
Our forces can fight in that type of battlefield but it'll definitly get a few at the first of the fight. \

He'll end up killing a whole bunch of civilians if he lauchs it...

techgnome

Mar 25th, 2003, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by MasterBlaster
Jamie, BTW. Chances are looking good Saddam is gonna use Chem and Bio rounds on the coalition. I guess you'll finally get proven correct that VX gas and Anthrax really are not very destructive and shouldn't be called WMD's. :rolleyes:
Oh, thank you.... That has been the one thing bugging me, people classifying chem & bio weapons as WMD.... nothing could be further from the truth... there are three classifications there: 1) Chem, 2) Bio, and 3) WMD...
Chem <> Bio <> WMD
How ever.... it also depends, I guess on how you define "Destruction"... as Chem & Bio are designed for the destruction of life forms.... as opposed to collateral/structural damage.....

Maven

Mar 25th, 2003, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by techgnome
Oh, thank you.... That has been the one thing bugging me, people classifying chem & bio weapons as WMD.... nothing could be further from the truth... there are three classifications there: 1) Chem, 2) Bio, and 3) WMD...
Chem <> Bio <> WMD
How ever.... it also depends, I guess on how you define "Destruction"... as Chem & Bio are designed for the destruction of life forms.... as opposed to collateral/structural damage.....

A 50 pound container of Type VX can kill up to 2 1/2 million people. It does't dissipate quickly like the G family of checmial weapons as indicated by the V. If that isnt mass destuction then i do not know what is.....

nishantp

Mar 25th, 2003, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by MasterBlaster
Jamie, BTW. Chances are looking good Saddam is gonna use Chem and Bio rounds on the coalition. I guess you'll finally get proven correct that VX gas and Anthrax really are not very destructive and shouldn't be called WMD's. :rolleyes: In a way, it might be good if he uses chemical weapons against US forces. Hopefully civilians will not be in the area, but US troops alone are well equipped to to withstand such attacks. Mustard gas was first used in WW1 by the germans. Allied troops had little defence against it then (until they got masks), but it won't do much to allied troops now except pose an inconvenience.

It will also prove he has them. Personally, I think that is very important at this point. Of course, VX is another story. That could be much more destructive.

Maven

Mar 25th, 2003, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by nishantp
In a way, it might be good if he uses chemical weapons against US forces. Hopefully civilians will not be in the area, but US troops alone are well equipped to to withstand such attacks. Mustard gas was first used in WW1 by the germans. Allied troops had little defence against it then (until they got masks), but it won't do much to allied troops now except pose an inconvenience.

It will also prove he has them. Personally, I think that is very important at this point. Of course, VX is another story. That could be much more destructive.

I'm not as worried about him lauching any of the G family checmial weapons but I do worry about VX. If a tenth of one drop hits you, your dead, or if you inhale any of the fumes your deader then dead. So if he uses VX then he'll most definitly get quite a few right off the bat, he at one time had tons of this stuff. =(

Sarin I guess would be my largest worry in the G family but at least it does disipate quickly.

Anthrax is probably a nasty thing to have in the biolgoical family and if he was to launch small pox then we'd have problems with it too even here as it would spread world wide.

MasterBlaster

Mar 25th, 2003, 06:46 PM

I was being sarcastic. Fire off some VX gas in a sand storm and see how far it travels and how many people it kills. As far as troops being protected, yea sure they are if they can get their masks on in time. I wonder if they'll show the pictures of the puss and mucus piles laying around that used to be little kids on Al-Jazzera or CNN TV live? :mad: :(

Maven

Mar 25th, 2003, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by MasterBlaster
I was being sarcastic. Fire off some VX gas in a sand storm and see how far it travels and how many people it kills. As far as troops being protected, yea sure they are if they can get their masks on in time. I wonder if they'll show the pictures of the puss and mucus piles laying around that used to be little kids on Al-Jazzera or CNN TV live? :mad: :(

They'll have an extremely small amount of time to get thier gear on, soon as that stuff hits them its too late. Nother problem is VX can be colorless and odorless so it can kill you before you even know it was there..

Maven

Mar 25th, 2003, 07:15 PM

Type VX was discovered in 1952 in the United Kingdom. British scientist was doing research on perspective chemical agents being developed from insecticides. They discovered the most deadly and long lasting substance known to man. Soon after this discovery was made, the USA took over the large scale production of what had been codenamed VX. The USA traded its thermonuclear technology for the VX agent the United Kingdom discovered. The USA began manufacturing VX in 1961 until they stopped in 1968 when the plant was shut down. It was shut down because a testing accident of the nerve agent caused a large cloud of the agent to be blown towards a nearby town killing over 6,000 sheep.

The formula for Type-VX is CH3CH20-P(O)(CH3)-SCH2CH2N(C3H7)2. This agent can be found in two different forms: Liquid and Gas.

In liquid form the nerve agent is a good adhesive and once applied to a surface it is almost impossible to remove. It is colorless and odorless. The lethal dose of liquid form is a 10th of one drop. Once that comes in contact with any part of your skin then you will more then likely die within 1 to 2 hours. VX works by cutting off your nervous system. It binds itself to the enzyme that transmits signals and inhibits them which causes your nerves to become isolated and uncontrolled. There is an antidote called atropine which you can inject into your body and can possibly survive a lethal dose of VX. But for you to have any chance to survive you would need to get it into your system almost immediately. Atropine is a poison itself but once it comes in contact with VX it causes them both to neutralize.

In Gas form it is highly lethal and can be colorless and odorless. Soon as you inhale this gas, you’ll know. It works similar to the liquid but extremely fast as it will kill you within moments after exposure. The only way to survive this is to inject atropine directly into your heart. Even then your chances of survival are slim.

The V means that the gas is long lasting. It can literally stick around for weeks. Once this stuff hits the target, all will die in its path that isn’t wearing full body protection.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

One thing that worries me is that they are finding Gas Masks and recently they are reporting on CNN that they are carrying atropine. I’m not talking about our troops either, I’m talking about theirs. Pretty dangerous situation if you ask me.

nishantp

Mar 25th, 2003, 07:39 PM

What would be worse than Saddam using this stuff on US troops is if he used in on Isreal. Isreal would be forced to retaliate, and all hell would break loose.

Memnoch1207

Mar 25th, 2003, 09:48 PM

I would suspect that once the troops are in range they will be in MOPP 4, just as a precaution.

KayJay

Mar 26th, 2003, 02:56 AM

Question to all of you who wanted a war in Iraq, not those who are supporting your respective nation's troops, who at the end of the day, are just doing their job, a mighty dangerous one at that.

How many of you know the history of Iraq? The history of the Shia/Sunni conflict? The history of the Kurds' struggle? The history of Mesopotamia/Iraq as a 2500 year old civilization? 100 years for a 2500 year old civilzation is not history, mind U. Its still current affairs.

Another question.

The war, stretching my value system to the hilt, has only one justification. The US of A and its Co-alition partners are sacred to death of the purported WMD being targetted at their nations and families and friends and feel premptive stikes to remove any and all danger to their families and loved ones, right and necessary, be they half-way across the world.

Of course, on record, I am not convinced of neither the presence of sufficient quantities of the WMD (I may be stoned for saying so, therefore I'll cower as I'm scared for my life just as President GWB who has to be scared for millions of American lives, and admit that there are sufficient quantities of WMD. Ok ) nor the intent of Saddam Huessein to bombard the US of A, UK. Why do/did you think Saddam would attack the US of A and the UK before September 2002?

If the reason was not fear of mass murder of American and British lives, but to do the right thing, just a word of caution. The other party has its own sense of right and wrong. So please be careful as to your stated purposes for killing Iraqi soldiers and their families and their regime. Should even 10 of them survive and want to extract revenge, enough proof has been provided of their devastating capabilities.

plenderj

Mar 26th, 2003, 04:14 AM

Originally posted by Maven
http://www.yahoo.com/s/71061

There are suspected uprisings of Shi'ites.
And what about the whole rest of the country ?

Arc

Mar 26th, 2003, 06:15 AM

Notice the "Heh" in the "Heh the allies are ****ed":rolleyes: /gags

plenderj

Mar 26th, 2003, 06:19 AM

Well I find it quite amusing just how badle the allied forces have evaluated the situation.

honeybee

Mar 26th, 2003, 07:06 AM

Originally posted by run_GMoney
An obvious oversight, but it's how we were welcomed by many throughout Afghanistan.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/889855.asp

If the Afghanis really did that, they are repenting it now :rolleyes:

.

MasterBlaster

Mar 26th, 2003, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by honeybee
If the Afghanis really did that, they are repenting it now :rolleyes:
.

Yup I'm sure they're really pissed about having their country rebuilt after 30 years of war and famine. Mabe we should pull out of afghanastan and see what happens this time. It's funny how the US is blamed for the destruction of Afghanastan's infarstructure. News flash, It was destroyed years before we got there. The US ARMY Engineers are curently building Bridges, Hospitals, water purification centers, Human Waste treatment centers, and government offices. This is in addition to what the UN and Red Cross are doing.

venerable bede

Mar 27th, 2003, 10:00 AM

BOMB MECCA

honeybee

Mar 28th, 2003, 05:28 AM

Originally posted by MasterBlaster
Yup I'm sure they're really pissed about having their country rebuilt after 30 years of war and famine. Mabe we should pull out of afghanastan and see what happens this time. It's funny how the US is blamed for the destruction of Afghanastan's infarstructure. News flash, It was destroyed years before we got there. The US ARMY Engineers are curently building Bridges, Hospitals, water purification centers, Human Waste treatment centers, and government offices. This is in addition to what the UN and Red Cross are doing.

It's just the same in Afghanistan first and then in Iraq. You destroy what they have, and then you rebuild them as you want. You are simply colonizing these areas.

Have you ever read anything about the warlords giving the Karzai government a tough time? Have you ever given any thought to the state of the affairs in Afghanistan when (and if) the US and other peace-keeping forces leave the region? What guarantee do you have that the warlords who helped defeat Taliban will not tear Afghanistan to pieces?

And that's only about the political situation. Not to mention the fact that the US army won't be fathering the orphans in Afghanistan ... :rolleyes:

By the way, I vaguely remember the war against Afghanistan also being linked to bin Laden....

.

MasterBlaster

Mar 28th, 2003, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by honeybee
It's just the same in Afghanistan first and then in Iraq. You destroy what they have, and then you rebuild them as you want. You are simply colonizing these areas.

Colonizing? I hate to have to resort to insults but Fook you arsehole. The United States has fought in many foreign lands. The only land we ever kept in these places is now filled with dead american soldiers.

Have you ever read anything about the warlords giving the Karzai government a tough time? Have you ever given any thought to the state of the affairs in Afghanistan when (and if) the US and other peace-keeping forces leave the region? What guarantee do you have that the warlords who helped defeat Taliban will not tear Afghanistan to pieces?

If Afghans are that stoopid then their country deserves to be torn apart. They have been given a fresh start and funding to make a better life for themselvs courtesy of MY tax dollars. I believe you are seriously underestimating and insulting the Afghans.

And that's only about the political situation. Not to mention the fact that the US army won't be fathering the orphans in Afghanistan ... :rolleyes:

Better than Terrorists raising the children.