Posted on 07/03/2024 2:24:26 PM PDT by Eleutheria5
How FUBAR is Afghanistan? More FUBAR than ever. Details in video.
Transcript at link below video.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
Joe Biden can take credit for this too.
Pol Pot of Khmer Rouge?
Let’s see that would be Pakistan(ok), Tajikistan(don’t know) and our favorite Iran. I say set off a few bombs inside Afghanistan along it’s Iran border. Make them think the Ayatollas started it.
i watched this a few days ago.
must see tv.
Neocons make everything better...For terrorists.
“... stolen US weapons,...”
Even the CCP?
I thought they were BFF, with that free “Silk Road” and all.
CIA ISIS K is an instrument to be used ultimately against Russia and China in its Muslim regions IMHO.
Stolen by Joseph Stolen, and likely sold to the Taliban under the table, which explains the slap-dash Chinese fire drill of an exit. Just to give cover for the transaction.
Now Joe is a “Neocon”? Do words still mean things?
Remember the rule of Islam
I against my brother.
My brother and I against our family
Our family against our clan
Our clan against our tribe
Our tribe against other tribes
Our tribes against the world.
Necons were all originally dems. Whoever is a war monger is a neocon. Do your homework. The neocons took over the republicans after Reagan. The Uniparty.
Everybody is everybody’s ally and everybody’s sworn enemy, depending on what day of the week it is. It’s the Asiatic way.
Afghanistan has a border with China—not a big one, but it’s there.
And how is this different from the last, oh, 500 years of history in that region, except they have weapons that give a bigger boom now, thanks to the generosity of the United States of Biden?
Imagine how much easier central Asian politics would be if the Mongols still ran everything...maybe that’s what Obama meant when he got his followers to shout, “Yes, we Khan! Yes, we Khan!”
Yep, sure can.
So ISIS K is neocon? Something is seriously lacking in your paradigms. Lots of people mong war. If it weren’t so, there would be no wars. Not all war-mongers are “neo-cons” and not all neo-cons are war-mongers.
It originally meant a former liberal who came to realize that liberal big government is often more the problem than the solution. By this definition, Ronald Reagan was a neo-con, and in fact he was a Democrat until 1964. Later, during the first Gulf War, Pat Buchanan re-coined the phrase to mean people who were for going over to Kuwait to forcibly kick out Iraq’s horde, and then it became blurred to mean anyone reflexively in favor of foreign intervention. Now it seems to mean, either anyone who is a “war-monger,” or anyone who is not an “isolationist,” depending whom you ask.
I prefer to avoid phrases and appellations that have lost their meaning through over-use, such as “racist,” “Marx-ist,” “fascist,” “anti-Semite” and “neo-con”. WH Auden said that imprecise language leads to insincerity. George Orwell illustrated what that means in his epic 1984. I try to emulate Auden’s caution, and recommend that others do, too.
Stfu. Be pithy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.