Lasme leaves CU

Anything and everything that is UMass Minutemen Basketball.
User avatar
VoxPop
Senior
Posts: 918
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 9:56 pm

Post by VoxPop » Mon Jul 19, 2004 6:16 pm

Bruce not surprised to see you supporting the taliban. Once again you publibly reveal your ignorance and stupidity. When were you in Afghanistan?

The Taliban or Talibs were and are vicious, oppressive genocidal right wing nuts who encouraged violent vigilantes, denied civil rights to everybody and most especially to women and girls while killing and maiming people for violating the taliban's bizarre extremist interpretations of islamic law as well as destroying all historical and cultural art and artifacts that they considered to be heretical.

I know numerous people who are in afghanistan right now on various research and international aid projects and you are the only person i know who supports the taliban regime and feels it was a mistake to restore some civil rights, democracy and freedom to the afghan people.

Afghanistan is not perfect - not close, but returning to the Taliban is the worst proposal yet.
Insert cornball rah rah slogan rhyming w/"Ford" here.

User avatar
fbiman
Sophomore
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 6:52 pm
Location: south of Boston

Post by fbiman » Mon Jul 19, 2004 6:31 pm

I don't think anyone with half a brain will say that the Taliban was good for Afghanistan. Amnesty International has extensively documented the human rights violations which occurred under their regime and their brand of Wahhabi-ist Islam. Oh, and they also sheltered Osama Bin Laden, you know, the guy that was responsible for 9/11. Getting rid of the Taliban was a desireable and proper act in and of itself.

My problem is how the Texas dunce handled the post-Afghanistan. Hamid Karzai, the appointed president of Afghanistan is an oil industry pawn. He has virtually no control over the tribal lords which are now waging open warfare amongst each other, not to mention their re-establishing the heroin trade - Afghanistan's most marketable commodity. And, of course, the U.S. is no closer to getting OBL than we were on 9/12/2001.

So while removing the Taliban was a positive, the fact that Afghanistan has reverted back to a tribal war zone speaks volumes about this adminstrations failed policies.
That's not an MP, that's a YP. Not My Problem, Your Problem.

User avatar
VoxPop
Senior
Posts: 918
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 9:56 pm

Post by VoxPop » Mon Jul 19, 2004 6:50 pm

Nobody has ever had much control over the tribal lords. In the past 350 or so years nobody has been able to control the various tribal lords. Backing the NA in overthrowing the taliban regime is one of the few decent things that this administration has accomplished.

Ideally the US should have invested much more in Afghanistan than this administration has chosen to. But arguing that we should have allowed the taliban to stay in power is completely assinine.
Insert cornball rah rah slogan rhyming w/"Ford" here.

Maulds4Hobey
newbie
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2003 9:31 am
Location: The Mullins Center

Post by Maulds4Hobey » Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:14 am

Rocks22 wrote:Thinking back the last couple years the only situation like this I can think of is Luke Recker who transferred from Indiana to Arizona after playing for two years. He then transferred from Zona to Iowa after his girlfriend was seriously injured in a car accident during the year he was sitting out. He sat out an additional year and then played his one remaining year of eligibility with Iowa, so I would have to think that Lasme would have two years to play starting in 2005-2006.
Recker had a year-and-a-half (at least) with Iowa after he petitioned the NCAA. I want to say that he had two full years. Remember, too, a transfer year can be a redshirt year.
"Me fail English. That's unpossible."
Ralph Wiggum

UMass87
Hall of Fame
Posts: 8248
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 9:01 am

Post by UMass87 » Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:46 am

Why do so few how support the Administration address the fact that Afghanistan is once again the world leader in opium production? To make matters worse, they are now one of the (if not the) largest producer of heroin (something they never were before - they used to export raw opium and perform very little heroin production). There is, apparently, very strong evidence that large amounts of proceeds of the sale of this produce is going directly to known terrorists and terrorist groups. How does the Administration consider Afghanistan a successful part of the "war on terror" when our activities there have led directly to the production of heroin and the use of the profits of the sale of heroin to support terrorism?????

Post Reply