destrekor
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2005
- 28,799
- 359
- 126
Considering the fact that the Taliban today are vastly different in behavior, motives, and tactics, compared to just a year or so ago... why is this a bad thing?
First everyone attacks politicians and the military for going about one way of things, then tactics change, and they stay pissed. War ain't pretty, and things are gonna be done that piss you off. And that is why you and many others are stateside, and brave volunteers are over there doing dirty work.
The Taliban want peace, they are tired of war in their country.
Gen. Petraeus is the right man at the almost-right time... a few years earlier would have been excellent. And John McCain has the best hope of actually providing possible suggestions of future direction, and many that have experience in combat know what actually needs to be done. The troops on the ground are far from enough to get the job done efficiently, and we just learned that less than two years ago.
First everyone attacks politicians and the military for going about one way of things, then tactics change, and they stay pissed. War ain't pretty, and things are gonna be done that piss you off. And that is why you and many others are stateside, and brave volunteers are over there doing dirty work.
The Taliban want peace, they are tired of war in their country.
Gen. Petraeus is the right man at the almost-right time... a few years earlier would have been excellent. And John McCain has the best hope of actually providing possible suggestions of future direction, and many that have experience in combat know what actually needs to be done. The troops on the ground are far from enough to get the job done efficiently, and we just learned that less than two years ago.
Quite true - the current Taliban element in Afghanistan is surprisingly tolerent. It would seem they learned the lessons of their last occupation during which they alienated the locals with their hard-line Sharia nonsense.
From what I've read this is true - and the Afghanis are aligning themselves with the Taliban for this very reason.
It would seem our attention was diverted to Iraq and while it was, we allowed Afghanistan to slip back into disarray. Probably our only hope now is to strike some level of deal with the Taliban and hope the more moderate factions within prevail and keep the foreign fighters away.
Ozoned
Diamond Member
- Mar 22, 2004
- 5,578
- 0
- 0
I have come to agree with Clintons policy on these people. His policy was not specific to taliban, but there type. Roll them back. It is the only cost effective way to deal with them. What choice do you have unless you are willing to commit genocide? You would need to kill each and every last one of them to defeat them.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
Where in the hellll did you clowns get the idea that "the Taliban today are vastly different," that this new and improved Taliban "want peace," or that "the Afghanis are aligning themselves with the Taliban for this very reason"?!????!
The Taliban slaughtered at least 3500 innocent civilians just in the last 12 months!! And those are just the ones we know about!
GAWD, I fucking hate armchair SOB's...
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In MHO, Deal Monkey&destrekor are far more correct than palehorse, but for the wrong reasons.
To explain my reasoning, yet again, Both the end of the Russian occupation and the the start and the current state of the US occupation lead to identical States of chaos, anarchy and corruption.
And that is exactly what the Afghan people do not want, its why the Taliban emerged victorious after a decade long civil war after the Russians were forced out. Not because the Taliban is any way superior to a democratic
USA, but because the Taliban is only superior to anarchy, corruption, and chaos.
While Karzai may have good intentions, his government is totally inept and corrupt, the USA is too busy fighting the the Taliban to even care about the Afghan people and their welfare, we have allocated no priorities
into bringing good government and modernity to the people, and as a result the Afghan people look back to Taliban rule as a high point of peace and prosperity since 1937.
If GWB, palehorse, and JOS had a brain in their head, they would have brought forth the conditions of good governance in which the Taliban would be toast, and now we are reduced to having to realize we need Taliban help to stamp out corruption and the opium trade that fuels corruption.
Personally, I think the Taliban are merciless terrorist shitheads, and negotiating with them is the last thing I want to do. Unfortunately, it seems like the U.S. is incapable of securing the country and this is a last resort. Believe me, I would have vastly preferred focusing like a laser on Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan, and not gotten bogged down in Iraq for 5 years, but that's the reality of it. At this point, we have little choice.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
I am not surprised that the current palehorse position is summed up by palehorse himself as "Where in the hellll did you clowns get the idea that "the Taliban today are vastly different," that this new and improved Taliban "want peace," or that "the Afghanis are aligning themselves with the Taliban for this very reason"?!????!
The Taliban slaughtered at least 3500 innocent civilians just in the last 12 months!! And those are just the ones we know about!
GAWD, I fucking hate armchair SOB's..."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a way, we has to realize that as time moves on without any Nato forward progress, at least palehorse has been in the "trenches" of the Afghan theater, and most on this forum, myself included, land in that class of the armchair generals that palehorse now also expresses hatred of.
And now I want to make a few points about that palehorse hatred of arm chair generals.
1. Hate to tell you palehorse, you can't retain the support of the collected class of arm chair generals without delivering positive results. After seven years, support always erodes. The collected class of arm chair generals are the very voters and tax payers our military depends on to support the American soldier in the field. And the same thing applies to the various countries of Nato who are in the same position.
2. The collected class of arm chair generals, and for that matter, the collected class of actual generals, are always a divided bunch. In my case, I have argued against your version of correct Afghan strategy for better than two years now, and you have always dissed me as a "twit" And while I can't take any real credit, I have to note that there has been a massive and recent sea change on this forum. Before, most posters agreed with the palehorse position, and in the last six months this forum, the larger American electorate, and what amounts to the top leadership generals in Nato, Petraeus especially, are starting to come around to what amounted to my original position of why we are failing in Afghanistan. Palehorse, there may be some honor in staying consistent, but there is no honor in refusing to learn the obvious while maintaining massive denial.
3. It takes no brains to realize that Abu Ghrab, and American personnel such as Lynde England and Charles Granger have done incalculable damage to America, not only in Iraq, but all over the world. I suspect that GWB, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld, are even more guilty, of overt morally bankruptcy, but the final understanding will not be rendered for some time. But I think all Americans can agree, these type acts are not American values and are not the way Americans actually are, as these acts of COMMISSION undo countless acts of true American compassion. In short, most American soldiers are true patriots,
ambassadors of American values, and are trying to make the best of a bad situation by making things better.
Sadly, palehorse, I have to lump you and your those who share your vision in the same class as Charles Granger and Lynde England, enemies of American values, not because you are inherently morally bankrupt and commit acts of COMMISSION, but because you commit equally damaging sins of OMMISSION. One does not have to believe in God to have a messiah complex, and latch upon a single minded
obsession that somehow, the root of all evil lies in the Taliban. And to believe that if they are destroyed, suddenly there will be paradise on earth, while every means justifies that end. The sin of ommision in your messiah complex is that it permits far greater evils to be visited on the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The Taliban slaughtered at least 3500 innocent civilians just in the last 12 months!! And those are just the ones we know about!
GAWD, I fucking hate armchair SOB's..."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a way, we has to realize that as time moves on without any Nato forward progress, at least palehorse has been in the "trenches" of the Afghan theater, and most on this forum, myself included, land in that class of the armchair generals that palehorse now also expresses hatred of.
And now I want to make a few points about that palehorse hatred of arm chair generals.
1. Hate to tell you palehorse, you can't retain the support of the collected class of arm chair generals without delivering positive results. After seven years, support always erodes. The collected class of arm chair generals are the very voters and tax payers our military depends on to support the American soldier in the field. And the same thing applies to the various countries of Nato who are in the same position.
2. The collected class of arm chair generals, and for that matter, the collected class of actual generals, are always a divided bunch. In my case, I have argued against your version of correct Afghan strategy for better than two years now, and you have always dissed me as a "twit" And while I can't take any real credit, I have to note that there has been a massive and recent sea change on this forum. Before, most posters agreed with the palehorse position, and in the last six months this forum, the larger American electorate, and what amounts to the top leadership generals in Nato, Petraeus especially, are starting to come around to what amounted to my original position of why we are failing in Afghanistan. Palehorse, there may be some honor in staying consistent, but there is no honor in refusing to learn the obvious while maintaining massive denial.
3. It takes no brains to realize that Abu Ghrab, and American personnel such as Lynde England and Charles Granger have done incalculable damage to America, not only in Iraq, but all over the world. I suspect that GWB, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld, are even more guilty, of overt morally bankruptcy, but the final understanding will not be rendered for some time. But I think all Americans can agree, these type acts are not American values and are not the way Americans actually are, as these acts of COMMISSION undo countless acts of true American compassion. In short, most American soldiers are true patriots,
ambassadors of American values, and are trying to make the best of a bad situation by making things better.
Sadly, palehorse, I have to lump you and your those who share your vision in the same class as Charles Granger and Lynde England, enemies of American values, not because you are inherently morally bankrupt and commit acts of COMMISSION, but because you commit equally damaging sins of OMMISSION. One does not have to believe in God to have a messiah complex, and latch upon a single minded
obsession that somehow, the root of all evil lies in the Taliban. And to believe that if they are destroyed, suddenly there will be paradise on earth, while every means justifies that end. The sin of ommision in your messiah complex is that it permits far greater evils to be visited on the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
The only thing I've been calling for over the last four years is permission to take this fight to its roots. That is, I have called for an all out assault on the Taliban/AQ supply lines, training camps, and other headquarters elements located throughout -- you guessed it -- Northwest PAKISTAN!
Thankfully, contrary to what LL would have you believe, ALL of the top Generals in Afghanistan, AND even my chosen candidate, Barrack Obama, feel the exact same way that I do on that subject!
imagine that.
At the same time, again contrary to what LL would have you believe, I've called for dramatically increasing our economic efforts, tribal diplomatic efforts, infrastructure renewal efforts, and several other items that must be done simultaneously with broader military efforts against the Talibans entire support structure.
Therefore, in response to the hundreds of times you've opened up your cock holster to preach on a subject that you know absolutely nothing about, the hundreds of times you've mischaracterized my position on the issue, and the hundreds of times you've compared me to the very worst evil in the world, I'd simply like to tell you to go fuck yourself you incredibly arrogant, ignorant, and witless douchebag.
I "lump you in" with the used gum on the bottom of my fucking boot. AFAIC, you're a complete waste of time and oxygen.
BoomerD
No Lifer
- Feb 26, 2006
- 66,535
- 14,918
- 146
My oh my...the more things change, the more they stay the same...
http://www.historycommons.org/...item=a120497texasvisit
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htm...F12%2F14%2Fwtal14.html
They were once considered to be allies in the war against the Soviet Union, at least in Afghanistan...and we supported them financially and militarily.
BTW Palehorse, have you recently joined our military? As I remember, you were not at one point, but were considering it.
http://www.historycommons.org/...item=a120497texasvisit
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htm...F12%2F14%2Fwtal14.html
They were once considered to be allies in the war against the Soviet Union, at least in Afghanistan...and we supported them financially and militarily.
BTW Palehorse, have you recently joined our military? As I remember, you were not at one point, but were considering it.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Palehorse comes back with his same failed delusions with "The only thing I've been calling for over the last four years is permission to take this fight to its roots. That is, I have called for an all out assault on the Taliban/AQ supply lines, training camps, and other headquarters elements located throughout -- you guessed it -- Northwest PAKISTAN! ( Wrong again palehorse, after briefly flirting with as a lame duck President, GWB is backing off that, hoping Pakistan can do the job Nato can't do in Afghanistan. Widening the war just dilutes resources, talk massive increases of troops first. Failing that, it won't work. )
Thankfully, contrary to what LL would have you believe, ALL of the top Generals in Afghanistan, AND even my chosen candidate, Barrack Obama, feel the exact same way that I do on that subject! ( Wrong again palehorse, Petraeus is going to support talks with the Taliban and end your messiah complex as counterproductive. Obama may strike into the tribal areas of Pakistan, but only at top Al-Quida, and only if Pakistan refuses. The new Petraeus strategy will be to drive a wedge between The Taliban and Al-Quida. Vastly different than what you what you call Taliban/Al-Quida as in interchangeable. Petraues will see them as two different separate movements which you fail to see in your messianic zeal. )
imagine that. (palehorse )
At the same time, again contrary to what LL would have you believe, I've called for dramatically increasing our economic efforts, tribal diplomatic efforts, infrastructure renewal efforts, and several other items that must be done simultaneously with broader military efforts against the Talibans entire support structure. ( half right palehorse, you call for killing all taliban first, but agreed, I have always said those economic development thing must be done first and in greater magnitude. Without that economic development, an end to corruption , anarchy, and bringing in good governance , any military action is futile.
Sorry palehorse, your lip service is inadequate because it is not your first or even second priority )
Therefore, in response to the hundreds of times you've opened up your cock holster to preach on a subject that you know absolutely nothing about, the hundreds of times you've mischaracterized my position on the issue, and the hundreds of times you've compared me to the very worst evil in the world, I'd simply like to tell you to go fuck yourself you incredibly arrogant, ignorant, and witless douchebag. ( Well thank you palehorse, I feel the same thing about you, I await my position being vindicated by our own military that is many many pay grades above yours. Our occupation in Afghanistan is no different than many other similar military occupations in the history of the world, all one has to do is read some history books to find out which military occupations succeed and which fail. And why. Its not hard to see what you advocate is in the failed military occupation class. )
I "lump you in" with the used gum on the bottom of my fucking boot. AFAIC, you're a complete waste of time and oxygen. ( Palehorse, I just hope you someday learn how wrong you are, your intentions may be good, the question is will you be part of the solution or most of our problem. And by you, I mean our existing failed strategy, you and I are just two small people. )
Thankfully, contrary to what LL would have you believe, ALL of the top Generals in Afghanistan, AND even my chosen candidate, Barrack Obama, feel the exact same way that I do on that subject! ( Wrong again palehorse, Petraeus is going to support talks with the Taliban and end your messiah complex as counterproductive. Obama may strike into the tribal areas of Pakistan, but only at top Al-Quida, and only if Pakistan refuses. The new Petraeus strategy will be to drive a wedge between The Taliban and Al-Quida. Vastly different than what you what you call Taliban/Al-Quida as in interchangeable. Petraues will see them as two different separate movements which you fail to see in your messianic zeal. )
imagine that. (palehorse )
At the same time, again contrary to what LL would have you believe, I've called for dramatically increasing our economic efforts, tribal diplomatic efforts, infrastructure renewal efforts, and several other items that must be done simultaneously with broader military efforts against the Talibans entire support structure. ( half right palehorse, you call for killing all taliban first, but agreed, I have always said those economic development thing must be done first and in greater magnitude. Without that economic development, an end to corruption , anarchy, and bringing in good governance , any military action is futile.
Sorry palehorse, your lip service is inadequate because it is not your first or even second priority )
Therefore, in response to the hundreds of times you've opened up your cock holster to preach on a subject that you know absolutely nothing about, the hundreds of times you've mischaracterized my position on the issue, and the hundreds of times you've compared me to the very worst evil in the world, I'd simply like to tell you to go fuck yourself you incredibly arrogant, ignorant, and witless douchebag. ( Well thank you palehorse, I feel the same thing about you, I await my position being vindicated by our own military that is many many pay grades above yours. Our occupation in Afghanistan is no different than many other similar military occupations in the history of the world, all one has to do is read some history books to find out which military occupations succeed and which fail. And why. Its not hard to see what you advocate is in the failed military occupation class. )
I "lump you in" with the used gum on the bottom of my fucking boot. AFAIC, you're a complete waste of time and oxygen. ( Palehorse, I just hope you someday learn how wrong you are, your intentions may be good, the question is will you be part of the solution or most of our problem. And by you, I mean our existing failed strategy, you and I are just two small people. )
Good stuff ----->>
Frontline's The War Briefing
Here's the discussion ----->>
What are the next president's options for dealing with the isolated, lawless region that's become a safe haven for Al Qaeda and the Taliban?
Frontline's The War Briefing
Here's the discussion ----->>
What are the next president's options for dealing with the isolated, lawless region that's become a safe haven for Al Qaeda and the Taliban?
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
God damn it... I've always called for the "prongs" or "fronts" to be undertaken simultaneously, you lying fuck.
Your entire last post mirrors the hundreds of others wherein you somehow pretend that I'm saying something entirely different, you lie, and you completely misrepresent any opposing arguments. It's like you've got a huge cock stuck in each ear which prevent you from hearing what others are saying. You consistently point out that my strategy -- which, to this day, has never even been attempted -- has somehow failed for seven years. How is that possible!? How the hell would my ideas be to blame for any continued failure when those ideas have never even been implemented!?
In reality, all of the top Generals, and even Barrack Obama, agree with my proposed strategy. They know, and agree, that the basis of the problem, and the solution, lie in the hills of Northwest Pakistan.
You don't know a fucking thing about the issue LL. Not one. You are totally and completely clueless. And, because of that, you have resorted to lying and misrepresenting my position on the issue. That's just fucking sad...
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
( Palehorse, I think the same thing of you and I have explained in long detail in previous threads why the Taliban problem is more a political problem and not a military one. Your only response is to call me clueless, without any kind of reasoned explanation of why my political characterizations of the historical forces operating are wrong. You seem in total denial of these characterizations, so either I am wrong, or you are the one that is clueless. I will again remind you, this is not a war, its a military occupation, and the success or failure of that occupation is going to be determined not by the USA, not by Nato, but by the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. While I agree that Al-Quida is a horrible alternative for the Afghan people to choose, and the Taliban is a bad alternative, Nato is still losing badly in Afghanistan because Nato has brought only anarchy, corruption, and bad governance. In short, the very conditions that caused the Taliban to come to power in the first place. Because and sad to say, the Taliban, rotten as they are, are better than anarchy, corruption, and rule by war lord thugs. And until we cease to view Afghanistan as a solely military problem and redirect our priorities towards
stamping out corruption fueled by the opium trade, we will continue to fail to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. )
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
You've once again mis-characterized, or perhaps misinterpreted, my positions and suggested strategy. I've never given any of the "prongs" a hierarchy, in terms of priority. Hell, my very first suggestion on the topic, years ago, was that 50,000 miles of paved road and a communications infrastructure might be enough to solidify Karzai's rule and allow for stability throughout the entire country.
Unfortunately, those developments cannot happen without security. The Taliban are 100% opposed to such developments and all other efforts to modernize the region. Their core beliefs outlaw such developments. So, as long as they continue to exist, it will be next to impossible to bring those modern amenities to the people of the region. Therefore, it is vital that their entire support structure is destroyed, and that they are denied the safe havens that currently give them so much strength and flexibility. If we can place their entire organization in total disarray, we may be able to make some progress with the economic and infrastructure improvements. Otherwise, we'll be forced, for all eternity, to take one step forward and two steps back... their safe havens will allow them to plan and attack every improvement we attempt to bring to the people. IOW, we'll never get anywhere...
You also need to realize that driving a wedge between the Taliban and AQ is great -- hell, it's fantastic! -- but, it still does nothing to negate the fact that the Taliban are just as evil as their AQ brethren. Your post describes them as "bad," and lesser so than their AQ friends. That is simply inaccurate and something you still fail to understand after all these years...
PS: please use the quote functions properly and stop embedding your replies using parenthesis... it's annoying as all hell trying to sift through the posts looking for your responses.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Well palehorse, if you think the Taliban is as bad as Al-Quida, then you must be in denial about this entire thread, the point being, the very thread title is the US considering talks with the Taliban. And General Petraeus is on board and in agreement. The fate of General Petraeus may or may not be delimited to 1/20/2009 under a likely President Obama, but I suspect Petraeus will be in charge of overall Afghan military
policy for the foreseeable future regardless if McCain or Obama wins.
And if the talks bear fruit, the hope of such joint US& Nato&Taliban talks, is to find enough moderate Taliban members, form a alliance with them, and hope that that alliance will help get rid the region of the extreme radical elements of the Taliban and all of Al-Quida. Something the current Nato strategy has failed to to do in seven years and something that trying to invade the tribal areas of Pakistan is also unlikely to do without massive troop increases numbering at least 300,000.
Its absurd and comic book thinking to believe a movement like the Taliban is absolutely mono chromatically uniform. We, the American people may share some common goals, but we too are politically divided and anything but exactly the same. Human being all over the planet share an ability to compromise, and there are quite a few common goals between Nato and the Taliban.
policy for the foreseeable future regardless if McCain or Obama wins.
And if the talks bear fruit, the hope of such joint US& Nato&Taliban talks, is to find enough moderate Taliban members, form a alliance with them, and hope that that alliance will help get rid the region of the extreme radical elements of the Taliban and all of Al-Quida. Something the current Nato strategy has failed to to do in seven years and something that trying to invade the tribal areas of Pakistan is also unlikely to do without massive troop increases numbering at least 300,000.
Its absurd and comic book thinking to believe a movement like the Taliban is absolutely mono chromatically uniform. We, the American people may share some common goals, but we too are politically divided and anything but exactly the same. Human being all over the planet share an ability to compromise, and there are quite a few common goals between Nato and the Taliban.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
Like I said, I have yet to meet a "moderate" sworn member of the Taliban... and I've met hundreds -- alive and dead. (How many have you met?)
I simply doubt the effectiveness of such talks when the Taliban leadership has sworn that they will not stop fighting until the last foreign troop is gone from the entire region.
Now, the lashkars are a different story... what may appear to be talks with "moderate Taliban" will more than likely be an attempt to drive a wedge between the actual Taliban, and those tribal leaders who already despise them -- similar to our deals with the Awakening Councils throughout Iraq.
After all, one of the base tenets of the Taliban is their insistence on 7th century living... That kinda eliminates the possibility of compromise or reason. Do you really think that they -- the actual Taliban -- will agree to anything less than the full implementation of Sharia Law in a 7th-century environment?
doubtful.
My guess is that you will have the wool pulled over your eyes while we actually deal directly with the lashkars and other non-Taliban tribal leaders...
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
The point is palehorse, you do not make US or Nato policy, and you may soon find yourself increasingly out of step with your superior officers.
Neither you or I will make our future policy, I also acknowledge the use of lashkars is another option, but I also see many downside risks. The temporary enemy of my enemy often does not stay my friend.
Think Al-Quida when we consider what can happen to a lashkar.
If nothing else palehorse, keep an open mind, after all, after seven years, the strategy you advocate is not working.
And only time will tell.
Neither you or I will make our future policy, I also acknowledge the use of lashkars is another option, but I also see many downside risks. The temporary enemy of my enemy often does not stay my friend.
Think Al-Quida when we consider what can happen to a lashkar.
If nothing else palehorse, keep an open mind, after all, after seven years, the strategy you advocate is not working.
And only time will tell.
Why hasn't this been done? Obviously, exterminating the Taliban should be our first priority. So we've gone from a half-assed attempt to secure the country to attempting to produce an "awakening" similar to our strategy in Iraq, to what? Negotiating with them?
I don't get it. It's like this administration has ADD or something. They can't focus on anything long enough to get it right...
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you miss the obvious DealMonkey, its not like the GWB administration is unable to focus on anything, its a matter of GWB&co never allocating even a tiny fraction of the resources to have ANY viable Afghan strategy.
Talk about 700,000 troops for Afghanistan and hundreds of billions of dollars in economic development, and a palehorse type strategy MIGHT be viable, meanwhile its merely counter productive in MHO at the current resource allocated level.
Since our next administration will be unlikely to be able to scrape up 700,000 troops or the money needed, we are forced to consider other options is the end consideration in MHO.
Palehorse and those that agree with him are not to be faulted for our national failure to allocate enough resources, but we are all delimited by budgets. Its called reality.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
Forget it... you're dumber than a box of fucking rocks. You still don't understand that what I advocate hasn't even been tried... or perhaps you're simply choosing to ignore 99% of what I write.
Either way, once again, I'm done dealing with your bullshit.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter