4/16/17
This is Bistek al la Mexicana a common dish found many places. There are several places I get this some better than others but all real decent! Kind of a tomato based sauce with generally pretty tender pieces of beef and a fair amount of it. The rice is pretty generic but the frijoles can be something else. This also includes as many fresh made in front of you tortillas you want and brought to you with a smile. Something like this costs around 50-60 pesos or $3. The squeezed as you watch orange juice is 20 and brings the price up a bit but worth it. Nothing in the States I've ever had compares to this not even close plus it'll cost 7-10 smacks. I don't know what I'm going to eat when I return. It will be an adjustment as I do this so much that is go into Puerto Vallarta on the south side and have me a excellent lunch with "real" Mexican food not the slop I get back there. I do not plan on eating out much at all only at maybe three select places. Pricey yes but worth it because it's so good. I threw away so much money last summer eating way overpriced shitty food. Several times the food got thrown away as well. The whole of Mexico is an eating machine I tell you. I'm gonna miss this.

I feel good and and think the higher temps and humidity contributes to that. It's the same every time. After a month or two you realize and say " Hey I feel pretty damn good!"

Just as important I believe the food made fresh with wholesome fresh ingredients as well contributes to that. Get off the bus in town the food smells everywhere make me hungry just like that.

11/19/10

Tanks Are The Answer Now

A year ago a request was denied to use tanks but that changed when Gen Chester Petraeus approved a second request this October. On the table will be ---




Hot damn it's looking up now. Why didn't our side implement  this before. Shit fire maybe we could have been home by now.

Cannot help but to be a bitter sarcastic smart ass  when it comes to Afghanistan and the bull shit that is written and when ideas like this are presented with all the feel good consequences that will supposedly follow.

When it reeks of the smell of fresh bull shit that's just what it is!

12 comments:

  1. I think this is a bad thing and they are starting with 16 and more if needed. I thought we were starting to withdraw in 2011 not get in deeper.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I wonder how many more "hearts and minds" of the Muslim people we will win with this new firepower. It will allow us to both kill and create terrorists at a new and improved rate.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Tanks are the answer now? Remind me again what the question was?

    ReplyDelete
  4. The new date now is 2014 not 2011.
    Surprise surprise.
    When in the fuck will the spineless dems call the Big O out for what he is.

    This tank move will be part of another surge. They are flexing mobile muscle.

    Come the spring they will be in place to escalate once more.
    Remember now, Pakistan is not far away.

    Russia also had tanks in Afghanica. That exercise did not work out too well either.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Looks like the USA is the new Russia -- at least as far as Afghanistan goes.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I've said it before and I'll say it again, Barack and any POTUS in the past 30 years is an owned man. Owned by the MIC.

    Prove to me otherwise!

    I'm sure if you can disprove it Onefly will put up a post about it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I don't have a problem with that at all. The dims had a chance to make a dent in the military but instead they ramped 'er up.

    Fact of the matter is bama is a one termer.

    The senate is history as well.

    The supremes are in the pockets of the right.

    Big Whore Media is just that.

    Our side will not win and will not be allowed to.

    We all remember what happened with the Russkies. Those pesky freedom fighters pulled an ace outta their sleeves in form of missles that were furnished by-well you know the rest.

    Will it come around for us as well. If it does it's going to get so ugly.

    That's what I'm wondering about.

    ReplyDelete
  8. One word: Logistics.

    Yes, direct fire support is needed by our troops. Rumsfeld's notion that we didn't need direct fire, that "death from the skies" was enough, was wrong-headed nonsense. Choppers are nice and good but can't fly well at that altitude. 120mm cannon fire is hard to beat under those conditions. And the M1 is still pretty much invulnerable to anything anybody can throw at it -- there have been been M1 tanks lost to engine fires from someone getting a lucky hit on the hindquarters of the tank, but no tank that "cooked off" and killed its crew. The M1 decidedly isn't a Soviet tank, which gained the nickname "Jack-in-the-box" in the first Gulf War because all it took was one hit from chopper or TOW or anything, really, and it cooked off, the turret popping off and the maimed and broken bodies of its former crew blown out the hole in the hull.

    But... those tanks were significantly easier to maintain than the M1, used significantly less fuel than the M1, and the Soviets had a fine paved highway leading directly into the Soviet Union, and *still* had a hard time getting enough food, fuel, and spare parts to keep their (much simpler and much more fuel efficient) tanks operational. I can't fathom how Proconsul Petraeus proposes to supply his force of roving artillery...

    - Badtux the War Penguin

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well Jim kind of summed it up for me.
    I'm wanting deescalation. This thing is turning into the hundred year war.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The part that confuses me is the question of how tanks would be useful in mountainous terrain - all things considered, looks like another level of escalation.

    ReplyDelete
  11. jeg, the Marines are wanting tanks for use in Kandahar Province, which is more a rocky desert punctuated by mountains. They are wanting them for fire support when searching villages and towns for Taliban, and the villages and towns are all built in the valleys. I've looked at vids posted by soldiers in that area and it looks like a lot of desert valleys here in California, a lot of rocks, but nothing that would stop a tank. If a Humvee can drive it, a tank can drive it (other than occasional bridges, but southern Afghanistan is a desert so that's not a huge issue).

    Clearly tanks aren't going to help in the mountains. But the people live in the valleys, not the mountains. From a military point of view, having direct fire support (*NOT* driving the tanks directly into the towns and cities which is what the idiot Russians did, but having them lurk outside the combat zone protected by infantry to provide artillery support when the infantry needs it) is a reasonable use of the tanks. Well, except for the logistics issue of how do you supply them with fuel and parts in such a remote province...

    - Badtux the War Penguin

    ReplyDelete