Act Now!

End the War in Afghanistan

posted by Peter Rothberg on 10/02/2009 @ 09:47am

This post was researched and co-written by Andrea D'Cruz.

Within a matter of months a majority of Americans have shifted from supporting to opposing the Afghanistan war as we approach the eighth anniversary of the start of the conflict. According to recent polls, a solid 57 percent of Americans now object to the military effort.

At the same time, Gen. Stanley McChrystal's request for additional troops to prosecute the war is being studied by the White House, which will soon make a decision that could define the Obama presidency, as The Nation's editorial laying out the case against escalation, notes.

Meanwhile, just like the administration, antiwar activists are reallocating their attention from Iraq towards Afghanistan, determined to preempt McChrystal's proposed troop surge. A broad coalition of groups is co-ordinating protests and demonstrations for the coming weeks, hoping to emulate the successes of the Vietnam protests in ways that the anti-Iraq war movement never managed. There will be vigils, rallies, memorials, teach-ins, film festivals, demonstrations, direct action and marches. The activities will range from a few individuals to events where many thousands of people are expected to turn up.

The activist upsurge is nicely detailed in an article in last week's UK Observer, which also argues that "...the Obama administration does not appear to have much fear of the doveish wing of the broad liberal coalition that put Obama into the White House."

That needs to change. Here are some ways you can help:

See the Nation's list, Ten Things You Can Do to Oppose War in Afghanistan by Z.P. Heller.

And, Ten More Things You Can Do to Oppose War in Afghanistan by Tom Hayden.

If you're a student, join the Campus Antiwar Network and hold teach-ins, debates, talks, demonstrations and walkouts on college campuses across the country.

Sponsor one of the more than 830 pairs of empty boots making up the Eyes Wide Open Exhibit, a memorial to American soldiers killed in the war, which is being organized by the American Friends Service Committee and Military Families Speak Out for this coming weekend in Washington, DC. You can also offer to volunteer either at the memorial in DC or with the preparation in Baltimore on Friday.

Head to DC on October 5th for a day of direct action at the White House, organized by the stalwarts of non-violent protest, the War Resisters League.

If you're in New York City on October 7, the eighth anniversary of the war, get yourself to Grand Central Station, and get involved in leafleting, soapboxing, holding signs/banners and street theater.

Or if you're in the capital on that day, visit the Washington Peace Center's educational forum, 'Not the "Good" War: Rethinking Afghanistan Eight Years Later' which includes first-hand reports back from trips to Afghanistan from Phyllis Bennis and Medea Benjamin.

There are other anniversary events coast to coast on October 7. Look up your nearest candlelit vigil, rally or panel, or organize one yourself.

Contact your senators, representatives and President Obama and implore them to say no to General McChrystal's request to send tens of thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan.

Watch Robert Greenwald's Rethink Afghanistan online for free, then get a copy of the DVD and host a screening, invite your elected reps and their staffers to watch the film, and post one of the six film's segments to your Facebook page.

Play host to a Peace for Afghanistan house party.

Collect signatures for Peace Action's A Better Plan for Afghan Peace petition.

Add your name to Code Pink's call for an exit strategy that includes NATO/US troop withdrawal, all party talks, regional diplomacy, and continued aid for reconstruction, medical care, education and development in Afghanistan.

Support the troops who refuse to fight--like David Travis Bishop, currently serving a 12 month sentence for refusing deployment to Afghanistan--by writing directly to the jailed resisters, donating to their defense funds and organizing petitions and letter writing campaigns.

PS: If you have extra time on your hands and want to follow me on Twitter -- a micro-blog -- click here. You'll find (slightly) more personal posts, breaking news, basketball and lots of links.

Comments (88)

  1. all of this is all well and good--but one man will decide if it's for naught...and methinks he's going to disappoint.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 10:06am

  2. Peter,

    A compelling case can be made for both sides..escalation or withdrawl.

    I am curious what you think America should do, when AQ moves back into a Taliban Afganistan and is allowed to operate there as a safe haven, even so boldly launch more sophisticated attacks on the West as well as America? I think the Taliban/AQ is a Western problem and not just American....

    I am disturbed by the waste of Obama in Copenhagen , "sacrificring " along with his wife and 9 airplanes(making an even bigger carbon footprint than ALGORE), only to bring the construction of Olympic Villages back to the people who paid for his campaigns...no, not the black people in Chicago, but the people who will now get their land condemed, rebuilt and given to them by the govt after Olympic village turns into new rentals...an even bigger political payback opportunity than the union payback at GM...Chicago style....any bets who will be the owners of the land, construction and "managerial" companys for Olympic and post Olympic projects?

    Hint:It aint gonna be the Acorn community, or the average guy in the ghetto,..but Ol' Jesse will get his check.

    and in the end, one still wont be able to walk anywhere safely in the south side..as whitnessed a few days ago ...

    Michelle should "sacrifice" and go to Chicago..not Europe.

    Im pulling for Rio, as apparently most of Chicagoans are..they know...

    Sorry for off topic, but the Nation should address something else than recycled articles......their silence on many topics that the left is screwing up is deafening.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 10/02/2009 @ 10:31am

  3. The US and it's NATO allies use democracy, freedom and the 9/11 attacks as reasons to attack and invade the third world countries.The west put it's cronies and kings through fake elections, where votes are forged to suit their greedy, selfish and materialistic way of life. Even after 8 years of war on Afghanistan, US and Co are in deep trouble.A military victory seems impossible. The civilian deaths due to the drone attacks on Afghanistan, are helping Taliban to recruit more people to their fold.The deaths due to the effective use of IED by the Taliban claimed many lives of the coalition forces.The world's best armies with the best equipments are fighting a unwanted war there.The Afghanis are fearless fighters. Afghanistan is a place where Empires go to die. That is the history of Afghanistan.Better withdraw from there.The sooner, the better.

    Posted by Dastu11 at 10/02/2009 @ 10:43am

  4. "A compelling case can be made for both sides..escalation or withdrawl. "---Posted by YourJomamma at 10/02/2009 @ 10:31am

    Skipping your subject change....which case are YOU making, Maasch?

    Posted by Mask at 10/02/2009 @ 10:46am

  5. Mask,

    I would favor a WESTERN build up...we have carried NATO and Europes water defensively for years...

    So in that light if we need 40k troops...put in 60k troops from ALL of the WESTERN countrys.

    And pay for it with as war tax on EVERYBODY.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 10/02/2009 @ 10:59am

  6. And not to the general fund where congress pisses it away on other bondoggle govt sociaistic horseshit.

    And on the other subject change...thank GOD it is not US..Obama and company should get their asses back here where they belong and get into the Afgan issue..more guys died last night while the Obama show was "sacrificing" in Europe.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 10/02/2009 @ 11:02am

  7. YourJomamma says Wartax for all. But what about those contractor guys who aren't paying any tax on a good bit of their income? Personally, I resent the taxes I already pay for operation Afghan fiasco. And don't get me started on "sacrifice" and "service", the military and war contractors ain't conscripts. If I had my druthers we'd confiscate the estates of the Bush family and EVERY congress member who voted for Iraq and Afghanistan authorizations and every budget and suplemental that came through since. "boondoggle govt sociaistic [sic] horseshit"- yep we got it, corporate welface and military . industrial complex. These sorts of shennanigans are going to continue until our politicial, economic, and military leaders face REAL consequences for their actions, and mealy-mouthed "my heart was in the right place" confessions ala McNamara no longer cut the mustard. BTW, I do agree, however, Obama has more important things to do than the Olympics.

    Posted by idontwannnabeaserf at 10/02/2009 @ 11:24am

  8. And pay for it with as war tax on EVERYBODY.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 10/02/2009 @ 10:59am | ignore this person | warn this person

    How about we let war-mongers pay for it by non-deductible contributions to DOD?

    Posted by OneVote at 10/02/2009 @ 12:10pm

  9. Posted by YourJomamma at 10/02/2009 @ 10:59am

    And if NATO doesn't want to pony up 40,000 troops?

    What then?

    Posted by Mask at 10/02/2009 @ 12:23pm

  10. How about we let war-mongers pay for it by non-deductible contributions to DOD?

    Posted by OneVote at 10/02/2009 @ 12:10pm

    I dont believe in war mongers....

    If you live here you pay for those who protect us, and that includes welfare, unemployment checks and business giants...all pay until war is over..pay as you go.

    This is in the interest of ALL Americans...not just those you dont like or agree with on any level.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 10/02/2009 @ 12:32pm

  11. Posted by idontwannnabeaserf at 10/02/2009 @ 11:24am

    Emontional nonsense..knee jerk at best without any analysis..

    What should US have done with Taliban and the haven they created? Sue them in world court?

    You will get more killed than anyone...you are more dangerous than AQ..uniformed.

    War taxe for our protection..you pay too...I don't like taxes either.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 10/02/2009 @ 12:36pm

  12. Posted by Mask at 10/02/2009 @ 12:23pm

    Then send them the bill....

    Posted by YourJomamma at 10/02/2009 @ 12:37pm

  13. And on the other subject change...thank GOD it is not US..Obama and company should get their asses back here where they belong and get into the Afgan issue..more guys died last night while the Obama show was "sacrificing" in Europe.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 10/02/2009 @ 11:02am

    I am so tired of the right's insistence that Obama be in Washington all the time. Bush had his Western White House in Crawford, Texas of all places (a no-where kind of town...I know because I grew up in Central Texas). Obama can conduct his Afghan strategy from Air Force One as easily as he can from the WH. In fact, he's got 7 hours alone with McCrystal on that plane back to DC, so if you think he ain't talking about Afghanistan, then you ain't been payin' attention.

    Now, as to Afghanistan, while I am all for bringing out boys and girls home and ending this quagmire, I am also for changing the mission. The mission was NEVER to fight the Taliban, but rather to get AQ and OBL (something Bush declared he would do, "dead or alive" then later stated "I don't think much about him anymore." So much for him as War President.). We disrupted AQ (yay!), didn't get OBL (boo!) and are now trying to support a man as President that didn't REALLY get elected, because he SEEMS to be our best option.

    If I were Pres, I wouldn't know what to do because we need to continue to support the Afghan people by building schools, hospitals, etc. and finally getting on their good side. We need to continue to go after OBL and AQ (through the better use of the CIA and Interpol, IMHO). In short, we need to be SMARTER than we were under Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld (or as I like to call them, Larry, Curly and Mo).

    I'd also like to know who is allowing McChrystal off speak to the media before he speaks to his CIC.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/02/2009 @ 12:39pm

  14. This is in the interest of ALL Americans...not just those you dont like or agree with on any level.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 10/02/2009 @ 12:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    The majority wants us out. This is true for Iraq as well. The majority isn't buying into that this is "protecting" us. We've got special interests calling the shots, and making us pay for it. This isn't my idea of democracy.

    Now, you don't understand NATO very well. They are going to be all gone. Already Canada, Italy, Germany, Poles, Czechs, likely Estonia after McChrystal insult, UK,... They see this mission for what it is.

    So, what we are planning to do is to redeploy troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. This is a US venture. In reality, it has been all along.

    "Use" tax is far more equitable.

    So, what you are really saying is that you want us all to pay for what you think is important.

    Funny to hear your objections to healthcare.

    The majority want healthcare, but you are jumping up and down on that. Healthcare is for the common good. You don't see that way. Healthcare for the most part will be a use tax. The war in Afghanistan is far from that. This war is about geopolitical military and economic interests that have little to with the interest of 'average' Americans.

    Posted by OneVote at 10/02/2009 @ 12:51pm

  15. Oh Peter, Peter. I'm so glad that you are not the head of the Joint Chiefs or the Defense Sec. You are so pre 9/11 in your thought process. Let's just bring all the troops home and let the Taliban and Al Qaeda reconstitution bigger and better and when the Lincoln Tunnel or the GW bridge comes down, you can reprint your silly position on why we should get out of Afghanistan.

    Thank God we have a professional military, charged with the responsibility to keep us safe from our enemies and from people with ideas like yours.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/02/2009 @ 1:15pm

  16. Posted by OneVote at 10/02/2009 @ 12:51pm

    You are too emotional and politcal for clear thinking...it clouds your view...

    take your point on health care..You frame it as though I am against health care...where did you get that?? I, as most thinking people, do not want the govt running it...thats the only issue for me and most , and I dont want to see yet another private sector taken over by govt...as you say..look who is screwing up Iraq and Afganistan....the govt....

    Why give them your health care?

    The majority also never wanted to go to war against Germany either, both times, and 2 Dem presidents ran on a platform agreeing...then reality set it.

    Same with Afganistan...and NATO..London and Madrid were attacked also..and it is far from over and they are far from safe.

    When congress goes along, it doesn't matter what you and I think of the policy, our country is then comitted until a change of policy.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 10/02/2009 @ 1:42pm

  17. "I am so tired of the right's insistence that Obama be in Washington all the time."

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/02/2009 @ 12:39pm

    I dont care if Obama is in Washington or not, nor did I care where Bush was...in fact, when they are out of there we can't get screwed as much...same for Congress.

    I object to hawking for Chicago machine to get billions for their pockets, that Olympic spending and contracts would bring..... and I am offended at his sending(sacrifice according to her!!!) his wife and himself on a silly mission there.......when they should have known the had no chance...

    instead, meet with the General who says he has only met Obama.....1 time...

    This is incompetence time 10...I have always beleived Obama was picked for this job precisly because he is in over his head.

    Buyers remorse will rear its huge head very soon.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 10/02/2009 @ 1:49pm

  18. When congress goes along, it doesn't matter what you and I think of the policy, our country is then comitted until a change of policy.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 10/02/2009 @ 1:42pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    I am cognizant of our plight.

    I don't believe in government as savior per se, but in comparison to private industry for profit providing health insurance, even the worst run government program will be better than what we have now.

    The insurance industry is very good at maximizing profit, at the expense of providing reliable and affordable insurance. Hurray for Capitalism.

    The government is very poor at winning wars, and picking the right battles.

    So, let's switch.

    Let private interests nation build in Afghanistan at their expense.

    Let government provide a program of insurance for healthcare - on a non-profit basis. Users will pay the tab.

    Make sense?

    Posted by OneVote at 10/02/2009 @ 2:07pm

  19. Posted by YourJomamma at 10/02/2009 @ 12:37pm

    And if they don't PAY the bill, John?

    (BTW, as this gets sillier and sillier, your original claim to a "serious solution" collapses)

    Oh, and did you know that Rush is imitating you again...he's pushing the "Obama is an incompetent" line too. Must have stole it from you, huh?

    Posted by Mask at 10/02/2009 @ 2:34pm

  20. Peter,

    You forgot the most effective measure for stopping wars - civil disobedience.

    OBAMA, HEY! HEY! HOW MANY KIDS DID YOU KILL TODAY!

    Posted by shadowknows at 10/02/2009 @ 3:10pm

  21. 43 American Soldiers have died while the Obamanation sits on his hands and hums to himself over what to do about the 20 to 30 times in the last 2 years he said Afghanistan is the right place and war to fight Al Queada, Bush did nothing there for 8yrs., we need to pursue the war there etc. etc.! Maybe he wants the MSM to replay all those tapes to refresh his memory!

    Posted by BigPasture at 10/02/2009 @ 4:30pm

  22. Youmamma, shall we bomb Florida and Germany as well? Or perhaps our old friend Saudi Arabia. And if you think the DOD is for our defense, I've some mountain property in aforesaid Southeastern state to sell you.

    Posted by idontwannnabeaserf at 10/02/2009 @ 4:37pm

  23. I realized my previous post might be too opaque. I ask you, do we punish the man who taught the 9/11 hijackers how to fly. Moreover, do we punish Bob Gates and Charlie Wilson for providing the most radical muj in the 1980s with a means to fight the Soviets? Back then our "informed" leaders didn't back the liberals or those folks who supported the monarchy [in the international sense of the word] because we figured old Hekmatyar et al were better fights.

    And, as far as getting people killed, if our leaders realized that they might face a trial at the Hague or domestically with some stiff punishments perhaps there would be less temptation to go adventuring abroad or backup thugs abroad, and we might suffer less from blowback of the Iranian and Taliban variety. Why is it being knee jerk to expect our leaders to face the consequences of their actions? A little too democratic for you? I will admit it is unrealistic, but oh well. Finally, If being uninformed means I don't goose-step to Fox News and the pied pipers out of DC, then vote me ignorant. But by all means feel free to run with the lemmings.

    Posted by idontwannnabeaserf at 10/02/2009 @ 4:46pm

  24. Gunslinger refers to people against the war as being pre-911 in our thinking. I would argue, however, that you haven't learned the foremost lesson of 9/11. Our continued heavy-handed presence in the Middle East and support of thugs like Mubarak. These factors along with our ongoing and one-sided support for Israel will insure continued attacks. But, we are hooked on international meddling, and aren't going to leave the region anytime soon. In such a case, considering that attacks could continue, I'd rather take my chances with being killed in a blown up bus then living under an increasingly authoritarian police state, that extracts more and more from me in terms of taxes, while offering less and less in terms of infrastructure and domestic spending. If we allow these wars to bankrupt us and turn us into a bunch of paranoid chicken littles, cowering under the bed or a bunch of blood-thirsty couch warriors then OBL and the gang have already won.

    Posted by idontwannnabeaserf at 10/02/2009 @ 4:56pm

  25. Posted by idontwannnabeaserf at 10/02/2009 @ 4:56pm

    Think OIL.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/02/2009 @ 6:26pm

  26. ".. then vote me ignorant.>>"

    Posted by idontwannnabeaserf at 10/02/2009 @ 4:46pm

    Ok...then I vote you ignorant.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 10/02/2009 @ 8:42pm

  27. There is no War in Afghanistan. It is an Occupation. Even the liberals refer to it as a War. The problem is, when you use the word "War" it becomes a matter of winning or losing.

    Afghanistan and Iraq are NOT WARS! They are both OCCUPATIONS. And when it is framed by the word that describes what it really is, it no longer becomes a matter of winning or losing.

    Because anyone with any sense knows that you can't win an occupation anymore than you can fight a tactic like Terrorism.

    As long as the liberals keep framing it as a "War" they will always by default give the advantage in the debate away to the Freaks on the other side.

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/03/2009 @ 07:24am

  28. Chazen is right,both countries are being "occupied" in our 21st century brand of nation building. We have the largest group of military policeman since the end of WW2. When two more years go by we will be able to read the latest military doctrine that was learned and employed in Afghanistan. Who really is benefiting from this "conflict"besides Lockheed Martin and ATK? It is time to let the Afghans grow their poppies and worship in their form of peace. Use foreign aid to build schools and roads. Show these people the respect we want to be shown.

    Posted by whatozz at 10/03/2009 @ 08:16am

  29. Obama has more important things to do than the Olympics. Posted by idontwannnabeaserf at 10/02/2009 @ 11:24am | ignore this person | warn this person

    he shoulda stayed home, clearing brush.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/03/2009 @ 09:39am

  30. Afghanistan and Iraq are NOT WARS! They are both OCCUPATIONS.

    are you sure that isn't semantics?

    contrast what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan with the occupations of Germany and Japan, and you'll see that the former is nothing like the latter, which came after the war had ended.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/03/2009 @ 12:46pm

  31. I think I can split the difference with you. it can be argued that the Iraq thing is an occupation tending to a reduction in forces.

    it is good to remember that the partial cease fire, not actual peace, accomplished in Iraq, comes at a very high price. we currently have 100,000 Sunni fighters on our payroll, and who knows how many Shia. my hunch is that we are paying for the entire Maliki gov't.

    Wer soll das bezahlen, wer hat so viel Geld, wer hat so viel Pink, Pinke, wer hat so viel Geld.

    (sorry, a teutonic flashback.)

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/03/2009 @ 1:29pm

  32. PinkE=moohla

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/03/2009 @ 1:35pm

  33. for those who wish to sing along:

    wer soll das bezahlen, wer hat das bestellt,

    wer hat so viel Pinke, Pinke, wer hat so viel Geld.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/03/2009 @ 1:51pm

  34. Gunslinger, it is remarkable that you feel that it is the military's job to protect you from "ideas" such as those espoused by Peter Rothberg. Let's set aside for a moment the implication that our democracy is not strong enough to withstand a free interchange of ideas. and then explain exactly how you envisage the military will use its arsenal of guns, tanks, planes and ships in order to prevent Peter Rothberg from exercising his democratic right to free speech.

    Posted by canaro71 at 10/03/2009 @ 3:51pm

  35. Bottom line is let's get out. No more semantics or what ifs lets get out . I do not want to offend the members of the families of 9/11 victioms but what is going on 8 years later when your government has sold you a bill of goods. They talk about the first 48. What has it been 2920+ days. Your government fed you information that was a sham. Conservatives,shut up, what was put up on your watch? Easy answer, nothing but now we will hide behind two sentences in the 10th Amendment. Let's take the easy road out and see if by doing more of the nothing we have been doing we can throw our opposition off. That has been the mantra for the past few years. Enough of these guys , barry 15 even showed up from his cave.

    Posted by whatozz at 10/03/2009 @ 4:06pm

  36. Vietnam style protests? It doesn't get much moldier that that.

    Yes, by all means send a letter to David Travis Bishop, just address it "coward".

    I guess the most brain dead suggestion is from Code Pink's call for an exit strategy that includes NATO/US troop withdrawal, all party talks, regional diplomacy, and continued aid for reconstruction, medical care, education and development in Afghanistan. What these dweebs don't realize (or maybe they do, but probably don't) is the Taliban and AQL will simply take over, kill all who opposed them, and start planning their Jihad against the west...again, financed by a steady supply of opium, sold to lefties the world over. In a few years there will be a new 9-11 and the cycle will start over again. At least, on the bright side, the military industrial complex will get a revival.

    Posted by pyeatte at 10/03/2009 @ 6:21pm

  37. Ok, I agree with gunslinger that is about the oil, and Cheney et al being terrified of the Chinese using said oil to further develop their economy and military preparedness. So, in their attempt to outmaneuver the Chinese, our leaders manage to go deeply into debt to said Chinese, and we have provided security for Chinese companies operating in Iraq, and somehow we allowed the Chinese to get the rights to mine Copper in Afghanistan for a song. If one really looks at this situation they might come to the conclusion that our leaders are really working for the Chinese, or they are trying to purposely induce an economic crisis at home so they can set themselves up Latin American style, or they are really, really stupid. Having said that, I am not advocating war with the Chinese, or anyone else at this point. Please DC, please don't go to war with anyone else either directly or indirectly. Buy gold and East Asian currencies kiddies.

    Posted by idontwannnabeaserf at 10/03/2009 @ 6:54pm

  38. Emile, point well taken, but remember to wear gloves like Dubya did. I always had a theory that Dubya's handlers didn't want anyone get a closeup of those uncalloused, never seen any sort of manual labor, hands. After clearing some brush and pseudo-rural activies, perhaps Obama could have driven around the ole stationwagon-farmer ranch in his truck and killed some animals to prove his manliness.

    Posted by idontwannnabeaserf at 10/03/2009 @ 6:59pm

  39. So pyeatte, when Al Qaida plans their next strike from Madrid, or London, or Cincinnati, shall we "soften" those cities up before we send in the troops? I can see it now legions of black suvs plowing past Buckingham Palace or energy-drink infused enthusiasts with scary shades on firing into fish and chip shops! You dang terrorist-sheltering Brits! Get some!

    Posted by idontwannnabeaserf at 10/03/2009 @ 7:02pm

  40. ".. then vote me ignorant.>>"

    Posted by idontwannnabeaserf at 10/02/2009 @ 4:46pm

    Ok...then I vote you ignorant.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 10/02/2009 @ 8:42pm

    That was pretty easy wasn't it?

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/03/2009 @ 7:23pm

  41. The unwanted war in Afghanistan is not going to win, even with a troop surge. What progress is made after 8 years of war( aggression) in Afghanistan? The progress is only for the

    Posted by Dastu11 at 10/03/2009 @ 11:56pm

  42. The unwanted war in Afghanistan is not going to win, even with a troop surge. What progress is being made after 8 years of war( aggression) in Afghanistan? The progress is only for the arms manufacturers , the merchants of death.They influence the policies of the Government. So withdraw the troops, the sooner , the better.US can't bring security and security by waging war.It is possible only with good policies. US must stand in the side of justice.Middle East is the epicentre of the US foreign policy mistakes, especially the Palestine.The US openly support Israel, without any logic. It support Israel, with all of it's ability.See how many UN resolutions are vetoed by US in support of the Israel.It is supplying Israel all the weapons to slaughter the Palestinians.It attacked Iraq, in the name of Democracy and war on terror, for STEALING IRAQI OIL.Now it is going after Iran, who is a signatory with the IAEA, in the name of nukes. US keeps mum on Israel, who is sitting on hundreds of Nukes. These types of double standards makes the US, the most hated one in the minds of the Middle East people.And that resulted in the 9/11 attacks. Remember out of 19 attackers, 15 were from Saudi Arabia, it's closet ally.As long as Saudi Arabia allows US to "take care" of it's oil reserve, US will not rise a finger against the Saudi, even if the Saudis attacked the White House.Democracies in the Arab Kingdoms are not a problems for US.THE WORLD KNOW THE REASON.

    Posted by Dastu11 at 10/04/2009 @ 12:29am

  43. Readin here, I see the analysis of what is going on in Central Asia (Afpac as military calls it) from both the conservatives and the Democrats (seems like an odd combination, don;t you think?) is that this is a WAR. And from the progressives opposed to the war that it is an OCCUPATION. but any in-depth analysis of WHO got us into this military activity and WHO has continued to encourage American involvement all of you must admit that this is not a WAR (that can be won) not is it an OCCUPATION (which could develop democracies as happened in Europe after WWII). Rather, the facts will reveal that this is a QUAGMIRE - something we can not win in a region we cannot improve. This QUAGMIRE was designed from the very first to sink whoever is in power in Washington, D.C. (Republican or Democrat), to cause America to spend its blood and treasure to the point of breaking America, and to further anti-Americanism everywhere, and to exacerbate the ideological divisions within America. The true enemies of America, active in both the Democrat and Republican parties have conducted a classic Divide and Conquer operation against America, and, thus far, they seem to be winning. It is time for every American, regardless of your ideolo9gical inclinations, to take a depth breath, set your ideologies aside, and find out who wants us there doing what we are doing. Otherwise America is simply doomed. Our economy can not possible recover. Our prestige will continue to diminish in the world. And we will tear ourselves apart arguing over whether it is a justified war or an unjustified occupation. It is instead a trick by the true devils in this world to destroy America.

    Posted by shadowknows at 10/04/2009 @ 12:41am

  44. The strategy the anti-war movement needs to adopt must operate on two fronts. To simply oppose the war can at best only end this war in Afpac but since the warmongers are also waging other wars and preparing other wars a victory for the anti-war movement will only be a pyrrhic victory similar to the end of the Vietnam War. And at worst it will tear America apart. So we have a dilemma similar to that faced byAbraham Lincoln and his closest allies; how do you defeat the forces of slavery and still keep the union together. Lincoln's solution was to not only defend the union militarily but also economically and strategically. He knew that the confederacy was merely one of several surrogates across the planet of the foreign free trade oligarchy. He knew that his real enemy was not Jefferson Davis but Queen Victoria and her chiefs who were the leaders at that time of the free trade oligarchy. So Lincoln fought this evil system not only with his armies but also with his anti-free trade economic system based upon the Greenback (an honest American dollar backed up by the U.S. government not the phony FED dollars backed up by nothing that we have now). He also reached out internationally to form an alliance against the free trade oligarchy and its surrogates such as the confederacy. We must do something similar now. We need to oppose the warmongers in both the Republican and the Democratic Party. Oppose by any means necessary. But we must also expose the foreign free trade oligarchy that runs the Demo/Repo free trade policies. Lincoln opposed both the pro-slavers (obvious front) and the extreme abolitionists (the not so obvious front) who were also surrogates of the same foreign power.

    Posted by shadowknows at 10/04/2009 @ 04:39am

  45. It will be easy to oppose the neocons (obvious warmongers) and it may be more difficult to oppose the Obama warmongers but we must do it nonetheless. Both the neocons/Republicans and the free trade forces within the Democratic party are both working towards the destruction of America. And they both ultimat4ely, through ideological, financial and family connections, working, both overtly and covertly, for the foreign free trade oligarchy. Free trade exploitation can not exist without wars. The greatest threat to the free trade warmongers is an awaken America that turns against war while simultaneously turning against the oligarchical free trade system that creates wars and returns to the American way of Abraham Lincoln. The largely foreign based free trade oligarchy knows this. That is why they delight in seeing America's predicament, Obama's predicament. If the anti-war movement remains simply a battle of left vs. right, they win. Just as if the struggle in the mid-19th century had remained a struggle between slaveholders and abolitionists; the Union would not have been saved. Today, we have no Lincoln in view, so it is the MOVEMENT that must play the role of Lincoln. We need to look at the situation with a worldview, not a provincial viewpoint. Our opposition to the war(s). It will not be enough to simply blame the U.S. military, or the CIA, or even Obama (and we will), but we must also expose and oppose those pulling the strings on both the left and the right. A British intelligence controlled outfit called Skull & Bones got us into the Vietnam War and it is Skull & Bones operatives in both political parties that have now got us bogged down in Afghanistan/Pakistan.

    Posted by shadowknows at 10/04/2009 @ 04:52am

  46. Emile and shadowknows seem to be missing one key point concerning the occupations that occurred after WWII and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

    The difference is that the occupations of Germany and Japan occurred after a declared War and were for the purposes of reconstruction of those countries. The Marshall Plan succeeded in creating a strong foundation for encouraging Democracy. WWII was also not fought for profit of large Corporations. And were not Wars of Opportunity.

    On the other hand Iraq and Afghanistan were Occupations from the get go. They were the result of Imperialism and Corporate Hegemony. They were an Invasion, conquest and control of other sovereign Nations without any provocation.

    Huge difference. I just heard a CNN talking head asking a reporter in Afghanistan "Why are they (the taliban) attacking U.S. Outposts?" Referring to the eight American soldiers killed Saturday). He actually asked this question with a straight face.

    If I were an Afghani and a foreign Army had invaded my country, I would be kiiling every one of the invaders I could find. Wouldn't You??

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/04/2009 @ 05:43am

  47. The tragedy is that our young men and women are being killed and wounded in these immoral and illegal occupations for the profit of a few greedy sick Oligarchs whose only allegiance is to profit and power. And the pawns in their game are our children and the corrupt polticians that serve them.

    We no longer live in a Democratic Republic. In one way or another we all live under the thumb of a Cadre of diseased Capitalistic Corporate Pigs.

    Until we wake up and realize this, and take action against them, we will remain slaves to their greed. It is that simple.

    But with most of us being sheep, I personally hold little hope that the courage necessary to rise up and defeat this enemy will ever materialize.

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/04/2009 @ 06:31am

  48. >> implore them to say no to General McChrystal's request to send tens of thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan. <<

    You chicken livered phony, Rothberg.

    You know very well, McChrystal is not in control of this war. Obama is. He promised to make Afghanistan the central front in the war on terror, and to give it all necessary resources, resources he charged Bush had denied it. He vowed to institute this surge and promised to fight this war to victory.

    Obama fired the previous general and hand picked McChrystal, and ordered him to review the situation and to tell the president what resources and strategy was required to win.

    Now you worms want to blame the general for his professional judgment when it is Obama who is to blame. He is to blame for this political build up which he promised when the exigencies of his political campaign required it. You don't have the guts to say that, even though you know it is the truth.

    You guys are shameless, without backbone, ideological automatons, politically correct even when you know you are dead wrong.

    Bush sacrificed his political reputation for Iraq. But Obama expects America to sacrifice its lives and treasure for him. Our lousiest war presidents, Polk, McKinley, Johnson, Nixon, none of them sank that low.

    But you guys can't bring yourself to blame Obama, you spit at the general instead. This is about prejudice and bigotry. You would be flaying a president with a white skin conducting a war to serve his personal political needs. Race guides your emotions and judgment; that makes you racists.

    Posted by Pirovano at 10/04/2009 @ 07:23am

  49. Posted by Pirovano at 10/04/2009 @ 07:23am

    Jesus Christ! Another Fascist Zombie Moron.

    You are disgusting Pirovano. Do us all a favor and jump off the nearest pier...

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/04/2009 @ 08:19am

  50. Posted by Pirovano at 10/04/2009 @ 07:23am

    You are however correct about Obama. He has blood on his hands and is now no better than Bushco. He is just another puppet of the military industrial complex with a few less strings pulling on him than John McInsane..

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/04/2009 @ 08:24am

  51. I sincerely hope that the likes of Pirovano know which hills they are going to run for when and if the true patriots in this country finally decide to purge this nation of it's enemies.

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/04/2009 @ 08:30am

  52. Focusing most of our blame on our internal right-wingers for the war is a mistake. They are only cheer leaders. As our the liberals who think there is something to be gained by continuing what is going on. We need to focus our outrage on those who got us into these wars and who continue to pull the strings of both some key figures on the right and some key figures on the left to keep the war going and MORE SIGNIFICANTLY get us all so worked up and emotional that we can not rationally focus on reality. I agree we need to purge the nation of its enemies, but we need to focus on the team coaches and owners not the cheerleaders. I still say any rational investigation of current and recent past events will show that a largely FOREIGN oligarchy, principally British, Dutch, Saudi and Israeli oligarchs, have gotten America into this mess. This largely foreign oligarchy has its allies, its agents and its assets internally internally in our country, for sure, but the ideas and the original organizational impulses towards war (an especially war largely managed by the U.S. Pentagon) still reside within this largely foreign oligarchy. Only they ultimately benefit from these wars. And for those of you who prefer to call Afghanistan an occupation, it is still this same oligarchy that benefits. Who do you think controls oil and gas in Afghanistan? Who do you think benefits from the opium production? Look deeper. America is not isolated in this world and foreign intrigue has always colored our history. The rightists that deserve our ire are those DIRECTLY connected to the anti-American, warmongering foreign oligarchy. The leftists that we need to excluse from the anti-war movement are those DIRECTLY connected to the anti-American, warmongering foreign oligarchy.

    Posted by shadowknows at 10/04/2009 @ 10:50am

  53. Posted by shadowknows at 10/04/2009 @ 10:50am

    The robber barons of today are Multinational Corporations. They are unlike their predecessors in that they are not bound by previous versions of Oligarchs to any single country or government. They operate world wide. This has not happened before.

    There are no "foreign oligarchs". The countries that you speak of, for the most part have highly regulated forms of Capiltalism. Our country has no monopoly on greed. Capiltalists in highly regulated Social Democracies will not hesitate to seek out unregulated systems like our own in order to exercise greed outside their own system.

    If you have a giant unregulated lazier-faire system such as exists in our country every other greed monger in the world will descend on us like a murder of crows.

    Any effort to defeat this evil must also be multinational.

    We really need a worldwide revolt if we want to exorcise these demons.

    In the mean time it is up to us in this country to destroy our huge playground of greed.

    I hope someone understands. Otherwise I am just pissing in the wind...

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/04/2009 @ 12:12pm

  54. Posted by chaoszen at 10/04/2009 @ 12:12pm

    You are right that the principle organizational face of the oligarchy is the multinational or transnational corporation. And you are right that they are global. But so was the earlier generations of the oligbarchy. The official British Empire of the 19th Century was also global in its reach and power. And the original multinational corporations were the British and Dutch East Indies Companies.

    But the point I was trying to make above was that our warmongers are not the driving force in these wars. On a chess board, the King & the Queen are not playing the game; they are just pieces being used, like the pawns, by players who off and above the board. The board in my metaphor here, being nations.

    And just as the movement against the war in Vietnam was global, so must the current movement be. but we must be careful as many foreign forces opposed to these wars are really more Anti-American than they are anti-war or anti-imperialist (to use an out-of-date term). We need a wide, big-tent movement against war, but we must always know just WHO is marching at our side, and why they are marching. During the anti-war protests, most of us were true to our beliefs that the war was evil. But there were other forces (liberal foundations, foreign controlled socialists and green & black groups, and some other groups) who had other agendas. The oligarchy has many tentacles wrapped around the human race (as a recent Rolling Stone article on Goldman Sachs said). We must protest the war in red, white and blue not simply Red, Black or Green. The left must be patriotic not join the anti-American crowd. That is what the oligarchy wants.

    Posted by shadowknows at 10/04/2009 @ 1:46pm

  55. The left must be patriotic not join the anti-American crowd. That is what the oligarchy wants.

    Posted by shadowknows at 10/04/2009 @ 1:46pm

    I'm a proud patriotic leftie. I'm probably as far to the left as one can get without being unreasonable. For example I'm an armed leftie. I probably know more about weapons than even the most ardent wingnut.

    I am not Anti-American. Although I am fervently against current expansionist military industrialist policies.

    I would gladly give my life in the defense and support of the ideals, spirit and tenants of the Constitution.

    Our country and it's founding ideals have been undermined and subjugated by right wing fascist corporate interests.

    It is every patriots duty to protect and defend the documents upon which this country was founded. Even though our history is jaded by slavery and genocide. We owe the dead.

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/04/2009 @ 2:45pm

  56. The military is determined to win one for the Gipper (the last victory was Gulf War I if a turkey shoot applies). Obama should call all the heavily ribboned heroes into the Oval Office and ask them point blank: "Is victory in Afghanistan the ONLY acceptable conclusion to the war?" If the answer is a unanimous "yes," Obama should withdraw all forces including NATO and Nuke Afghanistan with 300 or so 50 megaton bombs, thus killing everyone! He can legitimately declare "victory"! However, he should inform the military first that that is the parameters the military has established with its "victory" ultimatum!

    Such a course of action by the President would expose the foreign policy of America for what it has been for more than fifty years: an exercise in insanity! We have about 1,000 military bases ringing the world, an almost trillion dollar a year military budget, and congressional pressure from both sides of the aisle to keep the pot boiling for jobs in home districts to justify the foreign policy!

    Posted by Spider53 at 10/04/2009 @ 4:49pm

  57. I'm a proud patriotic leftie. I'm probably as far to the left as one can get without being unreasonable. For example I'm an armed leftie. I probably know more about weapons than even the most ardent wingnut.

    I am not Anti-American. Although I am fervently against current expansionist military industrialist policies.

    I would gladly give my life in the defense and support of the ideals, spirit and tenants of the Constitution.

    Our country and it's founding ideals have been undermined and subjugated by right wing fascist corporate interests.

    It is every patriots duty to protect and defend the documents upon which this country was founded. Even though our history is jaded by slavery and genocide. We owe the dead.

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/04/2009 @ 2:45pm

    Cheers to you chaoszen.

    Only, once again, we have been undermined and subjugated by a largely foreign financial & maritime oligarcy that believes in monetism and free trade to achieve its aims. It only resorts to fascism when it needs to. Most of the time, the oligarchy prefers liberalism. The history of liberalism and free trade go hand in hand. Fascism is rule by the iron fist. Liberalism is rule by the iron fist inside a velvet glove.

    You are correct, however, in my opinion, that it is the founders we must look to for an answer to both forms of free trade oligarchism. First, defend our rights. Second replace monetism with Hamilton's and Lincoln's economic system. Third, be the shining city on the hill as an example to the whole world of what can happen when a nation is protected from free trade looting. Yes, I said the P word - Protectionism. And for you guys obsessed with the myths of "capitalism", THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE MARKET. THERE ARE ONLY REGULATED MARKETS OR RIGGED MARKETS.

    Posted by shadowknows at 10/04/2009 @ 7:06pm

  58. I sincerely hope that the likes of Pirovano know which hills they are going to run for when and if the true patriots in this country finally decide to purge this nation of it's enemies.

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/04/2009 @ 08:30am

    Stalin would be so proud of you. He and Mao were experts in purging

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/04/2009 @ 7:59pm

  59. I am not Anti-American. Although I am fervently against current expansionist military industrialist policies. I would gladly give my life in the defense and support of the ideals, spirit and tenants of the Constitution.

    Our country and it's founding ideals have been undermined and subjugated by right wing fascist corporate interests. It is every patriots duty to protect and defend the documents upon which this country was founded. Even though our history is jaded by slavery and genocide. We owe the dead.

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/04/2009 @ 2:45pm

    That's a laugh! As far as I've ever seen in your posts, you hate the constitution. You hate the limitations on the Federal govt that it imposes. You hate the ability of presidents to defend the nation. You hate the 10th amendment giving most of the national authority to the states and the people. Yes, the people. Radical leftists like yourself and whatozz criticize those of us who defend the constitution and the authority given to the people in the 10th amendment.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/04/2009 @ 8:00pm

  60. The two sentences are the easy excuse to do what you want to and say what you want to. My question to you Santi is this ,Why can't I question the credibility of the founders of the nation who considered slaves 3/5 of a man. What I am doing is questioning your above and beyond usage of two sentences. I am reading the Constitution again this evening and the more I read it the smaller those two sentences are becoming. It is interesting that a compromise Amendment is to you the embodiment of the Constitution.What a shame it took 74 years to include the 13th Amendment which it appears isn't as important to you although it is important to your extended family. You continually miss the point,the states are each a part of the whole . The whole supersedes the parts,the two sentences are an out or breathing space. That is why it was inserted not to be 5000 times as important than anything else.

    Posted by whatozz at 10/04/2009 @ 9:06pm

  61. Why can't I question the credibility of the founders of the nation who considered slaves 3/5 of a man. What I am doing is questioning your above and beyond usage of two sentences. I am reading the Constitution again this evening and the more I read it the smaller those two sentences are becoming. It is interesting that a compromise Amendment is to you the embodiment of the Constitution.What a shame it took 74 years to include the 13th Amendment which it appears isn't as important to you although it is important to your extended family. You continually miss the point,the states are each a part of the whole . The whole supersedes the parts,the two sentences are an out or breathing space. That is why it was inserted not to be 5000 times as important than anything else.

    Posted by whatozz at 10/04/2009 @ 9:06pm

    The records of the Constitutional Convention make clear that the three-fifths clause was actually an antislavery provision. As Professor Walter Williams explains:

    "It was slavery's opponents who succeeded in restricting the political power of the South by allowing them to count only three-fifths of their slave population in determining the number of congressional representatives. The three-fifths of a vote provision applied only to slaves, not to free blacks in either the North or South." (emphasis added) The three-fifths clause was not a measurement of human worth; it was an attempt to reduce the number of pro-slavery proponents in Congress. By including only three-fifths of the total numbers of slaves into the congressional calculations, Southern states were actually being denied additional pro-slavery representatives in Congress.

    http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g003.html

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/05/2009 @ 09:40am

  62. Posted by antisocialist at 10/05/2009 @ 09:40am

    So Thomas Jefferson, who you cite often, was "anti-slavery"???

    Posted by Mask at 10/05/2009 @ 09:52am

  63. Posted by Mask at 10/05/2009 @ 09:

    Read for yourself

    <John Adams felt that any abolition plan would have to be led by enlightened Virginians like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington who were against slavery and might be able to press their fellow Southerners to adopt an abolition plan. Ellis writes that in the mid 1780s and before, Jefferson was a strong advocate for the abolition of slavery.

    In 1769 Jefferson proposed unsuccessfully that the Virginia House of Burgess emancipate the slaves of Virginia. In 1778 he successfully passed a bill through the Virginia legislature for the banning of future slave importation to Virginia. Jefferson authored on April 1784 a proposal to the Continental Congress that would've abolished slavery in the Northwestern Territory of the U.S. that failed to pass by a single vote. When Jefferson's 1784 proposal failed to pass by one vote, he wrote,

    "the fate of millions unborn hanging on the tongue of one man, heaven was silent in that awful moment!">

    http://tinyurl.com/ybqvefe

    "Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free."

    Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, 1821

    continued

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/05/2009 @ 10:25am

  64. More on Jefferson's anti-slavery views

    In his book, Notes On Virginia, Jefferson wrote:

    <"[I]t is impossible to be temperate and to pursue this subject through the various considerations of policy, of morals, of history natural and civil.

    We must be contented to hope they will force their way into every one's mind. I think a change already perceptible, since the origin of the present revolution. The spirit of the master is abating, that of the slave rising from the dust, his condition mollifying, the way I hope preparing, under the auspices of heaven, for a total emancipation, and that this is disposed, in the order of events, to be with the consent of the masters, rather than by their extirpation."

    http://www.temple.edu/lawschool/dpost/slavery.PDF

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/05/2009 @ 10:34am

  65. More on Jefferson and slavery

    <When the federal Constitution was adopted in 1791, it contained a provision that prohibited the federal Congress from interfering with the slave trade until the year 1808: "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight . . ." In 1806, in his annual message to Congress, Jefferson wrote: "I congratulate you, fellow-citizens, on the approach of the period at which you may interpose your authority constitutionally, to withdraw the citizens of the United States from all further participation in those violations of human rights which have been so long continued on the unoffending inhabitants of Africa, and which the morality, the reputation, and the best interests of our country, have long been eager to proscribe.

    Although no law you may pass can take prohibitory effect till the first day of the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, yet the intervening period is not too long to prevent, by timely notice, expeditions which cannot be completed before that day."

    Jefferson introduced, Congress passed, and Jefferson signed, a bill prohibiting any further importation of slaves as of the earliest date the Constitution permitted: January 1, 1808.>

    http://www.temple.edu/lawschool/dpost/slavery.PDF

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/05/2009 @ 10:35am

  66. More from the founders on slavery and ending slavery

    "There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it."

    George Washington, letter to Robert Morris, April 12, 1786

    "That men should pray and fight for their own freedom and yet keep others in slavery is certainly acting a very inconsistent as well as unjust and perhaps impious part."

    John Jay, President of Continental Congress, Chief-Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and Governor of New York. Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, editor (New York and London: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1891), Vol. III, pp. 168-169. In a letter to Dr. Richard Price on Sep. 27, 1785.

    "Christianity, by introducing into Europe the truest principles of humanity, universal benevolence, and brotherly love, had happily abolished civil slavery. Let us who profess the same religion practice its precepts... by agreeing to this duty."

    Richard Henry Lee, President of Continental Congress and Signer of the Declaration of Independence.

    "Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity... It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men."

    Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence. Minutes of the Proceedings of a Convention of Delegates From the Abolition Societies Established in Different Parts of the United States, Assembled at Philadelphia, on the First Day of January, One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety-Four

    http://economics.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/slavery.html

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/05/2009 @ 10:40am

  67. Posted by antisocialist at 10/05/2009 @ 10:40am

    Very nice...

    WHEN did Jefferson follow his rhetoric with action and free his OWN slaves?

    Posted by Mask at 10/05/2009 @ 1:36pm

  68. Hey, I have another action for your list! Peace Action West is hosting a week-long a Facebook vigil on the White House's Wall. It only takes a second to take action:

    http://peaceactionwest.org/fb/action.html

    Posted by peaceactionwest at 10/05/2009 @ 1:50pm

  69. But you guys can't bring yourself to blame Obama, you spit at the general instead. This is about prejudice and bigotry. You would be flaying a president with a white skin conducting a war to serve his personal political needs. Race guides your emotions and judgment; that makes you racists.

    Posted by Pirovano at 10/04/2009 @ 07:23am

    What exactly are we to blame Obama FOR? The fact he inherited this war from a self-described "war President?" The fact that he is trying to find a way out that doesn't leave Afghanistan to collapse upon itself? The fact that he is listening to BOTH political sides when it comes to Afghanistan strategy?

    I have no doubt that, like many of his other initiatives, when Obama makes his strategic decision known as to where to go and how to get there, Obama will "own" his decision. Unlike Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, who sent our young men and women off to die with no thought to how we would get OUT of Afghanistan ("target poor"), because they all had a hardon for Iraq ("target rich," "shock and awe"). They were political and physical cowards, wearing physical and metaphysical codpieces to announce to the world "Mission Accomplished" about 5 years too early. Yet you neocons love them all.

    Regarding racism, methinks you doth protest too much, and when someone protests too much, it is usually because they are the thing they label others. In other, smaller words, that means you are probably the racist here.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/05/2009 @ 2:59pm

  70. guantanamo closing in January?

    nope.

    war in afghanistan ending any time soon?

    "not an option"

    thanks barack!

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/05/2009 @ 4:11pm

  71. Very nice...

    WHEN did Jefferson follow his rhetoric with action and free his OWN slaves?

    Posted by Mask at 10/05/2009 @ 1:36pm

    at his death. He stated he wanted to much earlier but spent most of his years after the presidency deeply in debt and died bankrupt.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/05/2009 @ 4:54pm

  72. Stalin would be so proud of you. He and Mao were experts in purging

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/04/2009 @ 7:59pm

    As were the British in their rape and starvation of the native Irish in the orchestrated Potato "Famine".

    As were the Nazis in purging Slavic and Jewish intelligentsia.

    As was Franco.

    Not really a left-right dichotomy.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/05/2009 @ 5:13pm

  73. guantanamo closing in January?

    nope.

    war in afghanistan ending any time soon?

    "not an option"

    thanks barack!

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/05/2009 @ 4:11pm

    ...and who left Obama these particularly sticky wickets of international malfeasance? Hmmmmm...tough question, that one.

    As anyone who understands chemical dumping would know, you don't clean up a Supersite in 11 months. It takes years, and I would argue that Bush's entire presidency equals the worst chemical spill in the world's history, times 1,000. His time in office will probably take decades to repair, THAT'S how bad a President he was and THAT'S how badly he damaged this great country.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/05/2009 @ 6:02pm

  74. stepehencarver--nice analogy. it would work on a lesser poster. but this isn't a chemical spill. obama ran on change. it's not happening. but keep blaming bush if you want to live in the past...

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/05/2009 @ 7:49pm

  75. Seems like Obama is getting ready to escalate the war in South Asia. The left and progressives everywhere will have a responsibility to mobilize against Obama. After all, we put him in office, we are therefore responsible for his war. He has duped and used the left, he has used progressives, he has used those who wanted a beginning to peace in that region. Obama is nothing but a neocon. Worse than Bush, because at least you knew what Bush stood for. The world has to use every ounce of its strength to resist Obama's war. What a great deceiver. Mobilize and resist. Let 1968 repeat itself for the Democrats. May they never again deceive a trusting people!

    Posted by trueleftist at 10/05/2009 @ 9:12pm

  76. So when the Virginia state Constitution was put into law at basically the same time as the U.S. Constitution,Its emphasis on landowners and their rights had no effect on what you are trying to present? You are not telling the truth. The truth is the status quo was the rich and they lorded over that power. The South had vast power because of the value of their slaves. No one had the guts to confront them. Early crooks such as Alexander Hamilton allowed speculators to purchase "assumption and funding"on states debt.Maybe you should read up on this 2 sentences. It is all open for you to find,try it you might find it enlightening.

    Posted by whatozz at 10/05/2009 @ 10:15pm

  77. Posted by antisocialist at 10/05/2009 @ 4:54pm

    So it's okay to keep slaves if you're in debt?

    Posted by Mask at 10/06/2009 @ 07:28am

  78. So it's okay to keep slaves if you're in debt?

    Posted by Mask at 10/06/2009 @ 07:28am

    Must be..

    ...look at the US govt and its slaves.....the master(govt) spends and does what ever it wants to do...and we, the taxpayers...are the slaves.....

    and in that analogy, we can't plant enough cotton in 10 years to pay for the cotton we are "selling" this year.

    And they want more...to help and for the people, of course.....we need more slaves(tax payers), but they are beating them to death and are running out of those who can pay.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 10/06/2009 @ 09:31am

  79. Posted by antisocialist at 10/05/2009 @ 4:54pm

    So it's okay to keep slaves if you're in debt?

    Posted by Mask at 10/06/2009 @ 07:28am

    I never said that. But that never stops you from lying about me, right?

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 09:54am

  80. Posted by YourJomamma at 10/06/2009 @ 09:31am

    Yes, Maasch....we have absolutely no say whatsoever in your own governance, we are "slaves", Gub'mint is the "master" and we are its helpless pawns.

    BTW, when did you become convinced democracy was over in this country?....Can I guess...

    January 20th, 2009?

    Posted by Mask at 10/06/2009 @ 11:49am

  81. Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 09:54am

    Tell us what you DID mean, Larry and put my "lie" to shame.

    Tell us how you started defending the Founders when the issue of support of slavery came up....then defended Jefferson on his "opposition to slavery"....then told us though he "vehemently opposed it", he "had to" wait until he was dead because despite his opposition and the immorality of it ...

    he was in hock and had to keep fellow human beings in chattel or else face the horror of being poor himself.

    Take all that into consideration and...

    Explain it to us

    Posted by Mask at 10/06/2009 @ 11:52am

  82. Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 09:54am

    Tell us what you DID mean, Larry and put my "lie" to shame.

    Tell us how you started defending the Founders when the issue of support of slavery came up....then defended Jefferson on his "opposition to slavery"....then told us though he "vehemently opposed it", he "had to" wait until he was dead because despite his opposition and the immorality of it ...

    he was in hock and had to keep fellow human beings in chattel or else face the horror of being poor himself.

    Take all that into consideration and...

    Explain it to us

    Posted by Mask at 10/06/2009 @ 11:52am

    The lie was that you claimed that I said it was ok. I never said that and I never suggested it was ok.

    You can find plenty of reading material on why he did it, instead of attempting to ask me why. I'm not Jefferson.

    This started when you jumped in challenging me that Jefferson opposed slavery. I provided ample documentation.

    But if you bother to research, you will find that he was concerned about their ability to survive in the South absent an economy that would accept them.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 12:05pm

  83. Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 12:05pm

    You admire the Founders, especially Jefferson and excused away his keeping slaves until he died...

    why couldn't somebody glean that if "only for the Founders"...you think slavery was "okay"?

    Otherwise you'd have been SOMEWHAT critical of Jefferson...and you weren't at all.

    Posted by Mask at 10/06/2009 @ 1:29pm

  84. Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 12:05pm

    You admire the Founders, especially Jefferson and excused away his keeping slaves until he died...

    why couldn't somebody glean that if "only for the Founders"...you think slavery was "okay"?

    Otherwise you'd have been SOMEWHAT critical of Jefferson...and you weren't at all.

    Posted by Mask at 10/06/2009 @ 1:29pm

    I am critical of ANYONE who owned slaves, including Jefferson. But that wasn't the original context or question. I admire their bravery, their intellect, and their wisdom in creating the greatest governing document in world history. That doesn't mean that you agree with all aspects of that person's life. If that's the case then I think that there is no one other than Jesus that anybody should respect in this world since everybody's imperfect.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 1:50pm

  85. "If that's the case then I think that there is no one other than Jesus that anybody should respect in this world since everybody's imperfect."----Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 1:50pm |

    So the Founding Fathers could be wrong?

    (BTW, yes, this is an over-arching or meta-thread question...and my hunch as to how you will continue to avoid answering it on all threads!)

    Posted by Mask at 10/06/2009 @ 2:44pm

  86. So the Founding Fathers could be wrong?

    (BTW, yes, this is an over-arching or meta-thread question...and my hunch as to how you will continue to avoid answering it on all threads!)

    Posted by Mask at 10/06/2009 @ 2:44pm

    No, it's just an inane question. You are attempting to get a conclusion that because a founder was wrong about one area of their life, they could have been wrong about the constitution they wrote.

    Go ahead Mask. Are you going to go on the record and state that the Founders were wrong on the constitution they wrote?

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 3:23pm

  87. This to me is like riding a merry go round until its your turn to answer and falling face first into the sand. Jefferson seemed more concerned with states rights that is why you are in his camp.Southern wealth was at its height during this period,he fought against "Northern" interests and tried to get instutions moved South.

    Posted by whatozz at 10/06/2009 @ 3:47pm

  88. Let 1968 repeat itself for the Democrats.

    huh? a defeat at the polls?

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/07/2009 @ 08:45am

Peter Rothberg Peter Rothberg

Your guide to expressing informed dissent to war, racism, sexism, environmental degradation and market-based solutions to social problems.

Archives

  1. February 2010

  2. January 2010

  3. December 2009

  4. November 2009

  5. October 2009

  6. September 2009

blog roll

Advertisement
Advertisement

Blogs

» Editor's Cut

New Web Column at The Washington Post | Every Tuesday, I'll be featuring progressive thinking about politics and challenging the Right in my new web column for The Washington Post. Read my first one here.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Posted at 4:52 PM ET

» The Notion

When Snow Melts: Vancouver’s Olympic Crackdown | Anger is growing in Vancouver in advance of the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver. Like Olympic clockwork, here comes the media crackdown.
Dave Zirin
20 Comments
Posted at 1:28 PM ET

» The Dreyfuss Report

The Mind-Boggling Stupidity of Michael Rubin | How an AEI apparatchik's love affair for Ahmed Chalabi blinds him to Chalabi's pro-Iran treachery.
Robert Dreyfuss
25 Comments

» The Beat

John Murtha: The Old Soldier Who Said "Bring the Troops Home" | His Iraq War debate with Dick Cheney highlighted the difference between the modern era's sunshine patriots and winter soldiers.
John Nichols
105 Comments

» Act Now!

Demand Question Time | Join the call for the President and Congress to implement regular Question Time sessions.
Peter Rothberg
51 Comments

» And Another Thing

How to Counterbalance Focus on the Family on Superbowl Sunday | Give to help low income girls and women.
Katha Pollitt
49 Comments

» Altercation

Slacker Friday | James O'Keefe and Alter-reviews.
Eric Alterman