Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIt's encouraging that General Jim Jones, the national security adviser, seems to have laid down the law to US generals in Afghanistan: no more troops.
That's not the same as less troops, but it's a start.
In a lengthy Washington Post report, Jones is quoted extensively telling the generals that economic development in Afghanistan will win the fight with the Taliban, not more soldiers. And he used rather colorful language to make his point. During the meeting with Jones, General Nicholson, the US commander, dropped hints that he'd like more forces. Here's the Post account:
Jones recalled how Obama had initially decided to deploy additional forces this year. "At a table much like this," Jones said, referring to the polished wood table in the White House Situation Room, "the president's principals met and agreed to recommend 17,000 more troops for Afghanistan." The principals -- Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton; Gates; Mullen; and the director of national intelligence, Dennis C. Blair -- made this recommendation in February during the first full month of the Obama administration. The president approved the deployments, which included Nicholson's Marines.Soon after that, Jones said, the principals told the president, "oops," we need an additional 4,000 to help train the Afghan army.
"They then said, 'If you do all that, we think we can turn this around,' " Jones said, reminding the Marines here that the president had quickly approved and publicly announced the additional 4,000.
Now suppose you're the president, Jones told them, and the requests come into the White House for yet more forces. How do you think Obama might look at this? Jones asked, casting his eyes around the colonels. How do you think he might feel?
Jones let the question hang in the air-conditioned, fluorescent-lighted room. Nicholson and the colonels said nothing.
Well, Jones went on, after all those additional troops, 17,000 plus 4,000 more, if there were new requests for force now, the president would quite likely have "a Whiskey Tango Foxtrot moment." Everyone in the room caught the phonetic reference to WTF -- which in the military and elsewhere means "What the [expletive]?"
The Post added that the generals seemed "to blanch at the unambiguous message that this might be all the troops they were going to get."
It seems significant to me that Jones did this in public, with a reporter in the room, rather than privately, since it does commit the administration to an end to the escalation in Afghanistan. (Or else we can all say: WTF?)
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
It's encouraging that General Jim Jones, the national security adviser, seems to have laid down the law to US generals in Iraq: no more troops.
posted by Robert Dreyfuss on 07/01/2009 @ 09:36am
I wish I have the chance to make such BIG calls on the first day of Iraqis being in charge of their own urban securities....yep, no more than the ~130,000 GIs in Iraq.
Posted by Happy at 07/01/2009 @ 09:55am
An end to escalation. Fine, a start.
But what exactly is the US objective in Af/Pak?
To annihilate the Taliban? (How many dead is acceptable? necessary?)
To ensure a pipeline through Afghanistan & exiting at a Pakistan port?
In either -- or more likely both cases, a very long term US military presence will be in the cards for Afghanistan. And how are the Afghanis meant to accept that?
Does the Obama administration plan to have empire on the cheap?
And how much can it get away with continuing to extract from a collapsed US economy?
Posted by sloper at 07/01/2009 @ 10:08am
That's not the same as less troops, but it's a start.
fewer troops.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/01/2009 @ 10:35am
Color me unimpressed-what, pray tell, are the consequences for Obama if he goes back on his word? Reneging on promises never cost Bush or Clinton an election-is there a perception now that the public memory has somehow been sharpened?
Posted by thefullaunty at 07/01/2009 @ 10:47am
Oh, and by 'economic development', is Jones referring to US companies taking government money for a project in Afghanistan, skimming 30% off the top, and then constructing a building with faulty electrical wiring with showers that electrocute people? (read it in the Nation haters).
Yeah, that's totally working.
Posted by thefullaunty at 07/01/2009 @ 10:54am
"That's not the same as less troops, but it's a start."
fewer.......
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/01/2009 @ 11:37am
i shoulda known...
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/01/2009 @ 11:38am
Obama was handed a complete mess there, and there may not be a good answer on how to proceed. But you don't just let the Taliban restore itself like we had been doing the last 7 years -- found a cool site; Balkingpoints ; incredible satellite view of earth
Posted by reg373 at 07/01/2009 @ 12:26pm
Color me unimpressed-what, pray tell, are the consequences for Obama if he goes back on his word?
Posted by thefullaunty at 07/01/2009 @ 10:47am
Nothing... He is the president and should have the right and power to change his mind if he thinks it is in the best interest of the country. If you don't like it vote him out next cycle.
Posted by reg373 at 07/01/2009 @ 12:26pm Good point.
Posted by Extraneous at 07/01/2009 @ 12:34pm
we should look toward encouraging innovative appropriate technology solutions to the problems of poverty and lack of development in the country.
from the 70's to the present a small town on the colombian "llanos" (plains, savanna) one of the most inhospitable places on the planet, have managed to implement simple but effective wind, solar, and biomass technology, constructed durable, affordable, environmentally smart housing from local material, invented a cheap hand water pump that is ten times more effective than previous models (sometimes powered by seesaws in school playgrounds!), REFORESTED huge swaths of deforested territory while harvesting the byproducts of the cooling trees for profit.
this, by the way, was all done in one of the most violent and dangerous places of the late twentieth century, the colombia of left wing guerrillas, rightwing death squads, and bandit king narcotraficantes...
if we buzz in, dump a pile of high tech crap, build a few cookie cutter american style schools, and try to get them towelheads hooked on our corrosive pop culture...we may as well not try...
but appropriate technology solutions are actually very cheap and a lot more effective - its the old give 'em a fish or teach 'em how to fish thing.
we americans think we can fix everything with high price, high tech...which is laudable in a way, but why reach around your head to pick your nose when you can just pick your nose?
for example, years ago our air force realized some of our planes had a problem - they could not look back behind them. so of course we sunk BUZILLIONS of $$$$ into a high tech computer gadget thing.
the israelis bolted a car rear view mirror on their planes...
LOL...
but time to hit up rich allies for this as well.
and maybe the folks from gaviotas...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/01/2009 @ 12:43pm
Afghanistan is a fair sized country, and to make it secure and safe for the people, you must hold the ground to make it secure. This takes a lot of troops, which may make our presence there look like an occupation. Related to this problem is that the fewer troops you have on the ground, the more dependent you become on firepower for force protection and winning battles. The massive use of firepower increases the possibility of collateral damage. In other words, more civilians will die!
Without security civilian aid agencies will have a hard time aiding anyone. While the overall control of aid may be supervised by civilian agencies, the military services will have to deliver the aid because of safety issues for civilians. While Clinton might not like it, some young captain may be distributing micro loans to small businesses. Military engineers can build or supervise the building of anything, and you have seen on the news military doctors performing miracles everyday on the battlefield.
However, without the draft, there is no way, the military can produce the numbers to secure Afghanistan. This is why it is important to try to building relationships with Afghanistan's neighbors, who may be able to help secure that country.
Posted by pjcasey at 07/01/2009 @ 1:07pm
Posted by pjcasey at 07/01/2009 @ 1:07pm | ignore this person | warn this person
well, the alternative to trying is to leave and allow the taliban to return (or fund on the sly opponents of the taliban - an unending guerrilla war that will prevent them from EVER getting their shit together) and bombing the shit out of them if they harbor terrorists...
turn the country into a military proving ground...
boy, doesn't that sound great?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/01/2009 @ 1:19pm
Obama said years ago that Iraq was the wrong war. That was years ago: escalating in Afghanistan 6 years too late seems foolish. --And why doesn't any politician connect our spending on the military with our (artificial) budget problems? --All the civilian deaths in Afghanistan and Pakistan are now blood on this administration's hands. Lou
Posted by Lou Rowan at 07/01/2009 @ 1:33pm
Like Bush and his generals with Iraq, Obama and his generals haven't the faintest idea why we are in Afghanistan and the reasons keep changing every week, like a weather vane. The real reason of course is the same as with Iraq: the Military Industrial Complex, but you can't tell that to the stupid sheeple.
Posted by mystic at 07/01/2009 @ 1:36pm
Posted by mystic at 07/01/2009 @ 1:36pm | ignore this person | warn this person
a combination of dinosaur and runaway train models of social disintegration.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/01/2009 @ 1:48pm
My previous comments are analysis and not opinion or wishful thinking. Al- Qaida will not quit attacking us if we withdraw, and there are no easy choices involving this conflict. Policy needs to be based on facts on the ground, the resources need to pursue a "military" solution, and other options that may be partly military and or diplomatic. In other words, you need to think, plan, and not react based on emotions. Good nerves also help!
Posted by pjcasey at 07/01/2009 @ 2:36pm
http://cryptome.org/du-suck.htm
http://tinyurl.com/lwglb9
http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?
http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/ud_main.html
http://www.swans.com/library/art10/iraq/flounders.html
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/war/iraq/evacuations.htmcode=181303
http://tinyurl.com/ygabga
http://tinyurl.com/kpqsxb
http://spiderednews.com/GulfWarSyndromedepleteduranium.htm
http://tinyurl.com/mq5qla
http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du_eur.htm
http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/opin/pr_uswc.html
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/01/2009 @ 2:40pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/01/2009 @ 2:40pm
feeling a little bored and leftout bushfools?
Posted by antisocialist at 07/01/2009 @ 2:52pm
That's not the same as less troops, but it's a start.
fewer troops.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/01/2009 @ 10:35am | ignore this person | warn this person
Wrong, it's not fewer troops. It means no additional troops will be called back from IRR (marines only, the rest are still an option in the future). The troop levels overseas are at 30 year highs. BHO has increased that number not brought it down one iota. Obama is a warmonger no different than Bush, both entrenched in the wall street, corporate, military industrial complex that runs the world. We are not only financially bankrupt, we are morally and ethically bankrupt also.
Posted by liberty4all at 07/01/2009 @ 2:59pm
Nah, just reminded of the other reason for cutting down on our troop level that no one wants to address.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/01/2009 @ 3:01pm
One reason that is fueling Obama's aggressive policy in Afghanistan is his fear of being called "Soft on our Enemies" and "Wimp". This is rooted in the Spartan and militaristic mentality that is afflicting our average Joe-Six-Pack in America; call this the Rambo Syndrome.
The notion that "Muslims are out to kill us" is driven hard by the Military Industrial Complex and their Zionist friends. Another 9/11 can't be avoided by invading more Muslim countries, but by altering the fundamentals of our foreign policy. Our blind and misguided support for the Israeli Occupation of Palestine and Israel's Apartheid practices directed at Palestinians has been the source of the mass anger directed at the US. This anger will not subside unless we end such blind support for Israel. Supporting the ruthless Middle East dictators who are butchering their citizens does not earn us many good marks in the Middle East as well.
The Zionists lobby has launched an intensive, and successful, campaign to propagate the fad that we were attacked on 9/11 because Muslims hate our way of life. The history of Muslim violence against the West began to emerge on the heels of the 1967 War when the Israelis attacked and occupied Arab Lands. Prior to that, Muslims were on the receiving end; the unparalleled Israeli genocide campaign to drive Palestinians out of their homes on one hand and the Western Colonial exploitation of Muslims on the other.
Posted by CripThink at 07/01/2009 @ 3:02pm
Posted by CripThink at 07/01/2009 @ 3:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I'll translate. it's all the jews' fault.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/01/2009 @ 3:31pm
Hello CripThink
Huh. And here I thought 9/11 occurred because of US military presence in and support for the existing government of Saudia Arabia, which Al Quaida would like to convert to a revolutionary Islamic state.
CripThink -- you need to stop believing the worldwide Zionist conspiracy myth. The Protocol of the Elders of Zion was a forgery, except for the part about instigating WWII in order to make the West guilty enought to support the creation of Israel.
Posted by gren at 07/01/2009 @ 3:35pm
Nothing... He is the president and should have the right and power to change his mind if he thinks it is in the best interest of the country. If you don't like it vote him out next cycle. Posted by reg373 at 07/01/2009 @ 12:26pm Good point.
I'm not saying he can't ever change his mind-but to dangle the 'no new troops' carrot when he knows full well the goals can't be accomplished with this many seems irresponsible.
Posted by thefullaunty at 07/01/2009 @ 3:50pm
CripThink -- you need to stop believing the worldwide Zionist conspiracy myth. The Protocol of the Elders of Zion…
gren,
It happened that I agree with you that the protocols are forgery, but that does not negate or diminish the Israel's lobby stranglehold on our decision-making, and specifically when it comes to our foreign policy.
Ben Laden made it clear that he attacked us due to our blind support for Israel and also because of our propping of Arab dictators; I mentioned that in my posting.
As for the relationship between 9/11 and our support for Israel, this is the best kept secret. The 9/11 commission kept it under the rug and so did our Congress, all out of fear of the Israeli Lobby. It is no secret that our Congress is another "Israeli Occupied Territory"
Posted by CripThink at 07/01/2009 @ 4:46pm
Alas, the longtime Israeli campaign to drive Palestinians out of their homes is certainly not unprecedented.
Observe the manifest destiny (granted, not the Torah) of from sea to shining sea. Then ask Native Americans about how unprecedented Israeli actions are. Even Hitler acknowledged the US as a successful model for his campaign to acquire lebensraum in the east.
Posted by sloper at 07/01/2009 @ 5:18pm
The troop levels overseas are at 30 year highs. BHO has increased that number not brought it down one iota. Obama is a warmonger no different than Bush, both entrenched in the wall street, corporate, military industrial complex that runs the world. We are not only financially bankrupt, we are morally and ethically bankrupt also. Posted by liberty4all at 07/01/2009
Couldn't agree more with you lib4all--as Jeremy Scahill said in his interview with Bill Moyers, its time to "take off the Obama T-Shirts." So many liberal journalists that I respect, writers on this site, Jack Beatty and others at NPR, seem to be bending over backwards to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. These are people who should be the leaders in calling out Obama as just the latest member, young lion that he is, of the Old Boys club. When you look at the bailout, the watered down climate change bill that props up clean coal, the ruse of closing guantanamo but expanding Bagram, you see the beginnings of an agenda that should have liberals feeling betrayed, and frankly I'm shocked and a little frightened that more of these astute folks didn't see it coming.
Posted by thefullaunty at 07/01/2009 @ 5:27pm
Posted by emile duBois at 07/01/2009 @ 10:35am
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/01/2009 @ 11:37am
More contextually relevant responses, and less grammar correction, maybe?
"I'll translate. it's all the jews' fault."
Posted by emile duBois at 07/01/2009 @ 3:31pm
Just .22% their fault?
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
Posted by Malcontent at 07/01/2009 @ 6:01pm
except for the part about instigating WWII in order to make the West guilty enought to support the creation of Israel. Posted by gren at 07/01/2009 @ 3:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person
let me get this straight. the jews instigated WW2?
you must be outa yer mind
Posted by emile duBois at 07/01/2009 @ 6:14pm
its time to "take off the Obama T-Shirts." Posted by thefullaunty at 07/01/2009 @ 5:27pm
thefullaunty,
I tend to agree with your analysis. It is however prudent not to expect the astute and highly pragmatic Obama to stand up to the establishment with a bankrupted progressive movement. This is, definitely, not Obama's failure alone; it is America's collective failure. Remember, it is in America today that a fellow like Ralph Nader can't score more than 2% in our national election. America is still the place where incumbent politicians are elected and re-elected despite being corrupt to the core. We have re-elected a war criminal for president in 2004 and failed to end the Iraq war. Most Americans are turning against the single-payer healthcare model as we speak, despite years of criminal deception by the insurance companies. Maybe you could fault Obama for deciding to run for president on behalf of a sissy nation, where courage, fairness and common sense are becoming rare commodities.
Posted by CripThink at 07/01/2009 @ 6:38pm
"Remember, it is in America today that a fellow like Ralph Nader can't score more than 2% in our national election."---------Posted by CripThink at 07/01/2009 @ 6:38pm
Yes, of course. Wouldn't have ANYTHING to do with the fact that Nader has marginalized himself for so long, or proven (as AT THE LEAST his 2008 run did) himself a monumental egotist, who now only relishes his "Six Months Before A Presidential Election" emergence from...where-ever he's hiding now (for the next 2 years 8 months)....to make another try at electing a Republican.
Posted by Mask at 07/01/2009 @ 7:27pm
I hate to break it to you, but some things actually ARE the fault of the Jews. The rape and pillage of Palestine being near the top of the list. Of course, the Jewish right couldn't have pulled it off with out the help of some self-worshiping Old-Testament-Crazed morons on the Christian side of evil.
Posted by DejaVu at 07/01/2009 @ 7:30pm
Posted by gren at 07/01/2009 @ 3:35pm
If memory serves (quick check against Wikipedia) The Protocols came out in the mid-19th century. It would have been one hell of a bit of forecasting to have included WWII in that discussion - although maybe you are referring to a later variant.
Posted by CripThink at 07/01/2009 @ 4:46pm
You don't have to think. It's established fact. I took a class once on Machiavellianism that used this as a example of a Machiavellian document used to a Machiavellian purpose. We never discussed how the fact that it is a forgery is then co-opted again to deflect any criticism of any sub-group of Jews, but it would be right in line with the theme.
It's a fascinating little document - both in what it is says and how it is used.
Posted by srjenkins at 07/01/2009 @ 9:23pm
Posted by pjcasey at 07/01/2009 @ 1:07pm
What you are referring to is occupation. Here's the part I don't get. We know it took 400,000 troops to occupy Japan, an island nation. Why did anyone think we could occupy Afghanistan or Iraq with a fraction of that troop level? Obama basically gets the concept that if you aren't prepared to drop hundreds of thousands of troops and begin the pacification, then a couple of thousand Marines here and there doesn't make much of a difference. You just don't have to be a tool to realize this - and despite Obama's faults, he's not a tool.
Posted by srjenkins at 07/01/2009 @ 9:32pm
where-ever he's hiding now (for the next 2 years 8 months)....to make another try at electing a Republican. Posted by Mask at 07/01/2009 @ 7:27pm
It is a sheer fantasy to assume that had Nader followed your advice, the corporate media would have given his campaign the fair coverage it deserves. Nader isn't hiding, he is simply "persona non grata" when it comes to our "Fair and Balanced" corporate media; you know that.
Those of us who get carried away sometimes and ask Obama to adopt Nader's lookalike platform forget that we still live in America and that our democracy is still the best democracy money can buy.
Posted by CripThink at 07/01/2009 @ 9:32pm
I'll translate. it's all the jews' fault.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/01/2009 @ 3:31pm
Crap translation
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 07/01/2009 @ 9:44pm
I'll translate. it's all the jews' fault.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/01/2009 @ 3:31pm
Crap translation
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 07/01/2009 @ 9:44pm
No one mentioned Jews, unless both of you insist that Judaism and Zionism are one and the same. This would be your sole crap interpretation and no one else's.
Posted by CripThink at 07/01/2009 @ 9:52pm
the jews instigated WW2? Posted by emile duBois at 07/01/2009 @ 6:14pm
No, the Zionists, you dope.
Not that I agree
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 07/01/2009 @ 9:52pm
Posted by CripThink at 07/01/2009 @ 9:52pm
Crip, yer starting to worry me: seeing antagonism lurking in any old post...
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 07/01/2009 @ 10:11pm
Posted by CripThink at 07/01/2009 @ 4:46pm
the protocols are far older.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/01/2009 @ 10:20pm
Zionists are jews. not all jews are zionists.
to the antisemites it makes no difference.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/01/2009 @ 10:22pm
I hate to break it to you, but some things actually ARE the fault of the Jews.
fomenting WW2 is not one of them. read my post, and don't put words or arguments in my mouth.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/01/2009 @ 10:24pm
Operation Whiskey Tango Foxtrot ought to be the code name for the entire U.S. operation in "AfPak".
Here is a fine little porthole into the absurdity --not that anyone should have been under any illusions in the first place:
"Pakistan Plays Dangerous Double Game"
tinyurl.com/knxa7q
Excerpt:
The assassin struck shortly after morning prayers, storming into a room at the compound where Qari Zainuddin was staying and opening up with a volley of fire. The militant leader was rushed to a nearby hospital but declared dead. Meanwhile, the gunman - apparently dispatched by Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud - escaped in a waiting car.
The following day, in a cemetery of Muslim and Christian graves encircled by fields of maize, the 26-year-old, who in recent months had pitched himself against Mr Mehsud, was buried. The militant leader's funeral was notable for two things. Firstly the town was filled with checkposts manned by both Taliban and Pakistani security personnel. Secondly, when the dead man's brother, Misabhuddin, vowed to reporters that he would take revenge against Mr Mehsud, he also let slip something else. "Jihad against America and its allies in Afghanistan will continue as well," he said.
The killing last week of Mr Zainuddin, who had been staying in a compound provided by the country's ISI security agency, has opened a window on a complicated, controversial and perilous element of the battle against militants inside Pakistan. Mr Zainuddin, himself a Taliban leader who supported al-Qa'ida and jihad against Western troops in Afghanistan, had recently been recruited by the Pakistani authorities to join their battle to kill Baitullah Mehsud, who has emerged as the country's deadliest militant.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/01/2009 @ 10:41pm
In essence, Islamabad is recruiting anti-American fighters to bolster a joint US-Pakistani operation.
The arrangement underlines the competing strategic priorities in the region for Pakistan and the US, even as their leaders opt in public for the language of common interests and shared enemies....
End quote.
Personally, I find animal behavior incredibly fascinating and humans are no exception --as an aside I note here that Olivia Judson is back on duty writing her superb biology blog at the NY Times op-ed page.
It's almost funny --in a Dr. Strangelove way-- that when Obama arrived in the White House, the Department of "Defense" did not have a strategic plan outlining the objective(s) of the Afghan occupation.
D'oh!!!
I'd venture a guess that if a plan now exists, its goals are unattainable. Who wants to take me on?
P.S. I wonder if any significant discussion is under way at The Nation regarding the miserably poor journalistic performance in Mr. Dreyfuss' Iranian dispatches? Especially in light of the cogent questions raised in the letter from the World Socialist Web Site that I posted in Dreyfuss' last thread.
This aint over folks.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/01/2009 @ 10:41pm
Time to get out now!!!!!! Let the Taliban have the country. They deserve it and they will figure it out without our presence.
We would never allow foreign troops in this country armed as we are in Afganistan. Remember the golden rule
Posted by notsleepy at 07/01/2009 @ 10:53pm
>>>telling the generals that economic development in Afghanistan will win the fight with the Taliban, not more soldiers.<<<
Yes, this is the KEY POINT!
Economic development is what is needed in all poor countries, and when this is absent it is easy to exploit the masses to join any cause to rally against the greedy rich countries.
Posted by Metteyya at 07/01/2009 @ 11:14pm
"Zionists are jews. not all jews are zionists. to the antisemites it makes no difference" (emile duBois) Is that so? Most Jews are not Semites, or haven't you heard? All Palestinians are Semites. Read your history.By the way, to be respectful, "jews" has a capital "J". Here's a quote: "My grandparents died in the Holocaust but I am sickened by this exploitation of their tragedy. There is no reason to focus on Jewish suffering to the exclusion of everyone else's. This selfishness and failure to consider others is a cause of anti-Semitism".
Posted by mystic at 07/01/2009 @ 11:16pm
This aint over folks.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/01/2009 @ 10:41pm
Yah, well you didn't eggsackly address my problem with Yazdi's popularity/clout, either.
Not that my 2 cents etc...
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 07/01/2009 @ 11:18pm
"Obama and his generals haven't the faintest idea why we are in Afghanistan " mystic
Quite.
And all Obama's eloquence & intelligence can't hide that fact. He hasn't the chutzpah (at least not yet) to come right out & lie Bush/Pentagon style (WMD scam).
And the truth simply won't garner much US public support, forget what the rest of the world thinks. Imperialism, the health of the MIC, the pipeline ... not the sort of reasons that stir patriotic feelings they might have aroused a century ago.
Posted by sloper at 07/01/2009 @ 11:31pm
may I be struck by lightning if thinking thoughts inspired by the Great Satan:
Could Yazdi have been sort of don before the Revolution?
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 07/01/2009 @ 11:55pm
I hope I don't regret posting this.
I mean like Occam's razor:
Pahlevi paid a lot to keep control but got greedy, like they all do, and decided to screw over...
Certain clerics got royally ticked, especially the ones handling the collection plate.
Certain interests had thoughts of recrimination by association back then
Clerics 1, Satan 0
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 07/02/2009 @ 12:04am
helo emile dubois
I assumed from the context of my entire post that everyone would recognize my comment re: jews, WWII as snark.
BTW, in my domestic bliss, I am blamed so frequently for so many things that my kids joke that Daddy also is to blame for the plague, WWII and global warning, amongst other catastrophies. Since I'm Jewish, I guess one can blame those things on at least one Jew.
To avoid confusion, that is a snark.
Posted by gren at 07/02/2009 @ 12:56pm
satire and sarcasm are tricky in these forums. sometimes they go right over their heads. mine too.
if you recall there was a crazy propounding the view that the jews started the war in germany, and Hitler was just reacting.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/02/2009 @ 1:20pm
Hello emile dubois
yes, being on this forum is a good warmup to the Twilight Zone marathon.
Posted by gren at 07/02/2009 @ 1:25pm
the guy who wrote the theme music to that show died recently I believe.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/02/2009 @ 1:40pm
I am blamed so frequently for so many things.....Since I'm Jewish,....
Posted by gren at 07/02/2009 @ 12:56pm
So, you can also take the blame for my losing a good tenant at end of July!
To avoid confusion, that is NOT snark.....just sharing the wealth (of blame)!
Posted by Happy at 07/02/2009 @ 2:41pm
Hello Happy
Glad I could be useful.
Hope your vacancy gets filled quickly.
Posted by gren at 07/02/2009 @ 2:47pm
Hello Happy Glad I could be useful. Hope your vacancy gets filled quickly.
Posted by gren at 07/02/2009 @ 2:47pm
Me too Happy, but listen to this proposal:
Talking about filling vacancy brings to mind the latest stunt being pulled by the other Jew and lethal Zionist; Bibi Netanyahu. Netanyahu apparently has run out of rabbits to pull out of the hat to explain his continuous heist of Palestinian lands. Thus, Netanyahu claims that he will keep stealing Palestinian land in the West Bank to accommodate the so-called "Natural Growth" of existing Jewish Settlements. Lethal Zionists, normally, don't consider lying for the cause a major vice, since their Talmudic instructions allow that. Well, Netanyahu overlooked the same problem that is afflicting you Zionist Happy; namely: Vacancy.
The latest survey shows that 25% of all units built on the Jewish Settlements on the West Bank are still Vacant. The Zionists simply can't find resident takers for these units despite all the freebies and financial incentives offered. Netanyahu is deceiving the world about the so-called "Natural Growth" in his illegal settlements, while 25% of all units on these settlements are sitting vacant.
Happy: would you donate your vacant unit for the cause of Netanyahu's natural growth dilemma? Bring in a Jewish settler to live in it for free.
Posted by CripThink at 07/02/2009 @ 4:54pm
Happy: would you donate your vacant unit for the cause of Netanyahu's natural growth dilemma? Bring in a Jewish settler to live in it for free.
Posted by CripThink at 07/02/2009 @ 4:54pm
Ayn Rand would not approve.......she told me!
Posted by Happy at 07/02/2009 @ 6:50pm
Ayn Rand would not approve.......she told me! Posted by Happy at 07/02/2009 @ 6:50pm
Too bad, the stealing of Palestinian land will continue then, while your and Netanyahu's units are sitting vacant.
Posted by CripThink at 07/02/2009 @ 7:01pm
Getting back to Afghanistan, I think it is perfectly possible to develop the country a little, and even to get the local people to respect the American presence to some degree. But it isn't easy. And America's colonial history has not been studded with especially successful examples. The appropriate technology approach has been very successful in parts of Africa, and even (in terms of dry land water conservation) in Israel. But as long as your country employs weapons that indiscriminately kill civilians, you are creating more terrorists than you kill. This is blood feud country, and every time you kill someone, you have to reckon with the whole clan. The legitimacy of US intervention in Afghanistan depends on the Taliban being a minority. But the careless killing and lack of tangible progress for ordinary Afghans have meant that especially around Tirin Kot, the Taliban has developed more legitimacy that the occupying forces. If the US is serious about a positive resolution to Afghan conflict(and the question needs to be asked), then you would do well to remember your Clausewitz: "The moral and the physical forces are inextricably linked, and not to be rendered apart like a base metal from its ore." Which means, among other things, that you need to get beyond straightforward killing if you want to win this war.
Posted by StuartMunro at 07/02/2009 @ 7:31pm
why don't you just buy all the poppies?
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/02/2009 @ 10:22pm
Oh. Not the nazdy Yazdi.
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 07/02/2009 @ 10:28pm