Afghan Apocalypse, Part II

This is the second of two accounts of thinktank evaluations of the war in Afghanistan. The first was a report from the Brookings Institution on Tuesday. Today, the Heritage Foundation.

The highlight of Thursday's event at the Heritage Foundation was analyst Marvin Weinbaum's scathing review of the Afghan elections. Weinbaum, who served as a member of Barack Obama's advisory task force on Afghanistan, is a former analyst for the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR). His report on the election, where he served as an observer during the vote, contrasted sharply with the happy talk from the administration and from official and semi-official Afghan agencies who presented the vote as an inspiring exercise in democracy.

It wasn't.

Weinbaum warned that the election was so grievously flawed that it may serve to further de-legitimize the regime of President Karzai. Turnout was abysmally low, with only about one-third of Afghans going to the polls, and in some districts -- especially in the Pashtun-dominated south -- perhaps between 5 and 15 percent of people voted, he said. On top of that, Weinbaum said, there is evidence of widespread fraud, and virtually all of the main opposition candidates are charging that the election was rigged. More than a thousand specific complaints have been lodged already, he said, adding that he himself saw properly marked ballots for opposition candidates that had been destroyed and left scattered along a roadside. He suggested that it's likely that evidence of fraud and vote-rigging will emerge in the coming weeks, helping to convince Afghans that the election was illegitimate.

On election day, Weinbaum noted, there were hundreds of violent attacks on polling places across the country, yet most of them went unreported because the Afghan government had insisted that the media ignore them. Observers, like himself, observed the vote almost entirely in relatively secure areas, whereas problems occurred elsewhere. He suggested that large-scale stuffing of ballot boxes and manipulation of the tallying of votes occurred.

As a result, he said, "Our entire strategy may be at stake here." Asked Weinbaum: "How can we expect to partner with a government de-legitimized by the very process by which it came to power?" He zinged the Obama administration for having lauded the electoral process, a wrong-headed judgment that will only embarrass the White House when the full details of the rigged nature of the election emerge.

A key point of the Heritage Foundation presenters, including Weinbaum, is that it is critical for the White House to shore up declining political support for the war -- which is already opposed by a majority of Americans, who've told pollsters the war isn't worth fighting. So the White House is caught between two bad options: if it continues to gloss over problems like the fraudulent election, it will develop a Vietnam-like credibility gap as the truth becomes clear. But if Obama tells the truth, an American public already soured on a hopeless war against a vaguely defined enemy ten thousand miles away, with rising US casualties and the prospect of spending hundreds of billions of dollars, is very likely to decide that it's long past time to get out.

The four panelists at the event -- Weinbaum, General David Barno, Lisa Curtis, and David Isby -- all agreed that getting out of Afghanistan would be a first-order catastrophe, but they didn't prove it to me. In fact, it's a difficult case to make. Their argument was: if we leave, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and their jihadist allies will gain influence across the region, from Afghanistan and Pakistan to central Asia and the Persian Gulf. Again, as in Vietnam, all the panelists seemed content to make Vietnam-era, domino-theory arguments that the entirety of the Muslim world is at stake. To me, that's a patently absurd argument.

Here's the reality: First, if we leave Afghanistan, the Taliban may or may not take over. Most of the Afghan population hates the Taliban, and the non-Pashtun minorities won't roll over and accept a Taliban victory even if we aren't there to fight alongside them. Second, even if the Taliban do take over, or set up a statelet in the south (consolidating areas already under their control), they may or may not invite Al Qaeda to join them. Al Qaeda already has a base, in Pakistan, and so far they've been unable to use that base to attack much of anything outside the war zone. Besides, the Taliban isn't the same thing as Al Qaeda, and they may find it politic not to re-ally with Osama bin Laden's terrorist band. And third, Taliban-style Islam and Al Qaeda-style terrorism is fast losing support among Muslims from Morocco to Indonesia, and there's zero evidence that the re-establishment of a Taliban state in Afghanistan would do much, if anything, to excite Muslims. In fact, it's easier to make the argument that radical Muslim extremists are energized by the US presence in Afghanistan and the concomitant jihad, and that a US withdrawal from Afghanistan would calm passions, not inflame them.

Those facts didn't prevent the team at Heritage -- like the team at Brookings two days ago -- from issuing dire warnings about cataclysms to come if the US doesn't prevail.

General Barno, who commanded US forces in Afghanistan from 2003-2005, stressed in his presentation the importance of domestic US propaganda for the war, saying that a key to the success of the US enterprise in Afghanistan is to "rebuild popular support" for a sustained US effort. Barno's main argument was that the Taliban's strategy is to "run out the clock" -- yes, he used a football analogy! In other words, the Taliban expect that US political support for the war will force a US withdrawal before we can "succeed." (I wanted to ask him if he was aware that precisely the same analogy was used in Vietnam, that the Viet Cong and Hanoi wanted to outlast the US invasion. How ironic.) Okay so far, I guess: but then Barno moved dangerously close to the Republican right's line that anyone who doesn't support the stay-the-quagmire policy is committing treason. "The idea of an exit strategy," said Barno, "plays into the hands of the Taliban strategy." That, to me, is an outrageous affront, as if differing political views about the war are "playing into the hands of the Taliban." Barno should be ashamed oh himself! But he's not. He really believes this crap.

Similar nonsense came from Lisa Curtis, a former Capitol Hill aide now with Heritage, who said that statements about "timelines" -- presumably referring to courageous Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, who's challenging Democratic party groupthink -- "encourage the Taliban." Better get on board with our plan, say Barno and Curtis, or you're encouraging the Taliban. (Needless to say, it was the far right, the neoconservatives, and the Reaganauts who spent billions of dollars to support the Islamist nutcases in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Today, they're very upset about acid-in-the-face, burka-imposing, Koran-thumping Talibans. But a generation ago, these very same acid-in-the-face, burka-imposing, Koran-thumping thugs were our anti-Soviet freedom fighters. No apologies were heard at Heritage.)

Comic relief at the Heritage Foundation event was provided by David Isby, a self-described "military expert" and apparent loony right-winger. His two gems: (1) "We need a relationship with Afghanistan like that we have with Israel." And (2) "Every mosque in Afghanistan on Friday preaches propaganda for the enemy." Leaving aside his idiotic comment No, 1, and taking up the second idiotic comment, Isby seems to believe that the problem in Afghanistan is that the people who live there are Muslims. He proposed some cockamamie idea about how America could help reinvent Islam in Afghanistan -- a proposal that, if the Taliban got ahold of it, would adorn every recruiting poster they print. (I know that they don't actually produce recruiting posters. It's a metaphor.)

Comments (155)

1. What are we doing in Afghanistan anyway? Oh, yeah, that Saudi Arabian named Bin Laden...

   Posted by Balrog at 08/27/2009 @ 4:43pm

2. American Government has set itself up as the big brother to the rest of the world. Political leadership is determined that the American way of life and government (the best way to express this is the religious wars and narrow mindness of three hundred years ago)and no country once we have destroyed the government could possibly not want the great American idea of government.

   I have suggested that the US set up talks with all parties. Set up different tribal areas that are controlled by the people/tribes/warlords in that area and have a very loose central government. Then state we will not kill the poppies if there is no fighting outside Afghanistan, we will not destroy the leaderships of each area as long as they do not attack each other. In their own areas they can and have the right to rule as they see fit and as the people agree, that means not putting the leaders heads on a pole.

   The power of the United States is total destruction. Use that threat. No military on the ground..however if you attack your neighbors the poppies and production areas will be destroyed. If you try to take over the country your areas and fighters will die from bombs in the sky. Then pull out. We won...

   Posted by William50 at 08/27/2009 @ 5:19pm

3. Posted by William50 at 08/27/2009 @ 5:19pm

   Not a bad idea really. Poppy production could also be mutually beneficial if the pharmaceutical companies would compensate the Afghan people by propping up the industry. There is a huge demand for opiate based narcotic pain medicine around the entire world. Turn it into a legitimate trade rather than putting smack on the black market, further fueling and exacerbating the criminal element. Nothing would give hope to those people like some real economic growth. But continuing to slaughter innocents with drones will only give more fodder to the opposition, and enhance the Taliban's recruitment potential.

   Posted by MATTMAN at 08/27/2009 @ 6:30pm

4. posted by ROBERT DREYFUSS on 08/27/2009 @ 4:09pm

   " ... He zinged the Obama administration for having lauded the electoral process, a wrong-headed judgment that will only embarrass the White House when the full details of the rigged nature of the election emerge ..."

   I think it is clear that Obama is no leader on standing firm on democracy in troubled places. Of course the elections in Afghanistan and Iran were largely unchallenged, but look beyond those two places. Look at Honduras. In Honduras, we have a nation that is largely uncontroversial, and faced an open coup. The Obama administration has done precisely Nothing about this coup. It would have been easy for the US to help the nations of Latin America - which by and large have resisted the coup in a way that the US has not - but Obama did nothing. He cannot be counted on to challenge less-developed countries to respect and develop representative democracy.

   " ... The four panelists at the event -- Weinbaum, General David Barno, Lisa Curtis, and David Isby -- all agreed that getting out of Afghanistan would be a first-order catastrophe, but they didn't prove it to me ..."

   When has the "Heritage Foundation" ever succeeded in making a point to anyone reasonably intelligent and informed? That organization borders on looney-tunes and has stood behind some of the most regressive politics and policies in modern American history. More than anything else, I am surprised that you wasted your time attending any "event" associated with HF. They are not participants in any debate, they are not open to reason, they are at the heart of a badly discredited political movement now headed towards its nadir, and furthermore, their public figures are often grating and obnoxious. Why did you bother with them?

   Posted by syfriendly at 08/27/2009 @ 6:36pm

5. "In other words, the Taliban expect that US political support for the war will force a US withdrawal before we can "succeed." (I wanted to ask him if he was aware that precisely the same analogy was used in Vietnam, that the Viet Cong and Hanoi wanted to outlast the US invasion. How ironic.)"

   Wiki:

   "The communist leaders had expected that the ceasefire terms would favor their side. But Saigon, bolstered by a surge of U.S. aid received just before the ceasefire went into effect, began to roll back the Vietcong.[166] The communists responded with a new strategy hammered out in a series of meetings in Hanoi in March 1973, according to the memoirs of Trần Văn Trà.[166] As the Vietcong's top commander, Trà participated in several of these meetings.[166] With U.S. bombings suspended, work on the Ho Chi Minh Trail and other logistical structures could proceed unimpeded.[166] Logistics would be upgraded until the North was in a position to launch a massive invasion of the South, projected for the 1975–1976 dry season.[166] Trà calculated that this date would be the Hanoi's last opportunity to strike before Saigon's army could be fully trained. A three-thousand-mile long oil pipeline would be built from North Vietnam to Vietcong headquarters in Loc Ninh, about 75 miles (121 km) northwest of Saigon.[166]"

   So, according to the Vietcong's top commander, the Communists really WERE trying to outlast the US occupation, and only a couple more years of bombing might have been enough to save the South without any US ground troops. The Communists soon conquered the South and Cambodia AND Laos, though liberals don't quite comprehend that that was EXACTLY what the "Domino Theory" predicted. The Communists then murdered 3,500,000 people in war, genocide, and summary executions.

   Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/27/2009 @ 6:54pm

6. <Their argument was: if we leave, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and their jihadist allies will gain influence across the region, from Afghanistan and Pakistan to central Asia and the Persian Gulf. Again, as in Vietnam, all the panelists seemed content to make Vietnam-era, domino-theory arguments that the entirety of the Muslim world is at stake. To me, that's a patently absurd argument.>

   No, it is the only reasoned argument. All evidence shows that the Taliban and Al Qaeda would use the opportunity to become exponentially more dangerous than they were in 2001.

   Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 7:48pm

7. Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 7:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   Do you have any concept of what the word "exponentially" actually means?

   Posted by syfriendly at 08/27/2009 @ 8:58pm

8. Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 7:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   You're so full of bull I can smell it from here!

   Posted by syfriendly at 08/27/2009 @ 9:10pm

9. What are we doing in Afghanistan anyway? Oh, yeah, that Saudi Arabian named Bin Laden...

   Posted by Balrog at 08/27/2009 @ 4:43pm

   ¡que chistoso!

   the afghan bone's connected to the caspian bone's connected to the gas bone's connected to the indian bone.

   it's about making sure the indians don't by gas from iran, and thus fall into the sway of the evil mullahs.

   in other words, more stupid nonsense in the name of greedpowerlust.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 08/27/2009 @ 9:40pm

10. just buy all the frikkin' poppies, for chrissake.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/27/2009 @ 9:41pm

11. Posted by libertyfortheoppressed @ everysinglefrikkin'time pm

    oh, shut up.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/27/2009 @ 9:43pm

12. "just buy all the frikkin' poppies, for chrissake."

    On that point we strongly agree. Our current war on drugs policy is suicidal in Afghanistan. Not to mention a disaster that has made us the laughingstock of the world here at home.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/27/2009 @ 9:45pm

13. No, it is the only reasoned argument. All evidence shows that the Taliban and Al Qaeda would use the opportunity to become exponentially more dangerous than they were in 2001.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 7:48pm

    to the afghan people, perhaps.

    but i doubt the taliban will have drones hovering over riverside.

    yet.

    stop weaving tangled webs and save flint.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/27/2009 @ 9:45pm

14. just teasin', lbforthempeople.

    liberty in the u.s. came from within, not without.

    lead by example.

    do you think the founding mothers and fathers would have accepted a governmental system imposed on them by an extra-national force?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/27/2009 @ 9:48pm

15. we agree on much, lbforthem.

    the methods we choose

    (or would choose, as we are merely typists and not movershakers)

    however

    are much different.

    i feel the place to start is by not doing business with assholes.

    money talks.

    trying to squish people really pisses them off and the wheels on the bus spin forever.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/27/2009 @ 9:51pm

16. DREYFUSS: "Here's the reality: First, if we leave Afghanistan, the Taliban may or may not take over....Second, even if the Taliban do take over,....they may or may not invite Al Qaeda to join them. ...Besides, the Taliban...may find it politic not to re-ally with Osama bin Laden's terrorist band....In fact, it's easier to make the argument that...a US withdrawal from Afghanistan would calm passions, not inflame them.

    Those facts didn't prevent the team at Heritage...."

    Damn, I should've taken more college-level English writing from Lib professors so I too, can HAPPILY present my opinions and guesses just like RD, as "reality" and "facts".....and not even blush......LOL!

    Posted by Happy at 08/27/2009 @ 10:07pm

17. No, it is the only reasoned argument. All evidence shows that the Taliban and Al Qaeda would use the opportunity to become exponentially more dangerous than they were in 2001.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 7:48pm

    What evidence are you alluding to and how does one become exponentially more dangerous?

    Posted by Shingo at 08/27/2009 @ 10:44pm

18. Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/27/2009 @ 9:45pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    You've got to understand.

    There is no "on this point, we disagree" with someone like you. You are a fool, a village idiot three times over, an overblown excuse for someone who has lost contact with the condition on account of his sofa and television set.

    And now the internet gives you voice: a man with no human comprehension, no sensibility, no awareness, no reality, just the quasi-aggressive rumblings of a a lizard brain with no claim to higher sensibility.

    Posted by syfriendly at 08/27/2009 @ 10:49pm

19. Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 7:48pm

    You too, tonto.

    Posted by syfriendly at 08/27/2009 @ 10:49pm

20. and, yes, by "the condition" I mean "the human condition"

    Posted by syfriendly at 08/27/2009 @ 10:50pm

21. "There is no "on this point, we disagree" with someone like you"

    The feeling is mutual. There are some people that I disagree with so vehemently I find it hard to take them seriously or even debate with them. I can't even respond to people who argue that Iraqis lived better lives under Saddam than they do today, because they are so deluded and ignorant of the facts of reality and so intent on denying inconvient facts and distorting them to conform to their pre-concieved notions that it seems as though they've decided to percieve reality in such a biased way that debate with them is futile; there is no common reality and set of facts that we both can agree on to use in arguing for our point of view, and to them the objective is subjective (as it is to most liberals). And of course, someone so deluded would not bother seriously considering my argument anyway.

    Anyway, if antisocialist and I are both THAT stupid, maybe you should just put us on ignore.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/27/2009 @ 11:03pm

22. I can't even respond to people who argue that Iraqis lived better lives under Saddam than they do today, because they are so deluded and ignorant of the facts of reality and so intent on denying inconvient facts and distorting them to conform to their pre-concieved notions that it seems as though they've decided to percieve reality in such a biased way that debate with them is futile;

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/27/2009 @ 11:03pm

    This commong from someone who bases his entire argument on theories about what might have happened had we not invaded Iraq.

    Posted by Shingo at 08/27/2009 @ 11:09pm

23. "This commong from someone who bases his entire argument on theories about what might have happened had we not invaded Iraq."

    I have plenty of facts to back up my ideas. And it is quite clear that there was no possible future for Iraq without our invasion save for a continual succession of Baathist dictatorships for decades or an implosion into chaos that could have resulted in a mass genocide (or some combination of these two options; i.e. Saddam's sons might have ruled Iraq for decades but there would have been an even bloodier implosion in Iraq that would have resulted from them further brutalizing its civil society if there was not a Saddam 3 to succeed them successfully). You have never even once suggested an alternative to this essentially obvious observation. You have in fact argued that Baathist rule in Iraq for decades or perhaps hundreds of years would be preferable to the invasion. I think it most likely however, given the rampant starvation and malnutrition and illiteracy and poverty and the lack of clean water, medicine, or electricity as well as the infiltration of jihadist allies of the Baath party who began plotting to cultivate sectarian war in Iraq years before our intervention took place, that Iraq had so thoroughly decayed into a hellish nightmare as a state and society by the time of our invasion that the sectarian conflict that occured during our occupation was the most probable inevitable outcome of what would have happened had our intervention never took place, except that without our intervention such violence would have occured on a much grander scale and turned Iraq into a failed state.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/27/2009 @ 11:45pm

24. Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/27/2009 @ 11:03pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Have you ever even been in the Eastern Hemisphere?!

    Do you speak Arabic?

    Have you been anywhere in the Middle East?

    You don't know *anything* about "life under Saddam". You're probably having trouble basically relating to "life outside your front door". Most of you laptop bombardiers are like that.

    Posted by syfriendly at 08/27/2009 @ 11:50pm

25. Mark Steyn may have put forward as forceful a moral argument for war as Christopher Hitchens. In 2003, he wrote:

    "Why not ask an Iraqi what the disadvantages of stalemate are? As far as Saddam's subjects are concerned, the "peace" movement means peace for you and Tony Benn and Sheryl Crow and Susan Sarandon, and a prison for them. I was in Montreal last week, which has the largest Iraqi population in North America. I've yet to meet one who isn't waiting eagerly for the day the liberation of their homeland begins. Then they can go back to the surviving members of their families and not have to live in a country where it's winter 10 months of the year.

    They're pining for war not because they like the Americans, or the Zionists, or me, but because they understand that, as long as there's Saddam, there's no Iraq. Saddam has killed far more people than Slobo, Iraq has been far more comprehensively brutalised than Kosovo. Marching for "peace" means marching for, oh, another 15 years of Saddamite torture and murder, followed by a couple more decades under the even more psychotic son, until the family runs out of victims to terrorise, gets bored and retires to the Riviera.

    It's easy to say it's up to the Iraqi people to get rid of Saddam. That theory worked well in the days when all the peasants had to do was storm the palace and dodge the muskets. It doesn't work against a man who can poison an entire village from the air. Marching for "peace" means marching against the Iraqi people: it's the equivalent of turning them away as, to their shame, many free nations in the 1930s turned away refugees from Germany.

    One day, not long from now, when Iraq is free, they will despise those who marched to keep them in hell."

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/28/2009 @ 12:05am

26. The Heritage Foundation is applying what the Bush Administration used to say about the insurgency in Iraq...

    "If given a timeline for withdrawal, the terrorists will just wait us out."

    As if they'd just stop all the violence and the second the last US chopper takes off, Al-Quida comes out like a surprise party and starts shooting.

    This "run out the clock" BS is just an excuse to sell this mistake to the American people.

    Posted by koroviev at 08/28/2009 @ 12:30am

27. Mark Steyn may have put forward as forceful a moral argument for war as Christopher Hitchens. In 2003, he wrote:

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/28/2009 @ 12:05am

    Mark Steyn is as much aof a BS artist as is Hitchens. I was living in Montreal during the lead up to the war and the demonstrations were massive, held in sub zero temperatures.

    Most of the participants were Iraqis, so the fact that Steyn hadn't met one is pure spin.

    To argue that Saddam has killed far more people than Slobo is a no sequetir, because it turns out that Slobo didn't kill that many.

    Steyn is a neocon shill who has been uttervly discredited.

    Posted by Shingo at 08/28/2009 @ 12:39am

28. "NY Says No To Shackled Prison Births: 44 States To Go"

    save flint!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/28/2009 @ 01:22am

29. "the demonstrations were massive,"

    Sure. Millions protested on behalf of one of the most brutal genocidal dictatorships in history. More people protested the Iraq war than any other war. The world has clearly gone mad.

    "To argue that Saddam has killed far more people than Slobo is a no sequetir, because it turns out that Slobo didn't kill that many."

    I absolutely agree. It would have been better to have pointed out that Saddam has killed more people than Darfur and Rwanda combined and doubled. But, leftists don't want us to count the 1.1 million dead in the Iran-Iraq war or the hundreds of thousands Saddam killed through his manipulation of the sanctions regime or the 250,000 he killed through his two genocides, which still leaves us with well over 600,000 individual civilian executions carried out by the regime that we've been able to verify with certainty (giving us over 25,000 annual deaths by the regime, not counting however many Saddam was killing through sanctions, which was no doubt substantial). Again, according to morgues in Iraq, 2006 was the only year in which the killing exceeded the amount under a typical year of Bathist rule, not even counting the sanctions. Plus, over 20,000 Iraqi children have been saved by improved health care and the US has dramatically improved the humanitarian situation in Iraq by building hospitals and water purification facilities.

    "Most of the participants were Iraqis"

    Shingo, you and I both know you're lying. Millions of Iraqis fled and barely managed to escape Saddam's rule while he was in power. Most Iraqis living in foriegn countries are Iraqis who risked their lives to excape Saddam's brutal genocidal tyranny.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/28/2009 @ 01:29am

30. "Ramsey Jiddou, fresh from a conference in Washington with National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Vice President Richard B. Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, was back here at home to beat the drums of liberation with his fellow Iraqis. "Finally, somebody is listening to us," Mr. Jiddou, a chemist who immigrated from his native Baghdad in the late 1970s to escape Saddam Hussein's dictatorial oppression, said. His sentiments are shared throughout the largest Iraqi community in the United States, in southeast Michigan: Get Saddam out of power and do it now. "I want peace in Iraq. So if you are for peace, you cannot be for Saddam. It is all about changing the regime," said Ala Faik, a real estate agent in Ann Arbor, 45 miles down Interstate 94 from Detroit. Like almost everyone who has settled here from his homeland, he simply knows that Saddam has to go by any means necessary. Since a June conference here of various anti-Saddam groups that was attended by low-level State Department members, Iraqi communities in Michigan, California, Illinois and Tennessee have been quietly tapped by the Bush administration for support and advice on the U.S. effort to depose Saddam. ...They danced in the aisles when Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz showed up in Dearborn to address them last month....Two weeks ago, a coalition of mostly Detroit area Iraqis, Muslim and Christian, sent a letter to Miss Rice, thanking her for inviting them to the White House and stressing that "those who are marching for 'peace and justice' in the name of the Iraqi people are unwittingly supporting a totalitarian dictator who promotes terrorism." "These people, these so-called peace people who support human rights, have never been there for the people of Iraq".

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/28/2009 @ 01:33am

31. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/869263/post

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/28/2009 @ 01:36am

32. In the same piece, Steyn pointed out:

    "But perhaps, as is the case with many marchers, your priority isn't the Iraqi people living in bondage under an Iraqi dictator, but the Palestinian people living in bondage under a Zionist dictator: fine, whatever, you're entitled to your point of view. But you ought to know that, as long as Saddam sits in Baghdad, there will never be a Palestinian state. Never. Chance of the "Palestinian Authority" becoming a fully fledged People's Republic: zero.

    Saddam serves as principal sugar daddy to the relicts of suicide bombers and neither Israel nor America is going to agree to a Palestinian state where the prime business opportunity is strapping on the old explosives belt and telling Baghdad where to mail the cheque. We're talking cold political reality here: keeping Saddam in power may stymie the crazy Texans, but also those downtrodden Palestinians. If you're serious about them, you might want to think that one through."

    That the Iraq war has increased the possibility of a Palestinian state as well as weakened Saudi Arabia and encouraged democracy in Iran might be problematic for liberals if their philosophy relied on sequential logic. Unfortunately, it doesn't, which is why these radical feminist secularists support the Taliban. The irrational hatred by liberals for George W. Bush must be a sign of pure mental delusion.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/28/2009 @ 01:48am

33. Posted by syfriendly at 08/27/2009 @ 10:49pm:

    "You are a fool, a village idiot three times over, an overblown excuse for someone who has lost contact with the condition on account of his sofa and television set.

    And now the internet gives you voice: a man with no human comprehension, no sensibility, no awareness, no reality, just the quasi-aggressive rumblings of a a lizard brain with no claim to higher sensibility."

    That's quite a harpoon Captain Ahab.

    Posted by CallmeIshmael at 08/28/2009 @ 06:03am

34. For a moment Dreyfuss had me worried. I agreed with him about why the various reasons for our deployment in Afghanistan, and especially the current buildup, is unjustified. It is very uncomfortable when such an obvious crackpot, shares one's opinion.

    But then, thank goodness he slips off the course ,with his old LaRauchian impulses carrying him into raving about Reagan spending billions on " Islamist nutcases in Afghanistan in the 1980s". That, while talking about the Taliban.

    The purpose of that gibber and baloney is to suggest that the US created the Taliban and is responsible for the current problems.

    Sure, during the Cold War Carter and Reagan, supported Afghans and Arabs fighting the Russians. They did it mainly via the Pakistanis who funneled American money and arms to the mujahideen. Of course those were Muslims and not a few were fanatics, which described most willing to fight the Russian tanks and helicopters.

    The reality is, the moment the Russians withdrew from Afghanistan in '89, so did the US.

    The US had nothing to do with the rise of the Taliban only came into existence in 1993, first as truck convoy guards. Pakistan's ISI then began to nurture them as an instrument in their Great Game ambitions in the region.

    But all of that is ancient history.

    What needs saying is that once al Qaeda and the Taliban had been given a thrashing in 2002 the Bush administration always understood that Afghanistan did not matter to us, and rejected the Left's demand, and Obama's to make it the central front in the war against terror instead of Iraq.

    It was Obama, shamed by his misjudgment on Iraq who, to show his macho, declared that he would win in Afghanistan. It is he who has hooked us into this pointless war.

    Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 08/28/2009 @ 06:52am

35. Couple of thoughts.

    1. It is now expected that as soon as the voting ends, the calls of fraud begin. I hear a lot of noise, but no facts. I can't even tell if there's smoke, much less fire. Which doesn't mean there isn't. But in the absence of facts, this is all propoganda and conjecture.

    2. If observers were in secure areas, what is the basis for their "reports" about "unreported" problems in areas where there were no observers. On what basis are rumors and claims substantiated.

    3. The notion that the Taliban will not again conquer and control Afghanistan upon a US withdrawal is wishful thinking.

    4. The million dollar question is what will a Taliban state portend for the West. Specifically, will it be used as a springboard to extend Taliban influence in Pakistan, and perhaps threaten the Pakistani government and military.

    To me the issue is not Afghanistan but rather is Pakistan. That's the gamechanger. What strategy is best to secure a stable Pakistan which will not be threatened or influenced by terrorism and Islamic militancy.

    Posted by gren at 08/28/2009 @ 08:41am

36. Isn't it always interesting how guys who NEVER FOUGHT or held positions of authority in the Vietnam war, like Larry/antisoc and LFTO....know so much about "the real story"....

    or LFTO who never fought in or held a position of authority duriing the "War on Terror" is such an expert on it?

    And yet the guys who were actually involved in those wars or held positions of authority during them...from Robert McNamara to Eric Shinseki...have a rather "different" view?!??!!??

    Posted by Mask at 08/28/2009 @ 08:49am

37. 1.Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 7:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Do you have any concept of what the word "exponentially" actually means?

    Posted by syfriendly at 08/27/2009 @ 8:58pm

    I sure do and the use of the word is appropo. Let me help you increase your vocabulary.

    ex·po·nen·tial (eks′pō nen′s̸həl, -c̸həl)

    adjective

    Math. 1.of or relating to an exponent

    a.involving a variable or unknown quantity as an exponent

    b.of or increasing by extraordinary proportions

    Related Forms:

    exponentially ex′·po·nen′·tially adverb

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/28/2009 @ 09:03am

38. Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/27/2009 @ 9:45pm

    First comment that I've seen from you that wasn't brain-damaged. Keep it up.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/27/2009 @ 11:03pm

    antisocialist just has bad ideas, and he doesn't continuously post material for others. He generally limits repostings to respond to specific questions. The same cannot be said of you. Your postings are primarily from elsewhere and redundant.

    Also, I would put you on ignore, but the sheer volume of flooding you engage in means I have to read a lot of responses to your posts. In short, you are fucking up the forum in classic "tragedy of the commons" style. Remember: less is more.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/28/2009 @ 01:48am

    There seems to be a relationship between the amount you cut and paste and the stupidity of your posts. Perhaps you might stick with your own opinions and start a friendfeed for all the crucial right wing news of the day for your friends. Here, that's just noise.

    Posted by Mask at 08/28/2009 @ 08:49am

    Why are you still surprised that the biggest cheerleaders for war are those that have never been in one?

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/28/2009 @ 09:03am

    And if you don't see why that word doesn't apply to an organization that has had most of its leadership killed and has an global operational capability near zero, we can only conclude you don't understand the word.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/28/2009 @ 10:05am

39. lib for the op:

    Cambodia and Laos hardly qualify as domino effect examples. Maybe if that would work if you are dealing with a three-piece domino. And I am not sure about the 3,500,000 number that you quoted. I hope you do not count the Khmer Rouge numbers as they were actually supported by the US. And it is the same number that discounts the millions that the US activities in Vietnam killed.

    Not to mention that US policies in Cambodia, such as the toppling of Sihanouk by Nixon/Kissinger, led to the rise of the Khmer Rouge, (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/04/06/cambodia-duch.html). So better put the three piece domino in the box.

    Posted by dimik72 at 08/28/2009 @ 10:18am

40. Posted by antisocialist at 08/28/2009 @ 09:03am

    And if you don't see why that word doesn't apply to an organization that has had most of its leadership killed and has an global operational capability near zero, we can only conclude you don't understand the word.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/28/2009 @ 10:05am

    Sorry SRJ, but I am basing my comments on intel reports, most of which are available to the public.

    I understand the word and maintain that it is appropriate. You are simply disagreeing with my conclusion without any basis in fact.

    This report from the US and Europol on the growing terrorism threat

    <The threat posed by global jihadist groups is likely to continue evolving rapidly in the years ahead. In the United Kingdom's new counterterrorism strategy report, released in March 2009, the British project that the threat will look very different in three years than it does now. In the UK's view, al-Qaeda is likely to fragment and may not survive in its current form. Instead, smaller, "self-starter groups" will likely grow stronger and more prominent. Admiral Blair offered a slightly different perspective on how the situation could evolve, speculating that al-Qaeda could relocate to the Persian Gulf, Africa, or elsewhere in South Asia should their Pakistan-Afghanistan safe haven be eliminated.

    The EU report, for example, refers to Afghanistan and Pakistan as "the central front" in the fight against al-Qaeda, a sentiment often expressed by President Obama.>

    http://tinyurl.com/oxbeyu

    The summation makes it clear that Al Qaeda in Afghanistan/Pakistan is clearly in decline, but not globally. And the decline only remains if we do not allow AQ and the Taliban to regain Afghanistan

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/28/2009 @ 10:30am

41. Posted by William50 at 08/27/2009 @ 5:19pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    ah, the iron fist in the velvet glove.

    another member of the grrr, kill, kill club.

    Posted by emile duBois at 08/28/2009 @ 10:37am

42. what we have here is a few individuals huffing and puffing, revisionists trying to sanitize the Vietnam war. this is a springboard for them to sanitize and justify the Iraq war, also an exercise in revisionism.

    Lt. Calley, welcome back to the human race. you should spend the remaining time on earth, with loud and public mea culpas.

    Posted by emile duBois at 08/28/2009 @ 10:45am

43. And just to show I'm not the only one using the word exponentially when discussing Al Qaeda...

    <But because of the spread of Bin Laden's "Holy War" theology, this dislocation has not robbed al-Qaeda of its appeal. To the contrary, the Bin Laden network is assessed by terrorism experts like Magnus Ranstorp to be "exponentially much stronger" than before.>

    Jeffrey Donovan, "How Is War Against Al-Qaeda Progressing?" Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, September 11, 2007,

    http://www.dailyestimate.com/print.asp?idarticle=10963.

    <Indeed, al-Qaeda's numbers are most likely increasing worldwide in spite of these setbacks. One of the main reasons for this is that many previously independent jihadist groups have aligned themselves with al-Qaeda and the Bin Laden ideology. Among them are the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Muhammad, al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, Algeria's Armed Islamic Group, Abu Sayyaf, and Jemaah Islamiyah. Fundamentally, Bin Laden has transitioned from being the head of a unitary terrorist organization to being the ideological leader of a "jihadist" movement comprising many new groups that operate without direct support or direction from him or his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri.>

    http://tinyurl.com/kp2lat

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/28/2009 @ 10:49am

44. Most of you laptop bombardiers are like that.

    Posted by syfriendly at 08/27/2009 @ 11:50pm

    Excellent!!

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/28/2009 @ 11:09am

45. Obama is making a serious mistake in Afghanistan. The more troops he sends there the more Americans and Afghans will be killed. To what end? Trying to democratize Afghanistan and civilize the Taliban is as much a fool's errand as our invasion of Iraq and may well turn out to be even more costly. Dreyfuss is correct in questioning why we are there and what we are likely to accomplish.

    Posted by Ralph Deeds at 08/28/2009 @ 12:09pm

46. Posted by srjenkins at 08/28/2009 @ 10:05am

    Not surprising...how many of the neo-cons in power or punditry were vets...maybe 20%? How many combat vets?...5%?

    Seems to be an inverse ratio of expertise/experience to what a right-winger will believe and trust....Best person to tell you what the "war on Terror" is all about?.....guys like Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, or David Frum. Same for education.

    The most popular of their radio punditry (Rush, Glenn, Sean)...the ones they turn to for "insight" and "thoughtful analysis"...

    all college drop-outs!

    Posted by Mask at 08/28/2009 @ 12:16pm

47. Posted by Mask at 08/28/2009 @ 12:16pm

    Nice Strawman.

    Nowhere in my defense of the war or the consequences for a pullout do I reference any of those people you mention.

    Instead I listed the US govt and Europol, the European intel.

    But I suppose you think that the Europeans are just political pundits also?

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/28/2009 @ 12:49pm

48. The tears of autumn ... Obama is being led to a hell he was too young to know.

    Stay this course & Bloomberg will buy it in '12.

    And then it's bombs away, Curtis LeMay style.

    Any friend of Likud's is an enemy of ours.

    Posted by sloper at 08/28/2009 @ 12:50pm

49. Posted by antisocialist at 08/28/2009 @ 10:30am

    I won't even go any further that the text you quoted:

    "In the UK's view, al-Qaeda is likely to fragment and may not survive in its current form."

    That's not exponential.

    "Instead, smaller, "self-starter groups" will likely grow stronger and more prominent."

    Only way exponential works here is if these groups collaborate in a larger network, which is not an easy task in "self-starter groups".

    " Fundamentally, Bin Laden has transitioned from being the head of a unitary terrorist organization to being the ideological leader of a "jihadist" movement comprising many new groups that operate without direct support or direction from him or his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri."

    If you don't have any kind of command and control, lines of communication or coordination, you don't have much of a network.

    We need to be careful to not use the word "Al Qaeda" for jihadist because these groups may be Muslim, but they don't share the same ideology. It would be like claiming that the Irish National Liberation Army and the Orange Volunteers are the same because they both are Christian. You could say the same of Shining Path and other "communist" movements.

    Most of these arise in the context of local or regional conditions. And while there are many jihadi groups, I think the problem comes down to large scale operational and global capability - which none of them really have.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/28/2009 @ 12:57pm

50. Posted by sloper at 08/28/2009 @ 12:50pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    your crystal ball is cloudy.whattawasteoftime.

    Posted by emile duBois at 08/28/2009 @ 1:18pm

51. Instead I listed the US govt and Europol, the European intel.

    But I suppose you think that the Europeans are just political pundits also?----Posted by antisocialist at 08/28/2009 @ 12:49pm

    Your SELECTIVE use of foreign intelligence services is reknown, Larry...

    "1. I trust Israeli intelligence more than our own and they disagree with the NIE"----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/26/2008 @ 6:40pm

    Posted by Mask at 08/28/2009 @ 2:13pm

52. "Also, I would put you on ignore, but the sheer volume of flooding you engage in means I have to read a lot of responses to your posts. In short, you are fucking up the forum in classic "tragedy of the commons" style. Remember: less is more. "

    Wow, I had no idea HOW much soul-searching liberals had to engage in to make simple decisions until I realized leftists needed to engage in "nuanced" "thought" such as this in order to decide who to ignore on an online message board. They just can't decide! The pathetic pseudo-intellectuals on the left are as bad as or worse than the right-wing anti-intellectuals!

    "And I am not sure about the 3,500,000 number that you quoted. I hope you do not count the Khmer Rouge numbers as they were actually supported by the US."

    Of course I count the KR. Over 2 million of that number was killed by them. wiki:

    "The Cambodian Civil War was a conflict that pitted the forces of the Communist Party of Kampuchea (known as the Khmer Rouge) and their allies the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) and the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam (NLF, or, derogatively, Viet Cong) against the government forces of Cambodia (after October 1973, the Khmer Republic), which were supported by the United States (U.S.) and the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam)."

    The US fought against the KR.....

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/28/2009 @ 3:12pm

53. "The president is absolutely right to include the Khmer Rouge genocide in his recitation of the Vietnam endgame. When Congress, in the summer of 1973, legislated an end to U.S. military action in, over, or off the shores of Indochina, the only U.S. military activity then going on was air support of a friendly Cambodian government and army desperately defending their country against a North Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge onslaught. "Cambodia is not worth the life of one American flier," Tip O'Neill declared. By 1975, administration pleas to help Cambodia were answered by New York Times articles suggesting the Khmer Rouge would probably be moderate once they came into power and the Cambodian people had a better life to look forward to once we left.

    Trying to debunk the president's VFW speech, the Times has lately resuscitated the hoary claim that it was U.S. military activity that destabilized Cambodia in the first place. This claim, alas, is not supportable. What destabilized Cambodia was North Vietnam's occupation of chunks of Cambodian territory from 1965 onwards for use as military bases from which to launch attacks on U.S. and South Vietnamese forces in South Vietnam. Cambodia's ruler Prince Sihanouk complained bitterly to us about these North Vietnamese bases in his country and invited us to attack them (which we did from the air in 1969-70). Next came a North Vietnamese attempt to overrun the entire country in March-April 1970, to which U.S. and South Vietnamese forces responded by a limited ground incursion at the end of April." http://tinyurl.com/l7lbon

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/28/2009 @ 3:14pm

54. The most frightening (and instructive) line in this article is in the 2nd paragraph: "Weinbaum, who served as a member of Barack Obama's advisory task force on Afghanistan..." So Obama hires Heritage Foundation shills to advise him. This is a supposedly "liberal" Democratic president?

    Anyone who still thinks Obama is "progrssive" or that there is any difference between the Rs and Ds when it comes to the warfare state should have woken up by now. Summers guiding the economy; Gates running Defense, the Heritage Foundation advising on war. It's like the election never happened!

    Posted by DavidSpero at 08/28/2009 @ 3:14pm

55. wiki: "Last-minute efforts on the part of the U.S. to arrange a peace agreement involving Sihanouk ended in failure. When a vote in the U.S. Congress for a resumption of American air support failed, panic and a sense of doom pervaded the capital. The situation was best described by General Sak Sutsakhan (now FANK chief of staff):

    "The picture of the Khmer Republic which came to mind at that time was one of a sick man who survived only by outside means and that, in its condition, the administration of medication, however efficient it might be, was probably of no further value."[91]"

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/28/2009 @ 3:15pm

56. In short, the US did not "oust" Cambodia's prince. He was overthrown by a radically pro-American general who was endorsed by America. When the Communists attempted to overrun his country, he asked America to respond with ground troops, which we did. We formed an alliance with Lon Nol and vowed to protect his regime from Pol Pot. Cambodia specifically ASKED for all of the military attacks by the US against the Communists in that country that took place.

    wiki: "Between 1969 and 1973, Republic of Vietnam forces and U.S. forces bombed and briefly invaded Cambodia in an effort to disrupt the Viet Cong and Khmer Rouge.[21] Some two million Cambodians were made refugees by the war and fled to Phnom Penh. Estimates of the number of Cambodians killed during the bombing campaigns vary widely, as do views of the effects of the bombing. The US Seventh Air Force ruthlessly argued that the bombing prevented the fall of Phnom Penh in 1973 by killing 16,000 of 25,500 Khmer Rouge fighters besieging the city.[22]"

    Around Phnom Penh alone there were almost 30,000 Khmer Rouge insurgents working with the North Vietnamese to overrun the capital BEFORE the widespread bombing of Cambodia. Nixon was in fact BRIEFED that the KR would conquer Cambodia without an intervention. When the US intervened, just around one single city in Cambodia, they killed almost 20,000 KR fighters. The US massacred literally tens of thousands of Khmer Rouge fighters. Following this, Cambodia survived for years before it finally fell as a result of Democrats in Congress refusing to give it aid despite its government desperately begging for military intervention. Only a liberal could argue that MASSACARING TENS OF THOUSANDS OF KR FIGHTERS actually was what brought them to power.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/28/2009 @ 3:35pm

57. Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/28/2009 @ 3:12pm

    There's no soul searching. Your commentary is right up there with sjchermak. He has one advantage over you in that he flat out says that everything is opinion, and so whatever he thinks about Asia or whatever else is just as valid as anyone else. He also generally doesn't copy and paste from elsewhere.

    You on the other hand, present your opinions (or a select cadre of right wing apologists) as fact. And instead of presenting your own positions and your own writings, you poison the forum with repetitive cut and paste jobs.

    In short, you are engaging in your own little infowar. Many responses, cut and pasted meta attacks, spending your time here trying to get people to attack each other so they don't actually do anything and spend time reading your inane commentary.

    I'll admit that your approach is effective as partisan wankery. But, you are still shitting in the pool, and I dislike you for it.

    http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2009/08/ internet-infowar.html

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/28/2009 @ 3:40pm

58. Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/28/2009 @ 3:35pm

    LFTO....and 35 years later...

    George W. Bush visited and called for increased trade with them.

    Posted by Mask at 08/28/2009 @ 3:41pm

59. Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/28/2009 @ 3:15pm

    And while we are on the topic, when were you in the service and what war did you fight in? What about your family? Do you know anyone that went to fight in any of these wars you advocate? If not, why haven't you signed up? The Army takes people up to age 42 now. No time like the present.

    For disclosure, I'm a veteran of the First Iraq War. My father was in the military. His father was career military. I am the only member of my extended family in my generation to have served or have gone to college (Thanks, GI Bill).

    If you never have served, what gives you the right to advocate for sending my friends off to war - when you can't be bothered to get behind the conviction of your beliefs and join up?

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/28/2009 @ 3:51pm

60. Of course, liberals don't REALLY believe that America caused the Cambodian Holocaust because, well, uh, it brutally massacred literally tens of thousands of Khmer Rouge insurgents. That's just what they say to avoid getting blamed for the 2.2 million people Pol Pot killed. Given that Diem had killed as many as a million people as well, they should have known the even crazier KR would be a catastrophe. Instead, Noam Chomsky endorsed and praised them. Meanwhile, 450,000 South Vietnamese were killed and another 200,000 "boat people" from South Vietnam desperately trying to escape to the US died at sea. And, the KR and Vietnam eventually waged a war that cost 600,000 lives, AND the Third Indochina war cost 70,000 lives. Plus thousands were killed in Laos and the Hmong people are still being exterminated there to this day.

    Still, liberals who praised the KR and argued, as Tip O' Neil did, that Cambodia wasn't worth the life of a single American, could be forgiven if they just admitted they were wrong. After all, they couldn't have known for sure that 3,500,000 people would be killed by the Communists when they conquered South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. In 1973, it is easy to see why they thought an end to war might be a good idea. BUT THEY JUST WON'T ADMIT THAT THEY WERE COMPLETELY SPECTACULARLY WRONG! Even if it means arguing that America caused the Cambodian Holocaust because, well, uh, it brutally massacred literally tens of thousands of Khmer Rouge insurgents throughout the country after they had nearly succeeded in toppling the capital with help from the North, the left will embrace ANY delusion, ANY fantasy, no matter HOW deluded and depraved and at odds with the most basic facts of reality, to justify its insular agenda of anti-Americanism.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/28/2009 @ 3:55pm

61. It seems to me that the Taliban really don't have any choice but to "run the clock out", unless you expect them to move en masse to another country. I mean, no matter how long we stay in Afghanistan, there will probably be Muslim fundamentalists there when the U.S. leaves.

    Posted by cdlepthien at 08/28/2009 @ 4:10pm

62. "He also generally doesn't copy and paste from elsewhere.

    You on the other hand, present your opinions (or a select cadre of right wing apologists) as fact. And instead of presenting your own positions and your own writings, you poison the forum with repetitive cut and paste jobs."

    662 of the words I wrote on Vietnam were not cut-and-paste jobs from (what you would call loony right-wing) websites. 525 were. The majority of what I write is my own words. The problem is, unless I cite sources, like, say, National Review, people like you claim I am presenting my opinions as facts. So, I try to quote factual reports to back them up. Then, you accuse my source of being propaganda. In short, you refuse to listen to anything that contradicts your preconcieved notions. If you would just agree to accept the facts of reality, I would be able to explain myself using facts we both accepted. You won't do this, so I have to factually prove you wrong by going on websites to do so. Yet no matter how frequently I prove you wrong, you remain profoundly certain of your views. I quoted the stats put out by The US Seventh Air Force, for example, to show that around ONE SINGLE CAMBODIAN CITY, the US massacred in its very brief incursion BEFORE the widespread bombing of Cambodia almost 20,000 of almost 30,000 KR forces that Nixon was briefed were right about to capture the city. THE US MASSACRED LITERALLY TENS OF THOUSANDS OF KR FORCES. How did that help the KR gain power?

    I had to quote those stats or else you would refuse to believe them.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/28/2009 @ 11:30pm

63. "And while we are on the topic, when were you in the service and what war did you fight in? What about your family? Do you know anyone that went to fight in any of these wars you advocate? If not, why haven't you signed up? The Army takes people up to age 42 now. No time like the present."

    Of course I have family members who have fought in the service. I myself have not but may well do so someday. But right now I'm only 16.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/28/2009 @ 11:35pm

64. "LFTO....and 35 years later...

    George W. Bush visited and called for increased trade with them."

    And thank God he did! The illegal embargo we placed on Vietnam in violation of our own stated position following the end of the war was a disgraceful attempt to force the people of Vietnam to live in poverty even AFTER their leaders turned to capitalism to repair their economy.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/28/2009 @ 11:38pm

65. Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/28/2009 @ 11:30pm

    Opinions are fine. The problem is that many of your opinions need fact to back them up, and then you cite sources like The National Review.

    Think of it this way. If I were to talk about U.S. imperialism and then quote Noam Chomsky as the source of my facts, you would rightly say I was backing my opinions with more opinions. I'd need a better source to establish the truth of the premises of my argument. This is the position you are in.

    "In short, you refuse to listen to anything that contradicts your preconcieved notions."

    This is untrue. There have been numerous times that I have accepted a point a conservative made. antisocialist for instance corrected me about the US government supporting Osama and also pointed out that there are a large portion of tax payers that don't pay tax. These facts checked out in sources like - a book called Ghost Wars or the IRS website. Cranks like Hitchens aren't a good source.

    As for the rest of your post, I didn't engage in any discussion with you regarding Vietnam, so it doesn't pertain to me.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/28/2009 @ 11:35pm

    "Of course I have family members who have fought in the service."

    Many people don't - particularly self-styled conservatives.

    "But right now I'm only 16."

    Interesting. I think I'll cut you some more slack. I was 16 once, and I probably came off much like you do now. Come to think of it, some days I probably still do.

    But, you should be aware that there are real consequences to the policies you are advocating, and the simple fact that your ass is not on the line and never has been and you aren't writing the checks for these little adventures should be important facts that you consider when you are making these arguments.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/29/2009 @ 12:48am

66. "But right now I'm only 16."

    hahahahahaha.

    Posted by emile duBois at 08/29/2009 @ 09:19am

67. right now I'm only 16."

    soon, soon you'll be able to enlist and volunteer for Afghanistan duty.

    Posted by emile duBois at 08/29/2009 @ 09:34am

68. Libertyfortheoppressed

    16..in dog years. An old soul like yourself must be considering retirement. What happened? Got bored with WorldofWarcraft? You're either from a very privileged background or a single parent household, in which case you'd better get your ass out & get a job.

    Posted by Sorelish at 08/29/2009 @ 11:16am

69. Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/28/2009 @ 3:14pm

    Another dull, boorish cut-and-paste artist. Time for the ignore button.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 08/29/2009 @ 11:38am

70. My best impression of a "conservative" mentor, LFTO.

    Posted by Sorelish at 08/29/2009 @ 11:47am

71. Posted by emile duBois at 08/29/2009 @ 09:34am

    You cannot have Afghanistan without people willing to volunteer to go there. Are you sure you want to be advocating that LFTO enlist to go to Afghanistan? Personally, I'd hope that he'd go to college rather than spend time in the military and see some of his friends die, see poor girls prostituting themselves to soldiers to feed their families, see his fellow soldiers refer to these women as "little brown fuck monkeys", and the like.

    Time in the military is an education, but it is an education I'd rather people not get - even LFTO whose never seen all the side effects that come with a large deployment.

    Posted by Sorelish at 08/29/2009 @ 11:16am

    Personally, I think it is great that he's enthusiastic enough to be spending time here - even if he has bad ideas. I know a lot of people that went through an Ayn Rand or similar phase. Whose to say he won't have a similar experience?

    Come to think of it, I think conservativism might have a greater appeal with the young. It projects certainty, decisiveness, and moral conviction - and it positions itself as a counter-cultural movement -although reactionary is probably a better word. It's exactly the kind of thing a teenager that is looking to assert their own identity but without getting too far off the map would find attractive.

    But then again, perhaps he's the next Lee Atwater or Karl Rove. But, he strikes me as a little too idealistic to fall into the opportunistic, "do anything to win" behavior of those men.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/29/2009 @ 12:23pm

72. Posted by srjenkins at 08/29/2009 @ 12:23pm

    Think lfto will come out of his "I'm better than the rabble around me" phase & temper his urge to bring Pepsi to the disenfranchised of the world.

    The poor guy seems to be living in a bygone era.

    Posted by Sorelish at 08/29/2009 @ 12:41pm

73. Oh, LFTO is 16 years old. That's probably why he doesn't understand that the decision by the United States to uphold France's colonial position, after Ho Chi Minh would have won a general election in 1954, probably led to millions of avoidable deaths in SE Asia. Vietnam never posed any kind of a threat to the United States, and our government lied repeatedly to justify sending troops there. We engaged in unforgivable violence there. If the Vietnamese have a conflict, that's sad, but if the United States starts carpet bombing farmers with B-52's, that's my business as a U.S. citizen.

    Nobody elected the United States as ruler of the universe, or even moral enforcer of the world. The Vietnamese were fighting a war of liberation when the conflict started, and that's how most of them conceived of it up to the end.

    By the 1970's some B-52 crews were so disgusted with what they were doing that they were refusing to fly their missions. They had joined the military to defend the United States, not to bomb rice farmers.

    By the way, the line of reasoning on here that says that LFTO 's position would be valid if he joined the military is a bunch of B.S. However, I would like to see the draft reinstated, though this time women need to be drafted as well as men. Get rid of the mercenaries and civilian contractors. If a war is worth doing, then it's worth doing for everybody.

    Posted by cdlepthien at 08/29/2009 @ 1:53pm

74. Posted by Sorelish at 08/29/2009 @ 12:41pm

    At 16, there's a lot of room for change.

    Posted by cdlepthien at 08/29/2009 @ 1:53pm

    "Oh, LFTO is 16 years old. That's probably why he doesn't understand that the decision by the United States to uphold France's colonial position, after Ho Chi Minh would have won a general election in 1954, probably led to millions of avoidable deaths in SE Asia."

    Speaking of BS, LFTO - like everyone less that 70 years old - would have formed whatever opinions he has from reading history. This is something anyone can do at whatever age they happen to be.

    "...the line of reasoning on here that says that LFTO 's position would be valid if he joined the military is a bunch of B.S."

    At base, this is a moral argument. If you are going to be arguing for interventions and war, then you should have skin in the game. You should enlist, encourage your children, uncles or whomever that is eligible to enlist. If it is not important enough for you to make the argument to members of your family and get some skin in the game, then you have no business arguing for volunteers to do this important work that you cannot be bothered to do.

    If it's not important enough for you to do, it's not important. This is particularly true when talking about armchair warriors who, when they have a weapon in their hand, are more of a threat to shoot their friends in the face than to kill an enemy.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/29/2009 @ 3:19pm

75. If it's not important enough for you to do, it's not important....

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/29/2009 @ 3:19pm

    There you go again!

    It's not important enough for me to collect your (and many, many other productive high-income HONEST people's) taxes, you agree then, "it's not important" to get them taxes collected?

    It's not important enough for me to vote in many primaries, so primaries are "not important"?

    Less is more...eh?

    Posted by Happy at 08/29/2009 @ 3:39pm

76. Posted by Happy at 08/29/2009 @ 3:39pm

    A better example would be to say, "If it isn't important enough for you to pay taxes to pay for these interventions, then it's not important."

    Anytime someone advocates something that doesn't cost them any money or time - but costs other people's theirs, its generally a swindle.

    Less is more, yes - particularly less lame-assed "gotcha" attempts. The only thing missing in your post is some silly comment about Palin's non-existent political career.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/29/2009 @ 4:27pm

77. Posted by srjenkins at 08/29/2009 @ 4:27pm

    I just think both you and MASK has become much more "lame" since BHO became a troubled POTUS....that's just how I see it.

    Making pretty lame, universal-type statements pretty much like most the Libs here I generally don't see or are on my ignore list.

    See if you can catch me making loonie one-size fit-all type statements....something like: "All Indians wipe their ass with their bare hands...otherwise, their asses aren't worth wiping".

    Posted by Happy at 08/29/2009 @ 5:24pm

78. posted by srjenkins at 08/29/2009 @ 3:19pm

    a) You're right, of course. We all base our version of history on what we've read. I was just being too lazy to actually go point for point with LFTO. Mostly because most of what he says is so narrow or misconstrued or just plain wrong that I wouldn't know where to start, given my time constraints & the fact that it probably doesn't make a damn bit of difference what I say on here anyway.

    b) I understand the point of "put your body where your mouth is". However, as a member of a group that is (nominally) not allowed to take part in combat, I don't think that being in combat is a prerequisite for having an opinion on foreign policy. (Though I'm sure there's alot of men who wish that being eligible for combat, at least at some point in one's life, was a prerequisite for making foreign policy.)

    Posted by cdlepthien at 08/29/2009 @ 6:22pm

79. serving in the military is not a prerequisite for anything.

    I suggested the young fool's enlistment because of his military/missionary attitude, one that is incidentally unsullied by any life experience or any education.

    many members of the military never saw combat, I knew guys who served in Vietnam, who never heard a shot fired in anger.

    there has been far too much exaltation of the military going on.

    Posted by emile duBois at 08/29/2009 @ 6:38pm

80. What do you expect? This is the same organization that Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh declare their eternal love for on a daily basis.

    Posted by zmann at 08/29/2009 @ 7:00pm

81. posted by emile duBois at 08/29/2009 @ 6:38pm

    It's a fair point in that light, and I agree that there is way too much glorification of the military (and my dad was in it the entire time I was growing up.).

    Obviously there are alot of people who are pro-war who have no prospect of fighting in one, or of their children fighting in one. Which is why, as I said, I am pro-draft.

    There are also alot of young men world wide who are just itching to get a gun and a good excuse to shoot at people. I'm not going to take their opinions on whether or not to go to war any more seriously than anyone else's.

    Posted by cdlepthien at 08/29/2009 @ 7:11pm

82. Posted by Happy at 08/29/2009 @ 5:24pm

    Strange that you believe my opinions somehow follow the political fortunes of a politician I didn't vote for. You going in for the special sauce like antisocialist or what?

    Since you like alternative bathroom techniques, check out this book on humanure. Too bad it can't be used for words or you'd be sitting on a gold mine.

    http://humanurehandbook.com/downloads/Humanure_Handbook_all.pdf

    Posted by cdlepthien at 08/29/2009 @ 6:22pm

    Agree. Pretty much anything you do here is more or less a waste of time. If you enjoy it, fine. It's certainly better than TV.

    As for your second point, true enough. Sometimes its not possible to put your money (or body) where your mouth is. But, I also included family in that equation. If you believe in a cause enough to talk your son/daughter/spouse/parent into supporting it by signing up, I'm more inclined to take that person seriously. It's not enough to talk the talk, you have to walk the walk. When you can't walk, then you should disclose the fact that you don't have any skin in the game. Then, you better have very convincing arguments - particularly when you want me to donate money and time and you can't.

    Posted by emile duBois at 08/29/2009 @ 6:38pm

    Also true. I just had a vision of this guy signing up to show his commitment and coming back in a coffin or crippled. I didn't want that on my conscience.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/29/2009 @ 7:32pm

83. Random ironic note about this thread: clearly Mr. Dreyfuss is unfamiliar with what the word "apocalypse" actually means. It comes from the Greek "apokalupsis" (rough spelling), which simply means a revelation. It has no specific connection to disaster, and I would argue that those who believe in a wholly loving and gracious deity have a very hard time reconciling that with disaster being the ultimate reality...or with an imperfect victory in which reconciliation is never really complete.

    Posted by Thrawn at 08/29/2009 @ 8:05pm

84. As for your second point, true enough. Sometimes its not possible to put your money (or body) where your mouth is. But, I also included family in that equation. If you believe in a cause enough to talk your son/daughter/spouse/parent into supporting it by signing up, I'm more inclined to take that person seriously. It's not enough to talk the talk, you have to walk the walk. When you can't walk, then you should disclose the fact that you don't have any skin in the game. Then, you better have very convincing arguments - particularly when you want me to donate money and time and you can't.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/29/2009 @ 7:32pm

    Which is why I'm proud that up through my sons, men have served in my family in the military all the way back to the French/Indian wars to and including the Iraq War. We have a family musket from the Revolutionary War and a Sword from my Great-Great Grandfather from the Civil War.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/29/2009 @ 8:18pm

85. posted by antisocialist at 08/29/2009 @8:18pm

    Yeah, I had ancestors in the military going back to the French & Indian wars, too. But I'm really proud of my grandfather, who was a conscientious objector in World War I (he went as a medic & got gassed anyway).

    Posted by cdlepthien at 08/29/2009 @ 8:42pm

86. Since you like alternative bathroom techniques,...

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/29/2009 @ 7:32pm

    Fascinating! You're using MASKian technique now, wow! You sure have changed!

    It takes his type of `talent' to twist folks' words.

    Lots of newer folks don't know about your Indian relatives' fondness of wiping their asses w/their bare hands....left hand I believe as their right hand is used to pick up food. Why don't you go over their "alternative bathroom techniques" and edumycate the newer folks. I've had my dinner, so, fire away!

    Posted by Happy at 08/29/2009 @ 9:13pm

87. Now that I think about it, I'll bet my some of my ancestors were in wars going clear back to the neolithic. And everybody else's too. whoop ti do.

    Posted by cdlepthien at 08/29/2009 @ 9:26pm

88. Now that I think about it, I'll bet my some of my ancestors were in wars going clear back to the neolithic. And everybody else's too. whoop ti do.

    Posted by cdlepthien at 08/29/2009 @ 9:26pm

    The point was from SRJ that those who support the war get more respect if they and their children serve. Well, I served and 2 of my sons. I just added the other to show that EVERY generation of men in my family have served in our military going back nearly 300 years.

    And my grandfather fought in France in WWI. He was shelled and gassed, spending 3 months in a hospital in France. He was decorated by President Wilson.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/29/2009 @ 10:42pm

89. Posted by antisocialist at 08/29/2009 @ 8:18pm

    Your service and the service of your sons is partially why I take your commentary more seriously. Unfortunately, there's seems like a lot of people that support the war so long as they don't have to be in it.

    Posted by Happy at 08/29/2009 @ 9:13pm

    Using your left hand to wipe your ass is standard practice in India. In fact, using toilet paper is considered disgusting because it ultimately makes a bigger mess - unless you compost it. I'm open to any way of doing it that leaves my ass and hands clean, convenient and doesn't leave a mess. Unfortunately, toilet paper leaves a mess in many parts of India where the toilets aren't designed to handle it.

    As for my relatives, they live in the US and use toilet paper. Did someone say something about twisting words in order to be an asshole?

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/29/2009 @ 10:55pm

90. "Turnout was abysmally low, with only about one-third of Afghans going to the polls, and in some districts -- especially in the Pashtun-dominated south -- perhaps between 5 and 15 percent of people voted, he said. On top of that, Weinbaum said, there is evidence of widespread fraud, and virtually all of the main opposition candidates are charging that the election was rigged." - Posted by R. (Da Man) Dreyfuss

    Just like home. And look what you get.

    Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 08/30/2009 @ 12:08am

91. how does one become exponentially more dangerous? Posted by Shingo at 08/27/2009 @ 10:44pm

    I don't think it does. 1 x 1 = 1 to the power of 2 = 1 and 1x1x1 aka 1 cubed = 1 and 1x1x1x1 etc

    Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 08/30/2009 @ 12:31am

92. posted by antisocialist 08/29/2009 @ 10:42pm

    I got SRJ's point. My point is that while people who are willing to fight in the wars they espouse, are all things being equal, more honorable than those who aren't, it doesn't mean that their reasoning as to why we should be in a particular war is any better.

    I also pointed out that there are many young men who would actually LIKE the chance to go to war, for a variety of reasons, some of them honorable & some of them egotistical or just plain bloodthirsty. Their evaluation of whether or not we should be in a war is likely to be unreliable, because they have a personal interest in it. World War I is a prime example of a war that was fought mostly because of the enthusiasm of idiots for war, which is why I am proud of my grandfather for refusing to carry a gun in it.

    The United States, since World War II, has engaged in a series of unnecessary wars and military actions. Men who resist these wars have inevitably been characterized as cowards, even when they are taking a moral stance. All of these wars have resulted in more civilian than military casualties, except possibly the First Gulf War, and then the military casualties were all on Iraq's side, not ours (not complaining about that).

    The United States has consistently failed to comprehend that violence begets more violence, that killing civilians is immoral, that economic interests do not constitute a causus belli, and that gaming the only international organizations available (the U.N., however flawed) only encourages other countries to do the same & results in lost opportunities for peace.

    Posted by cdlepthien at 08/30/2009 @ 06:37am

93. As for my relatives, they live in the US and use toilet paper. Did someone say something about twisting words in order to be an asshole?

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/29/2009 @ 10:55pm

    Word play! I surrenender....you Libas are better at words. Obviously for this last comment, you don't consider your wife's relatives in India as your own relatives.

    Posted by Happy at 08/30/2009 @ 10:27am

94. Posted by Happy at 08/30/2009 @ 10:27am

    Obviously, you don't have much of a notion about basic processes necessary for life in the rest of the world - much less the condition of my relatives live in India. So, how about sticking to what you know? Or better yet, taking some of your money, seeing some of the world, and making an effort to go outside the comfortable confines of the multinationals you invest in?

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/30/2009 @ 11:37am

95. ...the condition of my relatives live in India....

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/30/2009 @ 11:37am

    I got to you, huh? How about just some basic honesty....YOU: "As for my relatives, they live in the US and use toilet paper."

    I hold you to a higher standard, like my own!

    Posted by Happy at 08/30/2009 @ 11:58am

96. Posted by Happy at 08/30/2009 @ 11:58am

    Depends on your definitions, Happy. In the US, we typically talk about our nuclear family, and as far as that goes, it is correct. If you want to get into cousins and what not, sure I have relatives in India. If we go far enough out, you probably do too.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/30/2009 @ 12:14pm

97. there may even be niggrahs in happy's family.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/30/2009 @ 12:28pm

98. I'd say that Happy is more likely descended from those Green Monkeys we heard so much about a few years ago.

    That would explain his propensity for figuratively defecating in his own hand & hurling it from his caged & wired redoubt at those he believes to be his inferiors.

    Posted by Sorelish at 08/30/2009 @ 5:47pm

99. The point was from SRJ that those who support the war get more respect if they and their children serve. Well, I served and 2 of my sons. I just added the other to show that EVERY generation of men in my family have served in our military going back nearly 300 years.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/29/2009 @ 10:42pm

    Cheney didn't serve (he had other priorities remember?) , yet you not only respect him, but have described him as the greatest VP in history.

    Posted by Shingo at 08/30/2009 @ 5:59pm

100. AQ has got some `creative' assholes!

     From Iraq The Model's Omar:

     IRED

     That stands for Improvised Rectal Explosive Device; Al-Qaeda's newest weapon. The suicide bomber who tried to assassinate a Saudi prince used an unusual place to conceal his explosive charge; his anus.

     Al-Arabiya, a Saudi-owned television network, said the attacker concealed the explosives in his anus, allowing him to evade detection. The network also quoted an expert as saying that the method of concealment aimed the blast away from the target, while blowing the bomber to bits.

     Gladly the attack failed, otherwise Iraqi officials would freak out and demand that all visitors to government offices have their anuses probed before entry.

     But seriously, how did he place the explosives in his anus? I don't think he could've done it on his own. But on the other hand if someone else helped him do it then that makes the whole operation unholy, and very gay, right?

     Posted by Happy at 08/30/2009 @ 6:33pm

101. But seriously, how did he place the explosives in his anus? I don't think he could've done it on his own. But on the other hand if someone else helped him do it then that makes the whole operation unholy, and very gay, right?

     Posted by Happy at 08/30/2009 @ 6:33pm

     Yes, it must be all Iran's fault.

     Posted by Shingo at 08/30/2009 @ 7:13pm

102. Posted by Happy at 08/30/2009 @ 6:33pm

     I know I shouldn't ask, but...

     In your view, Happy, would a butt plug filled with C4 inserted by the suicide bombers wife be a "gay" sexual act?

     Feel free to elaborate on your views of anal sex among straight couples, particularly anything involving a male anus - tossed salads, butt plugs, whatever. Is it "gay", a sin, a non-issue?

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/30/2009 @ 8:13pm

103. Come to think of it, I think conservativism might have a greater appeal with the young. It projects certainty, decisiveness, and moral conviction - and it positions itself as a counter-cultural movement -although reactionary is probably a better word. It's exactly the kind of thing a teenager that is looking to assert their own identity but without getting too far off the map would find attractive.

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/29/2009 @ 12:23pm

     There's the bombastic, testosterone laden belligerence that tends to appeal to teenagers as well.

     Posted by Balrog at 08/30/2009 @ 8:22pm

104. Come to think of it, I think conservativism might have a greater appeal with the young. It projects certainty, decisiveness, and moral conviction - and it positions itself as a counter-cultural movement -although reactionary is probably a better word. It's exactly the kind of thing a teenager that is looking to assert their own identity but without getting too far off the map would find attractive.

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/29/2009 @ 12:23pm

     You're either approaching your senior years, or lost completely touch with the young. If you'd been paying attention to the college campuses since the 60's, and the disdain conservatism has for colleges and universities, you would have realized this is the complete opposite of reality.

     Young people are not jaded, bitter or bogged down by fear, which has become the hallmark of conservativism. The young tend to be idealists who are drawn to concepts like tolerance and diversity. Certainty, decisiveness, and moral conviction are widely regarded as evidence of ignorance, inflexibility and hypocrisy.

     As for identity, the young tend to explore these ideas by rebelling against institutionalized ideas and convetionalism.

     Posted by Shingo at 08/30/2009 @ 8:45pm

105. Thanks, Mr. Dreyfuss, for the two-part series on the vibrant and vigorous debate between the far-right hawks and the fascist-uber-right hysterical lunatics. Depressing, but informative.

     Posted by DejaVu at 08/30/2009 @ 8:46pm

106. Come to think of it, I think conservativism might have a greater appeal with the young. It projects certainty, decisiveness, and moral conviction - and it positions itself as a counter-cultural movement -although reactionary is probably a better word. It's exactly the kind of thing a teenager that is looking to assert their own identity but without getting too far off the map would find attractive.

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/29/2009 @ 12:23pm

     If you'd been paying attention to the college campuses since the 60's, and the disdain conservatism has for colleges and universities, you would have realized this is the complete opposite of reality.

     Young people are not jaded, bitter or bogged down by fear, which has become the hallmark of conservativism. The young tend to be idealists who are drawn to concepts like tolerance and diversity. Certainty, decisiveness, and moral conviction are widely regarded as ignorance, inflexibility and hypocrisy.

     As for identity, the young tend to explore these ideas by rebelling against institutionalized ideas and conventionalism.

     One need only look at the 2008 elections to realize who the youth are attracted to. Obama failed miserably among the elderly white folk, but scored big time with the youth.

     Posted by Shingo at 08/30/2009 @ 8:49pm

107. Obama failed miserably among the elderly white folk,

     Posted by Shingo at 08/30/2009 @ 8:49pm

     well,

     i can think of a few happy bankers who fit that description.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 08/30/2009 @ 9:07pm

108. Feel free to elaborate on your views of anal sex among straight couples, particularly anything involving a male anus - tossed salads, butt plugs, whatever. Is it "gay", a sin, a non-issue?

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/30/2009 @ 8:13pm

     Other than the leadoff "AQ has got some `creative' assholes!" that was penned by me, the entire post was by Omar....

     If I add in some comments after a cut-n-paste, I add this at the end of the cut-n-paste:

     =====================

     As separator!

     As for Omar's take on gayness, he's cool w/me...he has freedom of speech!

     Posted by Happy at 08/30/2009 @ 10:26pm

109. "Young people are not jaded,"

     "Certainty, decisiveness, and moral conviction are widely regarded as ignorance, inflexibility and hypocrisy."

     To view moral conviction as a sign of hypocrisy would suggest a jaded and cynical worldview.

     "Young people are not jaded, bitter or bogged down by fear, which has become the hallmark of conservativism."

     Then why are conservatives happier than liberals?

     "As for identity, the young tend to explore these ideas by rebelling against institutionalized ideas and conventionalism. "

     Very true. This is what puts them at odds with conservativism. They are essentially people who want radical change. They don't care about the content of the change, they just instinctively oppose the status quo.

     Studies have actually found that liberals and conservatives genuinely think differently. There are actual brain differences between them. Presumably, those who have a left-wing brain are roughly about half the population, and those who have a right-wing brain are roughly the other half. I would assume that the lack of a more even division of conservative and liberal students in colleges is a sign of this desire to rebel resulting in mass conformity to a "revolutionary" ideology. The fact that old Christian white males tend to favor socially conservative policies is a result of the old and white being very often at least somewhat racist, and old Christians very often very sexually repressed, and old Christians in particular as well as religious folks generally disliking pornography, sex, and violence in media. Such older folks tend to be more patriotic and more likely to support, say, an amendment banning flag burning. Cultural conditioning, in other words, very often shapes the views of the old and young as groups.

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/30/2009 @ 11:50pm

110. Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/30/2009 @ 11:50pm

     "To view moral conviction as a sign of hypocrisy would suggest a jaded and cynical worldview."

     On the contrary. The wisest people are often the first to recognize their own limitations. The greatest minds of our time have been those who've been able to empathize or endeavor to understand the opinions of others, including their enemies.

     Conversely, those least willing to question their own beliefs are least prepared to consider alternative opinions, which is invariably a sign of ignorance. George Bush is a classic example. Moral certainty goes hand in hand with a simplistic good vs evil mentality and those that rely on such a platform tend to be the most fallible eg. Ted Haggert, Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff, Duke Cunningham etc.

     "Then why are conservatives happier than liberals?"

     Really? I don't see too many liberals at tea bag rallys, shouting down speakers at town hall meetings, and advocating succession. Is that what you mean by happiness?

     Obama is receiving a record number of death threats, and it's a strong likelyhood that those death threats are not coming from liberals. Is that becasue conservatives are so happy?

     Conservatives, are by and large, driven by tribalism, fear, hatred and ignorance. Perhaps you could argue that these are the elements that make conservatives happy?

     Posted by Shingo at 08/31/2009 @ 01:07am

111. Posted by Shingo at 08/30/2009 @ 8:49pm

     "If you'd been paying attention to the college campuses since the 60's, and the disdain conservatism has for colleges and universities, you would have realized this is the complete opposite of reality."

     The people going to college in the 18-29 demographic are a minority. Take a look at this link: http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=750

     You'll notice that party affiliation in 1997-2000 for ages 18 to 29 breaks Republican (25%) and Democrat (28%). That evens up post 9/11.

     Now, scroll down a bit and check out the chart that breaks down party affiliation by age and gender. Younger males, like libertyfortheoppressed, clearly were breaking about 2-to-1 to Republicans in 2004. The only reason why Democrats come out on top when gender isn't considered is because younger women break Democratic 3-to-1 in 2004.

     As for Obama's numbers, that's clearly an outlier.

     Posted by Happy at 08/30/2009 @ 10:26pm

     Didn't see any separator. My mistake.

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/30/2009 @ 11:50pm

     "Then why are conservatives happier than liberals?"

     Are they? You make this assertion...based on what?

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/31/2009 @ 01:49am

112. Now, scroll down a bit and check out the chart that breaks down party affiliation by age and gender. Younger males, like libertyfortheoppressed, clearly were breaking about 2-to-1 to Republicans in 2004. The only reason why Democrats come out on top when gender isn't considered is because younger women break Democratic 3-to-1 in 2004.

     As for Obama's numbers, that's clearly an outlier.

     Posted by Happy at 08/30/2009 @ 10:26pm

     9/11 was clearly a one off event and it's effects were profound. Absent 9/11, younger males would not have gravitated to the Republicans at all, and the 2006/2008 election results are evidence that the 9/11 effect had dissipated by then.

     Posted by Shingo at 08/31/2009 @ 02:51am

113. Further to the last post by Happy:

     "The people going to college in the 18-29 demographic are a minority. "

     That's irrelevant. Colleges and universities represent a concentration of young people and the environment is conducive to inquiring minds and individual thought.

     Young people who enter the workforce directly, are thus more prone to being indoctrinated/assimilated into conventional ideology.

     Posted by Shingo at 08/31/2009 @ 02:57am

114. "But seriously, how did he place the explosives in his anus? I don't think he could've done it on his own."-----Posted by Happy at 08/30/2009 @ 6:33pm

     Why not?

     You get your head there quite often.

     heheh

     Posted by Mask at 08/31/2009 @ 08:09am

115. conservatives are pessimists, progressives are optimists.

     many "conservatives" here are misanthropes.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/31/2009 @ 08:24am

116. Posted by Shingo at 08/31/2009 @ 02:51am/02:57am

     Wow. Counter-factual assertion that young males suddenly went 2-to-1 for Republicans only because of 9/11 combined with calling the majority of the demographic irrelevant because they are unduly influenced by having to actually work for a living.

     How's life there in fantasy land?

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/31/2009 @ 10:22am

117. Cultural conditioning, in other words, very often shapes the views of the old and young as groups.

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/30/2009 @ 11:50pm

     NEWSFLASH!

     Posted by frosty zoom at 08/31/2009 @ 12:36pm

118. www.livescience.com/health/080507-liberal-conservative.html

     "Individuals with conservative ideologies are happier than liberal-leaners, and new research pinpoints the reason: Conservatives rationalize social and economic inequalities.

     Regardless of marital status, income or church attendance, right-wing individuals reported greater life satisfaction and well-being than left-wingers, the new study found. Conservatives also scored highest on measures of rationalization, which gauge a person's tendency to justify, or explain away, inequalities.

     To justify economic inequalities, a person could support the idea of meritocracy, in which people supposedly move up their economic status in society based on hard work and good performance. In that way, one's social class attainment, whether upper, middle or lower, would be perceived as totally fair and justified.

     If your beliefs don't justify gaps in status, you could be left frustrated and disheartened, according to the researchers, Jaime Napier and John Jost of New York University. They conducted a U.S.-centric survey and a more internationally focused one to arrive at the findings.

     "Our research suggests that inequality takes a greater psychological toll on liberals than on conservatives," the researchers write in the June issue of the journal Psychological Science, "apparently because liberals lack ideological rationalizations that would help them frame inequality in a positive (or at least neutral) light."

     The results support and further explain a Pew Research Center survey from 2006, in which 47 percent of conservative Republicans in the U.S. described themselves as "very happy," while only 28 percent of liberal Democrats indicated such cheer. "

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/31/2009 @ 2:33pm

119. digg.com/political_opinion/Why_conservatives_are_happier_than_liberals

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/31/2009 @ 2:35pm

120. www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060223/news_lz1e23will.html

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/31/2009 @ 2:37pm

121. Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/31/2009 @ 2:33pm

     And 28% of Republicans don't think Barack Obama is a citizen of the United States while 30% are "not sure".

     Everybody's happy in Looney Tunes-land, LFTO.

     Posted by Mask at 08/31/2009 @ 2:49pm

122. "Conservatives, are by and large, driven by tribalism, fear, hatred and ignorance. Perhaps you could argue that these are the elements that make conservatives happy?"

     I'm not arguing that conservatives are happier. THEY are. 47% of them describe themsleves as very happy. Only 28% of liberal Democrats feel the same way. WHY that is can be debated. You could, for example, argue that they are so naive, uneducated, ill-cultured, selfish, and sedate, and so easily contented with useless entertainment, that they are blind and uncaring to the suffering of others. You could argue that they are so ignorant they are in fact innocent, and that if they really knew anything about anything, they would be filled with sadness at the sad state of the world.

     "Moral certainty goes hand in hand with a simplistic good vs evil mentality and those that rely on such a platform tend to be the most fallible eg."

     I don't disagree. What I'm saying is that idealists are not the ones who reject a good versus evil mentality out of hand as anti-intellectual and simplistic. Bush is an idealist. Obama is a pragmatic realist. While Obama is more intelligent then Bush, he is not a more deeply moral man.

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/31/2009 @ 2:50pm

123. "And 28% of Republicans don't think Barack Obama is a citizen of the United States while 30% are "not sure". "

     www.mrc.org/biasalert/2009/20090804014431.aspx

     "Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure."

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/31/2009 @ 3:17pm

124. Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/31/2009 @ 2:50pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     "I'm not arguing that conservatives are happier. THEY are. 47% of them describe themsleves as very happy. Only 28% of liberal Democrats feel the same way."

     I imagine that those figures, collected in early 2008, woudl be somewhat different today, now that conservatives are no longer in power. As we have seen, Conservatives are insensed by not being in power.

     Posted by Shingo at 08/31/2009 @ 5:49pm

125. Wow. Counter-factual assertion that young males suddenly went 2-to-1 for Republicans only because of 9/11 combined with calling the majority of the demographic irrelevant because they are unduly influenced by having to actually work for a living.

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/31/2009 @ 10:22am

     It's not that much of a stretch if you think about it.

     Republicans won 2 elections and then suffered a devastating defeat in 2008.

     Posted by Shingo at 08/31/2009 @ 5:52pm

126. "Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure."

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/31/2009 @ 3:17pm

     The difference being that Obama's birth status can be proven, where Bush's foreknowledge of 911 cannot be disproved.

     Posted by Shingo at 08/31/2009 @ 5:54pm

127. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=Shingo

     absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

     "Conservatives are insensed ..."

     Did you mean: incensed ?

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/31/2009 @ 6:56pm

128. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure."

     these numbers are ludicrous.

     they are also made up out of thin air.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/31/2009 @ 6:58pm

129. "these numbers are ludicrous.

     they are also made up out of thin air."

     rasmussenreports is lying?

     Given that 58% of Republicans are sure Obama is not a citizen or are not convinced he is, they seem quite plausible.

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/31/2009 @ 7:48pm

130. Word play! I surrenender....you Libas are better at words. Posted by Happy at 08/30/2009 @ 10:27am

     Thank you, Hap. Your magnanimous acceptance of defeat is somewhat heartwarming, more so than exploding anuses (ani?) Now check out the spirit behind the words and cut to your personal truth

     Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 08/31/2009 @ 8:25pm

131. Republicans....suffered a devastating defeat in 2008.

     Posted by Shingo at 08/31/2009 @ 5:52pm

     53%/46%, a margin of 7%, or a net swing of 3.5% of voters.......that's "devastating"?

     Sure, many competitive districts & even GOP-leaning ones went Blue,...but I'd argue the results are far more "devastating" to Magic's agenda than if those districts went Red.

     The One has no excuses now for not getting the bulk of his KEY agenda items, now is there?

     This is exactly why I shed no tears for Franken becoming the 60th Dem Senator!

     Posted by Happy at 08/31/2009 @ 9:59pm

132. Shingo probably doesn't understand my prior post.

     Had the House & Senate be more evenly divided with lower Dem margins, I believe the GOP will feel a significant obligation to work with this historical POTUS who did in fact generate a huge amount of good will......with over 70% approval in Jan/Feb.

     Another word, your "devastating" defeat of the GOP in picking up many seats, but not truly "devastating" at the POTUS level, was a blessing in disguise....the Repubs can actually stand united in the face of "devastatingly" large numerical disadvantage.

     Hey, it's been a few days since I said: Time is the Cons' friend.....LOL!

     Posted by Happy at 08/31/2009 @ 10:06pm

133. Noun anus (plural anuses) (anatomy) The lower opening of the alimentary canal, through which the feces are ejected. [edit]Synonyms arsehole asshole

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/31/2009 @ 11:36pm

134. Hey, it's been a few days since I said: Time is the Cons' friend.....LOL!---Posted by Happy at 08/31/2009 @ 10:06pm

     On "winning by default", you mean...since conservatives had their shot and blew it (2003-2006) and have nothing left to offer but "We're not them!"?

     Posted by Mask at 09/01/2009 @ 10:06am

135. "he doesn't understand that the decision by the United States to uphold France's colonial position, after Ho Chi Minh would have won a general election in 1954,"

     I've never argued that going into Vietnam was a good idea. In fact, I'm certain we shouldn't have gone in in the first place. We should have allowed free elections, we should not have sent in troops, and we shouldn't have escalated under LBJ. The Democrats cultivated the violence in Vietnam. If we hadn't gone in, there would not have been a mass refugee crisis. Reconciliation would have been easier, less would have been killed in re-education camps. Our involvement did not stop Diem from killing a million people. The war might not have spread to Cambodia if we had just allowed the south to fall to the north. The avoidable conflict in Vietnam killed 3.8 million people. Only 600,000 of those killed after 1973 would have died without Cambodia being factored in (2.2 million were killed by Pol Pot, and 670,000 died in the war to remove him). Further, those numbers would have been smaller without American involvement. While North Vietnam destabilized Cambodia more than the US, it did so primarily to use it as a military base in the war for the south. Kennedy would have been able to accept a unified and Communist Vietnam with an elected government that would have undergone political liberalization faster than China. LBJ might still have prevented a massive bloodbath. But no! The Democrats decided to go to war. Then, the bipolar lunatics worked to sacrifice South Vietnam to the Communists even though two more years of bombing was all that was needed to keep it alive. After they gave the North incentive to destabilize Cambodia, they refused to answer the desperate pleas of our Cambodian allies...

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 09/01/2009 @ 3:26pm

136. ... to resume the fight against the Khmer Rouge. And after their betrayal killed 3.5 million people, WHO DID THEY BLAME? The Republicans, of course!

     Vietnam was a terrible, unjust war. It was also disgraceful to have abandoned Cambodia in 1973. The Democrats are at fault when it comes to both of these disgraces.

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 09/01/2009 @ 3:30pm

137. "Our involvement did not stop Diem from killing a million people."

     Ho Chi Min, I mean.

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 09/01/2009 @ 3:34pm

138. Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 09/01/2009 @ 3:34pm |

     You were right both times; just replace Buddhists with Catholics.

     I think Ho summed it up best, "I can scarcely believe the Americans would be so stupid."

     The amazing similarity between the disposal of the one bad, but stabilizing despot in a region where a clear enemy of the state would like to plant roots is stunning.

     "Diem was one of the strongest individuals resisting the people and Communism. Everything that could be done in an attempt to crush the revolution was carried out by Diem. Diem was one of the most competent lackeys of the U.S. imperialists . . . Among the anti-Communists in South Vietnam or exiled in other countries, no one has sufficient political assets and abilities to cause others to obey. Therefore, the lackey administration cannot be stabilized. The coup d' état on 1 November 1963 will not be the last."

     The underestimation of the task. The initially inadequate troop levels followed by escalations or surges, if you prefer.

     Even if they're not to blame FOR Vietnam, Pugs learned absolutely nothing FROM Vietnam, despite a bird's eye view of the action.

     Or perhaps they learned exactly what they needed to from Vietnam...about profiteering, no-bid contract killers, and the $600B fat of the land.

     Posted by snowball777 at 09/02/2009 @ 08:19am

139. Or perhaps they learned exactly what they needed to from Vietnam...about profiteering, no-bid contract killers, and the $600B fat of the land.

     Posted by snowball777 at 09/02/2009 @ 08:19am

     You're beginning to sound more like Hanoi Jane.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/02/2009 @ 09:38am

140. Posted by antisocialist at 09/02/2009 @ 09:38am |

     And you? A broken record!

     There's a difference between being against the existence and/or use of the military in general (Jane) and against dubious, expensive, and incompetent abuse of the military in defense of a failed stratagem as in 'Nam and Iraq (me).

     I have no idea how Fonda felt about private contractors on the battlefield, but the charlie foxtrots created by Blackwater have cemented my opinions about them.

     So explain to me, as a skeptical, intelligent conservative, how you "can't trust the government to run healthcare", but can always trust their motives on when and how to go to war?

     Posted by snowball777 at 09/02/2009 @ 3:32pm

141. So explain to me, as a skeptical, intelligent conservative, how you "can't trust the government to run healthcare", but can always trust their motives on when and how to go to war?

     Posted by snowball777 at 09/02/2009 @ 3:32pm

     Bullseye.

     This is one of the countless contradictions and paradoxes of the right wing.

     They argue the government cannot be trusted with anything, except the running of the biggest and most expensive enterprise of all, the military.

     They argue for fiscal responsibility and complain that government health care is too expensive, yet argue that even with the insane waste, defense spending should continue to rise.

     They argue that we cannot afford a public option, which would be a fraction of defense spending.

     Posted by Shingo at 09/02/2009 @ 7:43pm

142. Actually, what really fails to make logical sense is, if liberals REALLY believed that the American government was run by depraved evil psychopathic war criminal lunatics and that the war in Iraq is all about oil, WHY would they want this criminal gang to have control over their healthcare? Of course, few liberals really are so deluded they actually believe their own virulent attacks on Bush's moral character. Such attacks are only neccessary because Bush is so obviously morally superior to any other President we've had in decades.

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 09/02/2009 @ 8:06pm

143. Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 09/02/2009 @ 8:06pm

     That might fail if you were talking about the same administration, but the one that took us to the illegal and unnecessary war is gone.

     Of course, the public, both left and right, flatly rejected the Bush Administrations efforts to privatize Social Security.

     Bush's character was so lacking that it naturally attracted scrutiny. A rich boy who had failed in everything he'd tried, and been bailed out repeatedly, not to mention, being the most intellectually baron and incurious leaders we have had in half a century.

     It's a testament to the scale of Bush as a failure, that the McCain ticket ran on change and distancing themselves from Bush.

     Bush was a spoiled alcoholic frat boy who had no regard for human decency and understandably, did more to drag down the reputation and prestige of the US than any president in history. He was also the laziest and most corrupt.

     Like they said, Cheney's greatest achievement was that he ran the country while leading Bush to believe he was really the president.

     Posted by Shingo at 09/02/2009 @ 8:53pm

144. Posted by Shingo at 09/02/2009 @ 8:53pm

     Isn't it amazing, your Messiah can't even measure up to the one you hate, and in so much less time.....took Bush 8 years and your boy got there in 8 months!

     Posted by Happy at 09/02/2009 @ 9:10pm

145. Isn't it amazing, your Messiah can't even measure up to the one you hate, and in so much less time.....took Bush 8 years and your boy got there in 8 months!

     Posted by Happy at 09/02/2009 @ 9:10pm

     What's amazing is that you don't understand the difference between being handed a country in peak health and destroying it, as opposed to being handed a country on life support and keeping it alive.

     Bush wouldn't have lasted 12 months were it not for 911.

     Posted by Shingo at 09/02/2009 @ 9:20pm

146. But Shingo, if Bush really went into Iraq for oil, it would follow that he is by definition a fundamentally depraved and evil madman. If a fundamentally depraved and evil madman can become President of the US and get the Congress to go along with his agenda of hysterical genocide and pillaging of foriegn lands due to sheer apathy and corruption, it really would not matter much if his successor was more benign. Saying that a massive government power grab under Obama is okay but that the same would not be true under Bush because Bush would abuse such power ignores that if Obama establishes a precedent, it is applied TO ALL OF HIS SUCCESSORS, some of whom may well be evil depraved madmen.

     "Of course, the public, both left and right, flatly rejected the Bush Administrations efforts to privatize Social Security."

     But you've described yourself as a Ron Paul supporter. Doesn't he favor that as well?

     McCain was long distanced from Bush since 2000. If he had been elected President over Bush or Gore back then, he would have sent enough troops to Iraq to stabilize it after deciding to invade it.

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 09/02/2009 @ 9:20pm

147. Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 09/02/2009 @ 9:20pm

     "But Shingo, if Bush really went into Iraq for oil, it would follow that he is by definition a fundamentally depraved and evil madman."

     Exactly and as Paul Wolfotwitz told us, the reason we did go into Iraq was becasue it swam on a sea of oil.

     QED.

     The idea that Obama has instituted a power grab is pure BS. Even the Republicans admit a stimulus was necessary.

     "But you've described yourself as a Ron Paul supporter. Doesn't he favor that as well?"

     Yes he did. What I was pointing to was the contradiction in antisocialists position, whcih snowball777 eloquently explained.

     "McCain was long distanced from Bush since 2000. "

     Wrong. By McCain's own admission, he voted more than 90% with Bush's policies. Even Palin distancied herself from Bush during the debates.

     "If he had been elected President over Bush or Gore back then, he would have sent enough troops to Iraq to stabilize it after deciding to invade it."

     Wrong. McCain's initial response was that we had enough to begin with. He flip flopped later. in any case, there would never have been enough troops to stabilize Iraq, other than temporarily, as we are seeing with Iraq against disintegrating.

     Posted by Shingo at 09/02/2009 @ 9:27pm

148. "Bush's character was so lacking that it naturally attracted scrutiny."

     Wrong. As Gore Vidal once pointed out, politicians rarely attack their opponents for their actual faults. It is far more effective to instead "deny their virtues".

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 09/02/2009 @ 9:34pm

149. "Bush wouldn't have lasted 12 months were it not for 911."

     What does that mean? He would have been impeached?

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 09/02/2009 @ 9:35pm

150. Wrong. As Gore Vidal once pointed out, politicians rarely attack their opponents for their actual faults. It is far more effective to instead "deny their virtues".

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 09/02/2009 @ 9:34pm

     Bush didn't have any of those either.

     Posted by Shingo at 09/02/2009 @ 9:37pm

151. "Bush wouldn't have lasted 12 months were it not for 911."

     What does that mean? He would have been impeached?

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 09/02/2009 @ 9:35pm

     No, the Clinton impeachment served the purpose of putting to bed any chance of any subsequent president being impeached.

     My point is that Bush's poll numbers woudl have been in the toilet without 911.

     Posted by Shingo at 09/02/2009 @ 9:39pm

152. "It is far more effective to instead "deny their virtues"."

     And I might add to invent fabricated "virtues" were none in fact exist. Jimmy Carter, for instance, green-lit the Iran-Iraq war, which cost a million lives. In addition he secretly, covertly, and illegally without Congressional oversight began funding radical Islamists in Afghanistan BEFORE the Soviet invasion of that country in what we now know was a delibrate attempt to provoke such an invasion by allowing the Islamists to pose a threat to the puppet regime in that country. The Soviets then killed a million Afghans and paved the way for the Taliban takeover. Carter feigned such "shock" at the time of their invasion that he must either have been an extraordinarily good actor or so incredibly incompetent that he had no idea what Brzezinski and others in his administration were doing abroad. It is important to note that this deception in Afghanistan was not exposed until 1998. But, sine Carter has endorsed anti-semitic attacks on Israel and spoken out on behalf of Saddam Hussein (who at least he has been consistent in supporting while he was President, during the Gulf War, and in 2003), the left argues he is the most noble President we've had in ages.

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 09/02/2009 @ 9:48pm

153. Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 09/02/2009 @ 9:48pm

     "Jimmy Carter, for instance, green-lit the Iran-Iraq war, which cost a million lives."

     Firstly, it cost less than a million and secondly, that policy was adopted wholesale by Reagan.

     "In addition he secretly, covertly, and illegally without Congressional oversight began funding radical Islamists in Afghanistan BEFORE the Soviet invasion of that country"

     Bush has secretly, covertly, and illegally without Congressional oversight, funded terrorist groups like the MEK and Jundullah (KSM's old gang).

     Furthermore, it was Reagan who described he Islamists that rose to power from that conflict, as extolling the same American values that our founding fathers had.

     Carter not only never endorses anti-semitic attacks on Israel, he was key tot eh peace deal between Egypt and Israel.

     As fir speaking out on behalf of Saddam, it was Reagan again, who armed Saddam and sent his envoy (Rumsfeld) to kiss face with Saddam. in fact, not only did Reagan turned a blind eye while Saddam was gassing the Kurds, Saddam used helicopters supplied to him by Reagan to do it.

     So if Carter is immoral, Reagan, the Sacred Cow of the Republicans, is much worse.

     Posted by Shingo at 09/02/2009 @ 10:11pm

154. "Firstly, it cost less than a million and secondly, that policy was adopted wholesale by Reagan."

     Estimates vary widely, but it may have cost over a million or only a number in the high hundreds of thousands.

     Reagan did not support the invasion. In fact, the US always called for a cease-fire in the war. We actually got Saddam to accept one BEFORE Iran did, even though Iran was the victim of Iraq's aggression. Iraq had been defeated in several battles and tried to cut its losses, but the Ayatollah started using human wave attacks to export the Islamic Revolution to Iraqi Shiites. Sometimes I wonder if it might have been better to have supported them rather than Iraq, but Reagan only supported Saddam to contain Iran and in fact condemned the gassing of the Kurds. The weapons Reagan sold Saddam were less than 1% of the weapons Saddam recieved during his 24-year long reign of terror.

     "Furthermore, it was Reagan who described he Islamists that rose to power from that conflict, as extolling the same American values that our founding fathers had."

     That was stupid, but Reagan was reacting to the Soviets massacaring over a million Afghans. He didn't help the Taliban take power because the Taliban did not exist when he was president.

     Carter has condemned Israel in unequvical terms.

     "Carter not only never endorses anti-semitic attacks on Israel,"

     What other sorts of attacks on Israel are there?

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 09/02/2009 @ 10:25pm

155. Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 09/02/2009 @ 10:25pm

     "Estimates vary widely, but it may have cost over a million or only a number in the high hundreds of thousands."

     Those numbers I can agree on. 5 million is beyond anything I have heard.

     Reagan did support the invasion, and in fact lifted diplomatic sanctions against Iraq, taking them off the list of State Terrorist sponsors and even providing loan guarantees during and after the war. Reagan also provided loans for dual use technology, whcih led to Saddam's WMD programs.

     Carter also called for a cease-fire in the war, but according to you, he incited it.

     Iran naturally were the last to accept the ceasefire, seeing as it had been attacked, but the fact is that th war would have ended a lot earlier had we not armed and financed Saddam.

     Reagan supported Saddam, while also arming Iran, in the hope they woudl eventually destroy one another. While Reagan publicly condemned the gassing of the Kurdsm, his administration were winking to Saddam and the same time. The weapons Reagan sold Saddam were his most effective and were used to gas the Kurds.

     Reagan did help the Taliban take power because the Taliban originated from the Mujahadeen.

     Carter has condemned Israel's policies to wards the Palestinians, not Israel itself.

     "What other sorts of attacks on Israel are there?"

     Who said Israel has been attacked at all? Criticism is relevant. Criticism is not an attack, though like China, Israel like to pretend that criticizing their human rights record is anti Semitic.

     Posted by Shingo at 09/02/2009 @ 10:38pm