Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditContrary to my own expectations, President Obama seems to be hesitant about announcing yet another escalation in Afghanistan.
General McChrystal has thrown down the gauntlet, saying that he needs more troops in the coming year or else the war "will likely result in failure." In his 66-page report, he added:
"Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near term (next 12 months) -- while Afghan security capacity matures -- risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible."
But Obama suggested yesterday, during his marathon round of Sunday interviews, that he may not be ready to write McChrystal the blank check that he wants. Obama said that he "is not going to be driven by the politics of the moment," and he said that before he'll add more troops he wants to make sure that the strategy is correct. He said, on CNN:
"Right now, the question is, the first question is, are we doing the right thing? Are we pursuing the right strategy? When we have clarity on that, then the question is, O.K., how do we resource it?"
On CBS Face the Nation, Obama said:
"Whatever decisions I make are going to be based first on a strategy to keep us safe, then we'll figure out how to resource it. We're not going to put the cart before the horse and just think by sending more troops we're automatically going to make Americans safe."
And he reiterated the key point that his objective in Afghanistan is to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda -- a goal that, according to many observers, is already accomplished -- rather than to rebuild, or rather build, a nation where none exists.
Under the headline, "Obama Questions Plan to Add Forces in Afghanistan," the Wall Street Journal reports:
"President Barack Obama on Sunday voiced skepticism that more troops would make a difference in Afghanistan, suggesting he might not rubber-stamp military officials' expected request to send more forces to that country. ... Mr. Obama's comments suggested that the White House could be reassessing its strategy in Afghanistan, ahead of an expected request for more troops from Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. and NATO commander there. ..."Recent polls have shown declining support in the U.S. for the Afghanistan war. Mr. Obama has said that while he doesn't favor an open-ended war in Afghanistan, he has no deadline for withdrawing forces and won't base his decision on 'the politics of the moment.'"
Already, Republicans are warning that Obama had better follow the military's advice, or else. In fact, the president can afford to cross swords with the GOP troglodytes, but what he can't afford is to alienate his own Democratic party base, which has overwhelming rejected the war. (Polls show Democrats are strongly opposed to the war in Afghanistan.)
Stay tuned. I'm spending most of the day at the annual conference of the Foreign Policy Initiative, the conclave of neoconservatives, and there ought to be a measurable level of apoplexy there.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
'Stay tuned' is right. This sounds like a set-up, bigtime. So far, Obama has played progressives like a cheap violin and he is a master of timing. He'll wait until the news cycle obsesses about something else and whamo bamo, congress will give him all the money he needs to distract us from their 'other' problems that week.
Posted by DejaVu at 09/21/2009 @ 06:49am
Obama shouldn't worry too much about the Republicans...he's doing basically what they want and they're STILL criticizing him.
Of course it's not much better on the Left, given guys like Deja Vu won't accept it if he DOES start to de-escalate in Afghanistan...since the "pure progressive" types aren't satisfied with anything.
But, not much reason to worry about them...we all know what they're going to do in 2012, soon as Ralph emerges from his "undisclosed location" in January of that year.
Posted by Mask at 09/21/2009 @ 07:21am
'General McChrystal has thrown down the gauntlet, saying that he needs more troops in the coming year or else the war "will likely result in failure." In his 66-page report, he added:
"Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near term (next 12 months) -- while Afghan security capacity matures -- risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible."'
versus
McKiernan may become the General Shinseki of Afghanistan Wed, 05/13/2009 - 3:25pm By Kori Schake - Excerpt
'The Obama Administration has just relieved the commander of the war in Afghanistan, General McKiernan. He had been in command for 11 months, during which time he agitated for more troops and greater unity of effort within the administration and among the allies. They have nominated to replace him the director of Admiral Mullen's Joint Staff, Lieutenant General McChrystal, plus the Secretary Gates' senior military assistant, Lieutenant General Rodriguez.'
Well - looks like our "counterinsurgency" expert is just the same old same old "more boots on the ground."
These characters are clueless, and playing musical chairs isn't progress, it is procrastination.
BO is floundering and his NATO support has most assuredly been squandered.
We need to be concluding this campaign.
Posted by OneVote at 09/21/2009 @ 08:00am
what would McCain have done? or do?
Posted by emile duBois at 09/21/2009 @ 08:04am
But, not much reason to worry about them...we all know what they're going to do in 2012, soon as Ralph emerges from his "undisclosed location" in January of that year. Posted by Mask at 09/21/2009 @ 07:21am |
Do you think they'd get better results with Jello Biafra?
Posted by snowball777 at 09/21/2009 @ 08:18am
mask,
you're gonna get splinters.........
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/21/2009 @ 08:19am
We need to be concluding this campaign. Posted by OneVote at 09/21/2009 @ 08:00am |
Agreed.
Staying is both expensive and counter-productive at this point. If our economy was otherwise, it might be a different story, but we've got more irons than fire.
Our allies are coming around...when they leave, we'll soon follow suit.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/21/2009 @ 08:23am
I believe NATO has outlived its usefulness when the Warsaw pact was terminated.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/21/2009 @ 08:36am
But, not much reason to worry about them...we all know what they're going to do in 2012, soon as Ralph emerges from his "undisclosed location" in January of that year. Posted by Mask at 09/21/2009 @ 07:21am | ignore this person |
--not voting is an option.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/21/2009 @ 08:38am
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/21/2009 @ 08:19am
How? I'm saying Obama should get out of Afghanistan and not worry what the Republicans say....and expect that guys like DV won't give him credit anyway.
Posted by Mask at 09/21/2009 @ 08:39am
Our allies are coming around...when they leave, we'll soon follow suit.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/21/2009 @ 08:23am | ignore this person | warn this person
My fingers are crossed.
Watch out for "new allies."
Posted by OneVote at 09/21/2009 @ 08:49am
mask,
you're gonna get splinters.........
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/21/2009 @ 08:19am | ignore this person | warn this person
more to the point, ask Penny Pritzker...lol....................
Posted by OneVote at 09/21/2009 @ 09:03am
DREYFUSS: ".....Republicans are warning that Obama had better follow the military's advice, ...."
Isn't the Repubs merely reminding The Annointed One that his Holiness self, had proclaimed repeatedly that he'd listen to the battlefield commanders?
Had Magic kept McKiernan, he would've had some CYA to reject the plea for more troops and buy himself some "present" by replacing the general now and.....la da....wait another couple of months for a NEW Af/Pak assessement....
As a b-baller, Obama ought to know how to run the 4-Corner Offense.....run to Pelosi, then to Reid, next to Gates, finally to Michelle.....repeat, rinse, sub Michell w/Tom Friedman........rinse, repeat, sub.....
Good gracious, Great Ball of Fire, aren't we having fun!
Posted by Happy at 09/21/2009 @ 09:17am
I believe NATO has outlived its usefulness when the Warsaw pact was terminated.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/21/2009 @ 08:36am
I guess we can cut off military and economic aid to Israel then right?
Posted by OneVote at 09/21/2009 @ 09:27am
Up unto this point, I feel Obama has done a fairly good job in foreign policy. I haven't agreed with everything, but not much that threatened US national security.
This has all the makings though of capitulation to the anti-american left who would love nothing more than to declare another US military defeat.
It seems nothing makes this segment of the left happier than the possibility of a US military defeat.
Not to mention the certainty of a combined Taliban/Al Qaeda regrouping in Afghanistan unless decisive military action is taken.
The next 9/11 would clearly be on the shoulders of Obama and that segment of the left pushing for withdrawal.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/21/2009 @ 10:03am
Barack Obama needs to man-up and act like a C.I.C. This isn't about campaign promises.
George Bush listened to Gen. Patraeus and John McCain and with the surge, turned the tide and won the war in Iraq. The same thing should be done in Afghanistan and the sooner the better. Barack Obama knows nothing about military strategy and tactics.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 10:09am
Obama is really a neocon in disguise. His actions continually contradict his words. He is only conning the left. Of course he will send more troops to Afghanistan, he is there to expand the war against Asia. What better figure head than a "liberal" black to continue the imperialist wars against Asia.
Posted by trueleftist at 09/21/2009 @ 10:21am
Hey, ONE VOTE,
Got your note on the other blog but wasn't sure I followed you. I know the eastern European contribution to our efforts worldwide has been good, much better in fact than their western counterparts. I was only bashing Dreyfus for doing his usual butcher job on anyone or anything that smacks of US "assertiveness". That and the logic behind Obama's decision. Thanks for the info though
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/21/2009 @ 10:23am
"George Bush listened to Gen. Patraeus and John McCain and with the surge, turned the tide and won the war in Iraq. "
Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 10:09am
Guess I missed that.
Wow. There was sill a war going on this past election and the president apparently won it and brought the troops home. And I missed it. I need to pay more attention.
So, your proposing we send all the soldiers, who apparently, are no longer fighting in Iraq, and send them off to Afghanistan?
How many soldiers is that?
Posted by Malcontent at 09/21/2009 @ 10:36am
How many soldiers is that?
Posted by Malcontent at 09/21/2009 @ 10:36am
Unless you think that America has no vital interest in the ME and that we should simply abandon our allies and turn the rerion over to the radical Jihad, then you would probably like to see Obama bring all the troops home from every inch of ME sand. You and Osama could then hold hands like Bush and the Saudi's.
When the lights go out, don't call your utility company. They won't be able to do anything about it. God, what will you do with no TV and no gas for your car. Wake up. People are dying to keep you in your lifestyle and you're not even grateful.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 10:44am
It seems nothing makes this segment of the left happier than the possibility of a US military defeat.
The next 9/11 would clearly be on the shoulders of Obama and that segment of the left pushing for withdrawal."----Posted by antisocialist at 09/21/2009 @ 10:03am
But remember....
"So, it appears that a consistent hallmark of leftist thought is the denigration of everyone that holds an opposing view."----Posted by antisocialist at 08/05/2009 @ 2:50pm
Posted by Mask at 09/21/2009 @ 11:03am
Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 10:09am
So because GW won the war in Iraq by listening to his generals, why did'nt he listen to his generals when it came to afghanistan? Heck, GW started that war long before the war in Iraq. Why would he ignore afghanistan? Have we languished in Afghanistan for what 8 years, soley because our CIC don't listen?
And Malcontent makes a salient point, if we "won" there, what are our troops still doing there?
Posted by Extraneous at 09/21/2009 @ 11:04am
Induction of more troops is not going to help to win this war.It is a losing war by all means.Check the history of Afghanistan, they thrown out all the aggressors.They are not afraid of any troops. Afghanistan is going the Vietnam way.A defeat there , also will affect NATO.
Posted by Dastu11 at 09/21/2009 @ 11:10am
Wake up. People are dying to keep you in your lifestyle and you're not even grateful.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 10:44am
Talk about brainwashed. I value our troops and the work they do likely more than you. However, we never had a valid reason for Iraq, it has nothing to do with our freedom or our lifestyle, if anything the actions taken in the ME have caused the price of oil to rise by destabilizing a relatively stable situation. Prior to invasion of Iraq, we had Iraq nicely contained. No fly zone, no military, stiff sanctions, etc. Then we invaded, which was like a prize fighter beating up on a starving homeless man.
But go ahead and believe that they are really dying for our lifestyle if that helps you to justify their deaths. Don't tell me the wars have made us safer. That is donkeyvomit. If anything our actions have made those who wish to hurt us stronger, and what could have been nipped in the bud is now going to be a multigenerational problem.
Posted by Extraneous at 09/21/2009 @ 11:13am
Posted by Extraneous at 09/21/2009 @ 11:04am
Oil.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 11:13am
Got your note on the other blog but wasn't sure I followed you. I know the eastern European contribution to our efforts worldwide has been good, much better in fact than their western counterparts. I was only bashing Dreyfus for doing his usual butcher job on anyone or anything that smacks of US "assertiveness". That and the logic behind Obama's decision. Thanks for the info though
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/21/2009 @ 10:23am | ignore this person | warn this person
Spot on Chip. Any astute reader would have mentally filled in the blanks, but alas, The Nation blogs are a "mixed bag" at best, and so stating the obvious isn't redundant for this crowd.
Posted by OneVote at 09/21/2009 @ 11:18am
Posted by Extraneous at 09/21/2009 @ 11:04am
Oil.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 11:13am | ignore this person | warn this person
Wolfowitz Doctrine (Bush Doctrine) - original and "redraft" released April 16, 1992, after NY Times disclosed its existence in March 1992.
Oil
The doctrine clarified the strategic value of the Middle East and Southwest Asia.
"In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil."
The April 16 release was much more circumspect and reaffirmed U.S. commitments to Israel.
"In the Middle East and Persian Gulf, we seek to foster regional stability, deter aggression against our friends and interests in the region, protect U.S. nationals and property, and safeguard our access to international air and seaways and to the region's oil. The United States is committed to the security of Israel and to maintaining the qualitative edge that is critical to Israel's security. Israel's confidence in its security and U.S.-Israel strategic cooperation contribute to the stability of the entire region, as demonstrated once again during the Persian Gulf War. At the same time, our assistance to our Arab friends to defend themselves against aggression also strengthens security throughout the region, including for Israel."
Source: Wikipedia
Posted by OneVote at 09/21/2009 @ 11:37am
So because GW won the war in Iraq by listening to his generals, why did'nt he listen to his generals when it came to afghanistan? Heck, GW started that war long before the war in Iraq. Why would he ignore afghanistan?
Posted by Extraneous at 09/21/2009 @ 11:04am
You must be single or have a light burden....
Try balancing priorities, be they demands on your time, money, ?love of BHO vs. hate of Bush?, wife, children, boss, co-workers......
GB knowingling side-burnered Afghanistan. Sure, the general running the Afghan Small Top show wanted more resources but the Iraqi theater was the Big Top. Recall how the Army got the money to increase troop level by ~30,000 and got them funded? Yeah, that's why!
Posted by Happy at 09/21/2009 @ 11:37am
"Unless you think that America has no vital interest in the ME and that we should simply abandon our allies and turn the rerion over to the radical Jihad, then you would probably like to see Obama bring all the troops home from every inch of ME sand. You and Osama could then hold hands like Bush and the Saudi's.
When the lights go out, don't call your utility company. They won't be able to do anything about it. God, what will you do with no TV and no gas for your car. Wake up. People are dying to keep you in your lifestyle and you're not even grateful."
Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 10:44am
Which allies? Perhaps you mean the Saudis? Because we, as Americans, get soooo much from our "alliance" with that non-democratic theocracy.
Just because your hero bush, holds hands with evil foreigners, in the worlds (immediate) and Americas (long term) worst interest, is no reason to emulate him.
Are you seriously implying that our meddling had nothing to do with $4.oo + gas prices. Or wall street, who our corprotacracy also funds with my money?
I use lots of oil, but am already prepared to make do with $10.00 gas. A contigency that neither our government nor it's corporate owners seem capable of planning for.
" People are dying to keep you in your lifestyle and you're not even grateful."
Nope. Neither are the folks who are dying.
Maybe if everyone turned off their TV and paid attention....
Posted by Malcontent at 09/21/2009 @ 11:53am
The war mongering of the right wing is part of their basic world view - imperialism is good, war against the non-white world is self defense. One expects something different from liberals, progressives and the left. Obama is making a lie of that distinction between liberals and right wing war mongerers. Are we back to the days of LBJ's liberalism and military interventions in Asia. Its madness. The left is destroying itself.
Posted by trueleftist at 09/21/2009 @ 12:04pm
The war mongering of the right wing is part of their basic world view - imperialism is good, war against the non-white world is self defense. One expects something different from liberals, progressives and the left. Obama is making a lie of that distinction between liberals and right wing war mongerers. Are we back to the days of LBJ's liberalism and military interventions in Asia. Its madness. The left is destroying itself.
Posted by trueleftist at 09/21/2009 @ 12:06pm
This has all the makings though of capitulation to the anti-american left who would love nothing more than to declare another US military defeat.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/21/2009 @ 10:03am
ooh, back to the anti-commie generator at preciousbodilyfluids.com!
cool, my turn.
<click>
"An ever present hallmark of the leftist agenda is too slither away just when victory is assuredly around the next corner."
awesome.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/21/2009 @ 12:06pm
turned the tide and won the war in Iraq.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 10:09am
"The - Nile - is - the - longest - river - in - Africa - and - the - second - in - length - of - all - the - rivers - of - the - globe "
"The - Nile - is - the - longest - river - in - Africa - and - the - second - in - length - of - all - the - rivers - of - the - globe "
"The - Nile - is - the - longest - river - in - Africa - and - the - second - in - length - of - all - the - rivers - of - the - globe "
"The - Nile - is - the - longest - river - in - Africa - and - the - second - in - length - of - all - the - rivers - of - the - globe "
"The - Nile - is - the - longest - river - in - Africa - and - the - second - in - length - of - all - the - rivers - of - the - globe "
"The - Nile - is - the - longest - river - in - Africa - and - the - second - in - length - of - all - the - rivers - of - the - globe "
"The - Nile - is - the - longest - river - in - Africa - and - the - second - in - length - of - all - the - rivers - of - the - globe "
"The - Nile - is - the - longest - river - in - Africa - and - the - second - in - length - of - all - the - rivers - of - the - globe "
"The - Nile - is - the - longest - river - in - Africa - and - the - second - in - length - of - all - the - rivers - of - the - globe "
"The - Nile - is - the - longest - river - in - Africa - and - the - second - in - length - of - all - the - rivers - of - the - globe "
"The - Nile - is - the - longest - river - in - Africa - and - the - second - in - length - of - all - the - rivers - of - the - globe "
"The - Nile - is - the - longest - river - in - Africa - and - the - second - in - length - of - all - the - rivers - of - the - globe "
"The - Nile - is - the - longest - river -
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/21/2009 @ 12:10pm
You must be single or have a light burden....
Try balancing priorities, be they demands on your time, money, ?love of BHO vs. hate of Bush?, wife, children, boss, co-workers......
Posted by Happy at 09/21/2009 @ 11:37am
WTF Happy really? Do you hear what your saying?
Light burden or single?? Are you really comparing MY responsibilities with that of the President?
Posted by Extraneous at 09/21/2009 @ 12:19pm
Unless you think that America has no vital interest in the ME
america has no money.
and that we should simply abandon our allies
which ones, the dictators or the despots?
and turn the rerion over to the radical Jihad,
THEY'LL EAT YOUR CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!
then you would probably like to see Obama bring all the troops home from every inch of ME sand.
uh, isn't it <i>their</i> sand?
You and Osama
FROSTWIN'S LAW #2 when faced with an insurmountable wall of logic, the losing half of an argument will invoke usama bin laden in order to prove the unamericanness of his/her rival.
could then hold hands like Bush and the Saudi's.
they could even kiss. MUUAAA!
When the lights go out, don't call your utility company.
THE SUN! IT'S HOT!
They won't be able to do anything about it.
uh, the u.s. gets its oil from canada. did you know the u.s. exports oil to japan and china?
God, what will you do with no TV and no gas for your car.
i wonder if god has cable.
Wake up.
and drag a comb across your head!
People are dying to keep you in your lifestyle and you're not even grateful.
a truly pathetic clichι.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 10:44am
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/21/2009 @ 12:21pm
Wolfowitz Doctrine (Bush Doctrine) - original and "redraft" released April 16, 1992, after NY Times disclosed its existence in March 1992.
Posted by OneVote at 09/21/2009 @ 11:37am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Doctrine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
E
T
C
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/21/2009 @ 12:25pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/21/2009 @ 12:25pm | ignore this person | warn this person
'Penny Sue Pritzker (born 1959) is an American business executive, and a member of the Pritzker family of Chicago, one of America's wealthiest business families. She is the founder and current Chair of Classic Residence by Hyatt, a chain of luxury senior living communities spread throughout the United States, and the national finance chair of Barack Obama's presidential campaign. In 2007 the Forbes 400 list of "America's wealthiest" showed her as the 135th richest person in the U.S., estimated net worth of $2.8 billion US,[1] in 2008 tied for 227th with $2.0 billions.[2] In 2009 Forbes listed her as the world's 647th richest person, with net worth of $1.1 billions.[3]'
A
I
P
A
C
Posted by OneVote at 09/21/2009 @ 12:41pm
the way to honor our troops is to use them only in honorable pursuits, to defend the home land. they cannot do that in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/21/2009 @ 1:02pm
"Unless you think that America has no vital interest in the ME and that we should simply abandon our allies and turn the rerion over to the radical Jihad,
this is known as a strawman.
we have vital interests in the ME. we have had vital interests since the end of WW2, and we managed our vital interests there without war for over 50 years.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/21/2009 @ 1:12pm
we have vital interests in the ME. we have had vital interests since the end of WW2, and we managed our vital interests there without war for over 50 years.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/21/2009 @ 1:12pm
ah, the good old days when a coup, bribery and threats did the trick.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/21/2009 @ 1:49pm
The Tradcon (not neocon) conservative correctly said, in the 1960s, the only interest the U.S. has in the Middle East is oil (not Israel for sure)-and whoever owns the oil will sell it at market prices to us.
I've heard the "gunslingers" say a thousand times, we won in Iraq and because we won, we have to stay and ensure the victory. lol.
Iran won in Iraq. Period.
Posted by zionopp at 09/21/2009 @ 2:18pm
Mission Accomplished.
Everything will be all better now.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Posted by Malcontent at 09/21/2009 @ 2:25pm
we get more oil from Mexico, Venezuela and Canada, than we get from the ME.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/21/2009 @ 2:34pm
Stupid liberals.
Why do they love the Taliban AND support radical feminism, gay marriage, and secularism?!?
Do they just not believe strongly enough in their principles to be willing to fight for them, or are they bipolar circular reasoning emotion-based logically impaired thoughtless amoral sociopaths?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 2:37pm
LIBERALS:
JIHAD IS BAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Duh!
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 2:43pm
"On Monday, U.S. special forces operating in Somalia killed top al Qaeda operative Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, believed to have been a planner in the November 2002 bombing of a hotel in Kenya in which 15 were killed. Also killed in recent days was senior al Qaeda leader Ilyas Kashmiri--via a U.S. drone attack in western Pakistan--and Indonesian terrorist mastermind Noordin Muhammad Top, suspected in the July bombing of two Jakarta hotels.
Last week, too, a British court convicted three men for an August 2006 plot to blow up several airliners over the Atlantic. The convictions were obtained largely on the strength of communications intercepts--possibly warrantless--gathered by the U.S. National Security Agency, according to a report by Britain's Channel 4.
All this follows important gains for the Pakistani army in the area of the Swat valley, which fell briefly to the Taliban in the spring. Key among those gains was the August killing--again by a U.S. drone--of Taliban commander Baitullah Mehsud, suspected in the assassination of former Prime Minster Benazir Bhutto. Two of Mehsud's senior deputies were also killed in drone attacks in recent months, while at least eight key al Qaeda commanders have been killed in the last 12 months alone."
Obviously the fact that we've killed so many terrorists only proves how many more we've artificially created.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 2:46pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 2:43pm
Stupid nutcase.
Why do you hate America and freedom?
Posted by Extraneous at 09/21/2009 @ 2:48pm
"Why do they love the Taliban AND support radical feminism, gay marriage, and secularism?!?"
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 2:37pm
Who exactly, loves the taliban and is a secularist? Or are you just talking out your ass?
Most of us don't even support the American Taliban, which would explain why we are for women being treated as equals, equal rights for gays and rational thought vs. mythological beliefs. Especially in government.
The people who don't believe in governance via bronze age mythology are " emotion-based logically impaired thoughtless amoral sociopaths?"???
Alrighty then. I guess your moniker says it all.
Posted by Malcontent at 09/21/2009 @ 2:51pm
The Taliban way of war: Disembowelled and murdered for teaching girls - A teacher killed by the outlawed Taleban remnants in 2006 for teaching girls. "The gunmen came at night to drag Mohammed Halim away from his home, in front of his crying children and his wife begging for mercy. ... He was partly disembowelled and then torn apart with his arms and legs tied to motorbikes."
Taliban use 6-year old boy as suicide bomber, 2007. Taliban attack Afghans who are trying to clear the mines left over from the Soviet wars, mines that kill and maim Afghan children, 2007. "Deminers are heroes who risk their lives each day to save innocent lives and free Afghanistan of landmines and unexploded ordnance to return the cleared land back to their countrymen. They should be praised for their hard work and not attacked." As if the Taliban care about the people of Afghanistan. Taliban target and kill UN aid workers, Sept 2008. Taliban kill Christian aid worker, Oct 2008. Taliban kill aid worker, Nov 2008. The Taliban, like the Iraqi resistance, are rapists and sexual predators. Taliban abduct and repeatedly rape 43-year-old Dutch female journalist, November 2008.
Taliban bomb girls' primary school in Pakistan, Apr 2009, killing at least 4 children. Taliban campaign of attacking girls' schools with poison gas. These animals even gas little girls at primary school. Taliban in Pakistan use 12 year old boy to plant bomb, June 2009. Taliban in Pakistan shoot 11 year old Christian boy in head, June 2009. Pakistan Taliban buy child slaves as young as 7, to use as suicide bombers. Taliban cut off the fingers of voters in Afghan election, Aug 2009 (and here). Too cowardly to stand for election themselves. Those who cannot win elections - bomb and mutilate the voters.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 2:51pm
"The people who don't believe in governance via bronze age mythology are " emotion-based logically impaired thoughtless amoral sociopaths?"???"
No, I'm talking about those leftists who oppose defeating jihad due to their irrational bipolar circular emotion-based resistance to any and all wars at any time for any reason.
I don't believe a word of Bronze-Age mythology. I'm an atheist, a secularist, a feminist, and a supporter of gay marriage. Hence, I want to see the Taliban brutally defeated.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 2:56pm
"Who exactly, loves the taliban and is a secularist?"
George Galloway (allegedly a radical leftist, though on Syrian TV he sounds like a jihadist), Ted Rall, Noam Chomsky.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 2:58pm
"Why do you hate America and freedom?"
Only a leftist would argue that you must support Saddam Hussein and Mullah Omar to love freedom and America.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 3:01pm
Obama needs to get as tough as ASAG. Check out our article:
Adult Screen Actors Guild Protests Republican Teabaggers
http://www.thepantaloon.com/
Posted by ThePantaloon.com at 09/21/2009 @ 3:01pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 3:01pm
you are sooooooooooooooooo naοve.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/21/2009 @ 3:05pm
Apparently liberals view the jihad as better than America because at least on the points of supporting racism, tribalism, collectivism, anti-semitism, Jew-hatred, hatred of Israel and America, hatred of capitalism, hatred of democracy, and love of totalitarianism, the left and the Islamofascist jihadists agree.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 3:06pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 3:01pm
here,
watch this to see why america is great:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-2uBeMgV4I
LEAD BY EXAMPLE!
save flint.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/21/2009 @ 3:08pm
"Why do you hate America and freedom?"
Only a leftist would argue that you must support Saddam Hussein and Mullah Omar to love freedom and America.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 3:01pm
Ok...then nutcase it is. ignore this person <---- done.
Posted by Extraneous at 09/21/2009 @ 3:09pm
Shinseki estimated that we would need about half a million troops to secure Iraq. It would probably be a ball park figure for Afghanistan. One report said that he would ask for 30,000. Counter insurgency is very labor intensive, and the fewer troops on the ground the more they become dependent on firepower. Fewer troops means more collateral damage involving civilians. Though, I was only four years old at the time, I remember Pearl Harbor, and how this country pulled together to respond to that attack. I expected the same response after 9/11. Instead we had an unnecessary war in Iraq, an attempt to reduce every worker in the world to globalized poverty, tax breaks for the wealthy, and going into debt to with China to fight those wars, so the wealthy could have their tax breaks. After Pearl Harbor, we never asked the Japanese or the Germans their opinion on the war because we were attacked. We were also attacked on 9/11. I am also a Progressive!
Posted by pjcasey at 09/21/2009 @ 3:23pm
So pjeasey why do you think we did not attack Saudi Arabia? It was the home of all but one of the pilots and helpers on the planes. It is the home nation of Bin Laden. Hell to make it simple about 2000 guys could have went there and taken over their government . Think Bin Laden would have been delivered to us then. Then maybe the whole rotten Middle Eastern deck of cards would have collapsed.
Posted by whatozz at 09/21/2009 @ 3:37pm
If you don't support the unbelievably just and moral and humane foreign policy of America, then you don't support freedom. If you don't support Israel, then you hate Jews.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 3:42pm
The way to honor our troops is to use them only in honorable pursuits, to defend the home land. they cannot do that in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/21/2009 @ 1:02pm
That philosophy changed in post WWII 1947/48 when America experienced it's first energy crisis. After the cold war ended and the U.S. became the world's last remaining superpower, it fell on our shoulders to keep the ME region out of the hands of those who would use oil as a means to get to us AND our allies. Our carrier groups which dominate all over the world can be mobilized at a moments notice to keep our interests in tact. Our nuclear subs have the capability to take out any major city on the planet with the flick of a switch.
Much of the world, including some of our fair-weather allies resents us for this power and for playing policeman but where would they be without us.
I suggest that those of you who detest America's military might start thinking about the freedoms you enjoy and the lifestyle that you live. Freedom comes at a very steep price. Thank God we have young people who realize that and are willing to make the sacrifice to keep America safe.
Terrorists are still, and will be for a long time, present all over the world. They want to end our way of life and will stop at nothing to meet that end. GWB met them head on and stalled their progress but they are not defeated yet. He may have come across as stupid but he sure as hell didn't back down. Invading Iraq on that scale may have been overkill but the results are what matters. All tose people did not die in vain.
How about supporting America for a change.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 3:44pm
Posted by emile duBois at 09/21/2009 @ 1:02pm
Another point to ponder. Do you remember that WWII was fought on foreign soil and seas? Were our troops defending the homeland then? Whose homeland. Think it over before you start typing.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 3:50pm
OK, show of hands, please (not you, Larry):
How many right-wing, neocon would-be/wannabe warrior superstuds are headed down to that recruiting office RIGHT NOW, OR, if too old and decrepit, headed down to that USO/Army Emergency Relief office, etc., etc,. to help with the "war effort"?
Now, how many sitting on their asses watching college football?
Thought so.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/21/2009 @ 3:52pm
I think that President Obama has no choice but to increase troop strength in Afghanistan. He's not going to like doing it and his far left friends are going to like it even worse but there really in no other sensible choice. The stakes are too high.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 3:53pm
"People are dying to keep you in your lifestyle and you're not even grateful."
I'm a resident of the City of Detroit...somebody's not getting their money's worth!
Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/21/2009 @ 4:01pm
I think the reason the Brits stood with us in Iraq goes back to WW2. We deployed our Air Force in the memorable air drop to a blockaded Berlin. Maybe some of our chips in this international Risk game have yet to be called.Europe and the former Soviet Union know what to expect from a massive in flow of Muslims. They are experiencing it right now. There has to be a better solution in Afghanistan.
Posted by whatozz at 09/21/2009 @ 4:02pm
Its good to hear the right wing crazies spout their hatred and paranoia. Its what we expect. But when Obama becomes the instrument for putting this hatred of the non-white world into effect, then we see how the left has been duped into another war against Asia.
Posted by trueleftist at 09/21/2009 @ 4:06pm
Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/21/2009 @ 4:01pm
Well, pick any K.I.A. and go tell that to his parents.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 4:21pm
Posted by emile duBois at 09/21/2009 @ 1:02pm
Another point to ponder. Do you remember that WWII was fought on foreign soil and seas? Were our troops defending the homeland then? Whose homeland. Think it over before you start typing.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 3:50pm
I would imagine, his homeland, as he is German.
---------------------------------------------------
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 2:56pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 2:58pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 3:01pm
OK. I give up. Sarcasm? Or you are retarded?
"If you don't support the unbelievably just and moral and humane foreign policy of America, then you don't support freedom. If you don't support Israel, then you hate Jews."
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 3:42pm
Nevermind. You are insane. Bummer to hear I hate jews. (girlfriend (self-hating, apparently) will be surprised).
Also sorry to hear that I hate freedom. Although, if freedom means having the shit bombed out of your country and family, then I guess you are right.
You could shorten your moniker by removing the "rightwing" part, without lessening it's accuracy. Some of them are probably cringing at your "logical" conclusions.
At least you've solved our crow problem.
Posted by Malcontent at 09/21/2009 @ 4:31pm
I think that President Obama has no choice but to increase troop strength in Afghanistan. He's not going to like doing it and his far left friends are going to like it even worse but there really in no other sensible choice. The stakes are too high.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 3:53pm
I am not sure about that. I will support whatever BHO choose to do as long as Afghanistan does NOT turn into what it was pre-9/11 or what Vietnam/Cambodia turned into after we abandoned the theater. It's a big caveat, but I presume he has the inf. to make the call. Fighting the CIC during wartime is against my `traditional' morals!
While most doesn't think he'll cut-n-run for political reasons...ironic, there are many that thinks he's staying for political reasons...I think he can make case to call it off. The Dems are pretty damaged goods as it is heading into 2010 and pulling out of Afghanistan may even help the Party AS LONG AS any shit, hits fan after Nov., 2010.
So, a pullout in spring has got to be among his options, tucked deep inside......let's see if the NYT really has the inside scoop to `leak' his Afghan Retreat plan. Libs inside the CIA & Defense were more than HAPPY to blindside the Bush admin.....maybe some Cons would return the `favor' and leak some good stuff to conservative medias.
Posted by Happy at 09/21/2009 @ 4:31pm
Posted by whatozz at 09/21/2009 @ 3:37pm | ignore this person | warn this person
just nonsense. grow up. it's called the real world, not a board game.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/21/2009 @ 4:59pm
Posted by emile duBois at 09/21/2009 @ 1:02pm
I would imagine, his homeland, as he is German.
I am an American, born in Austria, somewhat like Arnold.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/21/2009 @ 5:04pm
Posted by emile duBois at 09/21/2009 @ 1:02pm
I was not being literal. there is however an exception. we made war against submarines operating in US waters. after war was declared.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/21/2009 @ 5:11pm
Terrorists are still, and will be for a long time, present all over the world.
- Thanks in no small part to us invading their countries offending their god, and killing their familes.
They want to end our way of life and will stop at nothing to meet that end.
-Yes, because as GW would say they hate our freedom. He would just leave out the part that some of our freedoms come at the expense of others freedoms. Our support of brutal regimes that subjugate their citizens is not something we are supposed to talk about.
GWB met them head on and stalled their progress but they are not defeated yet.
- And then forgot about em when he choose to invade Iraq, even stating only 1 year after 9-11 he was "truly not that concerned about him (Bin Laden)"
He may have come across as stupid but he sure as hell didn't back down.
- I agree with you there. No matter how wrong or misguided he or his policies were he never questioned himself or his altered from his path.
Invading Iraq on that scale may have been overkill but the results are what matters.
- Results? WTF are you talking about? How many trillions wasted? How many hundreds of thousands dead? Troops still there, Iraqis still dying...If we had put all those resources into Afghanistan and kept our eye on the ball (Al Qaeda) maybe all our troops would be home now.
How about supporting America for a change.
- Supporting America? With all the money and political will we spend in Afghanistan and Iraq we really could have supported America, actual Americans here in the U.S. You talk about supporting America but could care less about Americans...all you care for is ideology, sad. Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 3:44pm
Posted by Extraneous at 09/21/2009 @ 5:27pm
Up unto this point, I feel Obama has done a fairly good job in foreign policy. I haven't agreed with everything, but not much that threatened US national security. This has all the makings though of capitulation to the anti-american left who would love nothing more than to declare another US military defeat. It seems nothing makes this segment of the left happier than the possibility of a US military defeat. Not to mention the certainty of a combined Taliban/Al Qaeda regrouping in Afghanistan unless decisive military action is taken. The next 9/11 would clearly be on the shoulders of Obama and that segment of the left pushing for withdrawal. Posted by antisocialist at 09/21/2009 @ 10:03am | ignore this person | warn this person
--North Korea is part of the so-called "axis of evil"...I wonder if they're even remotely worried of a U.S. invasion?...since we haven't invaded them guess we've admitted defeat before we even went to battle, right?
Posted by urmygyro at 09/21/2009 @ 5:29pm
"So, it appears that a consistent hallmark of leftist thought is the denigration of everyone that holds an opposing view."----Posted by antisocialist at 08/05/2009 @ 2:50pm
Posted by Mask at 09/21/2009 @ 11:03am | ignore this person |
--and Mask denigrates me when I post that I'm liberal...so how you different than antisocialist?
Posted by urmygyro at 09/21/2009 @ 5:33pm
Wake up. People are dying to keep you in your lifestyle and you're not even grateful. Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 10:44am Talk about brainwashed. I value our troops and the work they do likely more than you. However, we never had a valid reason for Iraq, it has nothing to do with our freedom or our lifestyle, if anything the actions taken in the ME have caused the price of oil to rise by destabilizing a relatively stable situation. Prior to invasion of Iraq, we had Iraq nicely contained. No fly zone, no military, stiff sanctions, etc. Then we invaded, which was like a prize fighter beating up on a starving homeless man. But go ahead and believe that they are really dying for our lifestyle if that helps you to justify their deaths. Don't tell me the wars have made us safer. That is donkeyvomit. If anything our actions have made those who wish to hurt us stronger, and what could have been nipped in the bud is now going to be a multigenerational problem. Posted by Extraneous at 09/21/2009 @ 11:13am | ignore this person | warn this person
--hear hear!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/21/2009 @ 5:34pm
Oil.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 11:13am | ignore this person | warn this person
incomplete (and out of order) spellingof: H-A-L-L-I-B-U-R-T-O-N
...there, now you're right!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/21/2009 @ 5:35pm
Stupid liberals. Why do they love the Taliban AND support radical feminism, gay marriage, and secularism?!? Do they just not believe strongly enough in their principles to be willing to fight for them, or are they bipolar circular reasoning emotion-based logically impaired thoughtless amoral sociopaths?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 2:37pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--I'm sure the U.S. military has no feminists, gays, or non-religious people!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/21/2009 @ 5:40pm
Obama is going to end up looking the fool he is as commander in chief if he fails to take the recommendations of the General he personally selected to be commander in Afghanistan after firing the man already in charge.
If he follows the usual Demoncrat war plans of defund, cut and run the sterotype will be completed in short form. Some Americans may be forgetting why it is important to be there after 8 yrs. but the stain on the Demoncrat Pres. and congressional record will be there!
Posted by BigPasture at 09/21/2009 @ 5:57pm
If he follows the usual Demoncrat war plans of defund, cut and run the sterotype will be completed in short form. Some Americans may be forgetting why it is important to be there after 8 yrs. but the stain on the Demoncrat Pres. and congressional record will be there! Posted by BigPasture at 09/21/2009 @ 5:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--the "stain" is if he continues the wars...
Posted by urmygyro at 09/21/2009 @ 6:05pm
that WWII was fought on foreign soil and seas?
not entirely. Pearl Harbor, the Aleutian islands, Midway, all american territory.I think there are more.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/21/2009 @ 6:20pm
First, a reminder. The Soviets lost in Afghanistan because of the Stinger missiles we supplied the mujahadin, which canceled out the Soviet attack helicopters. This historical fact gives lie to the similarities with Vietnam. Now does that mean this cannot become a quagmire? No, not at all.
The major problem in Afghanistan has been the eight years of neglect by the Bush administration and his adventure in Iraq. Seems to me we ought to give the CIC time and support to see if there is a possibility that further military intervention, based upon a new strategy, can work. Otherwise, to leave precipitously is to abandon the girls and women of Afghanistan to the Taliban. I acknowledge that under the best of circumstances, women will continue for sometime to be second-class citizens even if we succeed; but more girls are in school now in Afghanistan than ever before. Seems to me that is worth something.
Incidentally, I am a dyed-in-the-wool liberal. DM
Posted by Pinvark at 09/21/2009 @ 6:30pm
Posted by emile duBois at 09/21/2009 @ 5:11pm
Weak. But ok.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 6:33pm
I'm spending most of the day at the annual conference of the Foreign Policy Initiative, the conclave of neoconservatives, and there ought to be a measurable level of apoplexy there.
Take care, brother. Sounds like it could get dangerous...
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 09/21/2009 @ 6:35pm
Posted by Extraneous at 09/21/2009 @ 5:27pm
Well, then why don't we just lay down our arms then and capitulate. Or maybe wait for Obama to go sit face to face with dictators and tell them how sorry he is.
When you are enslaved, remember that America is the bad guy. What rubbish.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 6:36pm
antisocialist at 09/21/2009 @ 10:03am
I guess you're referring to Harry Reid's statement that the "war in Iraq is lost", even as our brave troops were dying there. It's no wonder that he will not be re-elected.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 6:39pm
Posted by urmygyro at 09/21/2009 @ 5:34pm
Sorry but your knowledge of the history of our involvement in the ME needs some brushing up or further research. Any action we take in the ME is for one of two reasons, to protect Israel or to secure our own interests in energy.....OIL!
Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 6:42pm
If you don't support the unbelievably just and moral and humane foreign policy of America, then you don't support freedom. If you don't support Israel, then you hate Jews.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 3:42pm
That's a good way to put it. Unbelievably just and moral, because only a fool would believe our foreign policy is humane.
Since WWII the US has invaded, occupied, attacked and subverted other states on over 70 occasions. We are addicted to war.
Our policy has led to the deaths of tens of millions. We've carried out campaigns of genocide in Latin America, started unnecessary wars including the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq that killed 1.2 million Iraqis.
Before that, we enforced sanctions on Iraq that killed a million people.
Before that, we supporter both sides of the Iraq/Iraq war that killed a million people.
Before that we secretly bombed Cambodia, killing half a million people.
We supported and armed the Taliban and cheered for the very same people that threw acid in the faces of women, calling them freedom fighters who stood for American values.
There nothing moral, humane or just about our foeign policy.
Posted by Shingo at 09/21/2009 @ 6:46pm
Posted by urmygyro at 09/21/2009 @ 5:34pm Sorry but your knowledge of the history of our involvement in the ME needs some brushing up or further research. Any action we take in the ME is for one of two reasons, to protect Israel or to secure our own interests in energy.....OIL! Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 6:42pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--and to enrich h-a-L-I-b-u-r-t-O-n ...
Posted by urmygyro at 09/21/2009 @ 6:47pm
Posted by emile duBois at 09/21/2009 @ 6:20pm
Give it up dude. Pearl Harbor happened before war was even declared and there's is no doubt that America defended two fronts, the atlantic and the pacific but as we all know, the heaviest fighting was done in Europe and on the islands leading to Japan, most notably, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc.
Midway way the turning point in the battle with Japan however where the U.S. Navy sunk or put out of commission four Japanese Carriers. Not to even mention our involvement in WWI.
My point in all of this is that you said that America should only fight defensively to protect the homeland. I think your efforts to argue the point only make it worse for you. Give it up.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 6:49pm
Apparently liberals view the jihad as better than America because at least on the points of supporting racism, tribalism, collectivism, anti-semitism, Jew-hatred, hatred of Israel and America, hatred of capitalism, hatred of democracy, and love of totalitarianism, the left and the Islamofascist jihadists agree.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 3:06pm
Actually it's the right that is guilty of all those charges.
It as the right that installed dictators like the Shah, Pol Pot, Pinochet,the Taliban, Saddam etc.
It is the right wing that is anti Semitic, who use Israel as a means of carrying out their Islamophobic agenda. After all, Nixon made no secret of his hatred for Jews. After all, most Jews vote with progressives.
The right don't believe in capitalism, just crony corporatism and corruption, whcih they like to call capitalism.
It is the right that loves Islamofascist jihadists. Under Bush, we supported Islamofascist jihadists groups like Jundullah (Kaleid Sheik Mohammed's old gang).
Posted by Shingo at 09/21/2009 @ 6:51pm
Posted by Shingo at 09/21/2009 @ 6:46pm
Yeah, war is hell. First we had to fight two world wars, then the cold war and now the war against terror. Let's just disarm and forget the whole thing. Nobody will be mad at us. Let's just have a beer. More rubbish.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 6:53pm
Can't wait to watch Tom Delay tonight on Dancing With The Stars. Should be a hoot.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 6:54pm
Posted by Shingo at 09/21/2009 @ 6:51pm
word
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 09/21/2009 @ 6:57pm
Yeah, war is hell. First we had to fight two world wars, then the cold war and now the war against terror. Let's just disarm and forget the whole thing. Nobody will be mad at us. Let's just have a beer. More rubbish.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 6:53pm
The world Wars ended 60 years ago, but wingnuts like yourself can't get over it, becasue without war, you have no identity.
The Cold War was already over in the 70's but the Reaganites kept trying to resuscitate it, becasue it was the basis of their entire platform.
We spend more on arms than the rest of the world combined, yet chicken little wingnuts like yourself are convinced that we are doomed unless we spend more.
It's funny listening you to lot crow about big government and cutting government spending, but when it comes to the military, you can't spend enough.
Posted by Shingo at 09/21/2009 @ 6:58pm
Only a leftist would argue that you must support Saddam Hussein and Mullah Omar to love freedom and America.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 3:01pm
Too funny.
Saddam was put in power by the US and supported by the US for decades. In fact, it was the right wing that took Saddam's name off the list fo bad guys so we could send him money and arms.
It was also the right, who armed Iran.
Mullah Omar was the leader of the group that Reagan described as freedom fighters who represented American values.
Posted by Shingo at 09/21/2009 @ 7:00pm
Reagan (in Eric cartman's voice): "Menachim, you're bustin' em... Bustin' em..."
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 09/21/2009 @ 7:02pm
Posted by Shingo at 09/21/2009 @ 6:46pm
Shingo, you hate freedom, democracy, and Jews.
The US has liberated a billion human beings since WW2.
The North Korean regime has killed 4 million people over 50 years. Keeping in mind the difference in population size between the South and North, if that regime killed at the same rate people in the South as it did people in the North, about 8 million South Koreans would have been killed. America saved them.
America has saved hundreds of thousands of Afghans through improved healthcare and prevented a mass starvation from developing there that the UN estimated could cost 5.5 million lives. America saved them.
The only year of the Iraq war that cost most than a typical year of Saddam in terms of life lost was 2006. Tens of thousands in Iraq have been saved by improved healthcare thanks to America.
The bombing of Cambodia killed an estimated 60,000 civilians and probably over 20,000 Khmer Rouge. The Khmer Rouge and North Vietnamese killed 4,500,000 people, of which 3,500,000 deaths were caused by American defeat.
Saddam has been conclusively proven to have deliberately starved that half-million to death that you mentioned. If you don't accept this, you are in denial.
We gave Iraq 1/3 of 1% of the arms it received under Saddam. We did this as gesture of support showing our desire to use the slightly more secular Iraq to contain revolutionary Iran.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 7:04pm
No, I'm talking about those leftists who oppose defeating jihad due to their irrational bipolar circular emotion-based resistance to any and all wars at any time for any reason.
I don't believe a word of Bronze-Age mythology. I'm an atheist, a secularist, a feminist, and a supporter of gay marriage. Hence, I want to see the Taliban brutally defeated.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 2:56pm
But in truth, it is the right who oppose defeating jihad, because the right is littered with Cold War warriors who pine for the glory days.
That's why Bush let Osama get away so easily and then declared that getting OBL was not a priority or even a goal.
That is why Bush backed Jihadist groups like Jundulla (Kaleid Sheik Mohammed's old gang), the MEK (listed by the State department as terrorists) and Fatah Al Islam (jihaidsts).
Posted by Shingo at 09/21/2009 @ 7:07pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 7:04pm
Rightwingnutcase , you hate freedom, democracy, and Muslims, and Jews.
The US has liberated a no one since WW2. In fact, we have overthrown more democracies than installed them.
We started a war that killed 2 million in Vietnam alone.
In Latin America, we have killed millions, both directly and through death squads that we've supported.
America has NOT saved hundreds of thousands of Afghans, becasue hundreds of thousands of Afghans were not dying before we invaded.
Iraq had the free health care and education. The only reason some peopel are not dying is becuase we are no longer bockading Iraq. Still, our war killed 1.2 million Iraqis - more than Saddam killed.
The bombing of Cambodia killed an estimated 500,000 civilians. Seeing as it was carpet bombing, there is no way of telling how many Khmer Rouge died, but the bombing did help the Khmer Rouge rise to power.
Madelaine Albright admitted that the half-million who were starved to death were the responsibility of the US and was a price worth paying.
We gave Iraq all the helicopters it used to gas his own people and most of the loans to buy all his arms.
Posted by Shingo at 09/21/2009 @ 7:14pm
Posted by Extraneous at 09/21/2009 @ 5:27pm
Well, then why don't we just lay down our arms then and capitulate. Or maybe wait for Obama to go sit face to face with dictators and tell them how sorry he is.
When you are enslaved, remember that America is the bad guy. What rubbish.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 6:36pm
Was my post too hard for you to understand? Your repsonse suggests a complete lack of comprehension as it has nothing to do with any of my points. Funny though you prove my last sentence to a T.
Yeah, just keep believing the nonsense that America is innocent of all transgressions against anyone and no one has any real reason to attack us. We are the victims and can do no wrong.
I fully supported the war in Afghanistan, until GWB and friends let it languish for 8 years. I never believed the lies for us to go into Iraq. Unlike you I actually feel sorrow when American soldiers die, for causes that are unjust or wasted.
Shamefully I may as well be talking to a gravestone, as I doubt you have the capacity to see things from different perspectives.
Posted by Extraneous at 09/21/2009 @ 7:14pm
Last week, too, a British court convicted three men for an August 2006 plot to blow up several airliners over the Atlantic.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 2:46pm
This was a show trial for propaganda. it was proven long ago that the plan was impossible and that there was no possible way to blow up those airliners.
We haven't killed many terrorists, but every time we kill civlians (most of the time) we create many more.
Posted by Shingo at 09/21/2009 @ 7:16pm
"It as the right that installed dictators like the Shah, Pol Pot, Pinochet,the Taliban, Saddam etc."
Incredible fabrications!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What??!!??!!!??!!??
First, the left under Kennedy did support the 1963 Baathist coup in Iraq. The left also supported the 1968 coup in that country. The right had nothing to do with it. But, even so, American aid did not CAUSE their take-over, and it would have succeeded anyway. Nor did it result in Saddam controlling the country.
The Shah was a great secular leader who made Iran an advanced Westernized country and who gave women equal rights. Carter allowed the Islamists to overthrow him and made him release Islamist political prisoners on the grounds that Iran had the right to "self-determination".
Pol Pot was very nearly destroyed by the US military and the friendly radically pro-American regime of Lon Nol before the left abandoned the Cambodians and fed them to the wolves despite desperate pleas from the Cambodian government to resume US bombing.
The US did not install Pinochet.
On the Taliban, we indirectly worked with Saudi Arabia to create the conditions under which it could take power, true.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 7:19pm
Barack Obama needs to man-up and act like a C.I.C. This isn't about campaign promises.
George Bush listened to Gen. Patraeus and John McCain and with the surge, turned the tide and won the war in Iraq. The same thing should be done in Afghanistan and the sooner the better. Barack Obama knows nothing about military strategy and tactics.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 10:09am
Poor wingnuts, they just want to believe we had victory so badly.
Even Patraeus said that there would never be any victory in Iraq, but the wingnuts, who hold Patraeus up as some sacred cow keep ignoring him.
Patraeus also said a surge woudl not work in Afghanistan, but the wingnuts keep ignoring him on that point too.
The surge was a means to an end, who's purpose was to buy time (ie. prolong the inevitable).
Posted by Shingo at 09/21/2009 @ 7:21pm
"It is the right that loves Islamofascist jihadists. Under Bush, we supported Islamofascist jihadists groups like Jundullah (Kaleid Sheik Mohammed's old gang)."
Wait, Shingo, I thought you said everyone who uses the term "Islamofascist" is a racist?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 7:22pm
The next 9/11 would clearly be on the shoulders of Obama and that segment of the left pushing for withdrawal.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/21/2009 @ 10:03am
Given that Bush ignored all warnings about impending attacks from AQ, this logic woudl suggests that the previous 9/11 sits clearly on the shoulders of Bush.
Posted by Shingo at 09/21/2009 @ 7:22pm
Wait, Shingo, I thought you said everyone who uses the term "Islamofascist" is a racist?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 7:22pm
I was quoting your gratuitous hyperbole and using your own terminology to illustrated the glaring holes and contradictions in your argument.
Posted by Shingo at 09/21/2009 @ 7:24pm
"We haven't killed many terrorists,"
We've killed probably around 10,000 terrorists in Iraq.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 7:26pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 7:19pm
"It as the right that installed dictators like the Shah, Pol Pot, Pinochet,the Taliban, Saddam etc."
"First, the left under Kennedy did support the 1963 Baathist coup in Iraq. "
But it was the right that supported Saddam.
The Shah was a tyrant and mass murderer who was oppose to any kind of democracy. His Savak dissapeared tend of thousands of Iranians. The right love strong men don't they?
Pol Pot was aided by the US military. His rise to power was made possible by the US.
The US DID install Pinochet.
On the Taliban, we worked with Saudi Arabia to arms and finance them. All their arms came from us. Reagan said the Taliban were freedom fighters who represented the same values s our founding fathers.
Posted by Shingo at 09/21/2009 @ 7:29pm
"America has NOT saved hundreds of thousands of Afghans, becasue hundreds of thousands of Afghans were not dying before we invaded.
Iraq had the free health care and education. The only reason some peopel are not dying is becuase we are no longer bockading Iraq. Still, our war killed 1.2 million Iraqis - more than Saddam killed.
The bombing of Cambodia killed an estimated 500,000 civilians. Seeing as it was carpet bombing, there is no way of telling how many Khmer Rouge died, but the bombing did help the Khmer Rouge rise to power."
At least six lies I count.
Given that 250,000 Cambodians died in the civil war, and only a small fraction of them were killed by America, your numbers are impossible. The bombing killed 60,000.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 7:30pm
Given that 250,000 Cambodians died in the civil war, and only a small fraction of them were killed by America, your numbers are impossible. The bombing killed 60,000.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 7:30pm
Even the State Department states that 250,000 were killed by US bombing, so the numbers are entirely impossible.
"At least six lies I count."
No their facts, I know wingnuts thing that up is down and the world is flat, but as Reagan said, facts are stubborned things.
Posted by Shingo at 09/21/2009 @ 7:32pm
We've killed probably around 10,000 terrorists in Iraq.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 7:26pm
How would you know? The US government doesn't do body counts.
Posted by Shingo at 09/21/2009 @ 7:33pm
"Even the State Department states that 250,000 were killed by US bombing, so the numbers are entirely impossible."
The 60,000 number comes from the state departnment.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 7:34pm
"We've killed probably around 10,000 terrorists in Iraq"
Which is also the number of Iranians killed by the tolerant and decent parliamentary-democracy-running Shah over 30 years, most of them Communists or radical Islamists. The current Iranian regime has killed 15 times that many civilians.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 7:38pm
not the bullets, huh?
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 09/21/2009 @ 7:38pm
"Pol Pot was aided by the US military. His rise to power was made possible by the US.
The US DID install Pinochet."
LIES!!
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 7:40pm
The US is morally good. Israel is morally good.
Saddam Hussein was morally evil. Hamas is evil. Mullah Omar is evil.
If the US or Israel wish to combat evil, it is their right as the most morally virtuous countries in the world to do so.
Isn't it obvious?!?
The US has no obligation to overthrow Robert Mugabe, Omar al-Bashir, or the government of Burma. But it does most certainly have the RIGHT to do so if it chooses.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 7:45pm
The 60,000 number comes from the state departnment.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 7:34pm
Wrong. The State Department states 250,000
Posted by Shingo at 09/21/2009 @ 7:54pm
Fine, show me a link.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 7:57pm
Seems to me that is worth something.
worth american lives? I suggest YOU volunteer.
this concern for Afghani women is touching. I am concerned with American women, the ones who lost their husbands, fathers and sons.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/21/2009 @ 8:03pm
First, a reminder. The Soviets lost in Afghanistan because of the Stinger missiles we supplied the mujahadin, which canceled out the Soviet attack helicopters.
nonsense. the soviets had 100,000 troops there. stinger missiles or not, the russians saw that afghanistan was not worth the price paid. america will come to the same conclusion.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/21/2009 @ 8:06pm
"The US has no obligation to overthrow Robert Mugabe, Omar al-Bashir, or the government of Burma. But it does most certainly have the RIGHT to do so if it chooses."
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 7:45pm
And who gives us this right?
Perhaps we should. Or can. Perhaps not. But tell me more about our RIGHT to overthrow whomever we choose.
Posted by Malcontent at 09/21/2009 @ 8:13pm
Not whoever we want; only those who we are morally superior too. There is no co-equivalent moral legitimacy between Zimbabwe, Sudan, Burma, and the US. Democracies have co-equivalent legitimacy. Dictatorships need not have any "rights" respected by international law.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 8:22pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Menu
"Estimates of civilian deaths vary from 100,000 [2] to 600,000.[3]"
Posted by Shingo at 09/21/2009 @ 8:23pm
"The US has no obligation to overthrow Robert Mugabe, Omar al-Bashir, or the government of Burma. But it does most certainly have the RIGHT to do so if it chooses."
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 7:45pm
If the US has the to Robert Mugabe, Omar al-Bashir, or the government of Burma, then Iran has the right to overthrow our government, right rightwingnutcase?
Posted by Shingo at 09/21/2009 @ 8:24pm
There is no co-equivalent moral legitimacy between Zimbabwe, Sudan, Burma, and the US. Democracies have co-equivalent legitimacy.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 8:22pm
The argument against moral equivalency was invented by the moral relativists on the right during the Reagan era to excuse our war crimes.
It's just an Orwellian excuse to justify why we employ double standards so that it's only OK when we do it.
Posted by Shingo at 09/21/2009 @ 8:27pm
The US is morally good. Israel is morally good.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 7:45pm
Stupid and assinine right wing argument that belongs in comic books.
Saddam Hussein was morally evil and we supported hi, which makes us morally evil .
Hamas is evil, yet Isrel created Hama, which makes Israel evil.
Mullah Omar is evil, but we supported him and his thugs, which makes u evil also.
Only wingnuts with very small brains buy the childish and stupid argument that any country is morally virtuous . Country's are nothing but a collection of many people, good and evil.
Posted by Shingo at 09/21/2009 @ 8:31pm
Perhaps we should. Or can. Perhaps not. But tell me more about our RIGHT to overthrow whomever we choose.
Posted by Malcontent at 09/21/2009 @ 8:13pm
The only thing that gives us the right is the fact we have the bigger guns and the money.
Might makes right when you're a wingnut.
Posted by Shingo at 09/21/2009 @ 8:32pm
"Estimates of civilian deaths vary from 100,000 [2] to 600,000.[3]"
Rudolph J. Rummel estimates 60,000, as does the State Department. I could add their estimates to Wikipedia right now if I wanted to. I take it this is your admission that you were lying earlier about the State Departments estimates (twice)?
We have actually estimated 200,000-300,000 deaths throughout the whole Cambodian civil war based on forensic analysis, death certificates, and examination of bodies and cause of deaths. We've also calculated the percent of those attributable to US bombing. The corpses don't lie. Your numbers are impossible.
I reccommend looking at the source Wikipedia cites for 600,000 deaths. Its not a study. It has no statistics. Its an anti-American rant that also minimizes the deaths under Pol Pot to draw a moral equivalency between the genocide and the bombing (while maintaining oddly that the latter caused the former). It says he killed about a million, though of course we've counted more than that many individual bodies whose cause of death we've determined to be execution by the Pol Pot regime (and most deaths from the Khmer Rouge were caused by starvation).
There is not a single study that supports the claim. Its a myth passed on from one left liberal propaganda piece to another.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 8:42pm
"Saddam Hussein was morally evil and we supported hi, which makes us morally evil ."
To counter the evil regime in Iran, as we supported evil to stop the evil Soviets.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 8:44pm
"The only thing that gives us the right is the fact we have the bigger guns and the money."
We wouldn't HAVE the money if we weren't morally superior. Countries are prosperous when they embrace capitalism, freedom, democracy, individualism, women's liberation, pluralism, secularism.
When they embrace collectivism, tribalism, racism, anti-semitism, theocracy, slavery, genocide, dictatorship and totalitarianism, they will be poor.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 8:48pm
"The argument against moral equivalency was invented by the moral relativists on the right"
Moral relativists on the right??????????????????????????????????
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are clueless.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 8:49pm
"then Iran has the right to overthrow our government, right rightwingnutcase?"
No, and if they tried we have to bomb them.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 8:50pm
"we have"
we'd hsve
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 8:51pm
You know what I mean.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 8:51pm
"Only wingnuts with very small brains buy the childish and stupid argument..."
...That all individuals are equal, interchangeable, and essentially the same? I hate those crazy liberals.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/21/2009 @ 8:53pm
Those who proclaim that radical Islam is no threat (are you around, Brunowe?) and that there is no jihad against the non-Islamic world need to read the book Surrender, by Bruce Bawer. (ISBN 978-0-385-52398-1).
Radical Islam is taking over Europe, and many government officials, politicians, and the cultural elite are bending over backwards to allow them to do it.
Any European who takes issue with what is happening gets their rear end condemned with charges of Islamophobia and racism.
Of course, over here, many advocate the same thing, such as The New York Times, who try to promote that Islamic radicals are not engaged in jihad.
As far as Afghanistan, here's a novel idea- why not stay the course until the enemy is defeated?
We heard the same thing about Iraq ("the quagmire") and then the surge was conducted, with some opposing it (such as President Obama), and they were proven wrong.
So maybe it is a good idea not to listen to the political left (and every once in a while a voice on the political right, as well) advocate capitulation, surrender and defeat in Afghanistan.
Posted by sjchermak at 09/21/2009 @ 8:56pm
Back to Dreyfuss...
"Obama Hints He'll Resist McChrystal" WTF?!
He said, on CNN: "Right now, the question is, the first question is, are we doing the right thing? Are we pursuing the right strategy? When we have clarity on that, then the question is, O.K., how do we resource it?"
Again, WTF?!
Is Obama aware that he is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces? That McChrystal works for him, and not the other way around? Someone needs to sit Obama down in the Oval Office with a copy of the Constitution, and Obama needs to grow a pair. Not so he can escalate the war, but so he can make a decision- any decision- and issue orders. This hand-wringing about whether to "resist" McC is truly pathetic.
Imagine Truman trying to decide if he would "resist" MacArthur in 1951. Unbelievable.
Also, why does Obama keep referring to "we"? The buck stops with him.
Posted by twillie at 09/21/2009 @ 10:02pm
I don't make it a habit to insult people but Shingo, you are a nutcase. Why don't you go and join Bin Laden, if you haven't already.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 10:03pm
Imagine Truman trying to decide if he would "resist" MacArthur in 1951. Unbelievable.
actually it was a difficult decision for Truman, as Mac was hugely popular.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/22/2009 @ 09:50am
the resist expression is that of the headline writer. it is not found in the article. so there, wise guy.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/22/2009 @ 09:52am
Is Obama aware that he is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces? That McChrystal works for him, and not the other way around? Someone needs to sit Obama down in the Oval Office with a copy of the Constitution, and Obama needs to grow a pair. Not so he can escalate the war, but so he can make a decision- any decision- and issue orders. This hand-wringing about whether to "resist" McC is truly pathetic.
Posted by twillie at 09/21/2009 @ 10:02pm
How funny....and Libs won't get this!
Messiah's one major differentiating factor was his CIC rhetorics--against the Iraq War when all others voted for it, against the Surge w/Eyes Wide Shut but wildly popular w/the Looney "base", Pro the Afghan (aka The Good) War when there is lack of resources due to the IW--but in reality, there is NOTHING in his background to have given him any EXECUTIVE DECISION-MAKING experience much less as a MILITARY/FOREIGN AFFAIRS `expert'.
So, in comes Joe Experienced (but mostly wrong) Biden......is he running the show? Is anybody in the WH aware that our troops are dangling out there in Aghanistan wondering WTF is The One doing other than being a MEDIA HOG?
Posted by Happy at 09/22/2009 @ 10:01am
Posted by Happy at 09/22/2009 @ 10:01am
Us libs find it rather irrelevant, as at least Obama had a demonstrated intelligence and ability to put more than 2 sentences together in a coherent manner.
GW had oh so much experience...as a AWOL Air National Guardsmen during the Vietnam war, sure gave him the knowledge he needed to go on vacation after vacation while CIC in charge of two wars.
And your bothered by the time Obama is spending with the media. At least he is doing his job and staying focused on issues that matter to Americans. Would you be HAPPier if he was back at a ranch clearing brush?
Posted by Extraneous at 09/22/2009 @ 11:43am
#
that WWII was fought on foreign soil and seas?
not entirely. Pearl Harbor, the Aleutian islands, Midway, all american territory.I think there are more.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/21/2009 @ 6:20pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I would include our colony, the Phillipines.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/22/2009 @ 2:06pm
Would you be HAPPier if he was back at a ranch clearing brush?
Posted by Extraneous at 09/22/2009 @ 11:43am
Yes, he'd probably be causing less damage to the nation.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/22/2009 @ 2:11pm
And your bothered by the time Obama is spending with the media. At least he is doing his job and staying focused on issues that matter to Americans. Would you be HAPPier if he was back at a ranch clearing brush?
Posted by Extraneous at 09/22/2009 @ 11:43am
His job? Oh, yeah!
Telling Letterman he was black before the Election-funny stuff........golfing w/Tom Friedman.....Repeats himself on 5 media infomercials on Sunday......playing hoops with some b-ball buddy.......tells the world at the UN we're at the point of "Irreversible catastrophe".......tells Gov. Patterson NOT to run for re-election......wow!
I know he's "staying focused on issues that matter to" you Loons, after all, that's why you voted for him while he stayed the course (that's Bush, the Brush Killer of Crawford) on the minor stuff, like wiretaps, Gitmo, the wars.......
I am focused on the economy literally every waking minute and staying abreast of the jobs situation all over the US, and I don't even have to worry about finding a job or paying my mortgage, ka piche? or, Comprende?
LMAO!
Posted by Happy at 09/22/2009 @ 3:25pm
schnellerheinz
of course.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/22/2009 @ 4:22pm
Are fellow liberals in here still wondering why there are any rebublican senators and congressmen left in office after decades of destroying everything they touch? Is is SO OBVIOUS, that the RIGHT is nothing but corrupt and evil. They have NEVER done anything for the average American who voted for them. It is FEAR AND BIGOTRY that grabs the right wing crazy voter's attention, as short and ignorant as it is. We Democrats need to get the party's ass in gear and if they don't listen, vote most of them out. A politician should serve the people, not the corporations.
Posted by Tiger2Lover at 09/24/2009 @ 7:09pm