Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditFor a forthcoming (later this week) article on Afghanistan for Rolling Stone, I interviewed Senator Russ Feingold, one of the few members of the Senate who's been willing to speak up to criticize the current policy in the war. The senator has proposed a "flexible timetable" for withdrawing US forces. Here's a slightly edited transcript of the interview:
Q. What do you think our approach ought to be in Afghanistan?
Feingold: "The whole problem is, the question, what should we do in Afghanistan? That's not the question. The question is, how should we effectively fight Al Qaeda? It's a global threat, and how does Afghanistan fit into that? Too often, it's what do we do with Afghanistan, and by the way how do we deal with Al Qaeda?
"Now we deal with Al Qaeda in every country in the world without invading the country. We deal with them in Indonesia, the Philippines, Yemen, Somalia, in European countries, in our own country, with various means that range from law enforcement to military action to other kinds of actions. Recently we were able to get rid of one the greatest threats we had, someone who was hiding in Somalia, without invading Somalia!
"So I think the burden is on those who want to continue an occupation to show that putting more and more resources and more and more American blood into Afghanistan is the best way to stop Al Qaeda globally. I think that's entirely unconvincing. The best argument they have is somehow the Taliban with then take over Afghanistan and then Al Qaeda will move their whole operation into Afghanistan again. That's not at all clear. And that's not at all clear that it's any worse-case scenario than Al Qaeda setting up shop in Yemen or Somalia or where they are now, in Pakistan. And there's no reason in my mind why they're suddenly going to say, 'Oh, gee, let's leave Pakistan, where we're very well hidden, and let's go back to Afghanistan.' The whole thing is on a very weak premise.
"Now the president's goal is the right goal. The goal is to look at this regionally, and say, 'We've got to stop Al Qaeda.' Implementation of the goal, with regard to Afghanistan, doesn't seem to fit that mission. Although it's related, at best it's tangentially related, as opposed to being at the core of the issue, which is, how do we stop this global network?"
Q. I saw General Barno at Heritage Foundation, and he said that proposing timetables for Afghanistan is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, close to treason.
Feingold: "These are the same kinds of arguments that we heard in regard to the idea of an Iraq timetable, which I proposed in 2005. I wonder if he'd apply that language to the U.S. military which is operating according to a timetable in Iraq. The last president approved it, this president approved it, and I don't hear anyone saying that's treason or giving the enemy comfort. What it does is, it gives the people of Iraq comfort, so they believe that we're not staying there forever. We need to give that same comfort to the people of Afghanistan. The best thing that ever happened to us in Iraq was letting people know that we're not staying there indefinitely. And we had to put with these same sort of criticisms, that we're leaving in the middle of the night. We're not leaving in the middle of the night, we're telling people exactly when we're leaving. Why wouldn't that same logic apply to Afghanistan?"
Q. When you say, flexible timetable, what do you mean?
Feingold: "Let's give the administration the first opportunity to say, 'Here's our plan. We can accomplish these goals in this time period, and we believe we can start withdrawing the troops at this point, and we believe we can have all, or virtually all, of them out by this point.' I think it is first the obligation of the administration, of the executive branch, to do that. However, if they do not, if they refuse to, then we have to start proposing our own timetables, just as we did when we were stonewalled by the Bush administration. I think we're going to get different treatment by this administration. But I'm prepared to take whatever steps I need to, in consultation with other members of Congress that I'm already having, to make those proposals if necessary."
Q. Are you optimistic that they're looking at other alternatives than another escalation?
Feingold: "Certainly optimistic would be an overstatement with regard to my feelings. I have some hope that, given the clear evidence that this might not be a good idea, that they're rethinking it. I realize though that they're terribly split, that there's enormous political fear that if you don't continue this troop buildup you'll be seen as somehow surrendering, and I don't minimize the danger of that sort of argument to cause people to make mistakes. So I can't say I'm optimistic. I just hope they're listening and that they realize that the best thing for America is not to get stuck in a giant, growing military commitment in Afghanistan."
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
I thought we were fight the Taliban to prevent them from letting AQ moving back in...
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 1:09pm
OK, FEINGOLD.....how about January 1, 2013? We can make this date "flexible" based on conditions in Afghanistan.
These conditions include (1) the ability of the Afganis to police its own country so that it does not become a haven for terrorists, or alternatively, a "international" rapid response force that is capable dealing with terrorists threats in Afghanistan and around the world, (2) serious economic development efforts to replace the illegal opium trade, and (3) serious nation-building efforts to create government structures that can deliver badly needed social services to the Afghan people.
Posted by Metteyya at 10/12/2009 @ 1:24pm
"The enemy has changed. Their number has increased," Defense Minister Gen. Abdul Rahim Wardak told lawmakers in a speech. He said about 4,000 fighters, mostly from Chechnya, North Africa and Pakistan "have joined with them and they are involved in the fighting in Afghanistan."
Afghanistan Defense Minister Calls for More International Troops Saturday, October 10, 2009 AP
From Chechnya and North Africa - really?
When al-qaeda won't do.
Wardak already making the rounds to CNAS, and other so called "think tanks."
See:
Kurt Campbell could rightly be described as foreign policy think-tank royalty. The former researcher for the Center for Security and International Studies (CSIS) and the Brookings Institution helped found the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), a centrist think tank that has sent its top officials to jobs across the Obama administration.
Watch out.
'After initially promising to come up with benchmarks for judging the success or shortcomings of its Afghanistan/Pakistan strategy -- the term preferred by the administration, I understand, is "metrics," which I'm cool with -- the Obama administration has yet to come up with any, and has resisted Congressional efforts to put them in the recent Pakistan funding bills. But a new report from the most influential defense think tank in Washington, the shadow-Pentagon known as the Center for a New American Security, seeks to fill the void.'
By Spencer Ackerman 6/3/09 5:08 PM; Washington Independent,
Also keep your eye on Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy.
Posted by OneVote at 10/12/2009 @ 1:33pm
A "flexible time-table" is likely what Obama will do.
Take the hit from the Left by approving McChrystal's troop increase, but let it be known that the clock is ticking for a military solution and diplomatic solutions are underway.
But a withdrawal a la present Iraq, will be the target before the end of 2011.
The majority of the American people don't want this war and the minority wouldn't vote for Obama with a gun to their head anyway. And if it "collapses" in 2012, the GOP candidate won't get any farther than their first criticism with the question becoming "So ______, you'd send troops back in?" before they change the subject.
Posted by Mask at 10/12/2009 @ 1:34pm
Pakistan is a very mixed bag. Many of the most cosmopolitan people I've ever met were Pakistanis.
Certainly a large percentage are tribal and/or provincial in outlook. We in the West seldom encounter these people.
The left has largely disappeared after the fall of the Soviet Union & fundamentalism has filled the gap (says Sulehria). The only hope is for the left to take advantage of the ravages of globalism, unemployment, etc.
"Future downsizing, privatisation, proverty & ever increasing joblessness will make workers take to the streets & the left will get a chance to organise these radicalised masses, but at the same time, fundamentalists may appear as a big danger since they are at present more organized & strong." Farooq Sulehria___Labor Party of Pakistan
So, at present, why would Al Qaeda want to leave Pakistan?
Posted by Sorelish at 10/12/2009 @ 1:58pm
The new opium war
Our current strategy for the conflict in Afghanistan seems to have boiled down to three risky options.
Going all in by increasing troop strength and nation building will result in more casualties and be hobbled by a corrupt and incompetent Afghan government. We tried that at the beginning of our war in Vietnam. It failed.
Prolonging the status quo without a troop strength increase keeps us in a prolonged, slow-bleed situation, increases the number of "accidental guerillas," makes our forces targets of opportunity and has no successful end game. We tried that in the middle of our war in Vietnam. It failed.
Finally, scaling back to engage simply in counterterrorism operations and giving the Afghan army/police a much larger role will give control of the countryside to the Taliban and reduce us to occupying cities. We tried that at the end of our war in Vietnam. It failed.
It appears that our thinking is locked into only lose-lose options and the game is futile and out of our control.
How can we change the game in Afghanistan?
Let's make the Afghans an offer they can't refuse. Buy their farmers' opium and sell it to international pharmaceutical companies who need opium base to make analgesic medications.
Afghan farmers are one of the world's largest illegal suppliers of opium. Their country was also most stable (1933-1973) when trade, rather than foreign armies, flourished.
Our present policy is to poison their poppies, increase opium's price and leave the profits to those who would create terror and fanatical oppression.
Buying Afghan opium is a capitalistic paradigm shift even filmmaker Michael Moore would endorse. The only losers would be those who still support America's anachronistic war on drugs policies.
Posted by genet43 at 10/12/2009 @ 2:17pm
Posted by genet43 at 10/12/2009 @ 2:17pm
Where can I get some "hard" numbers on world-wide demand for "legal" opium?
Posted by Metteyya at 10/12/2009 @ 2:19pm
i've been saying to buy the opium crop for quite some time now.
10 billion/year, tops.
i mean the government already sells alcohol and tobacco......
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 2:26pm
"I saw General Barno at Heritage Foundation, and he said that proposing timetables for Afghanistan is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, close to treason"
wow! sort of sounds like everything the right wing said about iraq from 2005-2008.
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 2:30pm
Posted by genet43 at 10/12/2009 @ 2:17pm
I have seen a few stories that talk about a "shortage" of opioid-based medicine, but it is difficult to tell just how much shortage there is or whether this is a short-term phenomenon.
Here is a list from the FDA site on drug shortages, but I do not see any opiods on the list (but I am NOT a drug expert).
http://tinyurl.com/yh8386t
http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/DrugShortages/ucm050792.htm
Posted by Metteyya at 10/12/2009 @ 2:37pm
Hmm, if the Taliban are not a big deal, why are both the Chinese and the Iranians selling them arms to fight us?
Posted by antisocialist at 10/12/2009 @ 2:48pm
"Hmm, if the Taliban are not a big deal, why are both the Chinese and the Iranians selling them arms to fight us?"
because we're over there fighting the taliban. losing lives, spending billions of dollars, and losing bad.
if we weren't there, then i'm not sure why the chinese and the iranians would be selling arms to the taliban.
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 3:06pm
"Hmm, if the Taliban are not a big deal, why are both the Chinese and the Iranians selling them arms to fight us?"
because we're over there fighting the taliban. losing lives, spending billions of dollars, and losing bad.
if we weren't there, then i'm not sure why the chinese and the iranians would be selling arms to the taliban.
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 3:06pm
That doesn't answer my real question. Why would the Chinese and the Iranians want the Taliban and Al Qaeda to win and take over Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan?
Posted by antisocialist at 10/12/2009 @ 3:08pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/12/2009 @ 3:08pm
Larry where did you read that the Shiia Iranians supporting the Sunni Taliban???
Posted by Mask at 10/12/2009 @ 3:17pm
antisocialist, that wasn't your question. your question was:
""Hmm, if the Taliban are not a big deal, why are both the Chinese and the Iranians selling them arms to fight us?""
if your assumption was that the iranians and the chinese want the taliban to take over pakistan AND afghanistan, then i can only ask in response: why would they want that?
and btw, nobody wants al qaeda in control of anything.
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 3:24pm
That doesn't answer my real question. Why would the Chinese and the Iranians want the Taliban and Al Qaeda to win and take over Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan?
Posted by antisocialist at 10/12/2009 @ 3:08pm
Maybe for the same reason that we funded them when Russia was fighting them. Because they know an endless war will hamstring an empire.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/12/2009 @ 3:29pm
Are you excited about the Angels Larry?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/12/2009 @ 3:33pm
Larry where did you read that the Shiia Iranians supporting the Sunni Taliban???
Posted by Mask at 10/12/2009 @ 3:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Larry assumes that all "insurgents" are Taliban.
"we don't know the Afghan people"
Iran is providing support to Afghan government, provides border security along Iranian border, provides reconstruction funds for infrastructure (primarily northern Afghanistan), supports Afghan Shia, support cultural exchanges between opposing groups, provides support for government security forces, etc.
Sounds alot like McChrystal's countersurgency plan doesn't it.
Of course, Iran must remain the bad guy, and Taliban assertions of Iran's support for them play nicely into those who want to bomb Iran into submission.
You have to ask yourself why Taliban would be asserting that Iran is "covertly" supporting and arming them......lol..........
Posted by OneVote at 10/12/2009 @ 3:44pm
12/27/05 Karzai: Iran's help has contributed to Afghanistan development Kabul, Dec 27, IRNA-Afghanistan's
President Hamed Karzai in a meeting with Iran's Foreign Minister in Kabul said that the assistance rendered by Iran has helped Afghanistan to find its rightful place.
The Afghan government and nation are thankful for this help, he added.
In a meeting with visiting Iranian foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, the Afghan president referred to the relation between Afghanistan and its neighbors.
"Afghanistan wishes further progress and development of Iran and will not let anyone drive a wedge between the two Moslem neighbors," Karzai added.
He also referred to the many shortcomings in his country due to past three decades of conflict.
"We should draw assistance from Iran's experiences to boost the development drive in Afghanistan."
He accepted an invitation from Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for a visit to Tehran.
Mottaki said Tehran has put expansion of relations with its neighbors on its list of foreign policy priorities.
He also expressed satisfaction over the process of institutionalization of democracy underway in Afghanistan.
The two nations' officials are resolved to strengthen ties in all fields and "we believe that the capacities should be raised in all levels."
Expansion of mutual trade, joint investments legalization of border controls and expansion of judicial, legal and parliamentary relations are all among the factors upon which the two nations could forge closer ties, he said.
Posted by OneVote at 10/12/2009 @ 4:06pm
Are you excited about the Angels Larry?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/12/2009 @ 3:33pm
Absolutely. I'm a die hard fan since they were a minor league team playing at LA's Wrigley Field. I have a collection of baseball cards from the 1961 team.
I went to the 1979, 1986 playoffs, and to the Championship series against the Yankees in 2002.
I was at the first game at Anaheim, an exhibition against the Giants. I saw Willie Mays hit the 1st home run there and then Jim Fregosi won it with a home run in.
I saw a Ryan no hitter there. Saw Reggie Jackson's 500th HR. Saw Rod Carew's 3000th hit.
Grew up and was friends with Brian Downing.
I taught Sunday School to Brett and Aaron Boone.
Roger Repoz's wife Carla was my original partner in the insurance business.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/12/2009 @ 4:43pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/12/2009 @ 3:08pm
Larry where did you read that the Shiia Iranians supporting the Sunni Taliban???
Posted by Mask at 10/12/2009 @ 3:17pm
<Iranian weapons getting through to Taliban
Heavy weapons are continuing to stream across the Afghan border from Iran despite Barack Obama's attempts to enlist Tehran's help in fighting the insurgency, officials have said.
International forces believe elements within the Iranian regime are either behind the smuggling or at least doing little to stop it.
The disclosure that weapons are still freely flowing across the border follows Afghan army claims that Iranian weapons were recovered from a notorious Taliban and drug trafficker haven in Helmand province.>
http://tinyurl.com/lkf83p
Posted by antisocialist at 10/12/2009 @ 4:48pm
"The Iranian embassy and US embassy in Kabul both refused to comment on the claims"
Iranian weapons getting through to Taliban;
Telegraph.co.uk
Sounds a little "fishy" Larry.
Posted by OneVote at 10/12/2009 @ 4:59pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/12/2009 @ 4:43pm
I remembered you saying you were a big fan. Hopefully they will take this one.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/12/2009 @ 5:10pm
Hmm, if the Taliban are not a big deal, why are both the Chinese and the Iranians selling them arms to fight us?
Posted by antisocialist at 10/12/2009 @ 2:48pm
why is the u.s. selling arms to equatorial guinea?
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 5:16pm
Why would the Chinese and the Iranians want the Taliban and Al Qaeda to win and take over Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan?
Posted by antisocialist at 10/12/2009 @ 3:08pm
because their governments are just as stupid/greedy as yours.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 5:17pm
"By the time of the wars in Vietnam and Iraq, state propaganda had become less overt and dissent was more openly tolerated. Yet the success of prior administrations in establishing the White House as a key media player and, more important, enshrining the idea of the U.S. military as bringer of freedom and defender of the civilized world meant that war had become a much easier sell. Brewer documents in excruciating detail the ways in which the Johnson, Nixon, and Bush II administrations routinely twisted information to suit their own ends and, when mere twisting wasn't enough, simply created the "facts" they needed. But the reality of American global dominance, and President Truman's success in defining the Cold War agenda, rendered the project of encouraging pro-war sentiments in place of noninterventionist ones largely unnecessary. Despite receiving little support from the international community, both the Iraq and Vietnam wars were initially quite popular among Americans."
http://amconmag.com/article/2009/nov/01/00045/
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 5:20pm
The disclosure that weapons are still freely flowing across the border follows Afghan army claims that Iranian weapons were recovered from a notorious Taliban and drug trafficker haven in Helmand province.>
http://tinyurl.com/lkf83p
Posted by antisocialist at 10/12/2009 @ 4:48pm
They said the same thing about Iraq and as it turned out, only 1% of arms seizures were Iranian and there was no proof that Iran had provided the weapons.
Iran are enemies of the Taliban and helped us go after Al Qaeda.
The Telegraph story is baseless propaganda. None of the sources are names, though every paragraph starts with "sources said ". That's a dead give away that there si no basis for these assertions, but it is an effective way to lie to the public.
Larry obviously bought it.
Posted by Shingo at 10/12/2009 @ 5:28pm
Why would the Chinese and the Iranians want the Taliban and Al Qaeda to win and take over Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan?
Posted by antisocialist at 10/12/2009 @ 3:08pm
Hezbollah are known to use M16 semi automatics. Now, why would the US want Hezbollah to win and take over Israel?
Or could it be that this is how the arms industry works?
Posted by Shingo at 10/12/2009 @ 5:32pm
"I saw General Barno at Heritage Foundation, and he said that proposing timetables for Afghanistan is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, close to treason"
wow! sort of sounds like everything the right wing said about iraq from 2005-2008."
people.rwj.harvard.edu/~riyengar/insurgency.pdf
"Are insurgents affected by new information about the United States' sensitivity to costs? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an "emboldenment" effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war. We find that in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 7-10 percent, but that this effect dissipates within a month."
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/12/2009 @ 5:34pm
"Iran are enemies of the Taliban and helped us go after Al Qaeda."
True, in fact Iran was a major and important military ally when it came to ousting the Taliban. They funded the Northern Alliance years before we did and seriously considered going to war with the Taliban in the nineties.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/12/2009 @ 5:40pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/12/2009 @ 5:40pm
Wow, I find myself in agreement with you. Guess I chose the wrong day to give up sniffing glue. ;-)
Posted by Shingo at 10/12/2009 @ 5:42pm
Iran supports Hamas, so I do not see it as anti-Sunni. However, it did support the Northern Alliance against the Taliban. I don't think the Taliban would forgive that support. The Taliban recently hit the Indian Embassy which also supported the Northern Alliance. Iran has trade relationships with both Pakistan and India, so I don't see any hostility there.
Posted by pjcasey at 10/12/2009 @ 5:46pm
That's a dead give away that there si no basis for these assertions, but it is an effective way to lie to the public.
Larry obviously bought it.
Posted by Shingo at 10/12/2009 @ 5:28pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Lol......you noticed too!
Not even "reputable" sources......
Posted by OneVote at 10/12/2009 @ 5:48pm
By the way, the current government of the ISLAMIC REPUBLIC of Afghanistan is an Iranian puppet regime, so I don't see why Iran would ever turn against their puppet regime allies in order to aid the very jihadists who have been their enemies that they've been waging a covert war against for two decades.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/12/2009 @ 5:50pm
If China invaded Canada we would send lots of arms to the Canadians and fight with them. Iran and Pakistan are doing the same thing. They certainly don't want foreign troops in their neighborhood. Why can't we understand this concept?
The Afgans have been there for thousands of years. I'll bet they can take care of themselves without our meddling. The reason the Taliban are fighting is to rid their country of foreigners. Plain and simple. We would do the same thing.
Lets get out and get out NOW. There is no threat to us from the Taliban. Let them be another polital force in their country. Once we leave their mission is GONE. They'll go back to selling apples and Opium. Much profit there.
Remember how the Russians left and the Afgans did NOT follow. They simply celebrated!!!
Get out NOW
Posted by notsleepy at 10/12/2009 @ 5:55pm
By the way, the current government of the ISLAMIC REPUBLIC of Afghanistan is an Iranian puppet regime, so I don't see why Iran would ever turn against their puppet regime allies in order to aid the very jihadists who have been their enemies that they've been waging a covert war against for two decades.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/12/2009 @ 5:50pm
So we installed puppet Iranian puppet regimes in both Iraq and Afghanistan?
Wow, talk about an own goal!
The reality is that the governments in both countries are supported by the US and Tehran. We just hate to admit it.
Posted by Shingo at 10/12/2009 @ 6:00pm
That's a dead give away that there si no basis for these assertions, but it is an effective way to lie to the public.
Larry obviously bought it.
Posted by Shingo at 10/12/2009 @ 5:28pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Lol......you noticed too!
Not even "reputable" sources......
Posted by OneVote at 10/12/2009 @ 5:48pm
So why don't you tell us OV where the Taliban are getting their weapons?
Posted by antisocialist at 10/12/2009 @ 6:13pm
"So we installed puppet Iranian puppet regimes in both Iraq and Afghanistan?"
No. Iran has been repudiated in the recent Iraqi elections and will have no long-term political power in that country.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/12/2009 @ 6:17pm
No. Iran has been repudiated in the recent Iraqi elections and will have no long-term political power in that country.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/12/2009 @ 6:17pm
money talks.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 6:32pm
So why don't you tell us OV where the Taliban are getting their weapons?
Posted by antisocialist at 10/12/2009 @ 6:13pm
from stupid, greedy people.
hey, where are the saudis getting their arms from.
they may not be YOUR enemies (yet) but they sure are the enemies of their own people.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 6:34pm
So why don't you tell us OV where the Taliban are getting their weapons?
Posted by antisocialist at 10/12/2009 @ 6:13pm
Like we explained to you Larry, there arms market is open to anyone willing to pay for them. The Taliban have a lucrative income from drugs.
Where do you think Hezbollah get their US made M16 semi automatics from?
Posted by Shingo at 10/12/2009 @ 7:22pm
No. Iran has been repudiated in the recent Iraqi elections and will have no long-term political power in that country.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/12/2009 @ 6:17pm
Wrong. The Iraqi government are all comprised of Iraqi exiles who were all living in Iran and are Iran puppets.
Iraq is predominantly Shiite and thus Iran has become the logical center of power in Iraq. The most powerful man in Iraq is an Iranian living in Iran, Al Sistani.
Posted by Shingo at 10/12/2009 @ 7:24pm
they may not be YOUR enemies (yet) but they sure are the enemies of their own people.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 6:34pm
I don't subscribe to your belief, at all, that most Saudis view their rulers as "enemies"! They have everything handed to them, including free college education....a socialist/dictatorial utopia in the desert! So what if Saudi women can't drive....they can buy Guccis, Versace, Rolex & travel the world......to their heart's content!
Posted by Happy at 10/12/2009 @ 7:54pm
So what if Saudi women can't drive....they can buy Guccis, Versace, Rolex & travel the world......to their heart's content!
Posted by Happy at 10/12/2009 @ 7:54pm
Only to people like Happy is this an acceptable alternative to rights.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/12/2009 @ 8:15pm
Ah Larry....lots of folks indicate that leftover Soviet and US supplied weapons are still being used.
Think of it. Our own weapons being used to kill us.
You can get a firearm in Afghanistan easily and dirt cheap. Oh so many to go around. Lots of other stuff too.
Get real.
Posted by OneVote at 10/12/2009 @ 8:28pm
The fact of the matter is that any timetable for withdrawal should be based on the absolute minimum span of time it should take for us to leave. The proposal to invade was drawn up long before September 11 and was in fact submitted to Bush on September 10, 2001. We've gone to great lengths to prop up Karzai, a former Unocal consultant, a company that had been pushing for a natural gas pipeline through Afghanistan since the mid-90's. Unless you consider deploying U.S. troops as sitting ducks to protect against attacks on a pipeline, there is no terrorism threat to be fought.
Posted by nkurland at 10/12/2009 @ 9:29pm
Posted by nkurland at 10/12/2009 @ 9:29pm
Crazy conspiracy theorist.
"Only to people like Happy is this an acceptable alternative to rights."
Happy was being sarcastic, in an effort to mock the way liberals think.
The Saudis are no friends of ours.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/12/2009 @ 9:44pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/12/2009 @ 9:44pm
Saudis aside, the invasion of Afghanistan was proposed to Bush before the September 11 attacks and after the Taliban refused Unocal's pipeline in August 2001. In fact, the U.S. representatives issued the following threat during these negotiations: "either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs," This has nothing to do with the Saudis.
Posted by nkurland at 10/12/2009 @ 10:04pm
The Saudis are no friends of ours.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/12/2009 @ 9:44pm
True, but they are friends of Bush and co.
Posted by Shingo at 10/12/2009 @ 10:08pm
"True, but they are friends of Bush and co."
Obama's the one who bowed to them as a gesture of respect.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/12/2009 @ 10:13pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/12/2009 @ 10:13pm |
And Bush is the one who proposed giving them a $20 billion arms deal. Are you really arguing that the Bush administration didn't have close ties to the Saudis?
Posted by nkurland at 10/12/2009 @ 10:16pm
"Are you really arguing that the Bush administration didn't have close ties to the Saudis?"
Every American administration has had such ties for decades now.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/12/2009 @ 10:17pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/12/2009 @ 10:17pm
Never denied that. But isn't it a little bit absurd to claim the Saudis aren't U.S. allies (though they shouldn't be), then go ahead and hype up a bow while ignoring a $20 billion arms deal?
Posted by nkurland at 10/12/2009 @ 10:20pm
Obama will likely sell arms to them as well. I was not arguing that Obama was the first US president to literally or figurtively bow to the Saudis.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/12/2009 @ 10:24pm
Your comments on Afghanistan are still utter nonsense.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/12/2009 @ 10:25pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/12/2009 @ 10:24pm
Oh, he will. But it will be as part of Bush's aforementioned arms deal which was for the next decade.
Posted by nkurland at 10/12/2009 @ 10:26pm
Every American administration has had such ties for decades now.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/12/2009 @ 10:17pm `
If Obama's the one who bowed to them as a gesture of respect, then Bush is the one who holds hands and kisses them.
So they are our friends then? Make up your mind will ya?
Posted by Shingo at 10/12/2009 @ 10:26pm
"So they are our friends then?"
I've never said anything of the kind.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/12/2009 @ 10:29pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/12/2009 @ 10:25pm
So why was Bush given the invasion proposal before the September 11 attacks?
Posted by nkurland at 10/12/2009 @ 10:29pm
He wasn't.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/12/2009 @ 10:29pm
Obama will likely sell arms to them as well. I was not arguing that Obama was the first US president to literally or figurtively bow to the Saudis.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/12/2009 @ 10:24pm
We only sell arms to our allies, so SA is obviously our friend then.
Posted by Shingo at 10/12/2009 @ 10:31pm
We do it for the oil, not because its good for our security.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/12/2009 @ 10:31pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/12/2009 @ 10:29pm
This is a lie. On September 10, 2001, Condi Rice handed Bush a presidential directive ordering the invasion. All it needed was a signature. In June 2001, India and Iran announced they would play a "facilitate" U.S. and Russian "limited military action" against the Taliban if sanctions did not do the trick. And of course, U.S. representatives in August 2001 threatened the Taliban "either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs," if they did not accept the pipeline.
Posted by nkurland at 10/12/2009 @ 10:45pm
And here's your proof that the U.S. was informing other countries of its plans to invade in the summer of 2001: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm
Posted by nkurland at 10/12/2009 @ 10:47pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/12/2009 @ 10:31pm
Just replace oil with natural gas and that explains the Afghan war.
Posted by nkurland at 10/12/2009 @ 10:49pm
An anonymous former Pakistani diplomat's word is worth nothing.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/12/2009 @ 10:53pm
We do it for the oil, not because its good for our security.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/12/2009 @ 10:31pm
We look after Israel, and that is no good for our security either, and they too are our friends.
Face it, the Saudi's are our friends, at least Washington's friends. We've always loved dictators.
Posted by Shingo at 10/12/2009 @ 10:54pm
We do it for the oil, not because its good for our security.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/12/2009 @ 10:31pm
Is that why the Bush's holiday with the Saudi's?
Posted by Shingo at 10/12/2009 @ 10:56pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/12/2009 @ 10:53pm
He's not anonymous. The article specifies the name Niaz Naik. The invasion had nothing to do with September 11 and not surprisingly global popular opinion was strongly against it.
Posted by nkurland at 10/12/2009 @ 10:57pm
Actually, the world's largest supplies of oil are in the Gulf of Mexico and in Alaska, but they remain untapped because of environmental laws. Saudi Arabia has the world's largest oil production capacity, thanks also to environmental laws coupled with an irrational foreign policy of appeasement and accommodation with the Saudis and OPEC that dates back to the 1940's. This is aside from the issue of environmental law and other regulations that limit our ability to refine crude oil.
If Bush wanted oil, why not invade Iran, which has more proven oil reserves than Iraq (whose oil we were already stealing through the oil-for-foor programme)? Why not drill in Alaska, which would have much more political support and be less expensive than war? Why fight primitive guerilla insurgents in a desolate, resource-devoid third world stone age country of no geopoliical importance like Afghanistan in order to pursue a pipeline deal with neighboring countries that the Taliban actually agreed to during the Clinton years but dropped when Clinton fired cruise missiles at them?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/12/2009 @ 11:02pm
And here's more:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4587368/
From the article:
President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before Sept. 11 but did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, U.S. and foreign sources told NBC News.
The document, a formal National Security Presidential Directive, amounted to a "game plan to remove al-Qaida from the face of the earth," one of the sources told NBC News' Jim Miklaszewski.
Posted by nkurland at 10/12/2009 @ 11:02pm
"not surprisingly global popular opinion was strongly against it."
Global popular opinion also hates Jews, hates America, supports socialism, believes capitalism doesn't work, and thinks that we should have abandoned Iraq to genocide and slavery at the hands of the most brutal and fanatical fascists since the Khmer Rouge in 2005.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/12/2009 @ 11:06pm
"President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before Sept. 11 but did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, U.S. and foreign sources told NBC News.
The document, a formal National Security Presidential Directive, amounted to a "game plan to remove al-Qaida from the face of the earth," one of the sources told NBC News' Jim Miklaszewski."
So you're saying Bush was remarkably prescient about the threat AQ posed to us?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/12/2009 @ 11:07pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/12/2009 @ 11:07pm
I'm saying the plan was going to be put into place regardless of the attacks. Prescience would have involved skipping long vacations and preventing the attacks.
Posted by nkurland at 10/12/2009 @ 11:12pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/12/2009 @ 11:06pm
Get the polls, then you can rant and rave.
Posted by nkurland at 10/12/2009 @ 11:13pm
So, if Bush had taken less vacations, that would have prevented 9/11?
Maybe he could have if he adopted waterboarding and other counterterrorism measures sooner.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/12/2009 @ 11:15pm
So you're saying Bush was remarkably prescient about the threat AQ posed to us?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/12/2009 @ 11:07pm
Impressive how you were able to leapfrog your original argument into a sycophantic defense of the "dear leader." I'll just go ahead and take that avoidance of the original argument as a concession, thank you very much.
Posted by nkurland at 10/12/2009 @ 11:19pm
You still haven't responded to what I wrote above:
Actually, the world's largest supplies of oil are in the Gulf of Mexico and in Alaska, but they remain untapped because of environmental laws. Saudi Arabia has the world's largest oil production capacity, thanks also to environmental laws coupled with an irrational foreign policy of appeasement and accommodation with the Saudis and OPEC that dates back to the 1940's. This is aside from the issue of environmental law and other regulations that limit our ability to refine crude oil.
If Bush wanted oil, why not invade Iran, which has more proven oil reserves than Iraq (whose oil we were already stealing through the oil-for-foor programme)? Why not drill in Alaska, which would have much more political support and be less expensive than war? Why fight primitive guerilla insurgents in a desolate, resource-devoid third world stone age country of no geopoliical importance like Afghanistan in order to pursue a pipeline deal with neighboring countries that the Taliban actually agreed to during the Clinton years but dropped when Clinton fired cruise missiles at them?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/12/2009 @ 11:21pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/12/2009 @ 11:15pm
In other words, break the law before there's even a pretext. In other words, preventative war on Iraq isn't enough so we also needed to commit preventative violations of international law. In theory we could have done that, but when you're getting briefings with the title, "Bin laden determined to attack inside the United States" both caution and morality dictate that you take the precautions to prevent the attacks.
Posted by nkurland at 10/12/2009 @ 11:23pm
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't GWB and Dick Cheney say after 9/11 that Al Qaeda would have to be engaged all over the world and that the fight would take a very long time but that we had to take the fight to THEM, (paraphrasing)? Anybody who thinks that the whole solution to defeating the terrorists can be achieved by winning in Afghanistan is totally out of touch. But it is a huge piece of the pie. We simply cannot allow the Taliban to retake Afghanistan. What would we do then, lob missiles from afar as Joe Biden suggests when the terrorists take up shop again? Silly.
I think Russ Feingold is a pretty decent guy but he's got to understand that the U.S. cannot retreat ANYWHERE where the fight has been engaged against terrorism. To do so would give the enemy an incredible boost in moral and in forces and really turn America into just another European loser country.
The right way to handle this is to commit the forces that General McChrystal has requested, stop pussyfooting around and let he and our brave troops do their jobs. Then get the hell out of the way. Obama can't stall much longer. Politics be damned.
If we run, the way Russia did, the Taliban will have defeated two super powers; we actually helped the Taliban defeat the Soviets. That is unthinkable. Only after we have secured the conditions in Afghanistan at least to the level we have in Iraq, should we consider withdrawing forces. That is probably a decade away and will happen under a different President.
And if Al Qaeda should get a toehold in Somilia or elswhere and our intelligence can verify it, we should engage them there as well. If it takes another short term conscription, so be it. If we are not in it to win it, we will have to replace our leaders with those who are.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/12/2009 @ 11:24pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/12/2009 @ 11:21pm
Simply put, we did not invade Iran because they could cut our lines of communication and bring the transport of global oil supplies to a halt by simply mining the Straits of Hormuz. Invading Iran for oil would instantly spur the regime to take actions that would cripple both the global economy and the U.S. military presence in the Middle East. That is to say, it would be self-defeating. Happy?
Posted by nkurland at 10/12/2009 @ 11:28pm
Seriously folks, (those of you on the far left), you're eventually going to have to decide who's side you're on. Because from what I see here, you do not deserve your freedom. Oh yeah, you have the right to free speech and it's fun to banter around here. Others have come before you and died to give you that right, but you don't deserve it.
Hating George Bush is one thing, but giving aid and comfort to those who want to kill you is something entirely different. It's almost surreal. Search your souls and decide if you want to keep your country and all that comes with it, including having to fight for it. You'll have to fight for it if your President won't.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/12/2009 @ 11:32pm
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/12/2009 @ 11:24pm |
Or we could conduct an international policing effort under the auspices of the UN, simultaneously following the advice of the majority of counterterrorism experts and restoring international faith in the U.S.
Posted by nkurland at 10/12/2009 @ 11:33pm
Oh, and in case you haven't figured it out yet, the threat to us from within is far greaater than any foreign enemy we can ever face. Think about that.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/12/2009 @ 11:34pm
Why not drill in Alaska, which would have much more political support and be less expensive than war? Why fight primitive guerilla insurgents in a desolate, resource-devoid third world stone age country of no geopoliical importance like Afghanistan in order to pursue a pipeline deal with neighboring countries that the Taliban actually agreed to during the Clinton years but dropped when Clinton fired cruise missiles at them?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/12/2009 @ 11:35pm
Because from what I see here, you do not deserve your freedom.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/12/2009 @ 11:32pm
So you're effectively admitting that fighting to "preserve our freedom" is in fact not an objective of either war.
Posted by nkurland at 10/12/2009 @ 11:35pm
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/12/2009 @ 11:32pm
(yawn)
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 11:36pm
"Actually, the world's largest supplies of oil are in the Gulf of Mexico and in Alaska"
Wrong. The US's largest suppliers are Mexico and Canada.
The largest oil reserves are in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran and Russia.
You also admit we have an irrational foreign policy of appeasement and accommodation of tyrants, which debunks your claim that we stand for freedom and all that crap. We stand for money and money alone.
We couldn't have invaded Iran to get their oil, because we would never have been able to stabilize the country where oil production was secure and viable. Instead, we invaded the country with the 3nd or 3rd biggest oil reserves.
As Paul Wolfowitz, one of the architects of the war told us, we invaded Iraq because it swims on a sea of oil.
We are fighting in a stone age country like Afghanistan because it is geopolitically very important. It is one of the only viable pipeline routed from the Caspian to the sea.
The Taliban never agreed to the pipeline deal which is way we paved their future in bombs rather than gold.
Posted by Shingo at 10/12/2009 @ 11:43pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/12/2009 @ 11:35pm |
The Bush administration tried to do this repeatedly. Failure to accomplish an objective is not proof. This was an natural gas pipeline, btw. There is definitely a realization among U.S. planners that if we're going to continue to rely on fossil fuels, its going to take maximal extraction of every petroleum and natural gas source. For them, if competition is going to be fierce, then the benefits of controlling the source far outweigh the cost of any resource war, no matter how unsavory it is or how much it drains the country in the medium term.
And btw, the wording makes it clear that your argument is based entirely on supposition and conjecture. Try using this tactic in a courtroom, watch how fast the case gets thrown out.
Posted by nkurland at 10/12/2009 @ 11:44pm
Oh, and in case you haven't figured it out yet, the threat to us from within is far greaater than any foreign enemy we can ever face. Think about that.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/12/2009 @ 11:34pm
Exactly.
Bush managed to kill more Americans than AQ and the Taliban combined.
Posted by Shingo at 10/12/2009 @ 11:50pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/12/2009 @ 11:35pm
Failure to achieve an objective is not evidence that it wasn't pursued. A global economy that continues to be based on fossil fuels will naturally entail fierce competition as those supplies of petroleum and natural gas will be scarce. Therefore, the benefits of controlling these resources will be immense, and if achieved, far outweigh the medium term costs of the war (ordinary Americans won't be seeing those benefits)- no matter how unsavory that war happens to be. This is why we established Africom and are funding undemocratic Central Asian regimes.
Even so, you're argument is being based on a pile of suppositions and conjecture. Try using this tactic in court and see how long it takes for the judge to toss the case straight out the window.
Posted by nkurland at 10/12/2009 @ 11:52pm
Posted by nkurland at 10/12/2009 @ 11:33pm
And then fly off into never never land with peter and wendy. Please.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/12/2009 @ 11:53pm
"Oh, and in case you haven't figured it out yet, the threat to us from within is far greaater than any foreign enemy we can ever face. Think about that"
gunslinger/orwell
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 11:53pm
Posted by nkurland at 10/12/2009 @ 11:35pm
Having trouble comprehending tonight?
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/12/2009 @ 11:54pm
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/12/2009 @ 11:54pm
Did you or did you not state that some of those on the left did not deserve their freedom?
Posted by nkurland at 10/12/2009 @ 11:58pm
Posted by Shingo at 10/12/2009 @ 11:43pm
Well so what's your point? Are you saying that America shouldn't look out after it's interests? Do you like putting gas in your car, running your air conditioner, heating your home and thousands of other reasons to secure oil? Isn't the world's oil supply better off for us in friendly hands? Would you rather that America's enemies control the supply of oil to we and our allies? Just asking. Freedom runs on oil and don't ever forget it.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/12/2009 @ 11:59pm
Posted by Shingo at 10/12/2009 @ 11:50pm
Yeah and Truman saved a half a million lives by dropping two atomic bombs so what's your point this time. Freedom is very costly in treasure and blood. Pick up any history book and you'll read all about it.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/13/2009 @ 12:01am
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/12/2009 @ 11:53pm
I have proof that the plans for invasion were submitted before September 11th. What do you have, propaganda and ad hominem attacks? Once again, I'll take the avoidance of the actual argument at hand as a concession.
Posted by nkurland at 10/13/2009 @ 12:01am
Well so what's your point? Are you saying that America shouldn't look out after it's interests?
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/12/2009 @ 11:59pm
You mean helping itself to other people's oil?
We could still put gas in our car without having 700 military bases overseas. Oil producers have to seel it to someone and we'd always pay for it.
Our military isn't being used to protect America's interests, but but the interests of the rich and powerful.
The world's oil supply doesn't belong to us. If we are a true fee market, capitalist society, we'd respect property rights of other states and simply buy the stuff from them. You don't walk into a 711 and help yourself to beer and snacks without paying for it.
Freedom does not run on oil, profits do.
Posted by Shingo at 10/13/2009 @ 12:06am
"Freedom runs on oil and don't ever forget it"
incredible statement!
wow, i mean seriously, this has to go down as THE perfect encapsulation of everything that is wrong with the republican party.
Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 12:06am
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/12/2009 @ 11:59pm
Are you saying that you like paying through the nose to heat your home, run your car and air conditioner all while destroying the environment? Or is it the thrill of exhausting the national treasury while creating more potential enemies?
Posted by nkurland at 10/13/2009 @ 12:09am
Posted by nkurland at 10/13/2009 @ 12:01am
The Joint Chiefs have contingency plans for invasions and carrier and sub repositioning at several strategic locations throughtout the world at any given time. Most of it is classified. Some of it isn't. That's the price you pay for continuing at superpower status. The free world relies on our mobility and contigency plans. Our allies know pretty much all about it.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/13/2009 @ 12:09am
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/13/2009 @ 12:01am
Leaving aside the merits of dropping the atomic bomb, how exactly is this in any way similar? Besides the fact that its some sort of armed conflict.
Posted by nkurland at 10/13/2009 @ 12:11am
Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 12:06am
First of all, I'm not a republican. I'm an independent American.
I would love to list all of the products that you use every day from the brush you use to brush your teeth to the paper you use to wipe your ass, that use oil intheir production but I'd be at it for a few weeks. The entire world is dependent upon oil. We first realized it in 1948 when Harry Truman found out that we would need much more than we had in our reserves to grow the country and maintain superpower status.
If you think that our oil security is not directly related to our freedom, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you. George Bush wasn't kidding when he said it's about oil. It's broadly referred to as America's interests. WAKE UP OR GO BACK TO SLEEP. EITHER WAY YOU'LL BE HELPING OUT.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/13/2009 @ 12:17am
Posted by nkurland at 10/13/2009 @ 12:11am I'm going to let you think through that one all by yourself. When you figure it out, let me know.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/13/2009 @ 12:19am
The free world relies on our mobility and contigency plans. Our allies know pretty much all about it.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/13/2009 @ 12:09am
Correction. Arms contractors and oil giants rely on our mobility and contigency plans. The free word thinks we're a menace.
Posted by Shingo at 10/13/2009 @ 12:19am
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/13/2009 @ 12:09am
That's not quite true. Besides, there's a huge difference between having a vague proposal to invade a country and actively courting other countries in a build-up to a war and then submitting a detailed plan for approval. The historical narrative indicates that the courting of India and Iran, the implicit threats during negotiations, and finally the submission of the plan all point to an attack that was imminent, September 11 attacks or not. I'm sure Africom has vague plans for all sorts of possible wars, but they aren't official or approved, and we aren't courting support while making implicit threats because the war simply isn't imminent.
Posted by nkurland at 10/13/2009 @ 12:20am
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/13/2009 @ 12:19am
The fact that something is an armed conflict does not mean it is not a war of choice. Simplistic much?
Posted by nkurland at 10/13/2009 @ 12:22am
The entire world is dependent upon oil. We first realized it in 1948 when Harry Truman found out that we would need much more than we had in our reserves to grow the country and maintain superpower status.
Some of us would argue that the world has made significant technological advances since 1948.
Posted by nkurland at 10/13/2009 @ 12:24am
Somebody's got to pump the oil for you. You can't do it yourself, can you? Hell, you wouldn't even have that keyboard to type on that pc so you can tell me how bad oil companies and contractors are, if they didn't do their jobs. I imagine they employ a few people as well. We can use some of that employment right about now.
The free world should be kissing our collective asses each and every morning, first light, so they can see them real well. The free world in nothing but an albatross aroun Americas neck. They're kind of like ACORN in a sense.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/13/2009 @ 12:25am
They're kind of like ACORN in a sense.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/13/2009 @ 12:25am
Perhaps in the sense that they make sure their entire populations are clothed, fed and have access to health care?
Posted by nkurland at 10/13/2009 @ 12:28am
Posted by nkurland at 10/13/2009 @ 12:24am
Yes we have, more drilling, more refineries, more tankers, more storage, more weapons and more things to use all the oil up on. It's called growth and standard of living. Got a play station? Oil. Like to put your leftovers in that plastic ziploc bag, oil.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/13/2009 @ 12:29am
Some of us would argue that the world has made significant technological advances since 1948.
Posted by nkurland at 10/13/2009 @ 12:24am
That was when America realized that it needed a presence in the Persian Gulf. We've been there ever since. No plans to leave anytime soon.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/13/2009 @ 12:31am
We've done nothing for the free world since WWII and even then, the war was practically over by the time we got involved. All we did was cash in on the deal. The free world owes us nothing.
America is a dinosaur and is on the way down. Everyone can see it but the few wingnuts who still think our shit doesn't stink. I heard one great analogy the other day, where someone described America as the fat, over the hill, Elvis. Everyone loved him when he was young, handsome and full of hope and he continued to cash in on his golden days.
Elvis then began to believe his own hype and press, lived out of hotels, became an addict, stopped writing songs, outsourced the song writing and surrounded himself by yes men.
That is what America has become. The reason they aren't kissing our collective asses is because they feel sorry for us.
Posted by Shingo at 10/13/2009 @ 12:34am
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/13/2009 @ 12:29am
We know more about significantly more alternative energy sources than we did in 1948. Not to mention the climate risks. Like that erosion of ozone layer? Carbon emissions from oil. Like the coming damage of trillions of dollars of ocean front real estate? Carbon emissions caused by oil. Like the coming environmental catastrophe for the third world? Carbon emissions caused by oil.
But hey, we need to fight to preserve our playstations and tupperware!
Posted by nkurland at 10/13/2009 @ 12:36am
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/13/2009 @ 12:31am
Apparently no plans to face reality anytime soon either.
Posted by nkurland at 10/13/2009 @ 12:38am
Posted by Shingo at 10/13/2009 @ 12:34am
What a cynical description of our great country. I'll agree that the youngest generation and the one before seem to be ok with achieving mediocrity in their lifes ambitions. Smoke a little dope, cheat on the finals, collect the unemployment checks, dress like a slob, destroy once awesome music with rap and hip-hop. Abandon civility, diss our military, and call their women hos. Yeah that part of the country is a shithole.
Since WWII, we have rebuilt Euorpe, (Marshall Plan), and rebuilt Japan and the south pacific. We grew our own economy into the world's finest and traded abroad as other countries tried to rise from the ashes of WWII. Plus we fough a cold warfor forty years and protected West Germany, south Korea and allied with NATO to protect each other. The free world needs to do more than just kiss our asses, they need to get an education.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/13/2009 @ 12:44am
Posted by nkurland at 10/13/2009 @ 12:36am
Fine, but this isn't a Green discussion, it's about how to preserve our freedom while we try to convert to alternate fuel sources so that we one day can change the world dynamic. Now, however is not the time. We have enemies that need killin' first.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/13/2009 @ 12:47am
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/13/2009 @ 12:44am
Notice how all those events happened before what has been nearly a decade of treasury training, preventative war.
Posted by nkurland at 10/13/2009 @ 12:48am
Posted by nkurland at 10/13/2009 @ 12:38am
As a superpower, we make our own reality. It may not be some other country's, but it is ours. Right now our reality is to win in Afghanistan and get rid of the Taliban once and for all. Osama Bin Laden probably shaved his beard, bought some Docker's and is doing stand-up at one of the comedy clubs in Manhatten, waiting for the calling again.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/13/2009 @ 12:52am
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/13/2009 @ 12:47am
Umm, if you're going to attempt to justify the war as one for resources, a discussion of the downsides of fossil fuel dependence is incredibly relevant. In fact, its infinitely more relevant than your attempt to justify the war on the basis of the fact that Americans like to use playstations and ziploc bags. Basic logic dictates that if you're going to justify this war on the basis of fossil fuel dependence, then a discussion of the wisdom of using such an energy source is imperative. But hey, nice try at attempting to compartmentalize the pro-war arguments. This is getting pathetic.
Posted by nkurland at 10/13/2009 @ 12:57am
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/13/2009 @ 12:52am
You can't make your own reality. That's a complete inversion of the definition the word. Other than that, you're just using arguments that have already been debunked.
Posted by nkurland at 10/13/2009 @ 01:02am
What a cynical description of our great country.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/13/2009 @ 12:44am
The truth hurts doesn't it?
Yes, we did loan money to others to rebuild since WWII. Big deal. We made a huge profit out of it.
We did have the world's finest economy until we got greedy, got hooked on consumerism and a fake economy and stopped producing anything. Our biggest exports are scrap metal and wood chips and our biggest growth industry is the prison system.
The Cold War was a farce. We didn't fight it,. we just outspent the Soviets, which brought short terms success but long terms disaster.
The free world never needed us and as far as education goes, they are way ahead of us. Americans are among the most poorly educated and most ignorant in the world.
Posted by Shingo at 10/13/2009 @ 01:03am
As a superpower, we make our own reality. It may not be some other country's, but it is ours.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/13/2009 @ 12:52am
You can't ignore reality, especially realities based on universal principals. What goes up must come down and you can't create wealth out of nothing. We've been writing cheques that we had no intention of every honoring, but the chickens are coming home to roost.
Even the wingnuts are waking up to this. Only a few years ago, Cheney was telling us that deficits didn't matter, but the reality has hit home that we have to repay out debts one day and the longer we put it off, the worst it will be. The dollar is sinking like a stone.
We coudln't get rid of the Taliban even if we wanted to. The Taliban are not a finite number.
Posted by Shingo at 10/13/2009 @ 01:08am
I notice Larry did a little "editing" of what he posted from that Daily Telegraph article....such as leaving OUT this part-
"However sources said Tehran was still "hedging its bets", with elements within the country believed to be supporting Afghan insurgents.
The Shia-Muslim dominated country has no wish to see extremist Sunni groups like the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan but it remains deeply suspicious of the US presence.
International forces believe elements within the Iranian regime are either behind the smuggling or at least doing little to stop it."
Posted by Mask at 10/13/2009 @ 07:28am
Get the hell out of Afghanistan and Iraq and remove troops and military bases out of Saudi Arabia and the rest of the world...
Posted by twease at 10/13/2009 @ 07:48am
Or we could conduct an international policing effort under the auspices of the UN, simultaneously following the advice of the majority of counterterrorism experts and restoring international faith in the U.S.
Posted by nkurland at 10/12/2009 @ 11:33pm |
How's that going?
Do you see ANY effort by the UN to combat terrorism?
They cannot even define terrorism because the Muslim nations veto every effort to do so.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/13/2009 @ 09:14am
"However sources said Tehran was still "hedging its bets", with elements within the country believed to be supporting Afghan insurgents.
The Shia-Muslim dominated country has no wish to see extremist Sunni groups like the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan but it remains deeply suspicious of the US presence.
International forces believe elements within the Iranian regime are either behind the smuggling or at least doing little to stop it."
Posted by Mask at 10/13/2009 @ 07:28am
I'm willing to acknowledge that part of the article. So you must likewise be willing to acknowledge as equally true that Iran is selling weapons to the Taliban, right?
If one part is dubious, aren't all parts?
If one part is true, aren't all parts also, using your response?
Posted by antisocialist at 10/13/2009 @ 09:16am
How's that going?
Posted by antisocialist at 10/13/2009 @ 09:14am
We don't know because its never been attempted. But we do know that its been recommended by the vast majority of counterterrorism experts and that it would cost far less in both human lives and dollars.
How's that whole ignoring reality thing going?
Posted by nkurland at 10/13/2009 @ 11:22am
We've done nothing for the free world since WWII and even then, the war was practically over by the time we got involved. Posted by Shingo at 10/13/2009 @ 12:34am | ignore this person | warn this person
I agree the world doesn't owe us anything, but your ideological blinders make you look silly. The war might well have ended sooner without America's entry, but in that case it likely would have ended in victory for the Nazis.
It's OK to give America credit when the facts warrant it.
Posted by gren at 10/13/2009 @ 12:44pm
"Actually, the world's largest supplies of oil are in the Gulf of Mexico and in Alaska"
Wrong. The US's largest suppliers are Mexico and Canada."
So? The largest supplies of oil in the world still are in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska, even if they remain untapped due to regulations.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/13/2009 @ 3:22pm
"The Taliban are not a finite number."
WTF????????????
Got that, folks? There is an infinite, never-ending supply of Taliban!!!!!!!!
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/13/2009 @ 3:24pm
"you can't create wealth"
Does it grow on trees?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/13/2009 @ 3:26pm
Got that, folks? There is an infinite, never-ending supply of Taliban!!!!!!!!
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/13/2009 @ 3:24pm
Pathetic little word games aside, he's technically corrct. As long as the occupation continues the Taliban will be able to draw on the support of the population to recruit new fighters.
Posted by nkurland at 10/13/2009 @ 4:04pm
I'm willing to acknowledge that part of the article. So you must likewise be willing to acknowledge as equally true that Iran is selling weapons to the Taliban, right?
Posted by antisocialist at 10/13/2009 @ 09:16am
So the Iranians helped topple the Taliban and then decided to arm them so as to help them back into power? Seems a little schizophrenic, not mention counterproductive.
Posted by nkurland at 10/13/2009 @ 4:30pm
So the Iranians helped topple the Taliban and then decided to arm them so as to help them back into power? Seems a little schizophrenic, not mention counterproductive.
Posted by nkurland at 10/13/2009 @ 4:30pm
Welcome to Islam
Posted by antisocialist at 10/13/2009 @ 4:57pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/13/2009 @ 4:57pm
In other words, no real evidence. We can all still remember the blatantly false presentation of Iranian IEDs in 2007. The things looked like they had been manufactured in someone's basement.
Posted by nkurland at 10/13/2009 @ 5:32pm
Welcome to Islam
Posted by antisocialist at 10/13/2009 @ 4:57pm
Welcome to the mind and paranoia of the Islamophobe.
Posted by Shingo at 10/13/2009 @ 7:16pm
"Pathetic little word games aside, he's technically corrct. As long as the occupation continues the Taliban will be able to draw on the support of the population to recruit new fighters."
Unfortunately, less than 5% of the Afghan population supports them.
So, you're saying we would have to wipe out the entire Afghan population to defeat the Taliban?
The war saves 50,000 Afghans a year, so I'm confused as to why you think it turns them against America.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/13/2009 @ 8:10pm
So, you're saying we would have to wipe out the entire Afghan population to defeat the Taliban?
The war saves 50,000 Afghans a year, so I'm confused as to why you think it turns them against America.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/13/2009 @ 8:10pm
I'm not seeing how you can come to that first conclusion when I've repeatedly expressed an objection to the war. And while 5% of Afghans (if that's even accurate) support the Taliban, the population on the whole is against the occupation.
Provide the proof that the war saves 50,000 a year. Any major NGO will do.
Posted by nkurland at 10/13/2009 @ 9:40pm
http://minx.cc/?post=224542 "INFANT mortality in Afghanistan has fallen dramatically since the demise of the Taleban, according to a new study, with 40,000 fewer babies dying every year....Benjamin Loevinsohn, a World Bank health specialist, said the survey results probably underestimated the improvement in infant mortality.
"It's a conservative estimate. This is the situation two and a half to three years ago ... It should be better than that now," Mr Loevinsohn said.""
http://www.tcj.com/247/e_giuffo.html "In an aid update from January, UNICEF workers immunized 572,000 children in Kabul during the first two weeks of 2002, "six times higher than the total immunization coverage in 2001." They also vaccinated over 700,000 children against measles during the first two months of 2002, in a country where, as Nicholas Kristof pointed out in the Feb. 1 New York Times, "virtually no one had been vaccinated against the disease in the previous 10 years." That alone will save the lives of at least 35,000 children each year. Kristof also quotes Heidi J. Larson of UNICEF saying that she expects maternal mortality rates in Afghanistan will halve as a result of improved health care over the next five years. That's another 112,000 children and 7,500 pregnant women saved each year. "
You're right, my estimates were off, but only because they were too low.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/13/2009 @ 11:51pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/13/2009 @ 11:51pm
Now notice how these improvements are all attributable to international aid. The war itself is not saving lives.
Posted by nkurland at 10/14/2009 @ 12:04am
This aid is only coming in because the Taliban isn't blocking it. By the way, Afghanistan's healthcare system improving and being slightly less backward than it was, not aid, accounts for the 40,000 saved each year by improved infant mortality.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/14/2009 @ 12:09am
The Taliban were known for pushing aid organizations out of the country for such "violations" as being Christian.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/14/2009 @ 12:10am
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/14/2009 @ 12:09am
Where do you think the money's coming from? The war itself is not saving lives. Show me where any of these sources credit the war with saving these lives.
Posted by nkurland at 10/14/2009 @ 12:41am
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/13/2009 @ 11:51pm
Notice how all these improvements were accredited to UNICEF, not the U.S. military. If we were to just dedicate the .7% of GDP to foreign aid as stipulated by the UN Millennium Development Goals instead of invading, we would have achieved results at least as good. That, and 70,000 Afghan civilians wouldn't have been killed in the occupation.
Posted by nkurland at 10/14/2009 @ 12:49am
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/14/2009 @ 12:09am
Where do you think the money's coming from? The war itself is not saving lives. Show me where any of these sources credit the war with saving these lives.
Posted by nkurland at 10/14/2009 @ 12:41am
these leftists will never give credit to anything we do unless it was promoted by the UN or some other worthless organization.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/14/2009 @ 12:50am
Actually, between 11,000 and 31,000 Afghan civilians have been killed in the war, not your nonsensical 70,000 figure.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/14/2009 @ 12:57am
Posted by antisocialist at 10/14/2009 @ 12:50am
So you can't find anything directly attributing the saved lives to the war itself.
Posted by nkurland at 10/14/2009 @ 01:20am
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/14/2009 @ 12:57am |
This figure only includes those killed by coalition forces, but not those killed by indirect causes or the insurgents.
Posted by nkurland at 10/14/2009 @ 01:25am
these leftists will never give credit to anything we do unless it was promoted by the UN or some other worthless organization.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/14/2009 @ 12:50am
That's becasue the US military has one purpose, to kill people. It's not designed to save lives or rebuild contries.
And what do you mean by "we" anyway? You're just sitting at home peddling right wing BS.
Posted by Shingo at 10/14/2009 @ 02:05am
"This figure only includes those killed by coalition forces, but not those killed by indirect causes or the insurgents."
No, according to wikipedia, that's the total number of civilians killed by all causes. Where did you come up with that 70,000 figure anyway? Did you just make it up, or do you have some evidence to back up your claim?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/14/2009 @ 4:00pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/14/2009 @ 4:00pm |
Well, Wikipedia is not a source, but as long as we're using it: roughly 5,000 killed by insurgent activities, 32,000 killed by coalition forces, 28,000 killed by indirect causes. So 65,000, but still way above 11,000-30,000.
Posted by nkurland at 10/14/2009 @ 4:33pm
I don't know what wikipedia page you go to but it lists casualties as follows:
Casualties and losses Afghan security forces:
4,964 killed
Northern Alliance: 200 killed[12][13][14][15][16]
Coalition: 1,479 killed (US: 830, UK: 221, Canada: 131, Germany: 39, France: 36, Denmark: 25, Australia: 11)[17] 4,477+ wounded (US: 3,238,[18] UK: 2,864,[19] Canada: 360,[20] Germany: 132, Australia: 84[21])
Contractors: 139 killed 2,428 wounded (to 2007/03)[22]
Total: 6,782 killed
Insurgents 24,091–24,574 killed (see our List of insurgent fatality reports in Afghanistan) 1,000+ captured[23]
Civilian casualties 11,760+ | 31,357+ (lower and upper totals of the available estimates)
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/14/2009 @ 7:58pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/14/2009 @ 7:58pm
Like I said, wikipedia isn't a source, but its put the total number killed in Afghanistan at about 65,000.
Posted by nkurland at 10/14/2009 @ 8:02pm
No, it puts the coalition losses at 7,000 and civilian losses at 21,000. Even if you added insurgents killed you wouldn't get your fabricated numbers.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/14/2009 @ 8:05pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/14/2009 @ 8:05pm
Look at the page again. Its put the high end for those killed by insurgent activities just below 5,000. High end for those killed by coalition activities at 32,000 and those killed by indirect causes at 28,000. But enough about wikipedia, where's your real source?
Posted by nkurland at 10/14/2009 @ 8:09pm
Wikipedia breaks down the total number of civilian deaths from all causes as follows:
"direct deaths: at least 9,260
indirect deaths: 3,200 - 20,000
direct & indirect deaths: 12,460 - 32,057"
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/14/2009 @ 8:13pm
Here's the actual page title:Civilian casualties of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present). Notice how each column covers different causes of deaths.
Read, then talk. Other than that, this is has run its course.
Posted by nkurland at 10/14/2009 @ 8:21pm