Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIn a brilliant essay in a recent issue of the London Review of Books ("The Irresistible Illusion, July 9), Rory Stewart, the Director of the Carr Center on Human Rights Policy at Harvard, writes that "Afghanistan..is the graveyard of predictions." I'd add that is is also the graveyard of empires. Stewart is critical of President Obama's "new policy," which he explains "has a very narrow focus--counter-terrorism--and a very broad definition of how to achieve it: no less than the fixing of the Afghan state."
Alternatives, for the moment, have been excluded. Yet too few are asking the tough questions that need to be asked about how we might better provide security -- in the region and for the US -- through a non-military regional strategy to stabilize Afghanistan. Why are too few pointing out that it is crazy to pour billions into a war whose mission we're still unable to clearly define when the U.S. economy is in crisis and millions (here and globally) face joblessness?
While the newly arrived top commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McCrystal, champions a 21st century counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy, few in Congress have bothered to question the Administration about the fact that while this COIN strategy calls for a ratio of 80 percent political and 20 percent military, 90 percent of the recent war supplemental goes towards military expenses. And just last week, according to the Washington Post, McCrystal concluded that Afghan security forces will have to expand far beyond currently planned levels. Such an expansion would require additional billions beyond the $7.5 billion the administration has budgeted annually to build up the Afghan army and police over the next several years; it will also mean the deployment of 1000s of more US troops as trainers and advisers.
Obama has so far committed to building an Afghan army of 134,000 and a police force of 82,000. McCrystal now appears to be pushing for what some US generals have earlier spoken about wanting: a combined Afghan army-police-security apparatus of 450,000 soldiers. Such a force would cost $2 or $ 3 billion a year to maintain; as Rory Stewart points out, the annual revenue of the Afghan government is just $600 million. "We criticize developing countries for spending 30 percent of their budget on defense," Stewart notes, and "we are encouraging Afghanistan to spend 500 percent of its budget."
As the US plans to sharply increase its troop strength, it's important to note that Britain's involvement in the war has come under the fiercest criticism yet at home. Some of this comes as a result of a sharp increase in British casualties, including the deaths of 15 soldiers in the past 10 days. (By July 7th, 176 British soldiers had died in Afghanistan, roughly the same number as were killed in Iraq. America has lost 726 soldiers in Afghanistan and 4321 in Iraq--though those figures may have increased in these past few days.)
What has also led to criticism in Britain are the grim images that have led the nightly television news. According to the New York Times, the news has shown "slate-gray transport aircraft carrying coffins landing at a military airbase in Wiltshire and being driven slowly in hearses past crowds lining the high street in Wootton Bassett, a nearby town. When live coffins passed down the street on Friday, on their way to a mortuary in Oxford, women wailed."
Where is the US nightly television (broadcast and cable) coverage of our servicepeople returning in coffins? Where are the brutal and honest images of Afghanistan -- of Afghan women and children killed, of US soldiers in the hell of combat. Where is the coverage of the staggering increase of post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, traumatic brain injuries and suicides among the many 1000s of service members who've already paid a price for Iraq and Afghanistan? Have the networks and cable channels spent so much of their budgets covering Michael Jackson's untimely death and star-studded memorial, Sarah Palin's ramblings and Mark Sanford's personal and political derelictions that they can't give us the real news we need if we're to be a democracy informed about what our country is doing in our name?
I believe the escalation of Afghanistan will bleed us of the resources needed for economic recovery, further destabilize Pakistan, open a rift -- as we're now seeing with Britain and others -- with our European allies, and negate the positive consequences of withdrawing from Iraq and Obama's powerful Cairo speech on our image in the Muslim world. Nor will escalation secure a better future for the Afghan people, for its women and children, or increase US security.
Withdrawal or de-escalation doesn't mean abandoning the Afghan people. It means using our resources more wisely -- for reconstruction, targeted economic development, peace-keeping operations under an international mandate (not NATO, which is perceived as a militarized, occupying force), funding for alternative agriculture (not eradication of poppies), for education for women and children and support for multilateral regional diplomacy and common sense counter-terrorism measures.
It will take time, but as casualties mount Americans will turn against this war and demand a way out. For now, we need to lay out constructive, smart, effective non-military alternatives to stabilize Afghanistan and strengthen Pakistan's fragile democratic government. We need to work with those in Congress prepared to hold hearings, increase pressure for a defined exit strategy, call for oversight of contractors and transparent budgeting. Citizens can get involved in many ways-- link up with Brave New Films' Rethink Afghanistan, and with bloggers, MoveOn, Win Without War, and with our work and activism at The Nation and thenation.com. And let's demand that those corporations which been given the rights to the American peoples' airwaves show us the reality of Afghanistan.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
KvH: "Where is US nightly television (broadcast and cable) coverage of our servicepeople returning in coffins?.........I believe the escalation of Afghanistan will bleed us of the resources needed for economic recovery,...."
Instead of asking where is our own media's coverage - esp. now offloading flag-draped coffins can be filmed/broadcast - why can't you be matter-of-fact and admit what we all know, that the MSM is in bed w/Your Messiah, even if you aren't (entirely). I specifically mentioned this before the Election, that the MSM will shy away from questioning THIS president, because of his race and the heavy investments they made in his election!
Also, of all the reasons you have for wanting us out of Afghanistan, please stop citing MONEY. In the world of Obamanomics, with $800 Billion of Pork, $75 Billion auto bailouts, $2 Trillion `09-`10 Fed. deficits, $300k Air Force One fly byes, $250k NYC date for the First Couple......the money spent for the Afghanistan War is truly chump change, besides, much of that money is multiplied back here in the US!
Posted by Happy at 07/12/2009 @ 9:48pm
A fallen hero from La Grange, TX....a town all long-time Houstonians have passed many times to points west (such as Austin & San Antonio) on I-10:
FORT DRUM, N.Y., July 11, 2009 -- A 10th Mountain Division soldier from Fort Drum was killed when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle in Afghanistan Thursday.
The Fort Drum soldier killed is Spc. Joshua R. Farris, 22, an infantryman, of La Grange, Texas, who deployed with the 3rd Brigade Combat Team in January in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. He served in 2nd Battalion, 87th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry).
Spc. Farris joined the Army in March 2006 and came to Fort Drum in June 2006. He is survived by his father, mother, and step-father.
Spc. Farris' awards and decorations include the Army Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Afghanistan Campaign Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon, the NATO Medal, and Combat Infantryman Badge.
Posted by Happy at 07/12/2009 @ 9:58pm
ilyakuryakin-You must be a masochist since you keep coming back on here in order to get sick.You can get help for that.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/12/2009 @ 10:46pm
"Where is the US nightly television (broadcast and cable) coverage of our servicepeople returning in coffins?"
You have got to be kidding me! KVH is supposedly a journalist and does not have a clue to the answer!
I'll make it easy for you! UNLESS the family of the American Serviceman is agreeable the policy is that NO film or photo coverage of the slain serviceman is allowed!!!! Even the Obmanation that makes desolation knows that which is a lot for an empty-suit of rhetoric!
Posted by BigPasture at 07/12/2009 @ 11:02pm
Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 07/12/2009 @ 10:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Credibility -ZERO
Pomposity -at least 3 atmospheres of air compression.
Posted by BigPasture at 07/12/2009 @ 11:05pm
Excellent and disturbing piece (and an opportunity to ignorify two more of these hate-filled f%@ks).
Would love more specificity on the prospect of "peace-keeping operations under international mandate". For example, Ms. vanden Heuvel, how could we (USA + Britain) morph into this peace-keeping formula via some face-saving mechanism? What areas, % of population, could be fairly fluidly and rapidly brought under this peace-keeping umbrella?
Maybe the Coalition could be "redeployed" / restricted to specific Taliban strongholds and adopted new mission guidelines in others, like clearing of mines.
~KABUL, 21 January 2008 (IRIN) - Landmines, unexploded ordnance (UXO) and abandoned explosive ordnance (AXO) killed 143 and wounded 438 people in different parts of Afghanistan in 2007
Just saying, there are very real impediments to the enlightened path. The default seems to be more of the same. There are the usual sticks in the mud - American/British machismo and arrogance, xenophobia. There are "defense" contracts", politics - the red meat crowd (albeit the less bloodthirsty steak n' kidney variant) . "Cut and run" almost sunk the democrats and therein this sort of hope.
There is the MSM narrative/bogeyman to uphold: "all ills are due to evildoers over there, not middle class-eviscerating corporations, big pharma, big oil, and certainly not the media, over here"
Pragmatics might call for some version of 'declare victory and re-deploy' on the heels of some sort of stakeholders summit, with Russia and China in the loop. Hillary, Biden, Gates, Karzai... Obama stays back because the whole thing's no big deal.
Posted by winyahn at 07/12/2009 @ 11:13pm
Posted by Happy at 07/12/2009 @ 9:48pm
Funny thing happened, to the lefties on the way, to Obama's Af/Pak war Happy. In their excitement they forgot, for six months, that they aren't supposed to enjoy a war. Not even a magic one.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/12/2009 @ 11:33pm
Excellent column, Katrina. Obama, despite his intelligence and knowledge seems to be a slow learner. I remember when he was campaigning, the only time people did not react strongly to his speeches was when he brought up his plans for Afghanistan.
I live in Canada, and they have become quite disillusioned with their role in Afghanistan and I hope that in the next year or two when their committment runs out they will withdraw.
I continually send comments to President Obama's White House website about this issue, and hope he gets a great deal of mail about his military plans
Recent comments after Bob Herbert's strong column in the N.Y.Times about Robert McNamara's role in Vietnam , came from many Vets of that war, all wondering how we can again repeat similar nightmares in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Thank you for your excellent column.
Posted by pvolkov at 07/12/2009 @ 11:46pm
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/12/2009 @ 11:33pm
Forgot to remind ourselves that the lefties were telling us that King George got sidetracked into Iraq when he should have concentrated on Afghanistan. They think we have short memories.
Notice Hitchens hit the nail on the head when he said Iranian contacts told him that the success GW had in bringing democracy to Iraq was an encouragement for democratic change in Iran.
So GW not only was the real agent of pro democracy change in the ME but also, dumb and all as he is, knew enough history to not embark on a wild goose chase in Afghanistan. Which just goes to show that the brightest lawyers don't always make the most competent C-I-Cs.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/12/2009 @ 11:53pm
lrjones-Bush did go on a wild goose chase in Afghanistan,but missed Osama and everyone else.Some Iranian contacts said?Is believing such reliable sources as "some unknown contacts"part of what Australians are taught?
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/12/2009 @ 11:59pm
"The whole fucking lot of you on this site make me sick."
~Ilya Kuryakin at 10:02pm
Interestingly, Ilya has had some pretty insightful observations buried amongst his typically vitriolic posts here at The Nation. It's really too bad that the good has gotten inundated by the bad.
For one prime example, many of the recent posts by Robert Dreyfuss concerning Iran and the so-called Green Revolution have been severely lacking a sense of balance in regard to the all too common and pervasive destabilizing acts of our own CIA. In cahoots with the U.S. foreign policy establishment --including the U.S. State Department-- the CIA has a tragically lengthy record of undermining democracies and installing and/or supporting the most iron fisted of regimes in a multitude of countries considered critical to U.S. "interests".
To cut to the quick, the lack of communication and thoughtfulness that we can all readily apprehend on the blogs at The Nation are ultimately a sad reflection of so much that can also be seen at "higher" levels as well --no need to mention the cesspool of Washington DC, and the so-called mainstream media.
Even The Nation itself --a site that proudly stakes its claim as a flagship of progressivism-- has proven, on some disturbing levels, to be in thrall to powerful monetary/political interests. One need look no further than the tragic lack of coverage of the DC AIPAC convention last year where nearly everyone of significance in Washington paid abject abeyance, including Barack Obama.
As one increasingly alarmed individual I find it daunting to even begin to outline the parameters of my concerns --I could recommend Carl Sagan's "Demon Haunted World" for starters, I suppose-- but I'll try another futile attempt here:
tinyurl.com/296sp3
Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/13/2009 @ 12:27am
Continued...
Excerpt:
The BBC began in 1922, just before the corporate press began in America. Its founder was Lord John Reith, who believed that impartiality and objectivity were the essence of professionalism. In the same year the British establishment was under siege. The unions had called a general strike and the Tories were terrified that a revolution was on the way. The new BBC came to their rescue. In high secrecy, Lord Reith wrote anti-union speeches for the Tory prime minister Stanley Baldwin and broadcast them to the nation, while refusing to allow the labor leaders to put out their side until the strike was over.
So, a pattern was set. Impartiality was a principle certainly: a principle to be suspended whenever the establishment was under threat. And that principle has been upheld ever since.
Take the invasion of Iraq. There are two studies of the BBC's reporting. One shows that the BBC gave just 2 percent of its coverage of Iraq to antiwar dissent--2 percent. That is less than the antiwar coverage of ABC, NBC, and CBS. A second study by the University of Wales shows that in the buildup to the invasion, 90 percent of the BBC's references to weapons of mass destruction suggested that Saddam Hussein actually possessed them, and that by clear implication Bush and Blair were right. We now know that the BBC and other British media were used by the British secret intelligence service MI6. In what they called Operation Mass Appeal, MI6 agents planted stories about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, such as weapons hidden in his palaces and in secret underground bunkers. All of these stories were fake. But that's not the point. The point is that the work of MI6 was unnecessary, because professional journalism on its own would have produced the same result.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/13/2009 @ 12:27am
Listen to the BBC's man in Washington, Matt Frei, shortly after the invasion. "There is no doubt," he told viewers in the UK and all over the world, "that the desire to bring good, to bring American values to the rest of the world, and especially now in the Middle East, is especially tied up with American military power." In 2005 the same reporter lauded the architect of the invasion, Paul Wolfowitz, as someone who "believes passionately in the power of democracy and grassroots development." That was before the little incident at the World Bank.
None of this is unusual. BBC news routinely describes the invasion as a miscalculation. Not illegal, not unprovoked, not based on lies, but a miscalculation. The words "mistake" and "blunder" are common BBC news currency, along with "failure"--which at least suggests that if the deliberate, calculated, unprovoked, illegal assault on defenseless Iraq had succeeded, that would have been just fine.
Whenever I hear these words I remember Edward Herman's marvelous essay about NORMALIZING THE UNTHINKABLE. For that's what media clichéd language does and is designed to do--it normalizes the unthinkable; of the degradation of war, of severed limbs, of maimed children, all of which I've seen.
One of my favorite stories about the Cold War concerns a group of Russian journalists who were touring the United States.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/13/2009 @ 12:27am
On the final day of their visit, they were asked by the host for their impressions. "I have to tell you," said the spokesman, "that we were astonished to find after reading all the newspapers and watching TV day after day that all the opinions on all the vital issues are the same. To get that result in our country we send journalists to the gulag. We even tear out their fingernails. Here you don't have to do any of that. What is the secret?"
What is the secret? It is a question seldom asked in newsrooms, in media colleges, in journalism journals, and yet the answer to that question is critical to the lives of millions of people. On August 24 last year the New York Times declared this in an editorial: "If we had known then what we know now the invasion of Iraq would have been stopped by a popular outcry." This amazing admission was saying, in effect, that journalists had betrayed the public by not doing their job and by accepting and amplifying and echoing the lies of Bush and his gang, instead of challenging them and exposing them. What the Times didn't say was that had that paper and the rest of the media exposed the lies, up to a million people might be alive today. That's the belief now of a number of senior establishment journalists. Few of them--they've spoken to me about it--few of them will say it in public.
End quote.
Here is the truth that all of us --including The Nation-- must work together to repeatedly "catapult" to the masses....
The TRUTH that will set us free is precisely the TARGET of the powers that be --i.e. the essence of our very existence can ultimately be distilled into an existential fight for what is true and what is just.
Here's hoping we get it right in the end.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/13/2009 @ 12:27am
Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/13/2009 @ 12:27am
Very interesting set of posts which on the surface of it indicate that Bush and Blair rather than lying were the dupes of totally inadequate intelligence agencies. The stuff on the BBC continues to give greater credibility to the claim that both were only following the premier intelligence available to them.
Despite that mistake the Iraq war was far more morally credible simply on the other grounds enumerated in the ILA 1998. In that context the existence or not of Saddam's WMD is almost irrelevant.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/13/2009 @ 02:05am
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/12/2009 @ 11:53pm |
Not pinching your stuff, which I previously noted, Rio but the Hitchen's article was in The Australian today:
"Toppling Saddam set an example for Iranian Rebellion"
Christopher Hitchens | July 13, 2009
http://tinyurl.com/krd5lr
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/13/2009 @ 02:15am
~lrjones4 at 02:05am
An odd take, Australian Jones. I'm actually trying to make a deeper point.
As sentient beings who have arrived at a critical juncture in our evolution, I think it's pretty obvious that our continued survival in the long term will depend on a critical mass of us arriving at the conclusion that a sort of intense level of cooperation will be requisite.
It's difficult to articulate what that might actually entail in explicit detail, but the fact seems inescapable that the answers will flesh out --most likely in the near term-- as to what the general outlines will require.
It's entirely possible, if not likely, that a period of extreme control --i.e. a form of fascism-- will be the natural turn of events as wealth and power dictate the trajectory of our human future. I suspect most of us would like to avoid that stage if at all possible.
As an Australian citizen, I would wager a guess that you probably at least sympathize with the ideas articulated in the Western tradition of liberty and human rights as central to anything worthy of a future that conjoins with your concept of dignity.
We'll see.
Probably sooner, rather than later I'd wager.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/13/2009 @ 02:39am
Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/13/2009 @ 02:39am
Don't personally have any trouble with those concepts but am aware that we may be in a minority amongst the 6.7 billion fellow world citizens wrt many of the policies that arise in the context of those values and concepts.
Whilst some of us may be amenable to reason there are others more into authoritarian solutions for the many problems our world is confronted with.
That gives a shoe in to the use of military solutions and all that goes with it, however in our present global community there is no reason why we should abandon our ideals or expect to be overwhelmed by governmental structures like fascism.
My position is that even if the left has no practical total governmental solutions it is a voice that is useful in formulating better policy outcomes and is helpful in identifying such things as incipient fascism.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/13/2009 @ 03:27am
"My position is that even if the left has no practical total governmental solutions..... "
~lrjones4 at 03:27am
Again, an odd take since "the left" is essentially a non-insignificant voice among the cacophony of voices that constitute our current political reality....like it or not.
How it eventually plays out remains to be seen, but you might be well advised to realize that your own ideals have been shaped by "the left" whether you care to acknowledge it or not.
Complexity rules.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/13/2009 @ 03:44am
One more for the road.....(perhaps off topic?)
As a science-educated thinker I find religious flailings about the "afterlife" as well as extraterrestrial hopes of salvation to be at least a bit trite, but I occasionally imbibe in a trifle of surrealism.
Hell. Why not?!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFXXQYPB8A0
Sound theory indicates that any intelligent life in the universe --if it exists-- is likely to be so far in advance of Homo sapiens that we would be incapable of any meaningful interaction. Frankly, the universe is 13.7 billion years old --as far as we can tell-- and humans have only arrived on Earth in the last several 10's of thousands of years.
Still, it doesn't exempt us from dreaming. Thus, we are free to "dream"....ideally, rationally --i.e. we need not hypothesize "aliens" to realize that the cosmos is far more bizarre than any of us can begin to comprehend...which allows plenty of room for hopeful speculation.
As far as I can tell.
;-)
Peace, out.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/13/2009 @ 03:47am
Lastly.
Cool photo for Nation reader's enjoyment:
apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap090713.html
Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/13/2009 @ 03:51am
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/13/2009 @ 02:15am |
Wow, LR....you mean Christopher Hitchens PROVED that...
Christopher Hitchens was right?!???!??
Posted by Mask at 07/13/2009 @ 07:46am
Rattled by the UK public opinion turn v. Afghan war, both PM Brown & Obama last weekend justified the war with the same argument ... to protect the UK & Europe from terrorism, we must wage war in Af/Pak. Obama in a special hastily arranged interview on Murdoch's Sky TV.
Not a mention anywhere of the pipeline long planned for passing through Afghanistan to a Pakistan port, and the need to "stabilize", i.e. control Afghanistan to ensure the pipeline remains under US control.
Before 9/11, Taliban leaders were brought to CA & TX by Chevron et al & courted. US govt reps made it very clear to the Taliban that it wanted the pipeline & either the Taliban agreed, and "we shower you with gold ... or we shower you with bombs." The Taliban declined, stating that Afghanis, not foreign oil & gas interests, would control Afghanistan, that a pipeline wasn't worth it.
So they've been showered with bombs for 7+ years & this will continue until no Afghanis effectively threaten the pipeline.
How many Brits/Yanks want to die for a pipeline?
How many Afghanis will the US/UK have to kill to ensure the pipeline? What will it cost?
The US, according to MacNamara, killed over 3 million Vietnamese, but could not break their independent spirit.
Remember the ARVN, the army the US trained & paid for to fight the war so American boys wouldn't have to fight? Counterinsurgency at its height.
Apparently too many in the Obama govt & its supporters have forgotten the fruits of counterinsurgency in VN. Even Rachel Maddow, on Charlie Rose, gushed 0ver the rich promise of victory that counterinsurgency now holds for the US.
But then Maddow is paid millions by General Electric & Microsoft, both of whom have the Pentagon has its largest single customer.
Posted by sloper at 07/13/2009 @ 08:35am
Posted by Mask at 07/13/2009 @ 07:46am
Not sure what your archives are telling you Mask but I think I suggested that Bush's democracy effort in Iraq probably had a salutary influence on the pro-democracy movement in Iran before Hitchens' went to press or at least before I read him today.
Nice to know that even a Commo like Hitchens can also see what is pretty obvious to this neo-con. I'm prepared to accept also that he is telling the truth about his Iranian clerical contact* who in fact provides all the evidence Hitchens needs to give his claim more credibility.
*" Which brings me to a question that I think deserves to be asked: did the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime, and the subsequent holding of competitive elections in which many rival Iraqi Shi'ite parties took part, have any germinal influence on the astonishing events in Iran? Certainly when I interviewed Sayeed Khomeini in Qum some years ago, where he spoke openly about "the liberation of Iraq", he seemed to hope and believe that the example would spread." (Hitchens)
It may not have occurred to you Mask but you are in much the same boat as Hitchens and me. We want to see Iraq succeed for much the same reasons viz because it suffered so abominably in terms of gross HR abuses under Saddam that it now deserves the benefits of democracy that others enjoy.
You obviously want to see it fail because you seem to hate the implication that Bush may have pulled off your much touted "impossible" task.
One could say our motives are noble and yours are base. Do you have a more credible excuse?
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/13/2009 @ 08:44am
lrjones-One can say that your motives are base and only want Iraq to succeed in order to say I was right making it about ego and not Iraq.The fact that you are patting yourself on the back and calling yourself noble suggests that it is about ego and not Iraqis.I would love to see them succeed,but would not be so ignorant as to give Bush credit because he ignored the military and their request for more troops and equipment and thought that you can win wars by fighting them on the cheap and his ignorance of history and the military has caused needless deaths and the war to drag on.He failed and it is up to the new POTUS and Iraqis to succeed or fail..
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/13/2009 @ 09:05am
The whole fucking lot of you on this site make me sick.
Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 07/12/2009 @ 10:02pm
That's ok...at least we (or most of us) have enough strength to stomach your posts.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/13/2009 @ 09:08am
It's Mon. morning & numerous right wingers are awakening, still swimming in the afterglow of dreams dripping with the heavy syrup ladled out by the spinmeisters of the previous day.
And these sheep of the group think have the balls to ascribe a belief in Big Brother to the left?
LR, Australian & the foremost advocate of Dubya's enduring legacy as a Bolivar of the Near East must have imported a container load of the sweet powdery stuff.
Posted by Sorelish at 07/13/2009 @ 09:20am
It's Mon. morning & numerous right wingers are awakening,
LR, Australian & the foremost advocate of Dubya's enduring legacy as a Bolivar of the Near East must have imported a container load of the sweet powdery stuff.
Posted by Sorelish at 07/13/2009 @ 09:20am
Sorelish it's the Middle East from our perspective and we are always a bit ahead of you so it is 12.47am Tuesday, which only goes to show geography is not your forte any more than foreign affairs is.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/13/2009 @ 09:47am
Posted by Sorelish at 07/13/2009 @ 09:20am |
I do get some guffaws out of LR's hypothesis that Iran's current state of affairs has more to do with envy of the destruction they see in (and once wished to perpetrate on) Iraq and not decades of theocratic rule.
I could be wrong, I suppose (Farsi isn't my native language), but I think I can still make out the strains of, "al-mawt al-Amrika", even from the 'waves of green'.
You'd think they'd know to wait for the 'shock and awe' before they started their 'revolution'...or at least had an analog to Che, before they got things underway.
Some types of delusion can be perniciously persistent.
Posted by snowball777 at 07/13/2009 @ 10:02am
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/13/2009 @ 09:47am
Should have stipulated, for you, it's always Mon. morning pal. But then you're always "occupied" with your perpetual dream of world order as prescribed by your heros, the American neo-cons.
Your membership badge is forthcoming from the man with half his brain tied behind his back. I assume you emulate your melon headed hero in your postings, it's quite apparent.
Posted by Sorelish at 07/13/2009 @ 10:06am
Posted by snowball777 at 07/13/2009 @ 10:02am
I think the 'waves of green' envisioned by LR would be the incineration of Iran's nuke facilities producing said effect.
Of course, this would lead in turn to a great popular uprising of the other green wave. Yeah, they're just waiting for shock & awe!
Posted by Sorelish at 07/13/2009 @ 10:29am
Oh, I know, Michael Jackson's demise is SOOOO much more important and "news worthy".
The whole fucking lot of you on this site make me sick.
Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 07/12/2009 @ 10:02pm
seems like you read the fucking great fucking article on the tomfuckingdispatch fucking site.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/13/2009 @ 10:57am
..the money spent for the Afghanistan War is truly chump change, BESIDES, MUCH OF THAT MONEY IS MULTIPLIED BACK HERE IN THE US!
Posted by Happy at 07/12/2009 @ 9:48pm
that is just sick, happy.
good luck.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/13/2009 @ 10:58am
"Where is the US nightly television (broadcast and cable) coverage of our servicepeople returning in coffins?"
•• watch canadian t.v........
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/13/2009 @ 11:00am
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/13/2009 @ 08:44am
How about ...
You're scrambling for ANYTHING to prove that your philosophy was right, so you can try to wash the blood of 4100+ American soldiers off your hands?
Just another theory.
Posted by Mask at 07/13/2009 @ 11:22am
Posted by Mask at 07/13/2009 @ 11:22am
perhaps mr. jones should look at the results of his warmongrelling:
Tenth Australian soldier killed in Afghanistan 19 March 2009 | 10:07:43 PM | Source: Bryony Jones, SBS
Two Australian soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan in less than a week.
Another Australian soldier has been killed in Afghanistan, just days after the death of Corporal Mathew Hopkins in Oruzgan province.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/13/2009 @ 11:28am
for ILYA:
Why the #$%! Do We Swear? For Pain Relief
Dropping the F-bomb or other expletives may not only be an expression of agony, but also a means to alleviate it
By Frederik Joelving
Bad language could be good for you, a new study shows. For the first time, psychologists have found that swearing may serve an important function in relieving pain.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-do-we-swear
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/13/2009 @ 11:46am
How about ...
You're scrambling for ANYTHING to prove that your philosophy was right, so you can try to wash the blood of 4100+ American soldiers off your hands?
Just another theory.
Posted by Mask at 07/13/2009 @ 11:22am
All those deaths pale into insignificance against the number of US soldiers who died in the Pacific in WW2 which amongst other things saved Australia from Japanese invasion. That was before my time but the idea of their blood being on anyone's hands is certainly not the way most Australians nor I think of it. Our response is one of great gratitude to those Americans as well as Australians who gave their lives for our freedom and welfare.
The same applies to all the soldiers who died in Iraq. These were all brave men and women who gave their lives in a cause they believed in. And which the growing evidence now tells us was not in vain.
I'm not asking you to consider a "theory" but merely to look at the very positive results that are becoming increasingly evident in Iraq and the wider ME. That is the problem you, I suggest, will increasingly have to deal with as the realisation of the democratising goals of that war are progressively achieved.
(I'm not so confident about the success or value of continuing the war in Afghanistan).
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/13/2009 @ 11:59am
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/13/2009 @ 11:59am
Ahhh, the old stand-by....a "War on Terror is just like World War-II" analogy.
Except for the draft, the higher taxes, the going after an enemy that ACTUALLY ATTACKED us or declared war on us (and actually WAS in possession of rockets and WMDs and had conquered half a continent).
Just like WW-2, Jones.
So, back to our original discussion, does that mean that "establishing democracy in Japan in 1945"...
led to a blossoming of democracy throughout Asia?!??!?!?
Or does "WW-2" only work on SOME things....like casualty figures.
Posted by Mask at 07/13/2009 @ 12:28pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/13/2009 @ 11:28am
I guess it's easier to be a neo-con in Australia...
when somebody ELSE is doing 99% of the expense, the fighting, and the DYING....huh?
Posted by Mask at 07/13/2009 @ 12:30pm
'Villard became the editor and owner of The Nation upon his father's death in 1918. Over the years, however, Villard's politics gradually shifted toward the right. He sold The Nation in 1935 and would strongly disagree with the magazine's subsequent support for foreign intervention.' -- Jeff Kisseloff -- The Nation -- 2 July, 2009 -- http://www.th enation.com/blogs/fro m_the_archive/448272/ties_th at_bind_the_nation_and_t he_naacp
Posted by HonestLiberal at 07/13/2009 @ 12:31pm
Most likely sooner or later the British will tackle the question of the perosn who said the US was sexing up the intelligence for the war with Iraq and his suicide soon after and what all that means relative to their involvement.
Then we will have to face the statement of VP Cheney that he knew Iraq had WMD's and where they were.
As for Afghanistan, the British know better than us that it is a futile effort to achieve a military solution there and what is means for lives to be wasted in the process.
Posted by wildthing at 07/13/2009 @ 12:36pm
Bad language could be good for you, a new study shows. For the first time, psychologists have found that swearing may serve an important function in relieving pain.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-do-we-swear
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/13/2009 @ 11:46am
Nonsense. Vulgarity is used by those who either lack the class or communication skills to effectively communicate with others, or by juvenile people. It's the classic tool of the 6th grade mind.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/13/2009 @ 12:42pm
What we need to do is pull the plug on Israel. No money, no missiles, no more neocon lies and no more crap from the satanic zionistas running our filthy media. That may be a lot easier said than done, since the satanists seem to have Obama (and Congress) by the short ones.
Posted by DejaVu at 07/13/2009 @ 12:48pm
The number of troops suggested for Afghan troops to secure their country,was roughly the same as Shinseki figured for securing Iraq using U.S. troops at the beginning of that conflict. I opposed the Iraqi War, but, from a military viewpoint, both troop estimates are not unreasonable considering the size of those countries. In order for Iraq
Posted by pjcasey at 07/13/2009 @ 1:05pm
The number of troops suggested for Afghan troops to secure their country,was roughly the same as Shinseki figured for securing Iraq using U.S. troops at the beginning of that conflict. I opposed the Iraqi War, but, from a military viewpoint, both troop estimates are not unreasonable considering the size of those countries. In order for Iraq and Afghanistan to defend their respective countries, this would be a "normal" size for their national army! There is no development without security!
Posted by pjcasey at 07/13/2009 @ 1:08pm
Why should anyone in the US care what polls in England say about Afghanistan?
We are not (at least we hope Obama is not) making our national security decisions based upon polls in England or any other country.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/13/2009 @ 1:11pm
Posted by antisocialist at 07/13/2009 @ 1:11pm
Just keep trusting Obama, Larry.
"Because when it comes to National Security, I believe every president, Democrat or Republican acts to preserve the Nation.
Bush, Obama, Clinton, or whomever, will take action to preserve our safety and the Union. And I don't need to know how they do it. I just want to know they will."----Posted by antisocialist at 04/20/2009 @ 10:07pm
Whitewashing Torture In Front of the CIA posted by Christopher Hayes on 04/20/2009 @ 3:13pm
Posted by Mask at 07/13/2009 @ 1:46pm
Just keep trusting Obama, Larry.
Posted by Mask at 07/13/2009 @ 1:46pm
Are you suggesting Mask that I should not trust Obama? Just want to be clear on your view here.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/13/2009 @ 2:20pm
Posted by antisocialist at 07/13/2009 @ 2:20pm
Oh, come Larry, you know what I'm suggesting...
that though you can't come out and say it OVERTLY...
on any foreign policy matter on this blog, you'll "subtlely" contradict what you said about Obama and "tak(ing) action to preserve our safety and the Union."
You HAVE to. Something's gotta give. Either your "Leftists want to cripple our defenses...and Obama's a leftist"....or your Presidential subserviance streak.
Both cannot exist forever...it's a quantum physics impossibilty.
Now...here's what you do next...TRY to claim BOTH are true....come on, I know you can do it. (Well, not "do it"...but TRY to do it...heheh)
Posted by Mask at 07/13/2009 @ 3:03pm
ilyakuryakin-You must be a masochist since you keep coming back on here in order to get sick.You can get help for that.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/12/2009 @ 10:46pm | ignore this person | warn this person
What's interesting is how much he has in common with our neocon friends in that regard.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/13/2009 @ 3:16pm
Why the United States military is still in Afghanistan is a question that should be "hotly" debated in Congresss.
We apparently entered Afghanistan with our military forces to capture Bin Laden, which we botched.
There is no reason why we should continue our military presence in Afghanistan--the history of the country apparently reflects the insurgency of one rebel group after another.
The real reason why we are in Afghanistan is probably closely related to the "real" reason we invaded Iraq.
Augusta
Posted by mraymo5 at 07/13/2009 @ 4:37pm
http://www.rawa.org/gallery.html
Don't click the above if you want to believe the only solution in Afghanistan is EITHER war or withdrawal.
If anyone has more details on a CONSTRUCTIVE blend of carrots/sticks, a la the 'COIN strategy calls for a ratio of 80 percent political and 20 percent military' and implementation on a non-NATO peacekeeping force, please provide.
Posted by winyahn at 07/13/2009 @ 5:20pm
Posted by antisocialist at 07/13/2009 @ 1:11pm |
Because our marines will be picking up the slack in Lashkar Gah, if and when they bolt.
We need all the help we can keep.
Posted by snowball777 at 07/13/2009 @ 5:32pm
Posted by antisocialist at 07/13/2009 @ 12:42pm |
Pish tosh! I'll bet dollars to donuts that you swear when you nail your thumb with a hammer.
I was joking with our OB/GYN during my wife's delivery that their 0-10 "pain scale" should be modified to use a variety of increasingly vulgar invectives, since that's what many of the women having contractions seemed to prefer when describing them.
Posted by snowball777 at 07/13/2009 @ 5:42pm
Posted by antisocialist at 07/13/2009 @ 12:42pm |
Pish tosh! I'll bet dollars to donuts that you swear when you nail your thumb with a hammer.
I was joking with our OB/GYN during my wife's delivery that their 0-10 "pain scale" should be modified to use a variety of increasingly vulgar invectives, since that's what many of the women having contractions seemed to prefer when describing them.
Posted by snowball777 at 07/13/2009 @ 5:42pm
I'm a human being and imperfect so there is no way I could deny having ever cursed in a situation like you gave. but that is something entirely different than the overall vulgarization of language that takes place today in society.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/13/2009 @ 6:37pm
Why the United States military is still in Afghanistan is a question that should be "hotly" debated in Congresss.
We apparently entered Afghanistan with our military forces to capture Bin Laden, which we botched.
There is no reason why we should continue our military presence in Afghanistan--the history of the country apparently reflects the insurgency of one rebel group after another.
The real reason why we are in Afghanistan is probably closely related to the "real" reason we invaded Iraq.
Augusta
Posted by mraymo5 at 07/13/2009 @ 4:37pm
I think if you check you will find the reason that Afghanistan was invaded was primarily to remove al Qaeda from the sanctuary it enjoyed under the Taliban in that country. Bin Laden was just part of the al Qaeda leadership group camping out there.
It pains me to say it but you Americans are so slow on the uptake that one needs to continually remind you that part of the very real reason that you invaded Iraq was because the removal of Saddam's brutal regime had been official US policy since Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.
It seems to me that once the major fight against al Qaeda moved from Afghanistan to Iraq that it was time to get out of Afghanistan. The only rationale for staying in that backward country now is to help bring it into the 21st century. If you have the inclination to do that then that is commendable but is fairly likely in terms of Afghan's history to be a futile exercise.
Pakistan can probably handle its own share of Taliban style insurgents without much help from the US or anyone else.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/13/2009 @ 7:18pm
#
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/13/2009 @ 11:59am
Ahhh, the old stand-by....a "War on Terror is just like World War-II" analogy.
Except for the draft, the higher taxes, the going after an enemy that ACTUALLY ATTACKED us or declared war on us (and actually WAS in possession of rockets and WMDs and had conquered half a continent).
Just like WW-2, Jones.
So, back to our original discussion, does that mean that "establishing democracy in Japan in 1945"...
led to a blossoming of democracy throughout Asia?!??!?!?
Or does "WW-2" only work on SOME things....like casualty figures.
Posted by Mask at 07/13/2009 @ 12:28pm | ignore this person | warn this person #
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/13/2009 @ 11:28am
I guess it's easier to be a neo-con in Australia...
when somebody ELSE is doing 99% of the expense, the fighting, and the DYING....huh?
Posted by Mask at 07/13/2009 @ 12:30pm
War on Terror? Perhaps war on terrorists Mask?
How about war on a dictator who, it is sometimes claimed, rivalled that other one who ran Germany for a while? Thus I think you will discover, if you really try, that Iraq is just another old fashioned war in both its phases viz "shock and awe" and counterinsurgency.
The successful democratisation of Japan has been of profound significance as an example of America, the good guy, not only in Asia but around the world. That gives us greater hope you will repeat that accomplishment in the ME beginning in Iraq (and say by that example in Iran).
I'm pretty sure none of your blood has been spilled Mask and you just happen to be on the wrong side of American history in a sort of irrelevant way, not only during Georges' reign but in the continuing shedding of American blood by President Obama in a different theatre of war.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/13/2009 @ 7:39pm
How about war on a dictator who, it is sometimes claimed, rivalled that other one who ran Germany for a while?
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/13/2009 @ 7:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person
That other one? The one that overran the Soviet Union, Western Europe and North Africa all at once?
You've committed the sin of "apples and oranges" comparison, like many of our neocon posters here.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/13/2009 @ 8:48pm
Whoops. Forgot the Balkans, Czechoslovakia, Poland, etc. etc.
Yeah, Saddam's just like that guy.
LOL
Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/13/2009 @ 8:50pm
Criticism of Afghan War is on Rise in Britain posted by Katrina vanden Heuvel on 07/12/2009 @ 9:30pm
The essay you reference: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n13/stew01_.html is certainly everything you state.
Rory Stewart spends most of his energy unpacking and demonstrating the errors of ALL conventional mindsets on the matter (left, right, etc.)
Eventually he sets out some of his own recommendations:
- resolve to take a tortoise, not hare approach,"over 30 years, encourage the more positive trends in Afghan society and help to contain the more negative"
- "reduce the number of foreign troops from the current level of 90,000 to far fewer – perhaps 20,000"
- no nation-building, zip, zero, nada
- consider less ambitious, and more protracted use of special forces to manage al-Qaida
- provide generous development assistance for electricity, water, irrigation, health, education, agriculture, rural development, per wisdom of knowledgeable aid agencies
---------------------------------------------------------------
I love it. This is a "true conservative" (albeit skeleton) plan. To my thinking, this is precisely what the wise and powerful nations of the world should be doing via the U.N. The USA should be a leader in this. And these same general principles and approaches should inform involvement in numerous other places of oppression and suffering to include Haiti and the Congo and Burma.
Posted by winyahn at 07/13/2009 @ 10:21pm
"I also make it a point to post in a manner consistent with my personal speech which never includes foul language."
Posted by antisocialist at 07/09/2009 @ 12:34pm
"I'm a human being and imperfect so there is no way I could deny having ever cursed in a situation like you gave."
Posted by antisocialist at 07/13/2009 @ 6:37pm
That is a much better statement than "never" lvliberty1.
Not perfectly accurate, but better.
Posted by Benchrest at 07/13/2009 @ 10:55pm
"That other one? The one that overran the Soviet Union, Western Europe and North Africa all at once?'
You've committed the sin of "apples and oranges" comparison, like many of our neocon posters here.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/13/2009 @ 8:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person #
"Whoops. Forgot the Balkans, Czechoslovakia, Poland, etc. etc."
Yeah, Saddam's just like that guy.
LOL
Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/13/2009 @ 8:50pm
Well Herr Schnellerheinz you do have a sense of humour even it is a Teutonic one. Do I detect a little bit of pride (say of the Prussian militaristic variety)?
It was not the sometimes brilliant military campaigns of the Wehrmacht that made Hitler such an obnoxious dictator but rather the cold callous ways in which he eliminated Jews, gypsies, the mentally feeble and homosexuals etc in places like gas chambers.
Then of course you would be familiar with the little tricks the Waffen-SS got up to sometimes following and sometimes preceding the regular German Army into Eastern Europe and carrying out all sorts of barbaric activities in their ethnic cleaning frenzies.
Now this is where we can compare apples with apples. Won't bore you with the details, which you can readily google up. For example, you must be aware of Saddam's gassing campaigns in places like Anfal and Halabja. But no German precision engineered gas chambers for Saddam. He just gassed them where they were in their homes and streets and in the fields, which come to think of it, is what the SS did to large numbers of Jews etc also in fields in Eastern Europe and Russia but instead of with a cocktail of poisonous gases, with machine guns.
Get the drift. It is in this sphere of unutterable cruelty that these two quite evil dictators bear legitimate comparison.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/14/2009 @ 03:14am
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/13/2009 @ 7:39pm
If you'll remember (so long ago), JONES, your original neo-con premise was on how "establishing democracy in Iraq" was leading to the Iranian movements.
Yet your "Japan in 1945" analogy doesn't bear that out, does it? Did China flip to a democracy? Tianamen Square occured DECADES after MacArthur set up the Japanese government we know today.
Was democracy in Japan a good thing? Sure. But note it didn't lead to a weak government, led by theocracy sympathizers who had friendly relations with a nearby oppressive regime....
Iraq does.
Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 07:59am
If you'll remember (so long ago), JONES, your original neo-con premise was on how "establishing democracy in Iraq" was leading to the Iranian movements.
Yet your "Japan in 1945" analogy doesn't bear that out, does it? Did China flip to a democracy? Tianamen Square occured DECADES after MacArthur set up the Japanese government we know today.
Was democracy in Japan a good thing? Sure. But note it didn't lead to a weak government, led by theocracy sympathizers who had friendly relations with a nearby oppressive regime....
Iraq does.
Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 07:59am
Not sure how long ago you mean Mask but my thinking was more along the lines of a positive influence on pro-democracy Iranians, which was what Hitchens also said not so long ago, rather than being a catalyst for the formation of Iranian democracy movements as you seem to imply.
I think your archives will show that I have never bought your argument that being part of an Iraqi Shia grouping makes such Iraqis closer to Iranians, and their perspectives and hence supporters of Iranian foreign or any other policy, than to say Iraq Sunnis. All the evidence points to Iraqi nationalism trumping transnational Shi'ism.
The problem with Iran at present is not so much its dominant Shia religion but it's authoritarian less than democratic government. Sistani, who in fact is an Iranian, said the following:
The Shiite Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in 2007 made two very critical statements: that "I am a servant of all Iraqis, there is no difference between a Sunni, a Shiite or a Kurd or a Christian," and that Islam can exist within a democracy without theological conflict."
That is in conflict with the current ideology of Iran's ruling clique but in line with Iran's Ayatollah Rafsajani's efforts for change.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/14/2009 @ 09:03am
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/14/2009 @ 09:03am
Oh? Who did President al-Maliki have over for tea on March 3rd, 2008?
Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 09:08am
Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 07:59am
Then there is this quote from Sistani:
The delegation of the Sunni Association of Muslim Scholars and the Sunni endowment met Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in an effort to unify the Iraqi people.
Al-Sistani said Shia and Sunni were ‘united under one Kaaba, prayers and fasting'
Al-Sistani, the highest Shia authority in Iraq, called on Shia Muslims to defend the political and social rights of the Sunnis before defending their own rights.
"I am a servant of all Iraqis … I love everyone as religion is love … I wonder how enemies could split between Islamic sects", the statement said quoting al-Sistani.
"These meetings between the Shia and Sunni scholars are important and useful as there are no real differences between Shias and Sunnis, yet there are philological differences that exist even inside the same sect."
So you see Mask you really are barking up the wrong tree.
Here's a not unlikely Iraq/Iran scenario to stick in your archives gratis: "Sistani instrumental in the formation of a new liberal democratic Iran".
Mask that sort of influence should get you on the right side of history.
The example of Japan will no doubt eventually have an effect on the democratisation process in China which is likely to be inevitable over time, particularly if China allows its citizens to be influenced by the outside world. It has a long way to go but as it interacts with democratic nations those democratising pressures will grow.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/14/2009 @ 09:20am
JONES...
Who did President al-Maliki have over for tea on March 3rd, 2008?
Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 09:08am
Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 09:39am
All the evidence points to Iraqi nationalism trumping transnational Shi'ism.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/14/2009 @ 09:03am | ignore this person | warn this person
Really? You think that Shia are going to let this opportunity to expand westward go?
Posted by OneVote at 07/14/2009 @ 10:52am
'A significant practice of Shia Islam is that of visiting the shrines of Imams both in Iraq and in Iran. These include the tomb of Imam Ali in An Najaf and that of his son Imam Husayn in Karbala since both are considered major Shia martyrs. Before the 1980 Iran-Iraq War, tens of thousands went each year. The Iranians made it a central aim of their war effort to wrest these holy cities from the Iraqis. Other principal pilgrimage sites in Iraq are the tombs of the Seventh and Ninth Imams at Kazimayn, near Baghdad, and in Iran, the tomb of the Eighth Imam in Mashhad and that of his sister in Qom. Such pilgrimages originated in part from the difficulty and expense in the early days of making the hajj to Mecca.'
Source: GlobalSecurity.org
Posted by OneVote at 07/14/2009 @ 10:59am
Vulgarity is used by those who either lack the class or communication skills to effectively communicate with others, or by juvenile people. It's the classic tool of the 6th grade mind.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/13/2009 @ 12:42pm
fucking right.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/14/2009 @ 11:00am
Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 07/14/2009 @ 10:37am
"I'm not an anti-Semite....and let me tell you about all these JEWS here at 'The Nation' and how rotten they are!"
MARKCANYON maybe??!??!??
Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 11:44am
MARKCANYON maybe??!??!??
Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 11:44am
Jeez, even that neo-nazi skinheaded jerk didn't cuss this much.
Maybe it's him on crack.
Posted by Benchrest at 07/14/2009 @ 11:50am
Posted by Benchrest at 07/14/2009 @ 11:50am
Larry thinks it might be CHIMI....which sounds close, but The Changa wasn't as big an anti-Semite as I recall.
Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 12:54pm
KvH references a "brilliant" piece, which calls for a 30 year commitment to Afghanistan --- and there's no reaction here?
I'm on record as FOR this, as it's described. So, it seems, is KvH given her enthusiasm for this article and the fact that this is a central tenet therein.
30 years seems pretty arbitrary. Sort of a number which signifies much, much longer than Iraq and all the shock value associated with this. But also a number which suggests he's not flavoring his suggested approach as chronic, endlessly open-ended -- but maybe this holding back is just so as to not be compared to McCain's quantitative (100 year) comment despite all the qualitative differences.
Posted by winyahn at 07/14/2009 @ 12:58pm
Larry thinks it might be CHIMI....which sounds close, but The Changa wasn't as big an anti-Semite as I recall.
Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 12:54pm
That's true. Maybe they're cousins?
Posted by antisocialist at 07/14/2009 @ 1:57pm
Posted by winyahn at 07/14/2009 @ 12:58pm
I think she's fine with a 30 year commitment of ...foreign aid, winy.
Which ain't happenin' either.
Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 2:20pm
Thank you Katrina!!
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/14/2009 @ 3:51pm
Posted by antisocialist at 07/13/2009 @ 6:37pm |
True enough, but the article linked by Frosty was about the ability for swearing to tickle the amygdala in such a way as to ameliorate pain.
It was this context that I was attempting to reassert in calling you out.
As for society and its vulgarization, I can think of several things to which I would much rather my son was not exposed...violence, racism (in whatever flowery language it may be applied), and greed for starters.
Communication is difficult enough without language being hobbled by the constraints of censorship.
Anyone care to place a bet on whether Ilya suffers from Tourette's?
Posted by snowball777 at 07/14/2009 @ 4:29pm
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/14/2009 @ 03:14am |
Jones, don't you remember that the Hitlerian crimes you attribute to Saddam all occurred with our tacit approval and explicit assistance?
Even if you don't, the people of Iraq and Iran most certainly do.
Posted by snowball777 at 07/14/2009 @ 4:38pm
Even if you don't, the people of Iraq and Iran most certainly do.
Posted by snowball777 at 07/14/2009 @ 4:38pm | ignore this person | warn this person
A "funny" road to democracy.
Senator Graham in rare form during confirmation hearing today of Sotomayor - talking about terrorists on the one hand, and women's rights in far off places on the other.
'Let's talk about the wise Latino comment, yet again. And the only reason I want to talk about it yet again is that I think what you said -- let me just put my vices on the table here. One of the things that I constantly say when I talk about the war on terror is that one of the missing ingredients in the Mid-East is the rule of law that Senator Schumer talked about. That the hope for the Mid-East, Iraq and Afghanistan is that there'll be a courtroom one day that if you find yourself in that court, it would be about what you allegedly did, not who you are.
It won't be about whether you're a Sunni, Shia, a Kurd or a Pashtun, it will be about what you did. And that's the hope of the world, really, that our legal system, even though we fail at times, will spread. And I hope one day that there will be more women serving in elected office and judicial offices in the Mid-East because I can tell you this, from my point of view. One of the biggest problems in Iraq and Afghanistan is the mother's voice is seldom heard about the fate of her children.
And if you wanted to change Iraq, apply the rule of law and have more women involved and having a say about Iraq. And I believe that about Afghanistan. And I think that's true here.'
Excerpt: Graham 'speech' during confirmation hearing questions........
What is this boy getting at? In order to bring the rule of law you've got to break a few right?
Posted by OneVote at 07/14/2009 @ 6:25pm
Larry thinks it might be CHIMI....which sounds close, but The Changa wasn't as big an anti-Semite as I recall.
Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 12:54pm
That's true. Maybe they're cousins?
Posted by antisocialist at 07/14/2009 @ 1:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Mighty strange behavior from a coupla of guys who take some serious umbrage at the loose use of the term "racist."
Posted by OneVote at 07/14/2009 @ 6:48pm
Afghanistan is Obama's war. Even before 2003 he declared, Iraq the wrong war, Afghanistan the right war. He persisted in that opinion and featured it in his campaign. He insisted Bush had failed in Afghanistan, had made it secondary, was only paying lip service to fighting the Taliban, did not care about that theater, but he, Obama, would make it his primary military focus.
It is true that Bush did not consider winning in Afghanistan, vital; Bush wanted to do the least possible there, just to train and equip an indigenous force and then walk away. Obama pushed him in the other direction.
Now he is stuck with that rhetoric and judgment, that politics and policy. Now Afghanistan is his the way Iraq was Bush's war. One difference: it was important to fight and win in Iraq. The US has vital interests in that region. Losing or walking away would have been catastrophic. In Afghanistan however we have no serious national interests. It is not strategic. It has no raw materials, not even a pipeline. Whether al Qaeda has an HQ in Afghanistan or Pakistan,Somalia, Yemen, Mauritania, etc., does not affect US security.. There is nothing there worth our blood and treasure. For humanitarian work, Darfur, the Congo, Somalia are more desperate places.
In short, Obama's politics have us in Afghanistan. Incidentally, Afghanistan as the right war versus Iraq, the wrong war, was the position of the entire Left, including The Nation. The Left hasn't abjured it. Even this Katrina post doesn't offers a mia culpa. It doesn't explain why she is now against this war. That its relatively trivial costs are impeding our economic recovery is ridiculous. Let us hear why The Nation no longer thinks Afghanistan is the right war. Incidentally, will it concede that Iraq was the right war?
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 07/14/2009 @ 6:48pm
Jones, don't you remember that the Hitlerian crimes you attribute to Saddam all occurred with our tacit approval and explicit assistance?
Even if you don't, the people of Iraq and Iran most certainly do.
Posted by snowball777 at 07/14/2009 @ 4:38pm
Not quite right 21. Your mob started getting very jittery through the 1990s about supporting such a gross HR abuser as Saddam. You read the ILA1998 and all the prior Senate Committees etc that led to that legislation.
None of that would have been lost on the people of Iraq and Iran.
Then there has been the trials of the perpetrators of those "Hitlerian" crimes, not the least being Saddam himself, published across the ME.
I guess last impressions are the ones that linger, even in the minds of Iranians and Iraqis and I'm sure they knew Saddam hung from the gallows only after being convicted, of "Hitlarian" HR abuses/war crimes, by an Iraq court in a fair legal trial, courtesy of the US. ( sort of Mission Accomplished- again ref ILA 1998).
Your are not only behind on points 21 but flat on the canvas, along with Mask. But at least you've got guts.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/14/2009 @ 6:54pm
Let us hear why The Nation no longer thinks Afghanistan is the right war. Incidentally, will it concede that Iraq was the right war?
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 07/14/2009 @ 6:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Ah Hugo - I think you are confusing support for Obama and support for the war in Afghanistan. Seems like The Nation has been arguing against increased military involvement at least since it became more clear about what Obama's intentions were. So - you support every thing George Bush did, or is it conditional love? Bush turned down Israel's request to attack Iran last September. You support Bush's decision right? Bush moved to open channels of communication with Iran (diplomacy) before he left office. You support that decision right?
Posted by OneVote at 07/14/2009 @ 6:56pm
Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 2:20pm
I would bet you could show that in one form or another innumerable countries receive uninterrupted 'foreign aid', stretching across decades and across dem and rep administrations. In addition to more direct forms, like USAID, aid finds its way from the US to these countries via the UN, IMF, World Bank. And I'm sure there are tons of indirect and hybrid mechanisms, NGO's get tax breaks and grants.
Private as opposed to govt aide is reportedly the larger segment - much of which renders the giver with a tax benefit. So-called private aid probably doesn't change drastically across decades...
"Of the $122.8 billion of foreign aid provided by Americans in 2005 (the most current data available), $95.5 billion, or 79 percent, came from private foundations, corporations, voluntary organizations, universities, religious organizations and individuals, says the annual Index of Global Philanthropy." america.gov
The article essentially makes the argument that the many ways both sides fashion the US' involvement in Afghanistan is dishonest and irrational. That it's better not just to accept that long-term involvement exists already or is inevitable, but to proactively design our aide as such - to design a decades long policy, around the objectives noted.
Posted by winyahn at 07/14/2009 @ 7:03pm
Really? You think that Shia are going to let this opportunity to expand westward go?
Posted by OneVote at 07/14/2009 @ 10:52am
Yes.
Because Iraqi nationalism is a stronger bond than politicised religion and what we are seeing in Iran is the exercise of political power that is not consistent with the principles of Shi'ism.
(Do a bit of reading on the Shia as well as meditate a bit on Sistani's comments and you may begin to see how foolish that proposition is. Shia hold to some sort of limited separation of church and state.
In Western terms. The Sunni are like Protestants with their logical adherence to the their scriptures whereas the Shia are more your common garden variety Roman Catholics with greater reliance on tradition combined with the embrace of syncretistic practices. (Notice how they both like a bit of physical flagellation and public displays of religiosity).
The criticism of Shi'ism by Sunnis parallels Protestant criticism the RC religion.
The fact that in the West there is now more an understanding that basically Ps & RCs are more or less in the same game is what Sistani and other Shia and Sunni leaders are promoting).
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/14/2009 @ 7:32pm
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/14/2009 @ 7:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Well, perhaps you may be proved right - ultimately. The sectarian bloodshed and a long history of animosity is the wrench in the works of your nationalist argument, but I think there is a point where coalition is possible, not only for rising nationalism, but for an escape from misery, fear and death. I guess this is the point where it is up Iraqis. Let us hope that Iraqi nationalism prevails over Iranian Shia provocations. There are cross border affiliations, including familial, that will not make this an easy choice for many.
Posted by OneVote at 07/14/2009 @ 8:28pm
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/14/2009 @ 03:14am |
Jones, don't you remember that the Hitlerian crimes you attribute to Saddam all occurred with our tacit approval and explicit assistance?
Even if you don't, the people of Iraq and Iran most certainly do.
Posted by snowball777 at 07/14/2009 @ 4:38pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Assistance, hell, we armed the guy to the teeth. Saddam didn't exactly get the Versailles treatment, did he?
Yup, another Hitler parallel all right.
LOL
Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/14/2009 @ 8:38pm
Yup, another Hitler parallel all right.
LOL
Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/14/2009 @ 8:38pm
Love your stuff Schnellie but you're not even in the ring yet. Would you mind fanning that towel near 21's breathing apparatus. He's been down past the count a bit long for my liking.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/14/2009 @ 9:03pm
OneVote @ 6:56pm said:
>>> Ah Hugo - I think you are confusing support for Obama and support for the war in Afghanistan. Seems like The Nation has been arguing against increased military involvement at least since it became more clear about what Obama's intentions were. <<<
I am not hanging the Afghan war on The Nation because it supported Obama.
I am recalling the The Nations' position, that Iraq was a mistake and that we should be focusing on nailing OBL and consolidating our Afghan position. Such was its consistent tune on and after 2002, and of its stable of writers including Nichols, Cole, Cockburn.
Obama returned to that notion during the campaign especially as the Surge was succeeding and he needed to make tough sounds. The Left and The Nation supported that, never distanced themselves from it, never said they disagreed about Afghanistan.
>>> So - you support every thing George Bush did, or is it conditional love?<<<
I opposed Bush's nomination in 2000, criticized the way money was being shoved into his pockets, and how that silver spoon in his mouth kept him from uttering an articulate sentence. I opposed his nomination in 2004 but was delighted to see him beat John Kerry, that epitome of deceit and hypocrisy defeated. I certainly supported Bush on Iraq.
>>> Bush turned down Israel's request to attack Iran last September... Bush moved to open channels of communication with Iran (diplomacy) before he left office. You support that decision right?<<<
Bush was in no position to support an attack on Iran; and he already sought contacts with Iran in 2007. Then Rice sat down next to Iran's foreign minister at a conference in Egypt, but he rose and left the room claiming a female violinist was immodestly dressed.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 07/14/2009 @ 9:09pm
I certainly supported Bush on Iraq.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 07/14/2009 @ 9:09pm |
"Out, damned spot! out, I say!--One: two: why, then, 'tis time to do't.--Hell is murky!--Fie, my lord, fie! a soldier, and afeard? What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our power to account?--Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much blood in him."
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/14/2009 @ 9:36pm
A little humor from some other blog.....to put a mild break in the `war talk' here:
Posted by Skyler on 07/14 at 09:46 PM:
One of the stranger phenomena is how everyone parrots that his wife is attractive. Not entirely ugly, yes. Glamorous? Not even close. But that's what everyone says, so if it's repeated enough I guess it becomes true.
It's kind of like how people say Obama is good looking. The only public figure I know of with skinnier arms than Obama is his wife. He's not very athletic, but people keep saying he is. People talk of him throwing a basketball around in Iraq, but I saw no pictures. The only examples I've seen of his physical prowess is his bowling score and watching him throw a baseball like a girl this week.
But people keep saying these things so they must be true. Next Phyllis Diller will be on the cover of Playboy.
Posted by Happy at 07/14/2009 @ 11:25pm
Posted by Happy at 07/14/2009 @ 11:25pm
And a mollyduker too happy. Looks like he needs a new pair of daks. Don't you pay your pressies?
http://tinyurl.com/lv7r7c
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/15/2009 @ 06:27am
"Your are not only behind on points 21 but flat on the canvas, along with Mask. But at least you've got guts."----Posted by lrjones4 at 07/14/2009 @ 6:54pm
I love when people declare themselves the winner of a blog debate.....LOL
Tell ya what JONES, answer my question directly and I'll declare you the "winner"-
Who did Nouri al-Maliki have over to Baghdad for tea on March 3, 2008?
Posted by Mask at 07/15/2009 @ 07:57am
Tell ya what JONES, answer my question directly and I'll declare you the "winner"-
Who did Nouri al-Maliki have over to Baghdad for tea on March 3, 2008?
Posted by Mask at 07/15/2009 @ 07:57am
You've got me there Mask. Santa Claus? A bit late I know. If not, could it have been the Tooth Fairy? Just about out of ideas.
Sure you are not punch drunk?
(Neo-cons as you know are unilateralists so you know what you can do with your declaration).
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/15/2009 @ 08:52am
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/15/2009 @ 08:52am
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Odd a neo-con like you wouldn't know something like that?!??!?
"odd"?
Posted by Mask at 07/15/2009 @ 09:22am
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 07/14/2009 @ 9:09pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Well Hugo - The Nation I suppose believed that al-Qaeda was holed up in Afghanistan, and that if we were going to fight a war against terrorism, it should be where historic and current intelligence indicated that OBL and crew was holed up. But I think The Nation has transitioned to a different opinion as better intelligence on Afghanistan has become available. Remember that the taking of Kabul was also Mission Accomplished as per Bush and his cadre of military advisors - and that was far from the truth, and in fact, we were not being told the truth about how well the war effort was going there. Very similar to Iraq.
Obama is still mouthing the justification as OBL - al Qaeda based, and I agree with you, that this is total BS. But I think the difference that you are failing to recognize here is that Iraq and Saddam didn't attack us, whereas reportedly, OBL did on 9/11. The Nation seems to against imperialistic invasion, but maybe for avenging direct attacks on American soil. There is a marked difference philosophically. Bush certainly didn't conduct himself in manner consistent with professed goals of GWOT - which belies his true agenda.
Posted by OneVote at 07/15/2009 @ 1:46pm
Posted by Mask at 07/15/2009 @ 09:22am
Thanks Mask. But guess who's coming to the White House July 22nd (Mine's later than yours):
Obama to host Iraqi PM at White House
Article from: Agence France-Presse
July 16, 2009 01:56am
US President Barack Obama will host Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki at the White House for talks on July 22.
"President Obama looks forward to welcoming Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki of Iraq to the White House on Wednesday, July 22," press secretary Robert Gibbs said.
"The United States and Iraq enjoy a close relationship and are partners in building a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq through the responsible withdrawal of US forces and the encouragement of new ties in trade, commerce, culture and education," he added.
"The president looks forward to consulting with the prime minister on a broad agenda of issues of mutual concern."
Along with Santa, the Tooth Fairy and the odd Iranian, our friend Maliki seems to have a diverse range of friends. Guess that's the burden the PM of a sovereign democracy has to carry.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/15/2009 @ 3:53pm
But people keep saying these things so they must be true. Next Phyllis Diller will be on the cover of Playboy.
Posted by Happy at 07/14/2009 @ 11:25pm
And a mollyduker too happy. Looks like he needs a new pair of daks. Don't you pay your pressies?
http://tinyurl.com/lv7r7c
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/15/2009 @ 06:27am
Um, sounds like you two fellas take notice a little TOO much of the President's physique.
Hmmm....
Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/15/2009 @ 9:54pm
Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/15/2009 @ 9:54pm
A mollyduke is a left handed person.
Hang around Schnellie and we'll get you up to speed...or corrupt you. Your choice.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/15/2009 @ 10:55pm
The fact that in the West there is now more an understanding that basically Ps & RCs are more or less in the same game is what Sistani and other Shia and Sunni leaders are promoting).
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/14/2009 @ 7:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person
'Clashes erupt in Belfast as marching season heats up
Nationalist protesters throw fireworks at police before Protestant parade
By David McKittrick, Ireland Correspondent
Tuesday, 14 July 2009
The Independent - UK'
You were saying Jones?
Posted by OneVote at 07/17/2009 @ 10:01am
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/14/2009 @ 6:54pm |
"Not quite right 21. Your mob started getting very jittery through the 1990s about supporting such a gross HR abuser as Saddam."
But the offenses and 'appropriations' of certain gases and the training to deploy them against Shiite nasties from the east all happened on Reagan's watch in the 80s...Rummy and Saddam : awfully chummy.
"None of that would have been lost on the people of Iraq and Iran."
Especially the latter...and we pretend that "Death to America" stuff is all in their bearded little heads.
"Then there has been the trials of the perpetrators of those "Hitlerian" crimes, not the least being Saddam himself, published across the ME."
And somehow, a trial by one's accomplices doesn't really ring out peals of truth or justice, does it?
"I guess last impressions are the ones that linger, even in the minds of Iranians and Iraqis and I'm sure they knew Saddam hung from the gallows..."
Need we remind you that we're talking about people who are still sore over the frakkin crusades? Their memory is long.
"Your are not only behind on points 21 but flat on the canvas, along with Mask. But at least you've got guts."
Mollydukes (southpaw, here in `merka) have been known to throw off the 'orthodox' (pun originally unintended, but allowed to stand, once recognized) due to their tendency to throw jabs from points unexpected.
No TKO for you; I'll keep slugging until you bleed down to your poopcatchers!
Posted by snowball777 at 07/17/2009 @ 11:23pm