Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
Senator Russ Feingold was way ahead of the Senate curve in insisting on a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, and last week he got it right again in calling for a flexible timetable to bring US troops out of Afghanistan.
In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Feingold writes that "we must recognize that our troop presence contributes to resentment in some quarters and hinders our ability to achieve our broader national security goals." He voices particular concern about the war destabilizing Pakistan--"a witch's brew of threats to our national security that we cannot afford to further destabilize." He also points out that this "nation-building experiment...may distract us from combating al Qaeda and its affiliates, not just in Pakistan, but in Yemen, the Horn of Africa and other terrorist sanctuaries."
Feingold lays out a compelling case for an alternative course--"a civilian-led strategy discouraging any support for the Taliban by Pakistani security forces, and offer[ing] assistance to improve Afghanistan's economy while fighting corruption in its government. This should be coupled with targeted military operations and a diplomatic strategy that incorporates all the countries in the region."
Senator Feingold is expressing what many progressives now believe. Overall, 51 percent of Americans say the war is not worth fighting, including 7 in 10 Democrats. Yet too many top Democrats have become part of a poorly reasoned bipartisan consensus that threatens to entrap the US in another costly occupation. In contrast, progressives who want to see President Obama succeed see Afghanistan as a threat to his presidency-- especially to his domestic agenda, as resources, lives and political capital are lost in the "graveyard of Empires". (Much like LBJ's presidency was tarnished and defined by the Vietnam War.)
This is perhaps a watershed moment for progressives. Nearly 100 Representatives in the House are calling for an exit strategy, and now we have an ally in the Senate to rally around in demanding a sane timetable--one that is a much needed contrast to Af-Pak Special Representative Richard Holbrooke's inane description of success in Afghanistan as, "We'll know it when we see it."
In October, antiwar groups will demonstrate, educate, and lobby to raise awareness about alternatives to the current course in Afghanistan. In the meantime, you can support Senator Feingold's call for a timetable here.
And check out The Nation for our special issue this Fall and TheNation.com for further opportunities for action in the coming months.
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: "Senator Russ Feingold was way ahead of the Senate curve....and last week he got it right again in calling for a flexible timetable to bring US troops out of Afghanistan."
Hail to Sen. Feingold....how can anybody be opposed to "a flexible timetable" to get our GIs out?
Also, I think that's exactly what has been going on for almost 8 years.....flexible!
Posted by Happy at 08/31/2009 @ 4:48pm
What a surprise (not). Katrina calling for another American surrender.
This is the most consistent dogma of the left. They want the US to surrender militarily whenever they are engaged against those who are a threat to US security.
What's next, a Jane Fonda, Howard Zinn moment with the Taliban in Southwestern Afghanistan in a replay of Hanoi Jane's visit with the NV?
Posted by antisocialist at 08/31/2009 @ 4:52pm
"Yet too many top Democrats have become part of a poorly reasoned bipartisan consensus that threatens to entrap the US in another costly occupation."
--not the least of which is the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES! he wants his 2nd term, the wars will wage on...
Posted by urmygyro at 08/31/2009 @ 5:03pm
Yeah right Larry - your boy McCain running roughshod over mother's of MIAs demanding Congressional action to get your "buddies" out. Hanoi Jane wears the stars and stripes - while your boy is French kissing and bear hugging NV while they are letting your "buddies" die in POW slave camps.
Posted by OneVote at 08/31/2009 @ 5:10pm
posted by antisocialist at 08/31/2009 @ 4:52pm
No one's proposing a "surrender". A surrender would indicate that the enemy would dictate terms to us. If we "surrendered" the Taliban would get to take American wealth & captives. For someone who purports to be familiar with war, you certainly aren't very familiar with the terminology.
Of course, I understand that your only point is to accuse anyone who has an alternative to continuing the war of being a coward. It's a despicable tactic that has been used to keep the United States in one disastrous (usually for the inhabitants ) conflict after another.
If you re-read what Feinstein actually proposed, it is mostly a shift of emphasis to civilian efforts & to keeping Pakistan stable. He doesn't even propose having no American military in the region.
Just out of curiousity, anti-socialist, what does the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" mean to you? And why don't all of the Biblical literalists take it literally?
Posted by cdlepthien at 08/31/2009 @ 5:12pm
"Af-Pak Special Representative Richard Holbrooke's inane description of success in Afghanistan as, "We'll know it when we see it." "
Says it all doesn't it. Feingold out to be concentrating on the corruption in our government first.
Posted by OneVote at 08/31/2009 @ 5:14pm
Just out of curiousity, anti-socialist, what does the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" mean to you? And why don't all of the Biblical literalists take it literally?
Posted by cdlepthien at 08/31/2009 @ 5:12pm
Because it doesn't say "thou shall not kill"
It says thou shall not murder.
There is no commandment in either the OT or the NT against war and especially not against self defense.
We are at war with people committed to our death. That may be acceptable to you, but I want my children and grandchildren to live in safety and security as much as is possible.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/31/2009 @ 5:19pm
Now we have both of the experts commenting. What was flexible in the last 8 years? We seemingly "pre-planned" for a conflict that left our troops ill equipped. We had the Reagan team on board,Dick and Rummy and Wolfie. We got "Red" China to buy our bonds and finance our War. Hasn't it been glorious,hell we have only spent a trillion dollars or so. You two small government guys got buffaloed worse than anybody and you shoot at the left. What has been flexible Phil Gramm's memory on the cash flow at UBS ? How about the free for all to make money at AIG,Fannie,Freddie etc. We all know the middle class caused this flexible mess of a deep Recession. Well ,Santi, you seem to have a grasp of history. So do us all a favor and read more than a paragraph on the Soviet Union's disaster in Afghanistan. I don't think drones can help us in this stage of 21st century nation building. I know the vast majority of Americans who wanted us out of Vietnam were all lefties. That is why Nixon went to China,he was a lefty. I wonder why our military spending is twice of what the entire world spends on its military. Thanks for making me think about how much blather is spread by the right and its minions every day. It is a money mans world and you two hot air balloons love to spout it . It is too bad it isn't more effective because your Lockheed,General Dynamics,and ATK stock would go up. They are our manufacturing base aren't they?
Posted by whatizz at 08/31/2009 @ 5:34pm
posted by antisocialist at 08/31/2009 @ 5:19pm
You know, if you are in a bar, and someone hits you, and you respond by punching the person standing next to them, you will be charged with assault.
I doubt that most of the people "we" are at war with in Afghanistan were committed to "our" death prior to us attacking them. Going after Osama Bin Laden is one thing (which I approve of), killing Afghanistani civilians is another. I don't know what you think the definition of murder is, if it isn't killing people who pose no threat to you.
Posted by cdlepthien at 08/31/2009 @ 5:38pm
During the Vietnam war we were told that we must fight to stop the global aggression of Communism. In this Afghanistan war we are told that we must fight to stop the global aggression of "islamo-fascism". During the Vietnam war we were told that if we failed in Vietnam, the dominoes would fall. In this Afghanistan war we are told that if we fail, Al Qaeda will take over Pakistan and central asia. During the Vietnam war we were told that the enemy was nearly every man, woman and child in every village. So we destroyed the villages. During this Afghanistan war we are told that if we don't go on the offensive the Taliban will control every village. So we are attacking the Afghan villagers. During Vietnam we were NOT told that the Vietnam war began with a Skull & Bones fabrication called the Gulf of Tonkin Incident (our Navy was not attacked by Vietnamese gunboats). Could it be that this war against the "islamo-fasicist" also began with a fabrication (we were not attacked on 9/11 by Afghans but by agents of Bush and Obama's friends in Saudi Arabia). During Vietnam, we were never told, but a few daring journalists found out then and reported then, that the war was primarily to protect opium production and heroin trafficking. And isn't it interesting that nearly every one we support in Afghanistan is involved in opium production and heroin trafficking. What we need, in publications that portend to be for truth such as The Nation, to investigate and tell the truth about the real reasons we are in Afghanistan and why we are there, not simply arguments about how we can get out and save face (ala what Fiengold is doing). Saving face should not be the criteria of progressives. The criteria should be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Posted by shadowknows at 08/31/2009 @ 5:43pm
Posted by cdlepthien
Posted by whatizz
fine posts.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/31/2009 @ 5:49pm
That is why Nixon went to China,he was a lefty. I wonder why our military spending is twice of what the entire world spends on its military. Thanks for making me think about how much blather is spread by the right and its minions every day. It is a money mans world and you two hot air balloons love to spout it . It is too bad it isn't more effective because your Lockheed,General Dynamics,and ATK stock would go up. They are our manufacturing base aren't they?
Posted by whatizz at 08/31/2009 @ 5:34pm
1. Nixon was a Rockefeller Liberal. What conservative would: sign and create the EPA, OSHA, The Clean Air Act, Proclaimed the first Earth Day, implemented wage and price controls, Affirmative Action, proposed a guaranteed living wage, and Universal Healthcare.
Noam Chomsky has called Nixon, "in many respects the last liberal president."
Posted by antisocialist at 08/31/2009 @ 6:26pm
Dick was paranoid,but he also had a social conscience. Try it you might like it. Just think if we spent $1 trillion on healing the sick. Wouldn't it feel better than $1 trillion on maiming and death. I will let you go ahead and make the call. I cannot reconcile in my mind a no show for the National Guard and a five time deferment champion running a war. Then we get to have the deferment champ tell us about the effectiveness of a torture program. Come on Santi they wouldn't be your first choice to run that show.
Posted by whatizz at 08/31/2009 @ 6:43pm
Our neocon friends are selective in their characterizations.
Nowhere does Reagan or Rumsfeld get chastised for their embrace of Saddam, in the latter's case, a literal one.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 08/31/2009 @ 7:06pm
Posted by whatizz at 08/31/2009 @ 6:43pm | ignore this person | warn this person
"Deferment Queen" Dick gets wide berth from our rneocon posters here, yes.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 08/31/2009 @ 7:07pm
WHO DO WE SURRENDER TO..?? The GWOT can NOT be fought like a conventional war... CAN NOT. There will be no clear cut anything. There will be no major battles. Why don't you couch commandos get this..?? Afghanistan will be an open, festering wound until the majority of our forces are brought home. PERIOD. Every couple of days we will learn on a Yahoo blurb, that two more... 8 More ... 3 more American fathers/mothers, brothers/sisters and sons/daughters have been KILLED for NOTHING.
The hard line soviets and all their might were bogged down there for years. Don't you remember this..?? Of course you don't.
What is a 'VICTORY' in Afghanistan..?? What a joke. PLEASE AWNSER THIS QUESTION....!!!
There will be no signing ceremony on a battleship. There will be no treaties signed. No ticker tape parade. What will the end of the conflict look like..?? WHAT IS MISSION ACCOMPLISHED..??
The basic neocon/religious right wing brain has neither the imagination nor the perspective to compute issues like this.
Get our troops out , and let the people of Afghanistan do whatever they want to do. If they want the bhurkas, we could sell them Old Navy bhurkas made in Vietnam. If they want to grow poppies, Merck and Pfizer could buy their crops for mass Oxycontin production ( I'm sure Rush wouldn't have an issue with this).. I could give a SHITE !
Never mind.. We should just stay the course.. Just follow the advice from the people who brought this country to the brink of disaster for the last 8 years... What was I thinking.
PS... LIv... Were the ten commandments written in English...?? Kill/Murder ... How semantic of you....
Posted by Vvf1969 at 08/31/2009 @ 7:08pm
To add to what antisocialist said about Nixon, I can speak from personal experience about the wage and price controls.
I worked in a supermarket, in the deli, and the deli case was plastered with signs stating what the federal ceiling price was for roast beef, what the ceiling price was for the ham, the bologna, the potato salad, etc.
Can you imagine that? The government telling you what you can or can't charge a customer for lunch meats? But it was reality, it really happened.
But as is always the case with leftist ideas, the wage and price controls did not work, did not stop inflation, and finally were lifted.
And the deli went back to looking like a deli again instead of something that would have looked totally in place in the Soviet Union, but not here in the United States of America.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/31/2009 @ 7:14pm
Come on Santi they wouldn't be your first choice to run that show.
Posted by whatizz at 08/31/2009 @ 6:43pm
But they were so much better than anyone the Democrats put up.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/31/2009 @ 7:17pm
What a surprise (not). Katrina calling for another American surrender.
This is the most consistent dogma of the left. They want the US to surrender militarily whenever they are engaged against those who are a threat to US security.
What's next, a Jane Fonda, Howard Zinn moment with the Taliban in Southwestern Afghanistan in a replay of Hanoi Jane's visit with the NV?
Posted by antisocialis
Man I read this and I realize there is no real hope. When there are people still buying into the bullshit after so many years what is the point. Enjoy moron.
Posted by stpwarsnow at 08/31/2009 @ 7:35pm
I don't know what you think the definition of murder is, if it isn't killing people who pose no threat to you.
Posted by cdlepthien at 08/31/2009 @ 5:38pm | ignore this person | warn this person
He (anti and other neos) doesn't care...his mantra is "We need guns...we need to kill." Period.
Posted by jarshadow at 08/31/2009 @ 8:30pm
liverty licks the spitshined boots. he worships not Christ but the uniform. any uniform. grrr, kill, kill
Posted by emile duBois at 08/31/2009 @ 8:33pm
By the way, lad-it's assault when you threaten violence upon somebody, and battery when you do it. So it's one or the other.
You might TRY a bar fight now and then to temper your view of the utility of WAR. This is for that anti-social fellow.
Posted by terrybakee at 08/31/2009 @ 9:28pm
I do not believe for one minute that George was a better choice than Al. I am not a supporter of Gore bbut his thumb is smarter than George. It's a connection game in an advertising age. I will comment on this until I can't type anymore. Why is Rush on in 1000 markets? It is simple, because conservatives control the airwaves. No other reason than that . Is rush smart ? I woulds say relatively so. Is he a hate monger ? I believe he is . By that I mean he hates everything he did not think of first. The fairness doctrine is a travesty statement. I am bothered that Liz Cheney and now George's daughter are going to be on TV because of their name.The liberal media bias is a conservative spin game. In your mind Santi G.W. and the deferment embarassment were the best pair because kept telling you they were an d you wanted to believe it.
Posted by whatizz at 08/31/2009 @ 9:34pm
Posted by antisocialis
Man I read this and I realize there is no real hope. When there are people still buying into the bullshit after so many years what is the point. Enjoy moron.
Posted by stpwarsnow at 08/31/2009 @ 7:35pm
Now,
* 7 of 10 Dems are against the war
* Dems control ALL Gubber institutions
* 51% of Americans don't think this `Good War' is worth fighting
Pretty odd that you "realize there is no real hope"!
You should have voted McCain/Palin.....they don't need to prove they can persevere against populist pressure to abandon a war....The One, on the other hand, has much to prove; not the least of which is...can a black POTUS win a war against a band of Koran-reciting thugs?
Posted by Happy at 08/31/2009 @ 9:51pm
Interesting to read the bunch of leftist crybabies. Bunch of wimps who wouldn't defend liberty if their mother's life depended on it.
What a sad state America has reached that people like these are part of the citizenry.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/31/2009 @ 9:55pm
It's sad that Ameircan's don't learn from their leaders' militarism. The inconsistencies and impacts of war are glaring regarding their impact on the real America, that is to say, the America that doesn't compose business and government. Americans are especially myopic and parochial in their history. Philippines, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, yada yada.
Posted by Jetfly83 at 08/31/2009 @ 9:56pm
The never considered parallel between the present US military activity in the Middle East and the past 50 years of history of military and CIA operations in Latin America. True, times have changed but the issue of paranoia exploiting terminology that effectively hid the real issues is still at work. The american public has been historically the least informed population in the planet regarding foreign policy because of the deceitful information fed by the White House for political considerations rather than informational considerations. The rush of media-favorites (by White House Speaker forums) to publish information fed by the government agency and thus gain preferred-guest status has resulted in a "Dog gets bone" attitude. No true journalistic research and analysis to shed light that could help to develop views other than the mainstream government-fed info geared to justify it's policy. A plain one sided view that was as limited as the view of an advertiser selling it's product. No true, effective policy will succeed until the motivating factors for the aggressor (and the recognition of who truly plays that roll) are recognized. In the past, failed policies have been maintained at tremendous cost simply to avoid political embarrassment. If anything will change to help our foreign policy and avoid or resolve conflicts with other countries (and terrorism) that we can no longer afford while rebuilding our devastated economy, it will be a change in the distribution and handling of information to the public in order to avoid propaganda being the standard way of receiving and distributing information.
Posted by Gustav at 08/31/2009 @ 9:59pm
Hey Droopy,Lets see your candidate said the torture program was wrong. I guess since he was there to get all of the broken bones and Dick was figuring out how to drink and not get drafted that Mccain's knowledge of the subject is greater. That being said the powers that be in the Republican party knew the election was a lost cause so they Mccain twist in the wind. His choice of Palin was based purely on attractiveness. He did not know that she had never gotten a library card. I mean Charlie Gibson's softball questions would have you look good Droopy. My question to you Droop is why did we not go after the Koran reciting thugs of Saudi Arabia? After all that was the homeland for the airline hitchhikers that rode in the planes? Was it the ties of George Sr with the Saudis? Guess what if you want to look around the world the Koran reciting thugs are in a lot of spots. Maybe you should talk to another crooked buddy and get a real estate deal in Alaska. Maybe Ted will sell you his place . He was such an ass the Republicans helped him ride the rail out of town. You know you can't seem to take the South out of the old Droop. I think you know what that means.
Posted by whatizz at 08/31/2009 @ 10:09pm
posted by antisocialist at 08/31/2009 @ 9:55pm
Are you a schizo or what? Having a conscience regarding the taking of human life does not make a person a crybaby. If you are actually a pastor as you claim to be, you would comprehend this.
Posted by cdlepthien at 08/31/2009 @ 10:10pm
Interesting to read the bunch of leftist crybabies. Bunch of wimps who wouldn't defend liberty if their mother's life depended on it.
What a sad state America has reached that people like these are part of the citizenry.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/31/2009 @ 9:55pm
Just so you know. There ARE "leftist crybabies", such as myself & others, who are absolutely opposed to the war in Afghanistan/Pakistan/Central Asia, AND who shed blood & tears during our tour in Vietnam so that you could voice your ignorant, insulting and childess opinions. What have you, antisocialist or your colleagues like Happy, ever done to defend Liberty. Readers of this thread would probably like to know.
Posted by perryfellwock at 08/31/2009 @ 10:27pm
There ARE "leftist crybabies", such as myself & others, who are absolutely opposed to the war in Afghanistan/Pakistan/Central Asia, AND who shed blood & tears during our tour in Vietnam so that you could voice your ignorant, insulting and childess opinions....
Posted by perryfellwock at 08/31/2009 @ 10:27pm
So, you believed in the mission back then, to stop the spread of communism, break the Domino Theory so that we can stay a free nation! Curious, don't you believe that radical Islam intends the same?
Posted by Happy at 08/31/2009 @ 10:35pm
Posted by terrybakee at 08/31/2009 @ 9:28pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Historically, laws treated the threat of physical injury as "assault", and the completed act of physical contact or offensive touching as "battery," but many states no longer differentiate between the two.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/31/2009 @ 10:38pm
I just wonder what Santi's strong father figure would have said about 5 time Cheney? My fathers generation defended our country when called upon. You call out liberals when the conservative leaders of "the war on terror"ran away from it when it was their turn to serve. Santi you must be used to fighting while sitting down. How do you defend that pair? Then you have the audacity to make snide comments like this .How many times have you had your ass kicked ,like 242 times wow
Posted by whatizz at 08/31/2009 @ 10:38pm
What a sad state America has reached that people like these are part of the citizenry.
pompous twit.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/31/2009 @ 10:55pm
Just so you know. There ARE "leftist crybabies", such as myself & others, who are absolutely opposed to the war in Afghanistan/Pakistan/Central Asia, AND who shed blood & tears during our tour in Vietnam so that you could voice your ignorant, insulting and childess opinions. What have you, antisocialist or your colleagues like Happy, ever done to defend Liberty. Readers of this thread would probably like to know.
Posted by perryfellwock at 08/31/2009 @ 10:27pm
Hey lib, I served from '66-'70 as a volunteer and got my PH with clusters, so don't even try it jerk.
Yeah, I enlisted at age 17 under LBJ because I honor every CIC whether Dem or Repub.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/31/2009 @ 10:56pm
So, you believed in the mission back then, to stop the spread of communism, break the Domino Theory so that we can stay a free nation! Curious, don't you believe that radical Islam intends the same?
Posted by Happy at 08/31/2009 @ 10:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person
There is a difference between the Taliban and Al Qaeda whether you capable of seeing that or not. Al Qaeda attacked us. The Taliban, no matter how repugnant, did not. We are wasting blood and treasure going after the Taliban and destabilizing the entire Central Asia region, while not going after Ben Laden. I am all for a sensible defense of our country from Saudi Arabian criminals like Ben Laden, but not for what we are doing now in Afghanistan. Evidently, from the polls, most of America agrees with me. And as for the war in SEA, we lost and still the dominoes did not fall.
Posted by perryfellwock at 08/31/2009 @ 10:57pm
Posted by perryfellwock at 08/31/2009 @ 10:27pm
Even though you didn't learn anything judging by your leftist remarks, thank you for serving.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/31/2009 @ 10:58pm
Even though you didn't learn anything judging by your leftist remarks, thank you for serving.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/31/2009 @ 10:58pm | ignore this person | warn this person
And thank you for realizing that there are veterans on both sides of this debate, so stop with the "crybabies" insults. You are entitled to think those of opposed to the senseless waste of our troops in Afghanistan haven't learned anything, but please be adult and civil. You will get more respect for your opinions if you do.
Posted by perryfellwock at 08/31/2009 @ 11:03pm
So, you believed in the mission back then, to stop the spread of communism, break the Domino Theory so that we can stay a free nation! Curious, don't you believe that radical Islam intends the same?
Posted by Happy at 08/31/2009 @ 10:35pm
"break the Domino Theory?" Good god, speak English.
Posted by cdlepthien at 08/31/2009 @ 11:15pm
...And as for the war in SEA, we lost and still the dominoes did not fall.
Posted by perryfellwock at 08/31/2009 @ 10:57pm
Ever heard of the term, winning by losing?
The conventional ending is that the US lost.....but, the VN War was just a battle in the greater war which America and the West won, and folks like you did your part, drafted or volunteered. By my 18th, draft was over but numbers were pulled....I joined the ROTC but didn't finish.
The Taliban has similarly crazy Islamic zeal as w/AQ and has already spread to Pakistan. They and AQ are just different sides of the same coin.
One last thing, I am not gun-ho for this Good War nor against it....I merely vote "present".
Posted by Happy at 08/31/2009 @ 11:16pm
"break the Domino Theory"
oops there goes another theory.
it was events which "broke" the Domino theory, the dominos did not fall. the theory was exposed as a fiction.
North Vietnam did not threaten the US. they had absolutely no way to attack the US and had no desire to do so. the US was not the colonial power in Vietnam, and thus had no dog in that hunt.
American freedom was not threatened by the North Vietnamese, but rather by the suppression of dissent, and the lies told to the American public by the administrations. the Pentagon papers showed this clearly, and support for the war dwindled. you can fool people just for so long, but no longer. we have reached this point again with the present wars.
Ho Chi Min admired the US constitution and fought the Japanese in WW2. they were de facto allies of the US in that war
the biggest mistake the US made then and since then, is to fail to understand the nature of the opponent, and the nature of the war.
the Russians had 100,000 troops, vs 60,000 now, and they could not impose their will on Afghanistan at a price acceptable to them. they withdrew, they did not surrender. surrender means giving your arms to the enemy and giving your soldiers into the captivity of the enemy. the US did that in the Phillippines in WW2.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/31/2009 @ 11:29pm
Even though you didn't learn anything judging by your leftist remarks, thank you for serving.
even more pompous. yecch.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/31/2009 @ 11:30pm
Ever heard of the term, winning by losing?
...
The Taliban has similarly crazy Islamic zeal as w/AQ and has already spread to Pakistan. They and AQ are just different sides of the same coin.
Posted by Happy at 08/31/2009 @ 11:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Since you believe that going after the other side of the coin, as you put it, is the same as going after Ben Laden, sense they have the same crazy Islamic zeal, do you agree that we should go after the Saudi Arabian masters of Ben Laden? And do you really think going after some other side of any coin is as effective as going after the proper side of the coin? And, please tell us, where does going after everyone with crazy religious zeal end? What is the end game, in your learned opinion.
Posted by perryfellwock at 08/31/2009 @ 11:33pm
It is imperative that we institute the MILITARY DRAFT as soon as possible. There should be no student deferments, no exceptions for sons or daughters of influential people. The American people really couldn't care less about how these wars degrade our nation as long as someone else's children die. They can wave the flag and call them heroes and say, "Bring 'em on!" as long as they get their tax cuts and their kids don't have to join the military. It makes me sick at heart to know this is so, but our history has shown that it is. It is the only fair thing to do to support our over extended troops and it will accomplish at least one more objective: BOTH WARS WILL BE OVER IN 6 MONTHS.
Posted by davidleon at 08/31/2009 @ 11:38pm
this is a terrible idea. there are far better ways to end the war. no more draft.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/31/2009 @ 11:41pm
to emile duBois
Ho Chi Minh was not just one of the "de facto" allies of the US but was ACTUALLY allied with Roosevelt and Chang Kai Shek in the war against the Japanese. After the defeat of the Axis powers, Truman released Japanese militarist prisoners of war to fight Ho Chi Minh and aid the French, who had then invaded SEA. The French also hired German/Nazi POWs to fight Ho Chi Minh. At Dien Ben Phu, where the French lost the battle, the language spoken in the trenches on the French side was not French but German. Truman sold out our George Washington admiring allies like Ho Chi Minh and Chang Kai Shek. Do you not see the similarities in our leaders protection of Ben Laden and his Saudi backers, while distracting us with the Taliban, as a similar sell out?
Posted by perryfellwock at 08/31/2009 @ 11:48pm
It is imperative that we institute the MILITARY DRAFT as soon as possible.
Posted by davidleon at 08/31/2009 @ 11:38pm | ignore this person | warn this person
this is a terrible idea. there are far better ways to end the war. no more draft.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/31/2009 @ 11:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Of course, there are better, more rational, more human ways to end the war, but davidleon is right, the wealthy and privileged will never allow their children to fight in these senseless wars. But then again they will never allow the draft to be reinstated either. So the draft argument is moot. Calling for no more draft is not a tactic for ending these wars. Education of the American public about what is really going on in Central Asia and the so-called "war on terror" is the best approach.
Posted by perryfellwock at 08/31/2009 @ 11:57pm
Anti-
Really? Really? Please stop posting nonsense...I mean, post, but please think...
Posted by dekist at 09/01/2009 @ 12:38am
Posted by Happy at 08/31/2009 @ 11:16pm |
"Ever heard of the term, winning by losing?"
More like got lucky that China and the USSR turned out to creep each other out after that Velvety revo.
"The conventional ending is that the US lost.....but, the VN War was just a battle in the greater war which America and the West won, and folks like you did your part, drafted or volunteered. By my 18th, draft was over but numbers were pulled....I joined the ROTC but didn't finish."
But I killed several wooden dummies in my backyard with a stick...I pinned little post-its on them that said, "gook"...so I could tell them from my cardboard cut-out 'buddies' on my mission with me.
"The Taliban has similarly crazy Islamic zeal as w/AQ and has already spread to Pakistan."
They were already there.
"They and AQ are just different sides of the same coin."
Bzzzt...wrong.
Certainly both would love to see Bush's balls in a vice, but they have very different goals.
AQ: Jihad...Taliban: local dominance.
"One last thing, I am not gun-ho for this Good War nor against it....I merely vote 'present'".
No KBR, Halliburton, or General Dynamics shares?
How about CVX or XOM?
Posted by snowball777 at 09/01/2009 @ 05:05am
Everyone with an opinion on the Central Asia wars should read conservative pundit George Will's thoughtful column today in Murdock's New York Post.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09012009/postopinion/opedcolumnists /its_time_to_leave_afghanistan_187491.htm
George Will even got it right about extending the wars to Somalia or Yemen (but he could have included Sudan & Georgia also).
Even conservatives are turning against this feckless war.
To destroy a criminal, not military, outfit like Al Qaeda we need SWAT and fugitive hunting tactics, not massive military operations. Using the military in Afghanistan has only propped up Al Qaeda. As I have said many times, we could have sent Dog the Bounty Hunter (or U.S. Marshalls) into Waziristan and Ben Laden would have been in chains in less than 48 hours. And we need the FBI to go after Ben Laden's masters in Saudi Arabia. After that our U.S. tax dollars, used to prop up Pakistan & other islamic nations, should be reoriented towards establishing real schools of learning to counteract the midieval madrashes supported by Saudi Arabian funds. With this approach, the so-called islamic jihad would dry up in no time. As for Afghanistan, we can't build a nation where none has ever existed. "Afghanistan" is only markings on a 19th century British colonial map. What we have been doing thus far under Bush and now under Obama has only added credence in the Moslem world to Al Qaeda's politic and operations. It is time to stop being stupid and start being smart if we truly want justice for 9/11.
Posted by perryfellwock at 09/01/2009 @ 06:38am
Posted by antisocialist at 08/31/2009 @ 10:56pm
But just so you don't come off as "deceptive" to any newcomers, Larry...
you might mention that you were NOT in Vietnam but were a "super-duper secret double-nought spy for the Navy" and your combat missions were not in Southeast Asia and are still "classified after 45 years".
Posted by Mask at 09/01/2009 @ 07:40am
As I have said many times, we could have sent Dog the Bounty Hunter (or U.S. Marshalls) into Waziristan and Ben Laden would have been in chains in less than 48 hours.
no matter how many times you say it, it's still bullshit.
this is not some reality TV show. Bin Laden is a large fish swimming in an ocean of like minded people, many of who are whom are willing to commit suicide for their cause. you think an overweight white guy who is used to bullying petty criminals would stand a chance there?
just a hopeless idea.
incidentally Afghanistan is the size of Texas, very big.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/01/2009 @ 08:10am
What a surprise (not). Katrina calling for another American surrender. Posted by antisocialist at 08/31/2009 @ 4:52pm
A country can "Surrender" in a War. But a country can't "Surrender" in an "Occupation". In an occupation the only options are to continue it or withdraw from it.
In this case. Since America is occupying two countries with no clear reason for doing so, other than the enrichment of multi-national corporations and control over resources that don't belong to us.
I would say that a total withdrawal, as soon as possible would be the prudent and rational thing to do.
With pressing Domestic issues such as healthcare and unemployment, we can ill afford to spend resources and the lives of our soldiers to line the pockets of a few greedy people.
Anyone who supports the continued occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan is either invested in profiting from human misery or a complete idiot.
Which one are you Anti?
Posted by chaoszen at 09/01/2009 @ 08:12am
All I know is that I have not bad mouthed a guy for serving his country. I do not feel George and Dick served our country well. What they did was the equivalent of a monumental game of "Risk" with human pieces. The costs of this are evident everywhere. Go to a tall building and go inside. You get to go through "Security". Unfortunately these security guards are mainly foreigners that have the job of writing down your name and car model. It is a scam that has been pulled on the American people. What is "secure" about these buildings? Dick Cheney is an ass kisser that has been at the party well past his time to go. He is getting air time simply because there is no other worthy Republican leader that will say anything. I am disturbed by the shifting messages coming out of the Obama Administration. That does not compare to how obstructive ,angry, and slanted the rights viewpoint is. Again, if there was a liberal bias in the media you would not have seen al;l the town hate speak that dominated 2 news cycles. Thank God for Rupert and his band of fools (Chris,Bill, and Glenn). They woke up us liberals when we were dozing this summer.
Posted by whatizz at 09/01/2009 @ 08:18am
just a hopeless idea.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/01/2009 @ 08:10am
Re my Dog the Bounty Hunter remark, I am surprised, emile duBois, that you can't recognize sardonic humor when you see it. Most of your postings have been cognitive, this one was not. And you seem to be the only person on the earth who thinks Ben Laden is in Afghanistan. Once again, so you will understand, our Armed Forces, except for some of the military police, are simply not trained to locate and apprehend fugitives.
Posted by perryfellwock at 09/01/2009 @ 08:33am
the first time you say it, it's sardonic humor, after that?
I don't know where Bin Laden is, but in 2001, when we invaded he was presumably in Afghanistan.the mission there has not been capture Bin Laden for some time, if it ever truly was.
as I have pointed out before, and I have been the only one to do so, the war in Afghanistan is a punitive expedition, something empires like the British for example, have had to undertake numerous times.
I'm sorry to hear Obama repeat the big lie that the security of America depends on Afghanistan.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/01/2009 @ 08:47am
I'm sorry to hear Obama repeat the big lie that the security of America depends on Afghanistan.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/01/2009 @ 08:47am | ignore this person | warn this person
That's better. And I will take your point about my humor. Thanks.
Posted by perryfellwock at 09/01/2009 @ 08:50am
I don't know where Bin Laden is, but in 2001, when we invaded he was presumably in Afghanistan.the mission there has not been capture Bin Laden for some time, if it ever truly was.
as I have pointed out before, and I have been the only one to do so, the war in Afghanistan is a punitive expedition, something empires like the British for example, have had to undertake numerous times.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/01/2009 @ 08:47am | ignore this person | warn this person
You have, in my opinion, correctly identified the central contradictions of the argument for war in Afghanistan. To further understand what Bush and now Obama are doing in that region (not going after Al Qaeda and a punitive expedition against no one who attacked us) you should study what was called the Great Game during the 19th century, when the British empire destablized Central Asia to maintain their colonies and to prevent the region from developing and contributing to a pan-Asian economic power which could rival the British empire. Could it be that Bush and Obama are playing the Great Game? Or does opium production have more to do with why our troops are occupying Afghanistan to preserve the opium-dealing government in Kabul?
Posted by perryfellwock at 09/01/2009 @ 09:01am
And Katrina, as to Fiengold's call for a "flexible timetable" to bring US troops home from Afghanistan. How can you say he has it right? If you read his press release and his questioning of Mullen & Holbrooke you will see that Fiengold is, indeed, suspicious of the Obama administration's mission in Afghanistan, but his suspicions are only confusing him. If confusion is the best we can find from our leaders, then we truly are in trouble. Or you also confused, or will you join with those of us calling for an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan as even the conservative sage George Will has done.
Posted by perryfellwock at 09/01/2009 @ 09:34am
...do you agree that we should go after the Saudi Arabian masters of Ben Laden? And do you really think going after some other side of any coin is as effective as going after the proper side of the coin? And, please tell us, where does going after everyone with crazy religious zeal end? What is the end game, in your learned opinion.
Posted by perryfellwock at 08/31/2009 @ 11:33pm
My answers, some in thought-invoking questions of my own.
How does one not inside the highest level of our intel. organizations really know if we're going after OBL? And, let's say we're not going after OBL directly, could it be it's more useful to track his next level of operatives and kill them w/drones as they surely must communicate and meet to decipher and carry out OBL/Zawahirri's orders?
Going after the different sides of the same coin can be very effective! Say on abortion, which all people abhore and agree it terminates life, what if upon puberty, all girls are required, under UHC say, are fitted with IUDs as part of medical care? Doesn't this solve the "coin" of unwanted births, particularly to kids?
I have never advocated "going after everyone with crazy religious zeal", only those that directly threaten us or key allies, like Hamas, Hezbollah, AQ and since Magic wants to, just like Bush, the Talibans.
I do not want us to go after the Moonies!
Posted by Happy at 09/01/2009 @ 09:40am
Aided by an inept MSM (or willfully misleading the public?), the leftists forget that the Taliban is no longer interested in simply regaining control of Afghanistan
November 2001 NY Times
<Sometime in the last year, Mr. bin Laden swore ''bayat,'' an Islamic oath of fealty, to Mullah Omar. By January of this year, at the wedding of one of his sons, the terrorist leader began to call Mullah Omar the caliph.
In return, the Taliban leader provided a base and protection for Al Qaeda, Mr. bin Laden's organization, and assented as Mr. bin Laden sent out videotapes calling on Muslims worldwide to commit their sons and their money to the terrorist camps he established in the remote deserts and mountains of Afghanistan.
Under the tutelage of his guest, Mullah Omar began to see his goal as more than the liberation of Afghanistan and he progressively signed on to the idea of a worldwide jihad against the United States.>
http://tinyurl.com/c8oqqc
Posted by antisocialist at 09/01/2009 @ 09:43am
And this link with Syria, Al Qaeda Iraq, and the Taliban
<Friday, August 21, 2009
<Senior al Qaeda leader leaves Pakistan, directs Iraq operations from Syria
A senior al Qaeda leader and ideologue who was based in Pakistan's tribal areas has taken control of al Qaeda in Iraq's organization in Syria and is operating from the capital, Damascus.
Sheikh Issa al Masri is thought to have entered Syria in June 2009 and has been consolidating control of the remnants of al Qaeda in Iraq to refocus the group's efforts to destabilize the Iraqi government.
Sheikh Issa is also the leader of al Jihad fi Waziristan, an al Qaeda branch in North Waziristan. He has radicalized thousands of Taliban fighters and several influential commanders by indoctrinating them with the Wahabbi version of Islam.>
http://www.longwarjournal.org/pda.php
Posted by antisocialist at 09/01/2009 @ 09:44am
....the wealthy and privileged will never allow their children to fight in these senseless wars. But then again they will never allow the draft to be reinstated either. So the draft argument is moot. Calling for no more draft is not a tactic for ending these wars...
Posted by perryfellwock at 08/31/2009 @ 11:57pm
Not true! Almost all academy students come from the 'wealthy and privileged". My younger son gave some thoughts to this since his Scout troop sent 4 young men (similar family background) to Annapolis, W. Point and Co. Springs over the years of his involvement. Those 4, like both my sons, are Eagle Scouts. BTW, most academy males are Scouts.
At the academy level, it's extremely competitive and my young one has no chance after attending an informational meeting. They are the best America has!
As for the banter on the draft, there is simply no need for the type of modern warfare being fought today. Besides, I'd contend a professional, well-trained, average tenure of more than one enlistment periods, armed forces will far out-class any drafted combat soldiers in real performance. So, would you rather see a higher casualty rates among draftees, among which many don't want to be there and thinks short-term, and aren't committed to the need for war?
Posted by Happy at 09/01/2009 @ 09:47am
to antisocialist and Happy
Please note George Will's solution for how to deal with the current growth of the Taliban in Pakistan and its fighting back over the border into "Afghanistan". We can fight them (when we need to) more effectively from offshore than wasting the lives of our troops in villages we can't possible "protect" in Afghanistan. And as to this Sheikh Issa being in Syria, are you seriously proposing that we invade Syria? If not, just what are you proposing?
Posted by perryfellwock at 09/01/2009 @ 09:51am
Posted by antisocialist at 09/01/2009 @ 09:43am
Larry, sees visions of 1000s of Al Qaeda landing craft, storming the beachs of Long Island, NY and Venice Beach.
Posted by Mask at 09/01/2009 @ 10:00am
#
Posted by antisocialist at 09/01/2009 @ 09:43am
Larry, sees visions of 1000s of Al Qaeda landing craft, storming the beachs of Long Island, NY and Venice Beach.
Posted by Mask at 09/01/2009 @ 10:00am | ignore this person | warn this person
Mask, if you are correct about anti-socialist, whom you seem to know of personally, then he has a juvenile comic-book vision of the world - basing his opinions on seeing recent action movies like G.I. Joe (vs. Cobra). From what he says about his military experience, I can't believe that. I believe that anti-socialist is simply grasping at straws to support his loosing arguments for war. I do not know anti-socialist as well as you do, but he seems to be more than simply anti-socialist but one of those Big Brother-style neo-conservatives we had to face under Bush who believe in endless warfare to maintain their power (as did the neo-conservatives fake-communist mentor Leon Trotsky; most of the neo-conservatives used to be Trotskyites in case you didn't know).
Posted by perryfellwock at 09/01/2009 @ 10:13am
#
Posted by antisocialist at 09/01/2009 @ 09:43am
Larry, sees visions of 1000s of Al Qaeda landing craft, storming the beachs of Long Island, NY and Venice Beach.
Posted by Mask at 09/01/2009 @ 10:00am | ignore this person | warn this person
Mask, if you are correct about anti-socialist, whom you seem to know of personally, then he has a juvenile comic-book vision of the world - basing his opinions on seeing recent action movies like G.I. Joe (vs. Cobra). From what he says about his military experience, I can't believe that. I believe that anti-socialist is simply grasping at straws to support his loosing arguments for war. I do not know anti-socialist as well as you do, but he seems to be more than simply anti-socialist but one of those Big Brother-style neo-conservatives we had to face under Bush who believe in endless warfare to maintain their power (as did the neo-conservatives fake-communist mentor Leon Trotsky; most of the neo-conservatives used to be Trotskyites in case you didn't know).
Posted by perryfellwock at 09/01/2009 @ 10:13am
Larry, sees visions of 1000s of Al Qaeda landing craft, storming the beachs of Long Island, NY and Venice Beach.
Posted by Mask at 09/01/2009 @ 10:00am | ignore this person | warn this person
Mask, if you are correct about anti-socialist, whom you seem to know of personally, then he has a juvenile comic-book vision of the world - basing his opinions on seeing recent action movies like G.I. Joe (vs. Cobra). From what he says about his military experience, I can't believe that. I believe that anti-socialist is simply grasping at straws to support his loosing arguments for war. I do not know anti-socialist as well as you do, but he seems to be more than simply anti-socialist but one of those Big Brother-style neo-conservatives we had to face under Bush who believe in endless warfare to maintain their power (as did the neo-conservatives fake-communist mentor Leon Trotsky; most of the neo-conservatives used to be Trotskyites in case you didn't know).
Posted by perryfellwock at 09/01/2009 @ 10:13am
Perry, this is just the usual Mask nonsense that he makes up.
I don't believe in endless war unless an enemy forces it upon us. By that I don't believe in suicide, but rather that you must fight back when an enemy is determined to see you die.
I'm not a neocon, nor a former trotskyist. Rather I fall more into the definition of a combined minarchist and classic liberal tradition. That has been my guiding political philosophy since I was 10.
Where I differ with many in those camps is that I'm not an isolationist.
I base my arguments on my life experiences, my global travels, my reading of history, and reading what our enemies are saying and how their beliefs reinforce those statements.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/01/2009 @ 10:39am
And as to this Sheikh Issa being in Syria, are you seriously proposing that we invade Syria? If not, just what are you proposing?
Posted by perryfellwock at 09/01/2009 @ 09:51am
I'm not proposing we invade Syria, but I do wonder why the MSM and the Obama Admin don't like to talk about Syria's blatant support of terrorism against the West.
I would like to see Obama address this since it does affect the US directly.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/01/2009 @ 10:42am
Look out! Look out! Pink elephants on parade Here they come! Hippety hoppety They're here and there Pink elephants everywhere
Look out! Look out! They're walking around the bed On their head Clippity cloppity Arrayed in braid Pink elephants on parade
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/01/2009 @ 10:51am
to anti-socialist,
Thank you for clearing things up. And I should have known that Mask was just trying to childishly cause confusion. I disagree with you on these issues and what the United States should do, but I have never thought you had a comic-book vision and I am glad you are not a neo-con. There are too many of those bastards around as it is. War, as you know, is a nasty and serious business and should not be utilized cavalierly nor as the central goal of state policy.
Posted by perryfellwock at 09/01/2009 @ 10:55am
I'm not proposing we invade Syria, but I do wonder why the MSM and the Obama Admin don't like to talk about Syria's blatant support of terrorism against the West.
I would like to see Obama address this since it does affect the US directly.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/01/2009 @ 10:42am | ignore this person | warn this person
I don't think anyone in the Obama administration, nor in the previous administrations including Bush, have seen Syria and its role in West Asia in any clear light. Whatever we are doing with regards to Syria, it has nothing to do with the so-called war on terror or the actual wars in Afghanistan or Iraq. It appears to me that the questions of Syria are bound up in in the questions of Israel and that has always been confusing for everyone.
Posted by perryfellwock at 09/01/2009 @ 11:02am
Feingold hasn't gotten anything, much less anything right in 9 years that I know of so why should we think he has anything right now?
Posted by BigPasture at 09/01/2009 @ 11:08am
Katrina, you can probably guess that I have nothing in common with BigPasture, but I do wonder why you don't participate in the blogs you start. Are you that busy? I ask my question to you again: Are you supportive of Feingold's confused "flexible timetable" or are you in sync with the anti-war movement demanding immediate withdrawal of U.S. and NATO ground troops from Central Asia? I think everyone who is concerned about these issues would like to know.
Posted by perryfellwock at 09/01/2009 @ 11:14am
Interesting to read the bunch of leftist crybabies. Bunch of wimps who wouldn't defend liberty if their mother's life depended on it.
What a sad state America has reached that people like these are part of the citizenry.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/31/2009 @ 9:55pm
You know Liv - I know what you mean by "surrender." What you mean is MIC surrendering to the will of the people of the United States. You and your brand have been fighting wars and interfering with sovereignty of nations under false pretenses for many years now. You and your brand are the clear and present danger of which we must be afraid.
Posted by OneVote at 09/01/2009 @ 11:19am
Posted by perryfellwock at 09/01/2009 @ 11:02am | ignore this person | warn this person
So Perry, are you quite clear on the biblical prophecy which is the guiding light of Anti's world views, including the use of military power to "make it happen"?
Recite that now for us please.
Anti's claimed resume is full of contradictions and bullshit. You are advised not to be so naive. This dude, if he had spent anytime in Viet Nam at all, would have been fragged within a week.
Posted by OneVote at 09/01/2009 @ 11:29am
Katrina: Are you supportive of Feingold's confused "flexible timetable"?
Posted by perryfellwock at 09/01/2009 @ 11:14am | ignore this person | warn this person
--see 1st paragraph of her blog; think it's crystal clear.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/01/2009 @ 11:39am
Posted by OneVote at 09/01/2009 @ 11:19am | ignore this person | warn this person
With regard to the will of the people: Americans, at least for the last 100 years have not always had a clear vision or a clear will. It is up to those who have studied history and understand the forces at play to educate and lead the public. And not everyone who supports a particular interference with the sovereignty of nations has been of the brand that is a clear and present danger. Some of this brand can be turned around once they understand the truth of their actions. It is important to understand the difference between the international oligarchy that reviles the nation state and those who are simply influenced (for whatever reason) to do the oligarchy's bidding. It is important to focus your wrath on the devils and not just their minions. The way to understand the difference between those who are evil and those who simply do evil is to study history. Learn who the players are, what they want and most importantly how they weave their tentacles around even some of those who want to do only good. To understand how the international oligarchy works read about Mephistopheles in Marlowe's Doctor Faustus or Shakespeare's Merry Wives of Windsor or better yet The Merchant of Venice. The clear and present danger you speak of is more often subtle and deceptive than brutal and obvious.
Posted by perryfellwock at 09/01/2009 @ 11:44am
Posted by perryfellwock at 09/01/2009 @ 10:55am
Rebubs (and codefendants) voting for GWB twice & now denying ever having been neo-cons?
Rebubs have NOONE to turn to after the suckfest of the last two terms under their anointed ones.
Appears their only option is to find a space alien to be standard bearer of the GOOP. There is no inoculation for neo-con fever.
Demos can survive mid-terms by massive populist stimulus offerings. Bankers were placated. Main street is next!
Posted by Sorelish at 09/01/2009 @ 11:48am
Katrina: Are you supportive of Feingold's confused "flexible timetable"?
Posted by perryfellwock at 09/01/2009 @ 11:14am | ignore this person | warn this person
--see 1st paragraph of her blog; think it's crystal clear.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/01/2009 @ 11:39am | ignore this person | warn this person
I guess your right. I have seen a lot of confusion in her articles lately. She was much clearer when Bush was in power. Must be the contraditions of Obama in power that is confusing her and some others on the left. Sad.
Posted by perryfellwock at 09/01/2009 @ 11:48am
With regard to the will of the people: Americans, at least for the last 100 years have not always had a clear vision or a clear will. It is up to those who have studied history and understand the forces at play to educate and lead the public.
Posted by perryfellwock at 09/01/2009 @ 11:44am | ignore this person | warn this person
I see. Would you care to give me some examples? Let us focus on post WWII.
So, the fabrication of Gulf of Tonkin was what exactly? Education or self-serving propaganda?
What about Iran Contra?
Can you give me a concrete example of where "ignorant" Americans have been wrong and your political and military intelligentsia have been right, with elucidated and demonstrated success to support the underpinning of your hypothesis?
By the way, you seem to share the "knowing stewardship" vision of the NeoCons on this issue. Where do you differ with PNAC for instance on the professed affirmative duty of our leadership "to form and shape" what our collective will should be?
Posted by OneVote at 09/01/2009 @ 12:07pm
Posted by perryfellwock at 09/01/2009 @ 10:55am
Rebubs (and codefendants) voting for GWB twice & now denying ever having been neo-cons?
Posted by Sorelish at 09/01/2009 @ 11:48am | ignore this person | warn this person
Yep - rebranding. Lipstick on a pig.
Posted by OneVote at 09/01/2009 @ 12:13pm
Rebubs (and codefendants) voting for GWB twice & now denying ever having been neo-cons?
Posted by Sorelish at 09/01/2009 @ 11:48am | ignore this person | warn this person
Yep - rebranding. Lipstick on a pig.
Posted by OneVote at 09/01/2009 @ 12:13pm
Voting for Bush as an alternative to the more disasterous Gore or Kerry does not make one a neocon. this is infantile commentary.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/01/2009 @ 12:17pm
Posted by OneVote at 09/01/2009 @ 12:07pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Your post was a bit confusing, but I think you seem to think that the people are always right and never deluded. Mob rule is not the same as democracy. The way to tell the difference between the "knowing stewardship" of bad guys and good guys is called transparency and verifiable honesty. And it is not always black and white. Wish it were. The world would be so much easier to live in. But, in general, the worst leaders usually resort to demagoguery, doctrine, lies & subterfuge -- pushing the emotional buttons of the public while the best leaders are patient and go to great lengths to explain what they are doing and where they are leading us and they let us verify for ourselves what they are saying and doing. Bad leaders seem to always rely upon the emotions of the public while good leaders encourage our cognitive assent. On most of the relevant issues of these times, neither Bush nor Obama (sadly) have done the latter. To castigate all leadership as bad is simply the approach of the anarchist not the democrat.
Posted by perryfellwock at 09/01/2009 @ 12:22pm
Katrina: Are you supportive of Feingold's confused "flexible timetable"?
Posted by perryfellwock at 09/01/2009 @ 11:14am | ignore this person | warn this person
--see 1st paragraph of her blog; think it's crystal clear. Posted by urmygyro at 09/01/2009 @ 11:39am | ignore this person | warn this person
I guess your right. I have seen a lot of confusion in her articles lately. She was much clearer when Bush was in power. Must be the contraditions of Obama in power that is confusing her and some others on the left. Sad.
Posted by perryfellwock at 09/01/2009 @ 11:48am | ignore this person | warn this person
--I agree. When Bush was President it was "bring the troops home NOW"...but now patience and prudence are to be exercised.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/01/2009 @ 12:36pm
Posted by perryfellwock at 09/01/2009 @ 12:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person
So, I take it you don't have any concrete examples?
Weren't you just telling me that knowledge of the lessons of history (in this case the last 60 years or so) is what distinguishes our leaders from "mob rule" ignorance?
Let me posit my theory, and that theory is that the American public is very much aware of the failures of our "leadership," and that that is the reason for the divergence of "will" between the two.
Your generalties are not substitute for specifics.
Your "leaders" have obligated American taxpayers to indebtedness of present and future obligations likely to be in excess of $3 trillion dollars for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. We have substituted the military law of Saddam with military law of US and its corrupt puppet government. This puppet government has show every sign that it will be unstable without continued US occupation looking forward. Your "leaders," again, have fabricated false intelligence to get us into a war. I ask you again, is this education or self-serving propaganda?
It is reasonable to assume that the education of which you speak is only self evident to the teacher, and not the student. This is not democracy, this is tyranny.
Posted by OneVote at 09/01/2009 @ 12:49pm
Posted by antisocialist at 09/01/2009 @ 10:39am
No, Larry...you're a man in his 60s who has some "mysterious past", but likes to HINT that he was Rambo slugging it out with Charlie and thus was "sold out by liberals and 'not allowed to win" Vietnam...
you're an Islamophobe who uses cognitive dissonance to also believe that "85% of Muslims are not evil...just ignorant of how EVIL!!!!! their religion is."....but isn't above discounting their lives as "collateral damage" that would result in a "Think Dresden" attitude to "winning" the "War On Terror" which you freely admitted WOULD be endless since "they will never give up"
you're also a militarist, naturally, who believes ALL wars fought by the United States were not just justified, but moral. And that any "bad apples" and "single incidents" of abuse by our military must be played down to the point of being ignored...or even justified.
and of course, anybody who disagrees with YOU "hates the military", since obviously ONLY your position on these issues indicates honor and respect for it.
Posted by Mask at 09/01/2009 @ 12:51pm
Yep - rebranding. Lipstick on a pig.
Posted by OneVote at 09/01/2009 @ 12:13pm
One more thing, OneVote, I hope you understand the difference between the ideologically motivated international neocon movement and the Bush crime family. Both of these tendencies came together in the Bush 43 administration along with other variations of conservatism. You may think that all Bush supporters are alike but you are wrong. Some were simply of the type that always voted for Republicans without thought; some were neo-confederate paleocons who seem to have good ideas on the economy (they hate the Fed) but are racists; some were just out for cash like mobsters (most of the Bush family); and some, the neocons, were ideologically motivated fascists. And some were anti-human Malthusians, a grouping that unfortunately has infiltrated both the Republican and Democratic parties. And most of the base of the conservative movement are not intelligently motivated; they are just having their buttons pushed. History has taught me that the human race can not successfully fight these undemocratic tendencies unless we know EXACTLY what they are and what they want. The political world is far more complex than simply left and right. And this spectrum of motivations and goals is also present on the left. Know your enemy before you commit to battle. You have a better chance of survival.
Posted by perryfellwock at 09/01/2009 @ 12:53pm
Voting for Bush as an alternative to the more disasterous Gore or Kerry does not make one a neocon. this is infantile commentary.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/01/2009 @ 12:17pm
more disastrous?
hahahaha.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/01/2009 @ 1:01pm
Know your enemy before you commit to battle. You have a better chance of survival.
Posted by perryfellwock at 09/01/2009 @ 12:53pm | ignore this person | warn this person
No - it is quite simple really. Our leadership (on which you are apparently relying for vision and stewardship) does not serve the will of the American people, but rather special interest groups such as MIC and corporate imperialsim predicated on "free market" predation of people and resources.
Until that changes, I will never share your vision of stewardship as no matter who sits in the driver's seat, it will always be predominantly self-serving at the expense of others.
Posted by OneVote at 09/01/2009 @ 1:06pm
Yeah OneVote, given all that has transpired vis-a-vis Obama & his detractors, the bloviating point men of the air are still labeling him a socialist & closet Muslim.
What does this guy have to do? Lead an infantry charge in Afghanistan with upraised sword?
These threads are contaminated with the chameleons of reactionary knee jerk.
We will continue to pressure Obama from within the progressive sphere. We don't need any neo-con "helpers."
Posted by Sorelish at 09/01/2009 @ 1:13pm
Posted by OneVote at 09/01/2009 @ 12:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person
You want specifics. Well the best I can do is give you my list of some of the patriot leaders of the United States, some of the confused leaders of the United States, and some of the treasonous leaders of the United States. Of course, there is no room nor time here to go into their individual histories. You will have to study that on your own and try to figure out why I place them in one category or the other. Mostly my criteria is: were these leaders (not all elected to the Presidency) working for the American people and the American Way or were they working for the foreign powers, or did they even know what they were doing or who they wee working for. Some of the patriots on my personal list are G. Washington, B. Franklin, A. Hamilton, the Federalists, the Whigs and the early, Lincoln, Republicans and FD Roosevelt and R. Nader in recent times. Some of those on my confused list are LB Johnson, JF Kennedy, J. Carter, R. Reagan, B. Clinton and B. Obama and R. Paul. Some on my list of traitors are J. Polk, F. Pierce, J. Buchanan, A. Johnson, T. Roosevelt, W. Wilson, R. Nixon, GHW Bush, A. Gore, and GW Bush. Do you have a list that differs from mine? Or is there any one particular person, I have listed above, where my categorization annoys you. I would be happy to explore that persons particulars. As you can see my list does not depend upon party affiliation -- there have been patriots and traitors in both the modern parties and on both sides of the left/right spectrum, in my opinion. Again, the criteria for my lists is whether a leader is working for the American people or some foreign power. I am ready to debate you in detail especially on those leaders who have led us i
Posted by perryfellwock at 09/01/2009 @ 1:19pm
Again, the criteria for my lists is whether a leader is working for the American people or some foreign power. I am ready to debate you in detail especially on those leaders who have led us into disastrous wars such as Vietnam and now Afghanistan.
Posted by perryfellwock at 09/01/2009 @ 1:20pm
Oh, and please let me add to my list of traitors, H.S. Truman. By hating all leaders and not differentiating between them, you are, indeed, an anarchist, OneVote.
Posted by perryfellwock at 09/01/2009 @ 1:24pm
We will continue to pressure Obama from within the progressive sphere. We don't need any neo-con "helpers."
Posted by Sorelish at 09/01/2009 @ 1:13pm | ignore this person | warn this person
As Mr. Perry unknowingly advises: 'know your enemy.'
Their "help" is a poorly veiled attempt to have another bite of the apple.
We would be foolish to think for one moment that there is congruence of interest with these characters.
It is a battle between darkness and light, them and us. They will destroy our country, if they haven't already.
Posted by OneVote at 09/01/2009 @ 1:32pm
you are, indeed, an anarchist, OneVote.
Posted by perryfellwock at 09/01/2009 @ 1:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person
no sir, I am a patriot. and I am deeply aggrieved.
Posted by OneVote at 09/01/2009 @ 1:37pm
Ok OneVote, you win. There is no need to actually waste my time going into the history and motivations of everyone on my lists since you would say that George Washington and Abraham Lincoln are of the "darkness" and would destroy our country. You foolishness is not worth further debate. Your postings, like those of the childish Mask and the idiot Happy are one of the reasons that blogs are so frustrating to anyone who has serious opinions. Nuff said. I am signing out of this tread. I have work to do.
Posted by perryfellwock at 09/01/2009 @ 1:38pm
Posted by perryfellwock at 09/01/2009 @ 1:19pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Your list of patriots is somewhat "dated." What it seems to imply is that what we've got now is government that is unconstitutional, usurped and corrupt. This is precisely why I don't rely on it for my vision of collective good. You call me an anarchist (your list of patriots seems to imply that you are not opposed to anarchy in principle), but...........
Lessons of history:
When a country is ruled an elite that serves its interest rather than the interest of those it purportedly serves, what is the probablity that that elite will willingly abdicate its power and restore it to the people it serves (parasitizes)?
Give me concrete examples from history in which such abdication of power by a self serving elite has taken place, without anarchy, without bloodshed.
And, I do note that Obama hasn't exactly moved to limit the expansion of executive authority, but rather expand it by tacit approval or outright endorsement of the usurpations accomplished under Bush/Cheney.
Posted by OneVote at 09/01/2009 @ 2:04pm
"since you would say that George Washington and Abraham Lincoln are of the "darkness" and would destroy our country."
Posted by perryfellwock at 09/01/2009 @ 1:38pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Didn't say that Perry. Said that those who want to use the founding fathers to get a return ticket to the majority are the "darkness."
Both you and I know this is bullshit, unless of course you are talking about a third party.
But, if you think Repubs are going to bring you founding fathers next term, you would be sadly mistaken.
What is your beef with Ron Paul?
Posted by OneVote at 09/01/2009 @ 2:15pm
Yes, OneVote, I am opposed to anarchy on principal. If you actually wish to know my philosophy, I am a Federalist/Whig/Lincoln Republican and indeed my views are "dated". Since the arch-treason of Teddy Roosevelt, and the creation of the modern liberal/conservative paradigm, there have been very, very few good leaders, so I CAN understand why you, OneVote, have no role models. But just because the best leaders of our country our long behind us, does not mean that a great and good leader can not one day emerge. Has not happened in recent times, true,, but I am old enough to remember all the good that FDR did. If new, true democratic leadership does not emerge, then we are doomed. P.S. for all you liberal ideologues, Obama, your messiah, is not that leader. And for all you conservative ideologues, Reagan, your messiah, was also not that leader. Now I really have to go and I will leave these blogs to you guys to argue over the liberal/conservative nonsense. I just hope that a mass movement against the wars in Central Asia (and the one that is building in Latin America) will emerge soon. That is about all I can hope for with the little time I have left to my life.
Posted by perryfellwock at 09/01/2009 @ 2:25pm
Posted by perryfellwock at 09/01/2009 @ 2:25pm
I'm an anarchist. I'm opposed to states, on principle, since states are fundamentally evil. The most obvious empirical evidence of this fact is their role in war and the genocide of peoples.
"Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization, based on five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management of our lives to kings, priests, politicians, generals, and county commissioners." -- Edward Abbey
This notion that leadership will "save" people from themselves and somehow magically be "democratic" (the very idea of democratic leadership is an oxymoron that is more properly called demagoguery) is a fiction. It is, in fact, the very heart of the anarchist critique. Democratic leadership shapes democracy toward its own ends. These ends my be noble, from a particular point of view, but they are never democratic.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/01/2009 @ 2:51pm
I just hope that a mass movement against the wars in Central Asia (and the one that is building in Latin America) will emerge soon. That is about all I can hope for with the little time I have left to my life.
Posted by perryfellwock at 09/01/2009 @ 2:25pm | ignore this person | warn this person
On this, we are in agreement. On Obama, he is decidely not my Messiah - but compared to McCain/Palin (an insult of a ticket if there ever was one), he is the lesser of two evils. And, I have said on these blogs, that I would always consider a real conservative, but not the crap that the Republican Party fielded.
We need heroic leadership to be sure, and I would certainly welcome it. But, to believe that the two party mononopoly that we have right now is going to produce such a candidate is like trying to catch a falling star.
I respect your optimism and hope, but my lessons of history teach me more cynicism than optimism with regard to our present situation. On a gut level, I actually think are in agreement more than in disagreement. I think what you are envisioning is a political Messiah of the people and for the people. That vision I applaud. But, faith based optimism must be tempered with reality. I will continue to believe that the collective judgment of the majority of citizens of this Country is 9 times out 10 as good or better than that of our political elite. Perhaps it is high time that we be afforded the opportunity to excercise our collective judgment. If we such opportunity, we would have been out of Iraq and Afghanistan by now. What we are accomplishing by prolonging these wars is only institutionalizing the gravy train that is profiting from them, or hopes to profit from them.
I harken back - 'we will know success when we see it' -
Posted by OneVote at 09/01/2009 @ 3:18pm
Posted by perryfellwock at 09/01/2009 @ 09:01am | ignore this person | warn this person
I have studied the great game, specifically in this essential book. pounce
International politics and the Middle East: old rules, dangerous game - by Leon Carl Brown - 1984
Posted by emile duBois at 09/01/2009 @ 3:35pm
Posted by srjenkins at 09/01/2009 @ 2:51pm | ignore this person | warn this person
anarchism is a negative attitude. anarchists have nothing positive to offer.
democracy is a terrible system, but all others are far worse.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/01/2009 @ 3:43pm
Posted by emile duBois at 09/01/2009 @ 3:43pm
Of course they do - as anyone that has read the works of Proudhon, Leo Tolstoy, Edward Abbey, Leo Tolstoy and others in the tradition or is familiar with organizations like the Catholic Worker Movement or the Industrial Workers of the World can tell you. The sheer variety of expression puts the lie to this statement. If you cannot find anything of value and only negativity, you don't know very much about it.
If you want to talk about current writers, even someone like Derrick Jensen offers an interesting critique. Regardless of whether you agree with the position of primitive anarchism, the critique of civilization is an interesting thought experiment - and he manages to present the case in a way that is less problematic than say the Unabomber.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/01/2009 @ 4:30pm
writers are writers. they do not govern. we live in a complex society, and we need to unite behind leaders of our own choosing.
I have no problem with anarchist writers. I just don't feel that they can address our very real problems in a practical way.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/01/2009 @ 4:44pm
So the Soviets took on Afghanistan in the 80's and we took them on recently. What for?
I have always advocated the use of small groups of specialized military forces, combined with intelligence services from around the world, as well as InterPol (watch the money) and other international and national policing agencies, to go into Afghanistan and surgically remove bin Laden. THAT was the choice W had all those years ago after 9/11, and instead he chose Rumsfeld's "limited war" in Afghanistan and the "target rich" war in Iraq.
He wanted SO DESPERATELY to be a war President and do better at it than his Daddy, that he completely destroyed the Constitution to do it. The fact that people on this blog still think the guy was some sort of genius simply astounds me. W has some SERIOUS daddy issues...can't ya'll see that?
Obama's problem is that he is starting to get caught in the trap Cheney left for him: Executive Power. No president is willingly going to give up Executive Power, even though we HOPE he'll use it differently than Bush did. So what happens? He defers to Congress on healthcare and we get a debacle. Obama needs to prove himself not just to be the organizer that we know he is, but the leader, the inspirational leader, that this country (and the world) needs.
It is a tremendously heavy burden to carry, but he wanted the job and he got it.
I say its time to re-strategize about Afghanistan and pull the troops out. Past time to pull troops out of Iraq. Re-prioritize.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 09/01/2009 @ 5:04pm
Mask,
Up above you proclaim:
".....Larry, sees visions of 1000s of Al Qaeda landing craft, storming the beachs of Long Island, NY and Venice Beach.
Posted by Mask at 09/01/2009 @ 10:00am....."
Mask, I have visions of not 1000s but of 4 Al Qaeda (Al Qaeda commandeered) craft, not waterborne but airborne, and certainly not landing craft.
In my vision one of these is storming Arlington, VA, two others are storming not beaches but tall buildings not far from Long Island NY (but in a different borough), and another failed to storm what it was planned to storm, and is in the ground near Pittsburgh.
This vision does not go away.....it IS a nightmare but when one wakes up the vision is still there, and the nightmare continues and doesn't stop.
That vision is an ongoing nightmare that will never go away.
But, can we prevent other "storming" by al-Qaeda craft?
Apparently, libs say NO! Libs say let's undermine the CIA and weaken national secruity in order to try and score political and ideological points.
If libs succeed at this, then we all fail because visions of future al-Qaeda craft and other terrorist craft will unfortunately become reality.
Posted by sjchermak at 09/01/2009 @ 5:10pm
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin
That's the choice we're stuck with.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/01/2009 @ 6:06pm
Obama's problem is ...He defers to Congress on healthcare and we get a debacle. Obama needs to prove himself not just to be the organizer that we know he is, but the leader, the inspirational leader, that this country (and the world) needs.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 09/01/2009 @ 5:04pm
Obama's problem is........ta da, Obama!
When he defers the first (but very BIG symbolically & practically since the shaky economy was one KEY to his win) EASY stuff to Congress, the Stimulus Bill turned into Pork, he proved himself no leader.....something us Cons knew by lack of past record on his part.
Since he can't handle the easy stuff, how can Kool-aid drinkers expect he's up to the hard stuff like CapandDie and healthcare?
Empty Suit? Custom taylored!
Posted by Happy at 09/01/2009 @ 6:59pm
Hey Libs!
Although this thread is about Afghanistan, the subject of the CIA and how detainees were treated in the last few years, interrogation methods, etc. are a frequent item for conversation and threads on this website.
Accordingly, here is a link to an article by Rich Lowry that I just came across.
This article is about the best I have seen in refuting the lib positions on this issue (apparently the lib positions supported by Eric Holder and President Obama).
It shows that you libs are totally wrong about what you believe.
Read the article, and learn (for once, please).
Jewish World Review Sept. 1, 2009 / 11 Elul 5769 Yes, harsh interrogations work By Rich Lowry http://jewishworldreview.com/0909/lowry090109.php3
Posted by sjchermak at 09/01/2009 @ 7:04pm
'Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!'
Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death; Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.
Posted by OneVote at 09/01/2009 @ 7:10pm
Empty Suit? Custom taylored!
Posted by Happy at 09/01/2009 @ 6:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Hap - you buying any healthcare stocks these days?
Posted by OneVote at 09/01/2009 @ 7:17pm
.....you buying any healthcare stocks these days?
Posted by OneVote at 09/01/2009 @ 7:17pm
Not really. But I have two funds, a biotech one and another named "healthcare" but is primarily drugs and medical products. Both have done well YTD.
I get my kicks and outsized returns (or losses) buying individual micro-caps developing new drugs or med equipments...those stocks are too small to be in billion $$ funds.
If you have time, take a look at a stock I mentioned before, DNDN....and here's another, CTIC. The former is my home run while I'm about even on the later. Be warned, CTIC is risky but it's cheap, <$2, and can give you a large bang. Buy a thousand shares and see...the last batch I bought was at $0.25 during the March dive!
Posted by Happy at 09/01/2009 @ 8:57pm
Posted by cdlepthien
Posted by whatizz
fine posts.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/31/2009 @ 5:49pm
yeah they are.
Neocon test: No learning in the face of overwhelming truth. Our little fascists are getting A's.
Posted by winyahn at 09/01/2009 @ 8:59pm
"Peace and comfort are better than war & misery for a nation's welfare." Dekanawida, the planner of the Great Binding Law of the Long House Confederacy.
"Their Great Binding Law was said to have inspired Benjamin Franklin's plan for a union of the colonies. Through him and those other political philosophers who knew the Iroquois well it may even have helped to shape the Constitution of the United States, in the morning of a new American Confederacy."
from The Mohawk by Codman Hislop
Posted by Sorelish at 09/01/2009 @ 9:03pm
This article is about the best I have seen in refuting the lib positions on this issue (apparently the lib positions supported by Eric Holder and President Obama).
It shows that you libs are totally wrong about what you believe.
Read the article, and learn (for once, please).
Jewish World Review Sept. 1, 2009 / 11 Elul 5769 Yes, harsh interrogations work By Rich Lowry http://jewishworldreview.com/0909/lowry090109.php3
Posted by sjchermak at 09/01/2009 @ 7:04pm
But, apparently, some of those over at the FBI have a different point of view.
Are these FBI agents "libs"?
Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/01/2009 @ 9:23pm
Well out of all the nonsense I want to know how Syria is a threat. I missed how they have become a power. To my reading of history and precedent they have not shown leadership.Pfell have you emerged from the study of the 1840's- 1920's to show us the pertinence of an era when Senators were appointed and money trading hands in the back rooms was an accepted practice. I think our last good President was Eisenhower because he had a perspective that was unmatched. Reagan was a mouthpiece, the jury is out on Obama. The continuation of Bush Administration policies and practices has cost him dearly with his supporters. The poor job done by his appointees on the bank bailout and its lack of having a positive effect on the economy has put him in a position to "own" a faltering economy. The fact that our economy has no balance or sectors showing life is bad. Can you imagine a"privatized" social security system. I also looked up the numbers on Republicans voting for Medicare in 1965. 6 Senators voted yes. Now when we fast forward to 2009 the Republicans are defending the "seniors" benefits because they say they will be cut from pending legislation. Seniors vote with their pocketbooks and simply they vote. The party of "ME" is now the one with "big shoulders". The reason for this. The Obama Administration had an open audition for spokesman and nobody knew who or what was policy. That falls at the feet of the President and his chief of staff. It seems that a few of the "experienced" appointees were not as good as advertised.
Posted by whatizz at 09/01/2009 @ 9:27pm
As for the banter on the draft, there is simply no need for the type of modern warfare being fought today. Besides, I'd contend a professional, well-trained, average tenure of more than one enlistment periods, armed forces will far out-class any drafted combat soldiers in real performance. So, would you rather see a higher casualty rates among draftees, among which many don't want to be there and thinks short-term, and aren't committed to the need for war?
Posted by Happy at 09/01/2009 @ 09:47am | ignore this person | warn this person
1) They start drafting doctors' and lawyers' kids, en masse, to ship to places they never heard of--see how many of these ill-guided and open-ended neocon adventures come to a grinding halt.
2) How did the mercenary thing end up working, ultimately, for the Romans? I mean, that's the model, right?
Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/01/2009 @ 9:38pm
...many casualties therefore saved by not getting into stupid and ill-advised engagements to begin with...
Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/01/2009 @ 9:44pm
Posted by Sorelish at 09/01/2009 @ 9:03pm | ignore this person | warn this person
a fat lot of good it did them.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/01/2009 @ 9:52pm
I think our last good President was Eisenhower because he had a perspective that was unmatched.
he wasn't and he didn't
Posted by emile duBois at 09/01/2009 @ 9:54pm
Well Emile tell when our last unmatched days of prosperity in America were. It was not an era of complicated takeovers and buyouts. We made products,bought homes, and drove American cars. We had more than 9 people making money. It was a simpler time. It was a good time to be an American.
Posted by whatizz at 09/01/2009 @ 10:02pm
Warning...
Cut-n-paste from WIKI's Afghanistan history:
It has been speculated that Zoroastrianism might have originated in what is now Afghanistan between 1800 to 800 BC, as Zoroaster lived and died in Balkh.[36][37] Ancient Eastern Iranian languages, such as Avestan, may have been spoken in this region around the time of the rise of Zoroastrianism. By the middle of the sixth century BC, the Persian Empire of the Achaemenid Persians overthrew the Median Empire and incorporated Afghanistan (known as Arachosia to the Greeks) within its boundaries. Alexander the Great conquered Afghanistan after 330 BC. Following Alexander's brief occupation, the successor state of the Seleucid Empire controlled the area until 305 BC, when they gave most of the area to the Hindu Mauryan Empire as part of an alliance treaty. During Mauryan rule, Hinduism and Budhism became the dominant religions in the region. The Mauryans were overthrown by the Sunga Dynasty in 185 BC, leading to the Hellenistic reconquest of Afghanistan by the Greco-Bactrians by 180 BC. Much of Afghanistan soon broke away from the Greco-Bactrians and became part of the Indo-Greek Kingdom. The Indo-Greeks were defeated by the Indo-Scythians and expelled from most of Afghanistan by the end of the 2nd century BC.
Posted by ttr at 09/01/2009 @ 10:03pm
Then...
During the first century, the Parthian Empire subjugated Afghanistan, but lost it to their Indo-Parthian vassals. In the mid to late 1st century AD the vast Kushan Empire, centered in modern Afghanistan, became great patrons of Buddhist culture. The Kushans were defeated by the Sassanids in the third century. Although various rulers calling themselves Kushanshas (generally known as Indo-Sassanids) continued to rule at least parts of the region, they were probably more or less subject to the Sassanids.[38] The late Kushans were followed by the Kidarite Huns[39] who, in turn, were replaced by the short-lived but powerful Hephthalites, as rulers of the region in the first half of the fifth century.[40] The Hephthalites were defeated by the Sasanian king Khosrau I in AD 557, who re-established Sassanid power in Persia. However, the successors of Kushans and Hepthalites established a small dynasty in Kabulistan called Kushano-Hephthalites or Kabul-Shahan/Shahi, who were later defeated by the Muslim Arab armies and finally conquered by Muslim Turkish armies led by the Ghaznavids.
Posted by ttr at 09/01/2009 @ 10:03pm
You really don't think he had a good perspective on life and the world around him? I have watched hundreds of hours of film and read books and they lead me to believe in him.
Posted by whatizz at 09/01/2009 @ 10:05pm
1) They start drafting doctors' and lawyers' kids, en masse, to ship to places they never heard of--see how many of these ill-guided and open-ended neocon adventures come to a grinding halt.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/01/2009 @ 9:38pm
Maybe you know an alternate reality...or history.
Did the draft come before or after we went into VN? or Korea?
Suppose we revive the draft and each year, ~4 million (rough math of taking 300 million Americans divided into ~75 yr. life expectancy) boys and girls turn 18, you think that's a wise use of so many `kids', even we didn't have another war for decades?
If you retreat to some kinda lottery, I'm very against something like that being laid to chance.
No sir, a professional volunteer armed forces is the way to go; along with enough inducements to have a hearty Nat'l Guard corp. Use of Blackwater type mercenaries for crunch time...just like temp. agencies for the private sector....all volunteers!
Posted by Happy at 09/01/2009 @ 10:12pm
And much, much later on, our story continues...
In response to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and part of its overall Cold War strategy, the United States responded by arming and otherwise supporting the Afghan mujahideen, which had taken up arms against the Soviet occupiers. U.S. support began during the Carter administration, but increased substantially during the Reagan administration, in which it became a centerpiece of the so-called Reagan Doctrine under which the U.S. provided support to anti-communist resistance movements in Afghanistan and also in Angola, Nicaragua, and other nations. In addition to U.S. support, the mujahideen received support from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and other nations.
The Soviet occupation resulted in the killings of between six hundred thousand and 2 million Afghan civilians. Over 5 million Afghans fled their country to Pakistan, Iran and other parts of the world. Faced with mounting international pressure and great number of casualties on both sides, the Soviets withdrew in 1989.
The Soviet withdrawal from the DRA was seen as an ideological victory in the U.S., which had backed the Mujahideen through three U.S. presidential administrations in order to counter Soviet influence in the vicinity of the oil-rich Persian Gulf.
Following the removal of the Soviet forces, the U.S. and its allies lost interest in Afghanistan and did little to help rebuild the war-ravaged country or influence events there.[citation needed] The USSR continued to support President Mohammad Najibullah (former head of the Afghan secret service, KHAD) until 1992 when the new Russian government refused to sell oil products to the Najibullah regime.[57]
-Wow!- ...the more things change...
Posted by ttr at 09/01/2009 @ 10:12pm
1) They start drafting doctors' and lawyers' kids, en masse, to ship to places they never heard of--see how many of these ill-guided and open-ended neocon adventures come to a grinding halt.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/01/2009 @ 9:38pm
Maybe you know an alternate reality...or history.
Did the draft come before or after we went into VN? or Korea?
Suppose we revive the draft and each year, ~4 million (rough math of taking 300 million Americans divided into ~75 yr. life expectancy) boys and girls turn 18, you think that's a wise use of so many `kids', even we didn't have another war for decades?
If you retreat to some kinda lottery, I'm very against something like that being laid to chance.
No sir, a professional volunteer armed forces is the way to go; along with enough inducements to have a hearty Nat'l Guard corp. Use of Blackwater type mercenaries for crunch time...just like temp. agencies for the private sector....all volunteers!
Posted by Happy at 09/01/2009 @ 10:12pm
1). Nice that you see, apparently, both Vietnam and Korea as neocon adventures;
2). Still got the long-term Roman thing goin' on....
Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/01/2009 @ 10:26pm
Still all fun, though, Happ.
Wouldn't have it any other way!
Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/01/2009 @ 10:27pm
What is Blackwater being paid? How much more than our troops? What is their mission?
Posted by whatizz at 09/01/2009 @ 10:27pm
Them or us, Emile. I'm beginning to wonder.
Posted by Sorelish at 09/02/2009 @ 12:20am
Posted by sjchermak at 09/01/2009 @ 7:04pm
Ahh....the neocon fairytale...where '24' and 'Fox News' come together in an unholy union that would make de Sade blush.
- KSM gave up the goods, before the waterboarding, to the FBI.
- If waterboarding worked so well, why did they need to do it six times a day for a month?
- Harsh interrogation is the fastest path to a convenient lie; exactly what you DON'T want to do if you're attempting to establish proof of something.
- You've failed to prove that 'enhanced' (like Enzyte?) interrogation provided any info that could not have been obtained otherwise.
Cheney's "See? We HAD TO!" defense was a last, desperate stab at painting this in a better light, but the more he twists around in the web, the more stuck he becomes.
Now, please, educate YOURSELF and try to keep your twisted fantasies behind closed doors, freak.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/02/2009 @ 05:47am
Posted by sjchermak at 09/01/2009 @ 5:10pm
So the ONLY way to prevent an Al Qaeda terrorists from getting onboard an airplane....
is to spend trillions of dollars and kill thousands of troops in the Middle East.
Weird...figured a "conservative" would be able to come up with a CHEAPER Government plan.
Posted by Mask at 09/02/2009 @ 07:20am
Posted by ttr at 09/01/2009 @ 10:03pm
Loved your post of the history of Central Asia. It seems most Americans today, especially the youth, can't see back beyond their own lives. Central Asia has always and still is a wild place and will continue to be so as long as our country continues to do the dirty work of those politically powerful families which for over 200 years have done everything possible to prevent civilization from developing in the region --and till we stop supporting the opium trade. Our troops are not there to fight the so-called war on terror, and certainly not to apprehend Ben Laden. Those are just excuses for those who can't see America in the light of world events and only see American politics in a parochial light. Obama, like Bush before him, is playing the Great Game of keeping the region destabilized and backward. The war is not only spilling over into Pakistan but Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and the other countries in the region including all kinds of CIA/narcotics-dealers spooky things going on in the Baluchistan region of Pakistan. Narcotics are now, and have been for some years, a major commodity in the world (some would say more important than oil). Several of the international banks bailed out by Bush/Obama now absolutely depend upon narcotics bucks (and our tax-payer bailouts) to prop up their bottom line. The Bush crime family is and has been for a long time involved in international narcotics and several of the netroots organizations writing Obama's legislation and policies also take money from international narcotics kingpins. Drug money is important to the phony two-party system. Republicans take drug money. Democrats take drug money. We are ruled by drug dealers.
Posted by shadowknows at 09/02/2009 @ 07:57am
Senator Feingold has not gotten Afghanistan right. He does not call it what it is, a political war , nor does he remember that it was the Left which called Afghanistan the right war, while Iraq was the wrong war. That was Obama's mantra starting in 2002 and he picked it up again in his presidential campaign in 2008.
When his opposition to Iraq, his claim that it was unwinnable, and he would end it - which had gotten him the nomination - backfired, and the Surge, which he had claimed would make matters worse, succeeded, Obama, to show his macho, began denouncing Bush for neglecting Afghanistan. He became hot for making it, "the central front on the war on terror."
That is what we are now stuck with. Yet not a syllable about the self serving, dishonest, highly political nature of this Afghan adventure. Not from Feingold, and not from progressives. Six years of raging against Bush as a liar and abomination for kicking the dangerous Saddam out of the most strategic spot on earth, and for standing up against an insurgency that threatened a democratic govt elected by 10.5 million Iraqis at the risk of their lives, has exhausted them.
Afghanistan is the war the Left wanted, and which Obama prescribed and campaigned on. It is fine for Senator Feingold to now want to leave that disaster, but let us not forget, it is the war his side, the Left wanted and which President Obama still insists is a "necessary" fight.
Let him take on Obama and let him say that the Left was wrong: wrong about Iraq, and wrong about Afghanistan. Then Feingold will have gotten it right.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 09/02/2009 @ 08:07am
it's not a question of whether torture "works". it is that it's immoral AND illegal.
I'll trade you one beheading for one prisoner who died during interrogation.
when we turn into beasts, the enemy has won.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/02/2009 @ 08:14am
Posted by Sorelish at 09/02/2009 @ 12:20am | ignore this person | warn this person
the constitution is a blueprint for a house that is still in the process of being built.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/02/2009 @ 08:20am
it's not a question of whether torture "works". it is that it's immoral AND illegal.
I'll trade you one beheading for one prisoner who died during interrogation.
when we turn into beasts, the enemy has won.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/02/2009 @ 08:14am
BRAVO.
P.S. the house is burning down. Bush poured gasoline on the flames (Iraq) and Obama is adding more firewood (Afghanistan).
Posted by shadowknows at 09/02/2009 @ 08:27am
If you have time, take a look at a stock I mentioned before, DNDN....and here's another, CTIC. The former is my home run while I'm about even on the later. Be warned, CTIC is risky but it's cheap, <$2, and can give you a large bang. Buy a thousand shares and see...the last batch I bought was at $0.25 during the March dive!
Posted by Happy at 09/01/2009 @ 8:57pm
'Remember Dendreon's (Nasdaq: DNDN) 2007 panel meeting? The panel voted 13 to 4 that there was "substantial evidence" of Provenge's efficacy, but the FDA decided that wasn't enough data to approve the drug. Since that very famous case, there have been plenty of other examples -- Schering-Plough's (NYSE: SGP) Bridion and Cardiome's (Nasdaq: CRME) Kynapid, just to name a couple -- where the FDA failed to approve drugs that were recommended by the advisory panel.'
Motley
I remember stearing a family relation away from DNDN in 2007, who believed that this stock would soar. In retrospect, short term, I was right, but long term, this would have been a very decent investment indeed. I'll check out CTIC - thanks Hap.
A couple weeks ago, healthcare stocks jumped on Monday following news stories over the weekend that BO was abandoning public option. Maybe worth watching. Nobody, at this point, is real clear on what deal BO has worked out with the insurance companies and healthcare majors - the dog and pony show continues.
Posted by OneVote at 09/02/2009 @ 08:32am
Afghan U.S. Embassy patrol in 'deviant' parties with booze, hookers - report BY Richard Sisk DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
Wednesday, September 2nd 2009, 4:00 AM
Posted by OneVote at 09/02/2009 @ 09:07am
In retrospect, short term, I was right, but long term, this would have been a very decent investment indeed. I'll check out CTIC - thanks Hap.
Posted by OneVote at 09/02/2009 @ 08:32am
Actually, you have a good part of a winning strategy down right.....short & long term thinking are both huge keys.
I tend to buy/sell the same stocks over and over again. Folks can call that speculation if they like but I look at it as I am part of the steady BASE (long-term loyal fans of these stocks) that rescue stocks in deep dive mode and cash out (usually just part of what I hold) when my money is no longer needed and I can deploy it elsewhere....like college tuition and such.
I monitor a couple of hundred stocks and infrequently add something new. This is one huge key....stick with something you've built up some familiarity with and the fairly predictable cycle each has. There are over 6,000 publicly listed companies!
One last (political) investment tip, don't get into the envy-syndrome of hot stocks you did NOT get in on. Many if not most of those investors paid their dues......the exception is the market-wave mentality that sometimes carry even idiots to huge gains....like the NASDAQ bubble of `01-`03....the problems is, most idiots don't know when to take their winning chips off of the table...yeah, greed!
Posted by Happy at 09/02/2009 @ 09:43am
Posted by Happy at 09/02/2009 @ 09:43am | ignore this person | warn this person
Absolutely agree with you on playing same stocks over and over, adding and deleting as needed. If you have made an investment of time in getting to know a stock and monitoring it over time, it makes perfect sense to track it regularly.
I didn't do that on DNDN, and missed a splendid opportunity going forward.
What do you think of BHI?
Posted by OneVote at 09/02/2009 @ 09:57am
What do you think of BHI?
Posted by OneVote at 09/02/2009 @ 09:57am
I have a friend, fellow Scout father, who works for BHI. It's been a while since I owned this particular stock. It dropped yesterday when the merger w/BJS was announced.
BHI would be considered a core stock and if it's way below its 52-wk high, would be a good stock to own in part due to it's overshadowed by Schlumberger & Halliburton.
I would wait-n-see but by all means, ponce if it gets lower, say $30. Overall, the Energy sector is a bit confused right now...CapandDie and just how fast China can grow are huge. I'm watching Exxon closely...put in a buy order a week ago that didn't execute...it's even lower now.
Posted by Happy at 09/02/2009 @ 10:20am
A three or four way comparison is necessarily complex, but a simple analysis in terms of 5 year average EPS suggests that Mr. Market is getting it wrong:
I did some math on the merger, finding that it is fair to BJS shareholders in that the value received in BHI shares is equal to the value of the BJS shares to be relinquished, using the 5 year earning histories for comparison. Computing a five year average EPS for the combined entity, I arrived at a figure of 4.42.
BHI has said the expense savings in 2011 will be 150 million, or .35 per share after allowing for the shares to be issued in connection with the acquisition. So a proforma 5 yr average EPS, including the projected expense reduction, would be 4.77.
If the global economy and with it the Energy Sector are in recovery by 2011, as seems increasingly likely, then earnings should tend back toward the long term averages. Applying a multiple of 12 to the 4.77 proforma for BHI+BJS, the shares would be worth 57, 65% above yesterday's close.
Note PE of HAL and SLB are considerably higher, maybe deservedly so. Interesting to ponder.
Baker Hughes Plus BJ Services: Doing Some Simple Math - Seeking Alpha 09/01/09 - Excerpt; Analyst is Long BJS
I think your analysis of $30/share is the better entry point! Hydraulic fracturing v. cementing demand is worthy of understanding for oil/service acquisition plays upcoming.
Posted by OneVote at 09/02/2009 @ 10:42am
Posted by Happy at 09/02/2009 @ 09:43am
Before you take tips, political or otherwise, from HAPP....look at the track record-
"Like I told you, MASK, your analytical and predictive ability WILL eventually improve.....maybe a lot when McCain wins in November! HRC can't effectively deal w/Obama, the phenom, McCain and the GOP most assuredly, won't have any problems!"----Posted by HAPPY 02/20/2008 @ 10:22pm
"Here's a BIG prediction....Magic and his team will find, in 6 months or less, that he will have to have a real tax cut aimed at the top 20%, dramatically cut corporate taxes, extend Bush's tax cuts or waive capital gains on 2009 (& perhaps 2010) investments."----Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 01/22/2009 @ 8:49pm
Posted by Mask at 09/02/2009 @ 11:25am
"Here's a BIG prediction....Magic and his team will find, in 6 months or less, that he will have to have a real tax cut aimed at the top 20%, dramatically cut corporate taxes, extend Bush's tax cuts or waive capital gains on 2009 (& perhaps 2010) investments."----Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 01/22/2009 @ 8:49pm
Posted by Mask at 09/02/2009 @ 11:25am
For at least the second or 3rd time, I'll rebut by saying that I'm HAPPY that THAT prediction didn't come true and that Magic and his party, and his assorted Kool-aid drinkers (that's you, MASK) are paying the price.
Also, let me add....this mis-prediction, actually confirms my contention all along that BHO is not all that smart.
Lastly, there is still a reasonable probability that he will STILL adopt some of the recession-fighting prescriptions I cited; if NOT, I would be HAPPY....LOL! Now, isn't that ironic...whether he does what he shoould, will make me HAPPY either way......I can't lose.
And, let me use this occasion to say: Time is my friend....hehehehe!
Posted by Happy at 09/02/2009 @ 12:15pm
BTW, MASK, you need to revamp your `stuff'!
It gets pretty tedious....and more than a few bloggers have been hammering you. Yes, I know one of your responses is to tuck your head back into that shell and stay low....sort of like BHO.
Being long-time bloggers here, we all repeat ourselves, often knowingly so to `connect' with the newer folks. But seriously, no one repeats himself more often than you. You force us to rpeatedly `defend' ourselves to your tired word-twisitng, out-of-context archives.
I have long suspected you are paid to hang here and somehow, your behavior has never taken that suspicion away....want to come clean since whatever you are trying to do, is part and parcel of the collapse of this, the worst Admin. in our lifetime.
Posted by Happy at 09/02/2009 @ 12:21pm
But seriously, no one repeats himself more often than you. You force us to rpeatedly `defend' ourselves to your tired word-twisitng, out-of-context archives.
I have long suspected you are paid to hang here and somehow, your behavior has never taken that suspicion away....want to come clean since whatever you are trying to do, is part and parcel of the collapse of this, the worst Admin. in our lifetime.
Posted by Happy at 09/02/2009 @ 12:21pm
When I recently came to the conclusion that it was necessary to put Mask on my ignore list, I felt like I was suddenly breathing fresh air. I was tempted to just manually ignore him, but I realized that you have to just him out of sight completely if you want to retain any sanity.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/02/2009 @ 12:42pm
But seriously, no one repeats himself more often than you. Posted by Happy at 09/02/2009 @ 12:21pm
You've got to be kidding..your endless self aggrandizing posts touting your financial wizardry can only be compared to an old bum showing his bunions to passers by from his park bench. Wake up.
Posted by Sorelish at 09/02/2009 @ 1:11pm
Posted by Happy at 09/02/2009 @ 12:21pm
Seems that you developed this keen interest in me "not repeating myself"...
right about the time I re-posted two of your "Big Predictions"?!???!?!?!?
heheh
Posted by Mask at 09/02/2009 @ 1:28pm
Interesting admission as to the REASON he put me on Ignore, isn't it???
"but I realized that you have to just him out of sight completely if you want to retain any sanity."---Posted by antisocialist at 09/02/2009 @ 12:42pm
To keep his "sanity"...perhaps cognitive dissonance would be a better term....Larry has to Ignore me!
Posted by Mask at 09/02/2009 @ 1:30pm
Mask, about time you answered Happy, I was waiting, knew you would come up with a good line, and you didn't disappoint. Phew!
Posted by Denise29 at 09/02/2009 @ 1:32pm
Why would you put Mask on ignore Anti, isn't that why you are on these threads? To debate people like Mask etc.? Doesn't putting people who are you adversaries on ignore sort of defeat the purpose?
Posted by Denise29 at 09/02/2009 @ 1:36pm
..your endless self aggrandizing posts touting your financial wizardry can only be compared to an old bum showing his bunions to passers by from his park bench. Wake up.
Posted by Sorelish at 09/02/2009 @ 1:11pm
You overlook the less-obvious reasons of my doing "financial wizardry" lectures......spread the capitalist mindset here and to "spread the wealth".
Those of you that pay attention and do some thinking/research on your own, are getting valuable tips for FREE from someone who has 30-years of experience. While I mention specific stocks at times, it's more the approach to intelligent investing and risk-taking that I am consciously trying to impart....friends or foes on this community blog.
BTW, you shouldn't be surprised that I am consulted at just about every social occasion and t times, phone calls by folks trying to make an investment decision who know that there is nothing in it for me. And, I always point out the pluses and minuses of a stock or strategy, to the limit of my knowledge.
You think what you will....no skin off my nose! We're all anonymous and that gives me less inhibition to coming across as blowing my own horn, so what? I AM HAPPY.....LOL!
Posted by Happy at 09/02/2009 @ 1:45pm
When I recently came to the conclusion that it was necessary to put Mask on my ignore list, I felt like I was suddenly breathing fresh air. I was tempted to just manually ignore him, but I realized that you have to just him out of sight completely if you want to retain any sanity.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/02/2009 @ 12:42pm
So Anti - what is your reason for putting Mask on ignore? Can't be retention of sanity....you can't retain what you don't have to begin with. Must be another reason.
Posted by OneVote at 09/02/2009 @ 2:28pm
BTW, you shouldn't be surprised that I am consulted at just about every social occasion and t times, phone calls by folks trying to make an investment decision who know that there is nothing in it for me.
Posted by Happy at 09/02/2009 @ 1:45pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Now Hap - just a minute....what about the recommendation on AIG plastered all over The Nation, pushing us to buy a sure thing after you had bought and your shares tanked?
I am figuring AIG's price at $1.90/share, pre reverse-split today.
Not what if George Soros is a Nation reader, and he took your advice and bought a gazillion shares of AIG. Wouldn't that drive up the price of your shares?
Posted by OneVote at 09/02/2009 @ 2:48pm
Posted by Denise29 at 09/02/2009 @ 1:36pm
Too many re-creations of the penultimate courtroom scene in "Inherit the Wind"...not to be too modest...
me as "Drummond" (Spencer Tracy) and Larry as "Brady" (Fredric March).
Posted by Mask at 09/02/2009 @ 2:56pm
What is all this investment crap on a blog about Afghanistan? Don't any of you realize that within 6 short weeks -- as the end of U.S. physical year reports come out -- that all markets are going to crash as the U.S. government is as bankrupt as most of the States and that the ponzi scheme Bernake is running will be revealed and the Obama's administration will not be able continue to lie about the "recovery". We are approaching a catastrophic moment with the U.S. and world economy. Bernake has been monetizing the U.S. debt. The central bankers are aware of the problem. China is aware of the problem. Europeans are aware of the problem. It seems only naive and ignorant Americans are still buying Obama's and Bernake's con. P.S. you can't eat gold. Stock up on survival food. Your going to need it. Rocky road ahead.
Posted by shadowknows at 09/02/2009 @ 3:00pm
I could picture it.
Posted by Denise29 at 09/02/2009 @ 3:01pm
Now Hap - just a minute....what about the recommendation on AIG plastered all over The Nation, pushing us to buy a sure thing after you had bought and your shares tanked?
I am figuring AIG's price at $1.90/share, pre reverse-split today.
Not what if George Soros is a Nation reader, and he took your advice and bought a gazillion shares of AIG. Wouldn't that drive up the price of your shares?
Posted by OneVote at 09/02/2009 @ 2:48pm
Let's see.....and I just checked my records...
I bought AIG twice these past several months. Once on 4/20 @ $1.33...those are in-the-money since they converted to an equivalent of $26.60/share, post-reverse.
Then, just on 8/11, I bought at $26.62...a level that matched what I bought in April.
Now I ask you, am I consistent? I was willing to buy in April at the $26 level, when dark clouds where thick and furious, then I did it again in early August. Both are now in the money and I had already sold off much earlier buys at ridiculous losses and saved them to offset future gains.
Technically, AIG isn't worth much and it's a speculative play...but I'm betting it survives. The Gubbers sunk so much into it, AIG now `owns' the Feds. I am fundamentally against bailouts, just like the Cash for Clunkers and First Time Home Buyer credits....but I sure will take advantage if at all possible since part of that money the Gubbers are showering around are mine to begin with!
Posted by Happy at 09/02/2009 @ 3:07pm
P.S. you can't eat gold.
Posted by shadowknows at 09/02/2009 @ 3:00pm
But you sure can turn it into food!
Gold up over 2% today!
Oh, no need to scare-monger anymore; unless you're a protege of Paul Krugman.
Posted by Happy at 09/02/2009 @ 3:11pm
Both are now in the money and I had already sold off much earlier buys at ridiculous losses and saved them to offset future gains.
Posted by Happy at 09/02/2009 @ 3:07pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Agreed, AIG is just a shell for covering up gubber/wallstreet/banking shenanigans.
Okay - thanks for the full disclosure. By the way, rumor has it that the government is creating a short squeeze on AIG to prop up its price, so you might want to consider the stock's "intrinsic value"...lol......
Posted by OneVote at 09/02/2009 @ 3:32pm
Why would you put Mask on ignore Anti, isn't that why you are on these threads? To debate people like Mask etc.? Doesn't putting people who are you adversaries on ignore sort of defeat the purpose?
Posted by Denise29 at 09/02/2009 @ 1:36pm
With Mask, he tries to draw you into endless cycles of debate about either something you said 4 years ago or some other unrelated segway that becomes totally meaningless. Even worse are the constant lies in which he misstates what you posted or assumes a conclusion that you have neither made or intended.
And Mask has only on a few occasions actually contributed to debate. At most, he gives his "pragmatic" results answer in which he declares that "neither the right nor the left will be happy".
I am here for debate and there are a number of people here on the left that feel the same way. I always look forward to debating Srjenkins, Ibble, Stephen Carver, and some others from the past that truly enjoy debating the issues.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/02/2009 @ 3:38pm
Posted by shadowknows at 09/02/2009 @ 3:00pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Sorry Shadow....since Happy and I agree that we should be out Afghanistan and that BO owns this war now, and is making a mess of it, we digressed for a bit.
You mean that there is something wrong with the Federal Reserve buying Treasury debt with money issued by Treasury?
lol....see you in the bread lines.
Default or devaluation is not a matter of if, but a question of when.
Gold is looking damn good.
Posted by OneVote at 09/02/2009 @ 3:42pm
Gold us being supported in the same way that equities are being supported, by faith and faith alone.
Since August 6th, Bernake began monetizing the debt. PLEASE STUDY WHAT THIS MEANS. Every time a central bank has done this in the past there has been rapid hyperinflation. Having gold on hand did not help anyone in Wiemar Germany. Once upon a time, gold was backed up by the Federal Government's lawful ability to extend credit but that was a long time ago. Now gold has nothing backing it up as a monetary value. As long as faith in gold remains, you are right gold will look better than our current, rapidly devaluing dollars. but if we go into hyperinflation, the only thing that will have value are those commodities than will actually help an individual survive, such as tools, equipment, and, I hate to say, it guns. Gold will be just a shiny worthless metal. And the reason it may seem that my warnings are scare-mongering is because I am scared. In some communities around the country, unemployment has now surpassed levels of the Great Depression. Obama's phony "recovery" and Bernake's ponzi scheme supporting Obama may soon explode in their faces and our wallets. If I am wrong and this does not happen over the next few months, then I will be the first to admit that I was scare-mongering (scareing ;myself even) and Bernake and Obama are the great saviors of our times. In the meantime, it doesn't hurt to stock up on food and tools for survival. You can have all your gold.
Posted by shadowknows at 09/02/2009 @ 5:26pm
P.S., just so you guys have more to slam me with. there are now AT LEAST 3 reasons to impeach Obama:
1) continuing the rip-off of our economy by the Fed, Wall St. banks and their financial schemes (oh, but you say bankers know more than we do about how to run the economy);
2) attempting a fascist style putsch (let no crisis go to waste) to install a "public option" health care system patterned on the euthanasia ridden British NICE system (oh but you say there are no death panels - well just look at the new debate going on England); and
3) pushing the country further into the hopeless quagmire of Afghanistan (but you say we have to fight the Taliban because Moslems want to behead our friends and neighbors).
while none dare call it treason.
Posted by shadowknows at 09/02/2009 @ 5:38pm
In the meantime, it doesn't hurt to stock up on food and tools for survival. You can have all your gold.
Posted by shadowknows at 09/02/2009 @ 5:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person
The value of Gold is for flight.
The value of Food is for fight.
Believe me, the scenario you fear has crossed alot of minds. More than a few folks are anticipating the worse, and finding a piece of land for the fight, or, planning their escape (if possible) to a country that isn't totally corrupt and rotten with worthless debt.
Posted by OneVote at 09/02/2009 @ 5:54pm
I would like to learn whether Ms vanden Heuvel now regrets having supported a candidate who could win over the best candidate America could possibly have offered, Ralph Nader.
Better support a loser than someone who will betray you, right, Ms v H?
Posted by goedel at 09/02/2009 @ 9:33pm
One would hope that Obama is as much a student of history as he is the Constitution. During the 1980s, the Soviet Union was bankrupted and broken primarily by their war in Afghanistan. No country can bring peace and democracy to any sovereign nation against their will. Bring our troops home, forget Afghanistan and tend to our own wounded in the streets of our cities, our hospitals and in our food banks.
Posted by nessashot at 09/02/2009 @ 11:13pm
The first of the statistical reports I have been warning you about is out. It is the Gross Domestic Income (GDI) report. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) we are more familiar with is the nation's output of goos and services was recently touted by Obama flaks as "good news" because it "only" fell 1% in the second quarter as compared to 6.4%, 5.4% and 2/7% down in the previous three quarters. The GDI which measures the the income earned in the making of the GDP has now not encreased for six (6) straight quarters, the longest drop since 1947. And the drop this year is worse than the drop last year. Now you know why the economy still feels awful despite all the happy talk from Obama and his decreasing number of supporters. Rocky times ahead, my friends. But of course you won't hear this from the White House or the FED (check out the Commerce Dept. instead. There are still some professionals, not happy-talk propagandists, over there).
And next week Obama will address the Congress with his new tack on health care. I will wait till then to see what he has to say and what the "new" health care campaign will be before I decide to renew my call for impeachment. It's only fair to give the President another chance.
Also, there is lots of more bad news from Afghanistan including reports that Obama hatchetmen are muzzling the reports coming from our generals in that war to prevent bad news from reaching us, the public. Does anyone still think Feingold, or K. van den Heuvel, really get it? The "good war" quagmire is sucking us under even faster than Vietnam did. The timetable for withdrawal should not be "flexible" it should be NOW.
Posted by shadowknows at 09/03/2009 @ 06:40am
nessashot at 09/02/2009 @ 11:13pm declared:
>> During the 1980s, the Soviet Union was bankrupted and broken primarily by their war in Afghanistan. No country can bring peace and democracy to any sovereign nation against their will. Bring our troops home, forget Afghanistan and tend to our own wounded in the streets of our cities, our hospitals and in our food banks. <<
Endless rubbish.
The USSR was neither broken or bankrupted by Afghanistan. That stupidity is crowed by Osama bin Laden. It is ridiculous and untrue. The Soviets lost 20 million civilians and 8 million soldiers in WWII, and emerged from that orgy of blood and destruction, far more powerful.
As to our wounded, they are relatively miniscule and we have been steadily closing our veterans facilities because there is ever less need for them.
In WWII we suffered over 300,000 fatalities and a million wounded. In Iraq and Afghanistan our dead have been 4,500, less than we incurred in one week on Normandy and our wounded, of around 50,000 are a fraction of our annual injuries in car accidents.
As to no country being able to bring peace and democracy, look at Japan, South Korea, Germany and Italy. How do you suppose they became peaceful and democratic countries? The US insisted on it, at the point of a gun.
As to our food banks, obesity is a far more serious problem in American than undernourishment, especially among the poor.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 09/03/2009 @ 08:02am
Besides the various profit motives (oil & gas and narcotics) some have for escalating and continuing the Central Asia wars (it is not just Afghanistan but Pakistan and the surrounding countries also), there is also the geopolitical reasons such as the Great Game of keeping the region from developing economically. The person who convinced Obama, before he was elected, that Afghanistan was the "good war" was Britain's Tony Blair, an original instigator of both the neocon & neolib movements, and leader of the Queens Privy Council, who has made a career of trying to get the United States bogged down in wars we cannot win. Blair is the modern day Mephistopheles to Obama's Dr. Faustus. His central philosophy since at least the early 1990's is to resurrect a new British Empire not a free world led by the United States. Obama has been wooed and won by this devil and now we will pay with ever more blood and treasure, sinking our future while the "sceptered tyrants" (as Thomas Paine famously called the Brits Royals) further their devilish goals for "global governance". I would call Obama a traitor but he is only a fool smitten with British accents & manners. And I should not call for impeachment because Obama will only be replaced by someone else from the Faustus family in the neolib Democratic Party. Where is there a modern day George Washington when we need him.
Posted by shadowknows at 09/03/2009 @ 09:22am
But you sure can turn it into food! Posted by Happy at 09/02/2009 @ 3:11pm |
Even gold has liquidity problems when food gets scarce enough, but you may yet recognize your dependence on your fellow man, Zippy. Ayn will not be pleased.
If it's you, me, the gold, and the food...I can eat the food while I wait for you to starve...then take your gold.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/05/2009 @ 04:41am