Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
Eight years after the war in Afghanistan began, the issue of how to end it is finally getting some traction in Congress.
No longer is Congressman Jim McGovern's bill with over 100 cosponsors demanding an exit strategy from the only game in town. Nor are Senators Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders alone among their colleagues in calling for a flexible timetable for withdrawal or a national conversation on Afghanistan strategy.
In these past few weeks--after a rigged election that will likely leave the corrupt Karzai government in power, and polls showing Americans suffering war fatigue during these economic hard times of jobless recovery--more centrist Democrats have started questioning a strategy of escalation in Afghanistan. Among them, Senator Carl Levin, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, came out against an increase in troop levels. Also, Senator Diane Feinstein, Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, has called on the administration to provide a specific date for withdrawal.
Even Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin--perhaps the President's closest friend and ally in Congress--said, "I think, at this point, sending additional troops would not be the right thing to do."
It's clear that we are seeing the beginning signs of a significant shift in the debate.
With the Obama administration not expected to take a position on sending more troops for weeks--probably not until after a health care bill is hammered out--now is a critical time to lobby legislators and the administration for an exit strategy, no additional troops and a timetable in Afghanistan. There is a particular need to get a bill moving in the Senate that calls for an exit strategy similar to Rep. McGovern's legislation in the House--ask your Senator to offer one.
Also, check out The Nation and Brave New Films October 2 screening in New York City of Rethink Afghanistan--a documentary which includes interviews with over 100 experts ranging from former CIA officers, NGO officials, Afghan MPs and Afghan women rights activists. Rep. McGovern will participate in a panel discussion following the movie. More details will be available next week at TheNation.com.
This is a critical time to craft and mobilize around an alternative strategy based on regional diplomacy and development, targeted counterterrorism efforts and intelligence sharing. The war in Afghanistan is draining resources that are vital to President Obama's goals for an economic recovery and social justice at home, while destabilizing Pakistan and distracting us from other critical international initiatives such as the Middle East Peace process and a regional diplomacy in South Asia.
To borrow a phrase from the President: "Nothing can stand in the way of the power of millions of voices calling for change." It's time to call your legislators and demand change in Afghanistan--an exit strategy, no additional troops and a date for withdrawal.
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
To raise objections to a black CIC in matters of war is Racism! Can't be anything else!
Posted by Happy at 09/18/2009 @ 4:52pm
Happy, I think you're right. We need to question why Katrina and others are being so racist towards President Obama.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/18/2009 @ 5:25pm
Send in the clowns. What? Talking about surrendering boring the two of you? Maybe the two of you should spend some time reading and responding to the articles on the Oath Keeper's site - except, sadly, I don't think Happy has ever taken the oath to protect the United States. Here's your chance!
http://oathkeepers.org/
Posted by srjenkins at 09/18/2009 @ 6:08pm
I missed where KvH said that he lied...and she's not in the House either.
Leftists (and also Obama) can have conversations about policy without calling each other liars.
You guys should try it sometime.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/18/2009 @ 6:13pm
Just badly want to understand how Taliban will be marginalized, basic jurisprudence cultivated, girls protected -- sounds like the movie has some answers. Organizing discussions around it is way activist cool!
Posted by winyahn at 09/18/2009 @ 6:32pm
I don't think Happy has ever taken the oath to protect the United States. Here's your chance!
Posted by srjenkins at 09/18/2009 @ 6:08pm
Playing your usual `Race' card, huh? And you're actually wrong! I took it upon entering the ROTC program.
As Francisco d'Anconia would often say: "You need to question your own premise!"
Posted by Happy at 09/18/2009 @ 6:36pm
Posted by Happy at 09/18/2009 @ 6:36pm
Well, I'll be! Call those amazing animals! Or maybe the advertising agency for Bud Light's Real Men of Genius.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/18/2009 @ 6:57pm
Oh yea, the only way Demoncrats know how to end a war is defund, cut and run.! No Change, No Hope just their same old defeatist political cowardice that has run the party into the ground for the last 50 yrs. continuing into the next century.
Posted by BigPasture at 09/18/2009 @ 10:35pm
The generals say "When?"
Change, change, change, motherfucking change.
Posted by bleedingheart at 09/18/2009 @ 7:17pm
As I stated earlier, the executive branch appears to answer to the pentagon and evidently the CIA and NSA as well instead of the other way around.
Congress of course answers to wallstreet and bank lobbyists.
The U.S. has become a military industrial complex supporting an international banking extortion racket. Our job is not to question and keep funding the machine via our huge defense budget....but of course healthcare coverage is too expensive.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/18/2009 @ 10:47pm
We do need to get out of Afghanistan--this is an unwinnable war, and if Obama doesn't realize it, his domestic policies will lose out to a war that sucks the treasury dry and creates serious economic problems (a la the 70s)... The best decision the Republicans made was to "cut & run" in Vietnam--I wish LBJ had had the foresight.
Posted by naranjera at 09/18/2009 @ 11:38pm
Health caree coverage is so expensive that it makes Iraq and Afghanistan together look tiny. Wolfgang aooears to be challenged in the arithmetic deprtment.
I still do not think it is a good idea to abandon littlew schoolgirls to attacks of battery acid in their eyes. That is the prime issue of the Taliban War now.
John D. Froelich
Posted by balataf at 09/18/2009 @ 11:46pm
Posted by naranjera at 09/18/2009 @ 11:38pm | ignore this person | warn this person
You get an A in inventive "revisionist" history!
Posted by BigPasture at 09/18/2009 @ 11:54pm
Health caree coverage is so expensive that it makes Iraq and Afghanistan together look tiny. Wolfgang aooears to be challenged in the arithmetic deprtment.
Posted by balataf at 09/18/2009
But health coverage is being paid for now for most people plus the insurers get a cut. So, why not consider the premiums already being paid that would divert to the public plan?
Regardless, the wild speculation that fuels the US interest in Iraq / Afghanistan keeps turning up wrong. So, why continue?
Posted by koroviev at 09/19/2009 @ 12:04am
WATCH VIDEO Over five weeks, 10 "average" women, ranging in age from 14 to 50 and in education from well schooled to illiterate, sat for on-camera interviews with an Afghan videographer.
Example of Neocon Love Afghan Style:
"It seems like men take women as servants, so they can be abusive towards them," she explained in a hushed on-camera interview conducted secretly in Kandahar while her husband was at work. "It's not just the husband, there's also the mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law, and they all rule over me; … whenever I do something bad, anyone who gets angry with me beats me."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/behind-the-veil/
Deteriorating security has forced Kandahar's women to began forfeiting gains they only recently won: They are quitting jobs instead of seeking them, dropping out of class rather than signing up, slipping on burkas instead of shedding them. And despite constitutional guarantees and legal changes aimed at providing equality to women and ending practices such as bride buying, the status of women these days is little changed from that of their forebears.
Exit strategy? Victory?
I thought the basic, enlightened concept is: 1- lots and lots of $, 2 - Many, many years, open-ended commitment, 3- $ divided: 80% aide, 20% security. For security, use international forces at front end with increasing emphasis on regional, local take over. Clear and hold, then develop/strengthen institutions to turn the tide back against these Islamist-neocons.
Posted by winyahn at 09/19/2009 @ 12:14am
War is bullshit MOST of the time. This is an unnecessary war!!!! obama better wake his ass up!!! Liberals put him in and they will vote him OUT!!! Get some guts obama and be a man, tell the pubie fucks to shut the hell up!!! ALL of the Democrats will support you!!!
Posted by Tiger2Lover at 09/19/2009 @ 05:29am
I can see Katrina's point: spending our blood and treasure to keep women and young girls from living under a Taliban type rule does not rise to the importance of getting more stuff for ourselves. I sometimes think that way myself. But in this case, lets do something these women while we can.
Posted by Ron2009 at 09/19/2009 @ 08:54am
Isn't there another way besides war to help these women, I'm all for helping, just not by war.
Posted by Denise29 at 09/19/2009 @ 10:27am
i hate to puke up old tropes but...
lets get out of the "graveyard of empires", ok? really...
hold onto some well stocked bases nearby, keep a powerful fleet in the area (got pirates to deal with anyway)...
and get out of the place. if the barbarians return and start acting up again - send in the reapers...land a few EATRS for that matter and watch them eat up organic matter and shed the blood of our enemies before gobbling them up and shedding more...
and/or drop in the 82nd airborne and some spec forces and massive support - do the job, then - and here's the real trick...
GET THE HELL OUT FAST - LIKE WITHIN DAYS, NOT WEEKS EVEN...
and if we feel guilty maybe dump a little money on the legitimate authorities if they are not the evil barbarians...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/19/2009 @ 10:42am
but there exist in this country four institutions of parasitic nature, although only one really exemplifies parasitism to the tee - the others serve some useful purpose, though do ever fib and bullshit to justify the allocation of more resources to them than they need (or to avoid proper oversight...heaven forbid)
1. the private healthcare industry - nuff said, the worst and most complete parasite. they provide nothing of value that could not be provided better for cheaper, lie ceasesly to preserve their evil profits - profits based on the NEEDLESS suffering and early deaths of MILLIONS.
i do not want my tax money to go to those murderously evil bastards. i want them destroyed. they should have been thrown into the dustbin of history decades ago.
2. education, pubic and private... any institution that deals with free willed human beings that guarantees an OUTCOME (other than a concentration camp) is full of shit. education can guarantee nothing more than an input. while primary and secondary schools drown in a sea of wisdomless liberal compassion and meddling people with EED's and a need to justify their salaries. and then there's the brutal bullshit-a-rama of higher education...quantity over quality!!! encourage every moron who wants to better him/herself to go into tens of thousands of dollars in debt for...what? a watered down history degree?
3. wallstreet and the financial snake oilsmen. when properly regulated these guys can do some good - but put the fox inn charge of the henhouse and WATCH THEM SUCK THE LIFEBLOOD OUT OF HARD WORKING SCHLOBS!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/19/2009 @ 11:05am
4. the military-industrial complex. although we do indeed need a kick ass military, we do not need many of the weapons hawked to us, and certainly need not ru around demonizing tin pot barbarian tyrants in order to justify massive military spending in order to insert ourselves into bloody, draining guerilla wars that justify more and more and more resources for the military industrial complex.
jeez - its not like these guys could not produce peaceful products that are needed to restructure the nation. notice that i'm not referring to the military as the parasitical entity - its the MI complex who approaches dangerous parasitism.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/19/2009 @ 11:10am
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/19/2009 @ 11:05am
Broadbrush much? Any constructive examples of schools or anything you're criticizing here - in America or Uruguay or Norway? Maybe I'm not treating your post fairly? Just helps me to have some sort of alternative, constructive example to understand a critique.
Posted by winyahn at 09/19/2009 @ 1:30pm
I see "I'm a nut job is at it again. However, this time, the people of Iran are actually rising up
<Mr. Ahmadinejad said that confrontation with Israel was a "national and religious duty" and that the Holocaust was "a lie" that was used as a pretext for the country's creation in 1948. Although he has called the Holocaust a "myth" in the past, provoking angry reactions in the West, he has rarely if ever used the word "lie" in public speeches.
But his efforts to recapture the stage were largely drowned out by a tumultuous day of street rallies, in which the three main opposition leaders marched with their followers for the first time in months. Flouting the official government message of support for Palestinian militants, they chanted, "No to Gaza and Lebanon, I will give my life for Iran."
When government men shouted "Death to Israel" through loudspeakers, protesters derisively chanted "Death to Russia" in response. Many opposition supporters are angry about Russia's quick acceptance of Mr. Ahmadinejad's electoral victory.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/19/world/middleeast/19iran.html?_r=1&hp
Posted by antisocialist at 09/19/2009 @ 5:48pm
Clear and hold, then develop/strengthen institutions to turn the tide back against these Islamist-neocons. Posted by winyahn at 09/19/2009 @ 12:14am | ignore this person | warn this person
grr, kill, kill. you are a war monger, subtly, but a war monger just the same. clear and hold, whatta joke. you would need a million troops. america has had it. it waits for Obama and others to catch up.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/19/2009 @ 8:44pm
It appears that it doesn't matter who is president when it comes to Islamic hate. Bin Laden is more popular now during Obama than he was under the Bush presidency. And Obama is hated as much as Bush if not more by Muslims (something I predicted last year)
<Throughout the Bush presidency, opinion polling from the Pew Research Center trumpeted America's "abysmal" approval ratings across the globe. The problem, pollsters suggested with numbing regularity, was that a "cowboy president" had inflamed the Muslim world--and America's European allies--The remedy, of course, was a new administration with a fresh approach: a president committed to multilateralism, smart diplomacy, and American soft powerwith his "unilateral" war on terrorism.
This hagiographic storyline, however, is evaporating like a morning mist. A newer Pew survey suggests that most Islamic countries distrust the United States under the leadership of President Obama about as much as they did under President George W. Bush. Yes, majorities of the Muslim populations interviewed still believe that America plays a mostly destructive role in the world. Most view the United States as "an enemy" and "a military threat" to their own country. Most disapprove of the American-led effort to combat terrorism. Large numbers, in fact, voice strong support for terrorism and Osama bin Laden. Western Europeans, though expressing positive personal views of Obama, show little enthusiasm for key U.S. foreign policy objectives. In other words, anti-Americanism is alive and well in the age of Obama.
http://tinyurl.com/l2r8s9
Posted by antisocialist at 09/19/2009 @ 8:57pm
Posted by antisocialist at 09/19/2009 @ 8:57pm
Given Obama continues the foreign policy traditions of the United States since the end of WWII (and before), why would there be a sudden change of attitude? Because he's black?
"Most view the United States as "an enemy" and "a military threat" to their own country."
Is this perception incorrect? Are you, and people that share your view of the world, not the "enemy" of Muslims? Aren't people that share your view driving US foreign policy?
Posted by srjenkins at 09/19/2009 @ 10:02pm
Posted by Denise29 at 09/19/2009 @ 10:27am
You want to help people? Try kiva.org or villagebanking.org.
Helping people through the U.S. government means people like antisocialist can hijack your efforts for more bombs rather than food or something useful.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/19/2009 @ 10:14pm
Is this perception incorrect? Are you, and people that share your view of the world, not the "enemy" of Muslims? Aren't people that share your view driving US foreign policy?
Posted by srjenkins at 09/19/2009 @ 10:02pm
Quite the contrary, it is Islam and the Quran that state that I'm an enemy. I'm called to share the love of Christ for all people including Muslims. But that doesn't mean I ignore when someone is trying to kill me.
And no, I doubt if there are very many evangelical Christians driving US foreign policy, if any at all.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/19/2009 @ 10:27pm
The Empire grinds onward, even with a new Demo president. The colonial wars of imperial aggression never end. This IS what Orwell was talking about. As in the Iraq war, the real reason is hidden and never spoken: petroleum. The western oil companies want to build a natural gas pipeline from Turkeministan through Afghanistan to India, while bypassing Russia and Iran. So the U.S. is determined to pacify Afghanistan. No matter the cost. Another expensive and bloody war for the oil companies. But this is hardly "change you can believe in".
Posted by philbq at 09/20/2009 @ 12:59am
Katrina vanden Heuvel says "This is a critical time to craft and mobilize around an alternative strategy based on regional diplomacy and development, targeted counterterrorism efforts and intelligence sharing."
What's wrong with this? It attempts to cast a cloud over why the US attacked Afghanistan in the first place and accepts the big lie of "the war on terror" This is not a war on terror, it is a war to control the resource rich regions of the Middle East that had been in planning for over a decade that 9/11 provided the pretext. The war in Afghanistan and Iraq are part of the same war to dominate this region.
This statement by Katrina vanden Heuvel provides cover for US imperialism and is reprehensible.
There is only one exit strategy from the ME. Pull out all troops immediately and pay billions in war reparations to rebuild these countries. Haven't got enough money? Maybe that should have been considered before handing over $23 to financial swindlers--for some reason they have an unlimited source of funding.
The only difference between Obama and Bush is that Obama can read--they are both carrying out the demands of the corporations and financial elites from whose ranks they were drawn.
Posted by Doric at 09/20/2009 @ 01:10am
CORRECTION
Maybe that should have been considered before handing over $23 TRILLION to financial swindlers--for some reason they have an unlimited source of funding.
Posted by Doric at 09/20/2009 @ 01:13am
>>>This is a critical time to craft and mobilize around an alternative strategy based on regional diplomacy and development, targeted counterterrorism efforts and intelligence sharing.<<<
OK, KVH - let's flesh out this ALTERNATIVE STRATEGY. What do you mean by "regional diplomacy"? Do you think targeted counterterrorism will work in Afghanistan, and are you willing to pay the price of a one-term Obama Administration if it doesn't work (we get attacked again from this country)?
What kind of "development" are you proposing in Afghanistan? Opium crop substitution - what crop? Other economic development efforts - what are they? Do you think we should do "anything" about the lack of well developed political and government structure there? If so, what?
These questions MUST be answered if we are going to persuade others to change course. So let's have a "real" debate on these issues!
I don't like war any more than you, but we have to devise an alternative that "works".
Posted by Metteyya at 09/20/2009 @ 03:47am
What I am hearing is "We don't like war, so we don't want to help the people of Afghanistn, etc." Nothing I have seen here or elsewhere addreses the Taliban's record of assassinating village elders and blinding schoolgirls. Without people on the ground, in the mountains, fighting, you have only empty talk that helps nobody.
John Froelich
Posted by balataf at 09/20/2009 @ 04:56am
Once again, the false dichotomy between "whatever it takes" chickenhawks and "yes, but . . ." liberals. The only thing that's changed is that the chickenhawks are out of power and liberals in our government are left confronting the threat that the chickenhawks failed to eliminate in 2001.
Does this mean that liberals, simply because we're liberals, should pursue a policy of "no wars anywhere, against anyone"? Of course not. Al Qaida and the Taliban are a threat to the U.S. Eliminating the threat requires both force and nation-building.
Additionally, eliminating the threat of terrorism also requires that the truth about the Saudi sponsorship of Al Qaida, the Taliban, and the Sunni insurgents be exposed. The Nation and other liberal groups have been led away from the truth by the Party of Big Oil and the mainstream media: earnestly discussing every aspect of the Repubs' smokescreen without discerning the treason it concealed. How about some investigative journalism about the real enemy, KVH?
Posted by samcrossett at 09/20/2009 @ 07:20am
Posted by samcrossett at 09/20/2009 @ 07:20am
I think the danger on the left is that some are buying into Libertarian/isolationist ideology under the guise of progressive policy. It is NOT "progressive" to withdraw from the world and pretend there are no legitimate threats to US or world security. The question is what form should this engagement with the world take, and how do we do this in a "progressive" way?
I am pretty much anti-war, but even I recognize that withdrawing from Afghanistan without doing anything else could lead to the re-emergence of the Taliban and their terrorists guests who really want to harm America. If that happens, and they attack America again, Obama is a one-term president and the progressive agenda gets stopped in its tracks.
For some time now, progressives have lacked a clear comprehensive strategy on how to deal legitimate threats, and this has hurt our governing credibility. Afghanistan provides a clear opportunity to come up with a progressive approach that solves our security problem AND helps the Afghan people at the same time.
KVH has proposed an ALTERNATIVE STRATEGY with bare outlines, but what we really need is to fill in the detail to give one confidence that the strategy will succeed.
I think jatropha could be used to supplant opium crops because the oil fro this plant has superior technical properties to oil derived from fossil fuel. I also think a Peace Corp like "international" operation is needed there, but I don't hear anyone on the left pushing for this to happen.
All I hear is withdraw, withdraw, withdraw, as though we have been co-opted by Pat Buchanan reactionaries who favor US isolation from the rest of the world.
Where is the PROGRESSIVE strategy?
Posted by Metteyya at 09/20/2009 @ 09:28am
Posted by antisocialist at 09/19/2009 @ 10:27pm
"But that doesn't mean I ignore when someone is trying to kill me."
When has any Muslim tried to kill you? Or do you mean, theoretically? Muslims theoretically want to make me a dhimmi, so it is quite alright for the US to drop the cluster munitions I helped develop into their fields - best way to show the love of Christ? Then, after years of doing this, you are perplexed as to why the US is viewed as the enemy?
"And no, I doubt if there are very many evangelical Christians driving US foreign policy, if any at all."
Israel?
Posted by balataf at 09/20/2009 @ 04:56am
I'll add another thing to what you're hearing. It's not the job of the US to police the world. There's all kinds of horror happening all over. What about Israel and conducting a war in Gaza? What about the Congo? What about Mexician drug cartels - which would could eliminate simply by changing our drug policies? What about Burma? Rwanda?
You also cannot deny the history - where US involvement is not to forward any moral agenda but to further national interests.
So please, spare us this we have to have boots on the ground to save the children argument. It's a lie.
Posted by samcrossett at 09/20/2009 @ 07:20am
"Al Qaida and the Taliban are a threat to the U.S. Eliminating the threat requires both force and nation-building."
No, it does not. First, the Taliban have never been a threat to anyone but Afghanis. If they wanted to stop this threat, I'm sure the Afghan tribes and war lords could come up with a solution. Second, there is no eliminating AQ. At this point, it is an idea - an idea that can flourish anywhere. It's an idea like right-wing survivalists are an idea in our own country. It's a policing problem not a nation building problem.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/20/2009 @ 10:10am
"Al Qaida and the Taliban are a threat to the U.S. Eliminating the threat requires both force and nation-building."
whenever they say that, you know that they're in love with the force part.
we have had eight years of force, and it HAS NOT worked.
and it's always Al Qaeda AND the Taleban, when what we are doing most of all is killing some Afghanis at the behest of other Afghanis, very much like we are doing in Iraq.
we are on a fools errand because neither the Taleban nor the Baathist Iraqis have attacked us.
it's just not working, and we can't afford it.
and stop waving the bloody shirt of the Afghani women and girls. how do we treat women and girls here in this country? we have to have shelters for battered women. every day many women are murdered by their husbands and boyfriends. are you waving a bloody shirt for them?
Posted by emile duBois at 09/20/2009 @ 10:27am
perhaps the bloody shirt wavers could enlighten us by enumerating the many boons eight years of war and bloodshed have provided the afghan women with.
the women I mean are the widows, the orphans of the big bad Taleban. they are afghanis too. this killing spree is working out great for them.
same with the american and british women, and the women of the Afghan Army we so proudly we train.now what was it that we are training them for? why war of course. eight years is not enough, we shoiuld look toward a 50 or twenty year "commitment"
for commitment read war and killing.
we should train them how to get along with each other, conflict resolution. WE started this war.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/20/2009 @ 10:41am
It is context, Mettayya...
All this 'attention' to the graveyard of nations...
All that money to the wrong side of the tipping point in our economy...
All this undercurrent of 'racism' in a country suffering more from endemic and centralized economic fraud...
All these attacks on Obama's character at a time of massive socio-economic disorientation... where very few among us would have the guts and/or the wherewithall to even ATTEMPT to take the helm on the stormy seas of today's crises...
In the context of the macro-economic situation here at home... further advances into Afghanistan's quagmire of ancient and warring dissolution looks a lot like shipping Humvees to Iraq... funding mercenary training... redeploying money, troops and equippage... and hinting at the simultaneous 'conquest of Iran'...
...while doing 'almost nothing' to benefit the US citizens hurt most in Hurricane Katrina.
Once again... the people of the United States of America have to sit near the end of a long queue of State dept. priorities... Once again, the escalation of warring interests are given preference to the screaming needs of hungry unemployed Americans...
Once again, the the interests of money are precluding the well-being of a requisitely disenchanted, disgruntled, and financially distraught citizenry.
Getting Americans back to work and limiting financial bubbles should be our primary concerns... period. If we must engage in international police-work and expansionary imperialistic 'reformations'... and I doubt the verity of such claims categorically... we should only do so after our own people are safely in harbor and well occupied in the various pursuits of prosperity and happiness.
The state of the economy is unconscionable...
Posted by ttr at 09/20/2009 @ 11:11am
Posted by srjenkins at 09/20/2009 @ 10:10am
SRJ, your posts on foreign policy and what are the real threats have gone beyond naive to the ridiculous.
1. There are no evangelicals in Obama's State Dept or NSA.
2. There are numerous FATWAS declaring war against ALL Americans-that is a sufficient threat notice.
As I responded to another blogger recently, if only 1/2 of 1% of Muslims are potential jihadists, that is a million man army.
With the Pew poll results showing Bin Laden approval at an all time high with Muslims, I consider that threat more real than even before 9/11.
3. <so it is quite alright for the US to drop the cluster munitions I helped develop into their fields - best way to show the love of Christ? Then, after years of doing this, you are perplexed as to why the US is viewed as the enemy?>
We have never dropped cluster bombs on anyone we weren't already at war with. And taking your logic forward, it seems to have worked out with the Japanese and the Germans. But perhaps you're claiming that Islamic nations lack the same capacity?
BTW on Israel, were Truman, Ike, JFK, LBJ, and Nixon evangelicals? Did they have evangelicals driving their foreign policy towards Israel? The answer is no.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/20/2009 @ 11:15am
we should train them how to get along with each other, conflict resolution. WE started this war.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/20/2009 @ 10:41am
Further proof that JR hates America. He blames us for 9/11.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/20/2009 @ 11:29am
Afghanistan, and western Pakistan aka Waziristan, is where our troops should have been to begin with - never Iraq. NATO supported it, and we'd be out by now except for Bush -- found a cool site; Balkingpoints ; incredible satellite view of earth
Posted by reg373 at 09/20/2009 @ 11:40am
Posted by antisocialist at 09/20/2009 @ 11:15am
"1. There are no evangelicals in Obama's State Dept or NSA."
Are you saying that you have to be IN the State Department or the NSA to drive foreign policy? Someone should call AIPAC and let them know.
"2. There are numerous FATWAS declaring war against ALL Americans-that is a sufficient threat notice."
Even funnier. Fatwas mean nothing. It would be like a Muslim taking one of your anti-Muslim posts from The Nation and using it to prove to other Muslims that the US or evangelical Christians are out to get them.
How could you manage to spend so much of you life with some association with the military and get so easily scared by non-existent threats? Do you really expect people to get scared by the notion that there may be as many as a million Muslims who have some kind of desire for jihad? People that have little to no training, no logistical support, no financial backing, and scattered throughout the world but mostly concentrated in Muslim countries. Yes, that's terrifying.
Let's look at the list of "terrorist" activities. We aren't talking coordinated divisions or even platoons - even in exceptional circumstances like the Mumbai attacks. We're basically talking about bombs being used in civilian centers or a couple of individuals with small arms. When they happen in our own country, they would be handled by police/SWAT teams - not the military. This is a policing problem. It's not a military problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2009
Posted by srjenkins at 09/20/2009 @ 12:11pm
>>>If we must engage in international police-work and expansionary imperialistic 'reformations'... and I doubt the verity of such claims categorically... we should only do so after our own people are safely in harbor and well occupied in the various pursuits of prosperity and happiness.
The state of the economy is unconscionable...
Posted by ttr at 09/20/2009 @ 11:11am<<<
I hear you TTR on domestic priorities and the out-of-balance economic priorities. But do you really think it is realistic to withdraw from the world - even temporarily - while we focus on US needs only? Do you think the world will stand still while we focus internally? And if it doesn't, are you prepared to accept the adverse consequences on this president and on the progressive agenda?
I can hear the 2012 Repubs now....Obama told us we took our eye off Afghanistan to pursue a dumb war in Iraq, and now we have him also taking his eye off Afghanistan, which has created another terrorist nightmare for America... Obama is simply incapable of keeping America safe.
Like you, I think we spend WAY too much money on defense, but I also think that unless we construct an alternative international police structure, the US is stuck with this role. I actually favor a UN or other internationally sponsored rapid strike force that is capable of deterring aggression around the world. And for such a force to have international credibility, it must be comprised of forces from nearly all nations at every level of leadership.
The Repubs will squawk about putting the US under the UN flag, but the US simply cannot afford to continue to play the world's cop. Also, with the US playing this role, we continue to open ourselves up to attack as US corporate interests become the primary beneficiaries of war.
Posted by Metteyya at 09/20/2009 @ 1:12pm
grr, kill, kill. you are a war monger, subtly, but a war monger just the same. clear and hold, whatta joke. you would need a million troops. america has had it. it waits for Obama and others to catch up.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/19/2009 @ 8:44pm
OK. I'm ready to be wrong-as a life philosophy in fact. Tell me more. No role whatsoever for UN or NATO security forces? Besides withdrawal, what to you propose? I just think the risk of another lost generation in Afghanistan is a legitimate concern without a more comprehensive approach.
Posted by winyahn at 09/20/2009 @ 1:14pm
Afghan women suffer from one of the highest levels of maternal mortality in the world.
"Constant fighting and threats to health workers have forced the closure of at least 11 of the 38 health facilities across [Kandahar] province, the population of which is estimated at over one million", provincial health officials said, IRIN reported on September 17.
The article said the situation was much worse for women: "The absence of health providers in rural areas makes things especially difficult for women who already have limited access to work and education."
IRIN said the maternal mortality rate was 1600 deaths per 100,000 live births -- one of the worst in the world.
Surely this is the result of a thousand things, some of which would worsen with no involvement of intl security forces and some of which would worsen with wrongly designed involvement of intl security forces -
Some of which would unproved with the correct involvement of intl security forces combined with aide and development.
Need security forces, for example in my view, to protect medical facilities for women in rural areas so Taliban types don't attack them.
Posted by winyahn at 09/20/2009 @ 1:31pm
Posted by winyahn at 09/19/2009 @ 1:30pm | ignore this person | warn this person
good query.
ok...where to start?
first - education is all to often touted by politicians and education professionals as the magical silver bullet that will fix all the problems. for politicians its a convenient distraction that allows them to say things that nobody can disagree with (like i'm for good things and against bad things) ad avoid dealing with issues that need be dealt with. for education professionnals the benefit of irresponsibly advocating for resource allocation for programs of dubious effectiveness ad for undirected allocation is obvious.
i honestly believe that this is a prime example of creating a dystopia by believing one can achieve utopia.
all human endeavors involve a form of triage, including education, and ignoring this reality and pursuing uattainable perfection is destructive. i blame this mostly on well intentioned liberals who basically dominate education and bad politicians who de-facto revert to the "education can solve all our problems - just keep dumping money into it willy nilly and trust those who have run it for the last 5 decades to make things better (whe such has not been the case for 4-5 decades).
the results for undirected increases in spending have not been impressive. why do we continue to work under the assumption that at some point these ineffective initiatives will begin bearing fruit?
and higher education? hmmm...
we do NOTHING to contain the cost of it yet do ever tout it.
more on that later, but overall it impresses me as one of the most labrynthine, wasteful, self serving institutions overall in the country.
with many wonderful exceptions, of course individual and institutional.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/20/2009 @ 1:52pm
Need security forces, for example in my view, to protect medical facilities for women in rural areas so Taliban types don't attack them. Posted by winyahn at 09/20/2009 @ 1:31pm | ignore this person | warn this person
let the warlords protect the afghan women. US raus.
I don't recall the touching concern for Afghani women BEFORE 9/11. the US paid the Taleban 50 million of your money and mine.
hint: it wasn't on behalf of the afghani women.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/20/2009 @ 2:07pm
No role whatsoever for UN or NATO security forces?
there are no UN forces in afghanistan. what the North Atlantic Treaty soldiers are doing in Afghanistan is beyond me.
as to your question. only as peacekeepers, in which role they have had some success.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/20/2009 @ 2:10pm
Are you saying that you have to be IN the State Department or the NSA to drive foreign policy? Someone should call AIPAC and let them know.
<Even funnier. Fatwas mean nothing. It would be like a Muslim taking one of your anti-Muslim posts from The Nation and using it to prove to other Muslims that the US or evangelical Christians are out to get them.>
You are a pretty intelligent person, but that is an ignorant response.
I suggest for a starter, reading the following link from Islamweb's Fatwa center.
http://tinyurl.com/n4r2of
Secondly, your view is decidely in the minority, even with the Democrats.
<How could you manage to spend so much of you life with some association with the military and get so easily scared by non-existent threats? Do you really expect people to get scared by the notion that there may be as many as a million Muslims who have some kind of desire for jihad?>
Posted by srjenkins at 09/20/2009 @ 12:11pm
Now you're just resorting to a strawman. Your military training knows better than to try and label what I'm posting as exhibiting fear. Does the military prepare for different contingencies based on fear or because of identified or potential threats? My work in the military, in military intelligence, & my years working on classified Defense projects gives me my perspective on identifying and countering threats.
It is not based upon fear.
1. On foreign policy, you sound just like the anti-semites. Have you now joined the "AIPAC runs the US govt" bigots?
2. Non existent threat? 9/11, Madrid, London, Bali, etc, just casual incidents?
Is it better to attack an armed enemy while they are preparing to attack then wait to respond after they carry them out.
I have never dismissed the joint role of police & military
Posted by antisocialist at 09/20/2009 @ 2:14pm
women are oppressed and abused in may places in the world. the book review of the NYTimes features a book describing the plight of women all over the world.
are you ready to send US troops to take away their pain?
of course not. the war in afghanistan is political not humanitarian, as if such a thing were possible.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/20/2009 @ 2:34pm
SHIFTING DEBATE IN AFGHANISTAN!
WTF! Please can we just leave Afghanistan alone?
They have problems. And those problems should not have to include dealing with us. The real reason we are in Afghanistan has nothing to do with 9/11 or womens rights or religious extremism.
It is all about the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline. It is just the Old Silk Road scam. Gas and Opium. It is all about control of resources. It is all about the Military Industrial Complex and Pay to Play Contractor giveaways.
In other words it's all about profit, greed and power.
At the expense of the American taxpayer who can't even get Healthcare.
Please Wake Up! We are being played. Doesn't anyone see this?
Posted by chaoszen at 09/20/2009 @ 3:18pm
Posted by chaoszen at 09/20/2009 @ 3:18pm
CHAOSZEN has actually helped make the case as to why we need a truly "international" force to deal with these threats, and why the US should hand over its world cop role to such an force once it's ready.
As long as "any" single country is playing world cop, legitimate concerns about profit motive and other "national" motives other than security will always be at issue.
The problem with the CHAOSZENS in our community, is they don't seem to have an answer as to how to deal with REAL threats to the security of other nations. Regardless of how 9/11 has been exploited, it was a REAL attack on America. We can quibble about how much was planned in Afghanistan and how much was carried out elsewhere, but the attack itself was real. The twin towers are gone!
While I agree that reigning in the America cowboy swagger attitude promoted by Bush/Cheney will help reduce threats against our country, it will NOT eliminate them.
So how does simply withdrawing from the world allow us to deal with the legitimate threats? And if it doesn't, what PROGRESSIVE ALTERNATIVE can we propose that has a chance of success?
Posted by Metteyya at 09/20/2009 @ 4:26pm
So how does simply withdrawing from the world allow us to deal with the legitimate threats? Posted by Metteyya at 09/20/2009 @ 4:26pm
What threats? The only threat we have to worry about is Oligarchy. There is no other threat than that. The threat is from within. There is no threat outside.
Why are people so braindead?
As an example. Every Six months or so the Dept of Homeland Security finds a couple of Arab looking people. Like they did yesterday. My God! The guy had had a scale and a couple of Duracell Batteries! He even had some stuff on his Computer! Bombs and Explosives!
Then they release this crap to the Media. Who suck it up bigtime. Because they are the Corporate Media that sells this fear in the first place!
In a few days it will all be forgotten. And a few "raghead looking people" will be released for lack of evidence.
But the damage is already done. Nobody remembers that they didn't do anything.
They only remember that there was a threat. And Homeland Security or the FBI was on the case!
This crap is just a bunch of Bullshit!
If you don't see it you are lost. And those of us who do see it go quietly crazy.
Posted by chaoszen at 09/20/2009 @ 4:56pm
The only fucking threat is the Goddamn Oligarchy!!! Wake up Morons!
Everything You Think Is Wrong!
Dumbasses!
Posted by chaoszen at 09/20/2009 @ 5:03pm
Posted by chaoszen at 09/20/2009 @ 4:56pm
But, CHAOSZEN, the twin towers REALLY are gone! This was a not media generated corporate scheme, but an actual attack on America that succeeded.
Similar attacks are being planned and foiled all the time, so the question is do we encourage more of these attacks by withdrawing? If so, what is the "progressive" alternative?
Posted by Metteyya at 09/20/2009 @ 5:05pm
Thank the God's that some of us are immune to mind control. Otherwise all of humanity would be lost...
Posted by chaoszen at 09/20/2009 @ 5:07pm
Posted by Metteyya at 09/20/2009 @ 5:05pm
Fuck you! I'm sorry, but just Fuck you!
Posted by chaoszen at 09/20/2009 @ 5:09pm
The Twin Towers? Really Gone? You mean that some twisted son of a bitch sacrificed an American Icon?
I wonder what for? Who could have done that? Why would they do that?
Jesus, we live in a Nation of Idiots...
Posted by chaoszen at 09/20/2009 @ 5:13pm
I'm tired. So fucking tired.
Trying to save the world is best left to Super Heroes..........
I'm done. Cooked as it were. Clear to the bone.
Costa Rica or Bust.
Posted by chaoszen at 09/20/2009 @ 5:17pm
Metteyya at 09/20/2009 @ 1:12pm...
O.K... I agree that our international priorities and presence are important, and I am not for a moment discounting our ongoing 'good works' around the world... also, I am fully cognisant of the right's 'watchful eye'... (if you only knew...)
But the economy in the US is by far the worst I have seen in my lifetime... and I am seeing precious little attention being spent by Dems or Pubs on the root of American democracy... namely... jobs, homes, and financial security for the 'lower half', which would include, by the way, the entire middle class.
I am in no way condoning a 'protectionist' national reclusion from international affairs... but concerns about Afghanistan's social structure seem almost oxymoronic when we contrast them with America's current economic disfunctions... because we have always led by example, and our house is not in order.
The American people did not... indeed, do not... deserve to be shunted and shuttled into obsurity and destitution in order to 'make way' for a dying empire oriented paradigm... one that is arguably proving to be not very nutritious for either ourselves, or the world at large.
This may be a clear cut case of 'physician, heal thy self'...
Posted by ttr at 09/20/2009 @ 5:50pm
Posted by antisocialist at 09/20/2009 @ 2:14pm
As a start, you should review that fatwas can be issued by anyone and are non-binding. It's no different than you offering an opinion on Christianity and someone trying to assert that your "teachings" represent the views of Christians. Your ideas are your own. Same goes for fatwas and Islam.
As a second point, it's fine to prepare for contingencies. However, that's not what we are doing. We are actively engaged in places like Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere where we have large deployments are effectively providing training opportunities for Islamic militants. It's one thing to run some special or black ops to assassinate militant leadership, break up cells or break up these networks. It's something completely different to have "boots on the ground".
As for AIPAC, you can try the antisemitic tactic all you like. The bottom line is that if being in the State Department or the NSA was a requirement for influencing foreign policy as you claimed, then AIPAC would have no reason to exist - now would it? The comment is a direct response to your flawed thinking.
I'm also glad you brought up 9/11, Madrid, London, Bali, etc. How, exactly, might you have attacked "an armed enemy while they are preparing to attack" and prevented these events?
Generally, the answer to these questions involves better police work, intelligence, implementing real border and transportation security, etc. There simply isn't a role for the military in most effective approaches. And when the military does get involved, then you have a double edged sword that serves as a recruiting tool and training opportunity. In other words, it does more harm than good.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/20/2009 @ 5:55pm
I am wondering how Muslims would view the U.S. in a better light when our policies have not changed. How would Muslims not think that we were not occupying Iraq and Afghanistan?Why wouldn't Iranians demonstrate in the streets against their theocratic government which they knew rigged the election?The fact is that these people know what kind of mess there is in their part of the world. They expect the U.S. to have a large force in the Middle East for a long time. Everyone from the years of the Peacock throne haven't left. They know they goofed when the power was handed to the mullahs. They also hope we are there to be a target of their extremists. It is a win fopr every one inthe region.
Posted by whatozz at 09/20/2009 @ 6:25pm
I am wondering how Muslims would view the U.S. in a better light when our policies have not changed. How would Muslims not think that we were not occupying Iraq and Afghanistan? Posted by whatozz at 09/20/2009 @ 6:25pm
What? Believe me, Muslims know when a bunch of White Devils are occupying their countries.
Shit. This kind of thing has been going on for a long time. As an example, if the situation was reversed and a Muslim country was occupying the U.S.A, would some of us be pissed? You bet. We would be killing them at every opportunity. I know I would.
So why do we think it is so strange that people in another country would react differently? They are being "Occupied" by a foreign nation. US! But when they defend their country they are "Terrorists". But if we defend our country, we are "Patriots".
Give me a break here. Surely we are not so stupid as to swallow reverse Nationalism? But only as it applies to anyone but us.
Wake up!!!
Posted by chaoszen at 09/20/2009 @ 6:39pm
It's high time we realize who the real "Terrorists" are. How many of them are over here killing us? And how many of us are over there killing them?
It's a no brainer. One million Iraqi's Dead. Many more are refugees. From their neighborhoods and from their country. Their young Women must Prostitute themselves to survive.
Who is the Terrorist? WHO IS THE FUCKING TERRORIST!!? We are. Plain and simple.
We are the "Terrorists" that we fear so much.
A country of Morons....
Posted by chaoszen at 09/20/2009 @ 6:50pm
KVH, as ever, could not be more dishonest.
What is the point of endlessly screeching against the pointless waste of our men and money in Afghanistan, without attacking the cause and defense of this futile war?
There the fearless Nation is silent. It knows the reason. It lacks the integrity and courage to speak the truth.
Afghanistan is a political war, initially championed by the Left, but now it serves just one man, Barack Obama. And does not serve him well, another reason to speak out.
At first Afghanistan was pushed by the Left in the hope of pushing America's focus away from Iraq and saving Saddam's skin. That's when, Iraq the bad war, Afghanistan the good war mantra started. Obama, in 2002, was in the middle of that.
But in the 2008 campaign, when his judgment on Iraq and the Surge proved lamentable, he began making warlike noises on Afghanistan. He was indignant that the Republicans had reduced that war to a mere holding action. He vowed to make it the central front in the war on terror and fight it to victory. Now we, and he, are stuck with that political gambit. American lives and money are being pissed away to back up Obama's campaign dodge.
That no one on here says this out loud, is willing to denounce Afghanistan as a political war, Obama's war, shows the hollowness, the dishonesty, the rot of the Left.
Posted by Pirovano at 09/20/2009 @ 7:07pm
We are the worst country in the entire World! A bunch of frothing at the mouth Capiltalists who cannot even provide for the Health of their own citizens.
Because we have to spend more money on our own Military than the rest of the World conbined. In order to protect the GREED of a relative handfull of Corporations and the few who Empower them.
And then we are hampered by a lack of education and a bunch of Pseudo Religious Nutcases who wish for the end of time. When their Lord will return and make everything hunky-dory.
There was a time when this country had the promise to change the world for the better. But now we are just a plague on the planet.
And have become what we once despised.
Shame on Us.
Posted by chaoszen at 09/20/2009 @ 7:09pm
For the first Time.
I am ashamed to be an American....
Posted by chaoszen at 09/20/2009 @ 7:17pm
Stop it Shazam,you are hurting my ears and I have a quiet computer.Afghanistan was the spot that Obama pointed at to woo voters that thought he was soft on terrorism. It was and remains political. I think it was a mistake to take the stake in Afghanistan that Obama did. Today is like election day,it is the economy stupid. The right will not let health care reform happen. They are like a storm that hangs around for a week. Just keep putting up obstacles and something might happen. This talk of being ashamed to be an American is ridiculous.
Posted by whatozz at 09/20/2009 @ 7:32pm
That no one on here says this out loud, is willing to denounce Afghanistan as a political war, Obama's war, shows the hollowness, the dishonesty, the rot of the Left. Posted by Pirovano at 09/20/2009 @ 7:07pm
There are plenty of folk on the right who think Afghanistan is a 'good' war. Laying it on the doorstep of those kooky 'leftists' is just you buying into that whole dubious mindset that says there is only the left and the right; how about just thinking for yourself?
Bush should have gone there in the first place. That's what stunk up his whole administration. That's where Osama bin Laden was. I agree that we should not be there now.
Posted by ficheye at 09/20/2009 @ 7:45pm
The only fucking threat is the Goddamn Oligarchy!!! Wake up Morons!
Everything You Think Is Wrong!
Dumbasses!
Posted by chaoszen at 09/20/2009 @ 5:03pm
I'm starting to feel sorry for chaoszen. He's so lost, he doesn't even know it.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/20/2009 @ 8:14pm
As for AIPAC, you can try the antisemitic tactic all you like. The bottom line is that if being in the State Department or the NSA was a requirement for influencing foreign policy as you claimed, then AIPAC would have no reason to exist - now would it? The comment is a direct response to your flawed thinking.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/20/2009 @ 5:55pm>
You have moved the bar. Let's look at the original comments.
<Is this perception incorrect? Are you, and people that share your view of the world, not the "enemy" of Muslims? Aren't people that share your view driving US foreign policy?
Posted by srjenkins at 09/19/2009 @ 10:02pm
Quite the contrary, it is Islam and the Quran that state that I'm an enemy. I'm called to share the love of Christ for all people including Muslims. But that doesn't mean I ignore when someone is trying to kill me.
And no, I doubt if there are very many evangelical Christians driving US foreign policy, if any at all.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/19/2009 @ 10:27pm>
So, you started with "driving" foreign policy and now try to reframe it by stating "influencing". You would agree those are very different levels?
Furthermore, you stated people who share my view. Is AIPAC an evanglical organization?
I also asked you about Truman, Ike, LBJ, and Nixon. Were they evangelicals. It is from my evangelical beliefs coupled with an ability to not only read the Quran, but history that influences my views.
You remain unwilling to consider the weight of history with the nearly 1000 years of Muslim invasions and conquest. This Muslim drive has merely restarted with the emergence of jihadist elements and the money furnished by oil.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/20/2009 @ 8:24pm
Posted by Pirovano at
whattabunchofcrap. Bush started the war, and let it rot for seven and a half years. all of a sudden NOW it's a political war?
Posted by emile duBois at 09/20/2009 @ 9:04pm
That's where Osama bin Laden was.
a very doubtful proposition.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/20/2009 @ 9:17pm
You don't think that any military officers or planners know or are influenced by evangelicals? You are the one who is naive. The whole Muslim engine is driven by the mighty dollar as much as ideology. The dollars the Saudi's have kept us from any commentary on their society. I know evangelicals that supported the war because Muslims worshipped "another" God. I am concerned with your neo-con spirit. You are someone that feels a lot of people are evil. Quite a way for a "spiritual" person to think.
Posted by whatozz at 09/20/2009 @ 9:32pm
ficheye @ 7:45pm said:
>> There are plenty of folk on the right who think Afghanistan is a 'good' war. Laying it on the doorstep of those kooky 'leftists' is just you buying into that whole dubious mindset that says there is only the left and the right; how about just thinking for yourself?<<
Yes, many on the right do support the war in Afghanistan. They do so sincerely, out of their reflexive, and in this case mistaken, national security concerns. But the Democrats, certainly their left wing, are the anti-war party. They opposed fighting in Kuwait, in Bosnia, in Kosovo. The Left even opposed fighting the Nazis. They demonstrated against the draft and Lend Lease up to the day Russia was attacked.
Their Afghanistan belic0sity in 2001/2002 was an attempt to save Saddam's skin. But now they are back in their anti-war mode and find themselves opposing a war but not the man who has blown on its embers and turned it into a substantial blaze for his own vain, self serving political reason. They hate the war but can't bring themselves to turn on its perpetrator.
Does anyone think this hisitation would exist if Obama were white? Pathological dishonesty and bald racism are the reason.
As for me not thinking independently, I am mainly on the right. But I was a critic of Bush in 2000 and of the oil people who financed a candidate incapable of two coherent impromptu sentences. I am outspoken about the widening income gulf between the middle class and the very rich. I supported Bush/Cheney on Iraq, yet since Tora Bora when OBL slipped away, have opposed Afghanistan. I was happy with Clinton and supported Gore in 2000 and McCain in 2008, certainly after the Ayers and Jeremiah Wright revelations.
I am probably the least ideological poster here.
Posted by Pirovano at 09/20/2009 @ 11:26pm
That's where Osama bin Laden was. a very doubtful proposition. Posted by emile duBois at 09/20/2009 @ 9:17pm
Oops. I should have been very, very precise (?), but from reports from special ops folks, one of which was in a 60 minutes interview, it was widely held that he was on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, near or in what is called Waziristan. So, anybody's guess, including yours.
There are some that say no, but others like the BBC's Rahimullah Yusufzai say that it's possible.
I SHOULD have said " it's quite probable that" or "a possible hiding place for bin Laden and his minions." By exclusion he's sort of running out of good places to hide that want to harbor him and/or run the chance of having their wedding parties disrupted by a predator drone. Better?
Posted by ficheye at 09/21/2009 @ 12:14am
What we really need to do, is redefine all the "mission" out there. We are not to get involved in nation building, maybe in some major infrastructure projects to help the Afghan government. But we should keep the intelligence, a select and very small, group in land and satellites. Let them (Al Qaeda and terrorist training camps) think they have won, we will be there when the mice get out of their holes.
Obama said he wanted to get Bin Laden. It will be interesting to know what the intelligence people think are the odds of getting him in say 2-3 years with this strategy and some >1,000 more casualties. I would bet the odds are pretty low (less than 20%). Let's be rational, if the odds are like that a tactical retreat is needed, we are just spoiling so much precious American life, that it is not worth it. We will get them in the long run and with much less effort.
What I see really as a problem is the "Talibanization" of the government of Pakistan. International aid to this country should be linked to very specific control of nuclear warheads. Modernization - like massive access to the Internet - and democratic means will help too. We will need to keep strong ties with the government but unfortunately, and just in case, we will need India to help guarantee things won't get out of hand there.
Posted by Frank42 at 09/21/2009 @ 02:02am
Posted by antisocialist at 09/20/2009 @ 8:24pm
Naturally, Larry will tell you that all the wars fought by CHRISTIAN nations over the last 2000 years were...
A. Good wars
B. The leaders weren't "real Christians" so it doesn't count.
Posted by Mask at 09/21/2009 @ 07:29am
ficheye
well it was given as the casus belli, so someone should have been more precise. Waziristan is NOT Afghanistan.
"By exclusion he's sort of running out of good places to hide that want to harbor him"
I can't believe that. he is a hero to many, many muslims, and anyone who would turn him in, would find his family in great jeopardy.
one thing a people have a right to expect from its wars, and that is success. after eight years of failure, it is time to try another tack.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/21/2009 @ 07:57am
What are we going to win in Afghanistan? The taking of Bin Laden's scalp? How will we achieve this in a place and society where we are not welcome.How many people or body parts are expendable?What if Bin Laden was a Russian would we be a country of foul air and giant hovels where great cities used to be?
Posted by whatozz at 09/21/2009 @ 07:59am
Posted by antisocialist at 09/20/2009 @ 8:24pm
"So, you started with "driving" foreign policy and now try to reframe it by stating "influencing". You would agree those are very different levels?"
Since we had specifically moved to AIPAC, influencing is more appropriate - obviously since if they weren't influencing they would have no reason to exist. When we are talking about lobbying groups like AIPAC, then driving is the more appropriate verb.
"Furthermore, you stated people who share my view. Is AIPAC an evanglical organization?"
You want to argue that the Christians United for Israel, a group conceived of as a "Christian AIPAC", isn't an evangelical organization? That there aren't other lobbyists on the same page as AIPAC? And that these policy groups aren't coordinated at meetings like the AIPAC Policy Conference? And that this doesn't have tangible results such as driving the war to go to Iraq?
Please elaborate. I'd love to see that argument.
"I also asked you about Truman, Ike, LBJ, and Nixon. Were they evangelicals. "
I think this it on point. http://www.cfr.org/publication/11341/
"It is from my evangelical beliefs coupled with an ability to not only read the Quran, but history that influences my views."
It is your evangelical beliefs that is distorting your ability to interpret with any kind of objectivity the Quran (read Arabic?) and history (Crusades, anyone?).
"You remain unwilling to consider the weight of history with the nearly 1000 years of Muslim invasions and conquest."
Since the fall of the Ottoman empire, can you point to more invasions and conquest - where a Muslim country fought a non-Muslim country with an eye toward subjugating it? What about the hundreds of years of invasions and conquest by Christian empires and colonization?
Posted by srjenkins at 09/21/2009 @ 08:30am
history is more or less bunk. Henry Ford
Posted by emile duBois at 09/21/2009 @ 08:33am
Posted by Pirovano at 09/20/2009 @ 11:26pm
"I was happy with Clinton and supported Gore in 2000 and McCain in 2008, certainly after the Ayers and Jeremiah Wright revelations...I am probably the least ideological poster here."
Very funny. Pirovano believes that Jeremiah Wright is something special that every black American hasn't seen in one form or another in his church. And your comfortability with Clinton and McCain shows us that your ideology is the status quo of the moderate right - that isn't comfortable with any kind of change. Every poster is equally ideological. The question is how dogmatic you are about stereotypical ideologies.
Posted by Frank42 at 09/21/2009 @ 02:02am
"...we are just spoiling so much precious American life..."
What's the precious part? Life or that the life is American?
Posted by Mask at 09/21/2009 @ 07:29am
Exactly. Same goes with who gets labelled a conservative. Bush was a conservative when it suits, and isn't when it doesn't suit.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/21/2009 @ 08:40am
Posted by emile duBois at 09/21/2009 @ 08:33am
And Henry was also a vicious anti-Semite....something you normally eschew Professor Rolf?!??!??
Posted by Mask at 09/21/2009 @ 08:42am
Posted by srjenkins at 09/21/2009 @ 08:40am
Interestingly, there seems to be some cognitive dissonce on the Right these days....holding both that "Dubya was a great President" AND that "he wasn't a REAL conservative!"
The thinking (if you can call it that) that they must defend their most recent Republcian President, who was also the most conservative they'll likely ever get....so as to not give "us liberals" more ammo...
but to "explain away" his failure and un-popularity, they have to claim that he wasn't a "real" conservative since (in their minds) "real conservatism NEVER fails."
It's getting so bad, I've actually seen right-wingers on other blogs attack...RONALD REAGAN as not conservative enough (in one breath)....praise him in another.
Posted by Mask at 09/21/2009 @ 08:45am
I'm starting to feel sorry for chaoszen. He's so lost, he doesn't even know it.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/20/2009 @ 8:14pm
Coming from someone who claims to speak with God one on one, and who I consider "Mad as a Hatter" thats quite a compliment. If you think I'm lost then I know I'm on the correct path..
Posted by chaoszen at 09/21/2009 @ 08:47am
since (in their minds) "real conservatism NEVER fails." Posted by Mask at 09/21/2009 @ 08:45am
Funny you mentioned that. If you look at Conservatism through a historical lens, it always fails. It fails the majority but it does tend to enrich the minority. Thats why they strive to keep the shell game going as long as possible.
Posted by chaoszen at 09/21/2009 @ 08:54am
Keep in mind that the so-called Conservatives had to re-write history in order to cannonize Reagan.
Posted by chaoszen at 09/21/2009 @ 08:58am
It's getting so bad, I've actually seen right-wingers on other blogs attack...RONALD REAGAN as not conservative enough (in one breath)....praise him in another.
Posted by Mask at 09/21/2009 @ 08:45am
I see you have found a more consistent way to get your jollies......while BHO flourishes....that's sarcasm...LMAO!
Big Gubbers....leads to Big Troubles......leads to Big Wastes....leads to citizen revulsion (see Gallup Poll, 57 big %).......leads to Bigger Hopey and Changey....HaHaHaHaHa!
Posted by Happy at 09/21/2009 @ 09:03am
i think it is been past the time to bring our troops home and i am sure our current administiation is aware of that as well i expect an exit stategy to be presented and in effect by the end of 2010
Posted by ullpaymesumday at 09/21/2009 @ 09:45am
i think it is been past the time to bring our troops home and i am sure our current administiation is aware of that as well i expect an exit stategy to be presented and in effect by the end of 2010
Posted by ullpaymesumday at 09/21/2009 @ 09:45am
But the Democrats, certainly their left wing, are the anti-war party. They opposed fighting in Kuwait, in Bosnia, in Kosovo. The Left even opposed fighting the Nazis. They demonstrated against the draft and Lend Lease up to the day Russia was attacked.
Henry Ford? Charles Lindbergh? Lefties perhaps?
Plus...
I think it was a Dem, Bill Clinton, who sent us on the Bosnia mission.
And...
It certainly couldn't have been all those UNION mugs who were "on the left", since they successfully BUILT all that WW2 war machinery...
So...
Where are you getting this stuff from, Hugo?
Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/21/2009 @ 09:58am
Posted by Mask at 09/21/2009 @ 08:45am
I don't see this as a bad thing, really. Conservative is a relatively new term and it has morphed quite a bit. I have significant areas of agreement with what is now called Old Right conservatives, and it is time for conservative thought to evolve beyond big government imperialism, aka the neoconservative position. They need to figure out how to appeal to a broader base and that's going to take some time and cause some confusion short term.
Posted by chaoszen at 09/21/2009 @ 08:47am
Just because LVL thinks your a loon, it doesn't mean you aren't. Some of your comments lately have been a bit...dramatic.
Posted by chaoszen at 09/21/2009 @ 08:54am
Case in point. You could argue that "conservative" values have been the hallmark of US governance since the Constitution - and to some degree, you'd be right.
Posted by chaoszen at 09/21/2009 @ 08:58am
Although, this is true.
Posted by Happy at 09/21/2009 @ 09:03am
You can talk about big government after you've cut "defense" spending and "defense" related debt.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/21/2009 @ 09:58am
But the Democrats, certainly their left wing, are the anti-war party. They opposed fighting in Kuwait, in Bosnia, in Kosovo. The Left even opposed fighting the Nazis. They demonstrated against the draft and Lend Lease up to the day Russia was attacked.
YOU LIE
Posted by emile duBois at 09/21/2009 @ 10:02am
Apropos.
"All of the past world policemen, the great Keepers of Empire, got their money back: whether one looks at Rome, Greece, Persia or Great Britain, it's pretty clear that they used their military adventurism to exact huge economic prices, in many ways...I literally do not see how the U.S. (or any country) can continue to protect everyone from Germany to Australia, without collecting a service charge. It isn't that we taxpayers don't like peace, it's just that we can't even afford to rebuild Afghanistan, or protect it from itself."
http://tinyurl.com/nsgbwp
Posted by srjenkins at 09/21/2009 @ 10:08am
And just because I'm the curious sort - LVL, can you share your thoughts on observing Ramadan as advocated by Brian McLaren?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/ 2009-09-18-ramadan-christians_N.htm
Posted by srjenkins at 09/21/2009 @ 10:10am
You can talk about big government after you've cut "defense" spending and "defense" related debt.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/21/2009 @ 09:58am | ignore this person | warn this person
They're all for "smaller government" EXCEPT that they want a multi-ocean navy, a big, fat no-bid Pentagon to feed (since that's "good for business") and a military stationed at too-numerous-to-count, expensive, obsolete installations from Guam to Germany.
But, other than that...
Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/21/2009 @ 10:11am
Posted by srjenkins at 09/21/2009 @ 08:30am
CUFI is indeed an evangelical organization and I'm proud to be a member. But CUFI has no influence in the Obama administration
Your CFR pub reaffirms what I said. It states that Truman, FDR, and Ike were from liberal protestant backgrounds.
Nor does it support your claim that evangelicals are influencing foreign policy in the Obama administration.
You have a twisted view on how my beliefs are coupled with history. As both an evangelical and a historian, I find those points of intersection with history, but I don't try and invent history.
History and the Bible are both consistent that the rise of Islam would be as stated all the way back to Genesis 16:11,12 "
Behold, you are with child, And you shall bear a son. You shall call his name Ishmael, Because the LORD has heard your affliction.
He shall be a wild man; His hand shall be against every man, And every man's hand against him. And he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren."
As to Islam and invasions vs Christianity.
A. there is no command in the NT for Christians to conquer other nations and rule them. Any action taken by so-called Christian nations was about power and not Christianity, not legitimately. It certainly was claimed by so-called Christian nations, but not a legitimate claim since they lacked any scriptural authority.
B. Muslims however are commanded by the Quran to conquer and subdue people to Islam.
C. The Ottoman empire ended less than 100 years ago. The Ottoman empire was subdued externally by the strength of Europe to defeat it and internally by the rise of nationalism within it's empire. As I noted, Islam has returned to it's command to conquer others since the rise of jihad and oil revenue
Posted by antisocialist at 09/21/2009 @ 10:59am
Posted by Happy at 09/21/2009 @ 09:03am
Actually, it IS pretty fun reminding some of these new right-wingers and a lot of the OLD right-wingers the REAL history of Ronald Reagan...not the Myth-
The example I was giving was a poster who talked about how "awful it was that Obama wanted to reduce our nuclear arsenal"....not aware in the slightest that RR himself said he'd agree to TOTAL nuclear disarmament, if Gorbachev would agree to joint SDI....
or how The Gipper in his memoirs spoke of "his dream of a nuclear free world".
When I pointed that out to the poster, they said "Well, then Reagan was wrong too!"
Doesn't bode well for your side, HAPP, when "Ronaldus Magnus" is now "a peacenik lefty" in their eyes, does it????
Posted by Mask at 09/21/2009 @ 11:08am
Posted by srjenkins at 09/21/2009 @ 09:58am
See above to HAPP. The Right has moved beyond Robert Taft conservative...or even Barry Goldwater conservative....and may even out distance The Gipper. Everybody talks about the "radicalization of the Democrats in the 60s and 70s"....but seems to forget...
it works on the OTHER side too.
Posted by Mask at 09/21/2009 @ 11:11am
"Any action taken by so-called Christian nations was about power and not Christianity, not legitimately. It certainly was claimed by so-called Christian nations, but not a legitimate claim since they lacked any scriptural authority. "----Posted by antisocialist at 09/21/2009 @ 10:59am
See? Predictable as always---
"Naturally, Larry will tell you that all the wars fought by CHRISTIAN nations over the last 2000 years were...
A. Good wars
B. The leaders weren't "real Christians" so it doesn't count."----Posted by Mask at 09/21/2009 @ 07:29am
Posted by Mask at 09/21/2009 @ 11:15am
And just because I'm the curious sort - LVL, can you share your thoughts on observing Ramadan as advocated by Brian McLaren?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/ 2009-09-18-ramadan-christians_N.htm
Posted by srjenkins at 09/21/2009 @ 10:10am
McClaren has pretty well established himself as a heretic regarding his departure from Christianity. That he encourages this type of activity is consistent with his no longer holding to Christian beliefs.
<McLaren suggests on pp.80-81 of More Ready Than You Realize, that new Christian converts should remain within their specific contexts.
I don't believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many (not all!) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu or Jewish contexts … rather than resolving the paradox via pronouncements on the eternal destiny of people more convinced by or loyal to other religions than ours, we simply move on … To help Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, and everyone else experience life to the full in the way of Jesus (while learning it better myself), I would gladly become one of them (whoever they are), to whatever degree I can, to embrace them, to join them, to enter into their world without judgment but with saving love as mine has been entered by the Lord (A Generous Orthodoxy, 260, 262, 264).>
This is a man who says he doesn't know why Jesus had to die on the cross. A man who denies nearly every tenet of historic Christianity. In other words, a heretic.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/21/2009 @ 11:40am
Posted by antisocialist at 09/21/2009 @ 10:59am
No influence? Interesting. From the CUFI website:
"On October 25th, the White House announced harsh new sanctions against Iran's Revolutionary Guard and other Iranian entities...This decision comes after a month-long campaign by Christians United for Israel to persuade the White House to impose stricter sanctions on Iran's Revolutionary Guard."
"Your CFR pub reaffirms what I said. It states that Truman, FDR, and Ike were from liberal protestant backgrounds."
You need to read the article again. The background of the Presidents is irrelevant. The question is who is driving foreign policy, and there is nothing in liberal protestantism that calls for unqualified support of Israel.
"You have a twisted view on how my beliefs are coupled with history."
My view is based solely on the positions you advocate in this forum. Most of which show that you have filtered your interpretation of Islam through your Christian belief system - rather uncharitably at that.
Case in point, attributing Ishmael as some kind of surrogate for Islam is a great leap of interpretation. Ishmael is a prophet, not a representation of Islam.
"It certainly was claimed by so-called Christian nations, but not a legitimate claim since they lacked any scriptural authority."
This is the kind of exceptionalism that is the hallmark of your analysis.
"Muslims however are commanded by the Quran to conquer and subdue people to Islam."
The Quran states that people cannot be forcibly converted and that if God had wanted all people to believe in Islam, it would have been so. "Let there be no compulsion in religion." You must have skipped that part.
Ironic that you argue that it is a vast Muslim conspiracy based on nationalism. Iran and Saudi Arabia? Yeah.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/21/2009 @ 11:41am
"It certainly was claimed by so-called Christian nations, but not a legitimate claim since they lacked any scriptural authority."
<This is the kind of exceptionalism that is the hallmark of your analysis.>
No, just fact. There is not a verse in the NT calling for the forced conversion of peoples and nations. There is no military commandment for conquering nations in the NT.
<The Quran states that people cannot be forcibly converted and that if God had wanted all people to believe in Islam, it would have been so. "Let there be no compulsion in religion." You must have skipped that part.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/21/2009 @ 11:41am>
No, it's just an incomplete understanding on your part. Muslims are commanded to give 3 options to unbelievers as a result of fighting; die, convert, or submit to Islam (dhimmitude).
Qur'an:8:39 "So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world)."
Qur'an:9:5 "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."
Qur'an:9:29 "Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission."
Ishaq:587 "Our onslaught will not be a weak faltering affair. We shall fight as long as we live. We will fight until you turn to Islam, humbly seeking refuge. We will fight not caring whom we meet. We will fight whether we destroy ancient holdings or newly gotten gains. We have mutilated every opponent. We have driven them violently before us at the command of Allah and Islam. We will fight until our religion is established. And we will plunder them, for they must suffer disgrace."
Posted by antisocialist at 09/21/2009 @ 12:24pm
the longest lasting muslim empire, the Ottoman empire, was multi religious. jews and christians lived side by side with muslims.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/21/2009 @ 1:08pm
Posted by antisocialist at 09/21/2009 @ 11:40am
I just wrote up a full response on McClaren about how I observe Hindus with in-home shrines that include Jesus, the idea of Christ being an avatar of Krishna, and how participating in other religious traditions can help us better understand our own - but unfortunately, The Nation has a little hiccup that lost it, and I'm not up for recreating it. Moving on.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/21/2009 @ 12:24pm
"Some people might be wondering that if Islam indeed advocates such an approach, then what is all this we hear about jihad? How can we explain the warfare that the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his Companions waged against the pagans? The answer to this is that jihad in Islamic Law can be waged for a number of reasons, but compelling people to accept Islam is simply not one of them. The reason why jihad was first permitted in Islam was so the Muslims could defend themselves against persecution and expulsion from their homes."
http://tinyurl.com/n545vr
To your Qur'an:8:39, I'll cite 60:8-9:
[60:8-9]"GOD does not enjoin you from befriending those who do not fight you because of religion, and do not evict you from your homes. You may befriend them and be equitable towards them. GOD loves the equitable. GOD enjoins you only from befriending those who fight you because of religion, evict you from your homes, and band together with others to banish you. You shall not befriend them. Those who befriend them are the transgressors."
Posted by srjenkins at 09/21/2009 @ 1:49pm
Posted by antisocialist at 09/21/2009 @ 12:24pm
For your Qur'an:9:5, Dr. Zakir Naik from Wikipedia:
"Critics of Islam actually quote this verse out of context. In order to understand the context, we need to read from verse 1 of this surah. It says that there was a peace treaty between the Muslims and the Mushriks (pagans) of Makkah. This treaty was violated by the Mushriks of Makkah. A period of four months was given to the Mushriks of Makkah to make amends. Otherwise war would be declared against them. This verse is quoted during a battle, and hence the Qur'an says, "Kill the Mushriks wherever you find them", during a battle to boost the morale of the Muslim soldiers. What the Qur'an is telling Muslim soldiers is, don't be afraid during battle; wherever you find the enemies kill them."
Posted by srjenkins at 09/21/2009 @ 1:50pm
You also might try ("might" being key) asking Larry why it is that Spanish Jews lived in relative peace with the Moorish conquerers....
but faced persecution and the Inquisition in the 14th Century and beyond once the Christians took back over and had to escape Spain?
Posted by Mask at 09/21/2009 @ 1:53pm
Emile, Ibble, I don't get a real clear picture of your concept of the role of security forces and how they'd tie into aide/development. I've never been to Afghanistan so I'm definitely no expert. Just believe that for all the evils of imperialism there are also very real downsides to not enough / wrong mix of whatever form this takes in terms of the Taliban and self-righteous male assholes with guns and the claim of a hotline to God HIMself. In fact, it's important to underscore the sameness of the redneck, racist, regressive, hard right Christians here (see following example of this mindset) and their Taliban compatriots:
The Public Policy Polling firm decided to poll New Jersey residents, asking if they think President Obama is the anti-Christ.
The results were astonishing, with one in three conservatives in the garden state believing President Obama is indeed the anti-Christ.
Among everyone polled, 8 percent said yes and 13 percent aren't sure. Among Republicans, 14 percent said yes and 15 percent weren't sure if President Obama is the anti-Christ.
I am sure the same % or more in Afghanistan view the US president (former or current) in a parallel manner.
Posted by winyahn at 09/21/2009 @ 2:02pm
Posted by srjenkins at 09/21/2009 @ 1:50pm |
I know that some Muslims attempt this defense, but it not only doesn't hold up.
<Muslims often accuse Islam's critics of quoting verses from the Qur'an out of context, thus unfairly portraying Islam as a violent religion. As we have seen, it can be dangerous to quote verses of the Qur'an in isolation, without examining the surrounding text.
Concerning the historical context, the Qur'an was revealed to Muhammad gradually, different suras unfolding in response to different historical situations. Some of these pronouncements, especially those from the Medinan period, came to Muhammad during or after battle; as we have noted, sura 8 was revealed after the famous battle of Badr. However, these verses are presented in the Qur'an apart from this history. The Qur'an itself takes the experience of Muhammad out of its original setting and makes it absolute and universal truth. (This distinguishes the Qur'an from the Bible, which evolved over many years and in which the historical context is plainly evident. Nevertheless, Islam's apologists often draw faulty comparisons between these two scriptures.) What Muhammad said and did during the specific situations he encountered is considered a model for the conduct of Muslims in every age, and for that reason alone the meaning of the Qur'an's verses cannot be restricted to the times and places in which they were received. The Qur'an is understood to be the timeless word of God, given at one time for every time and for every place.
Read "Islam and Terrorism, What the Quran Really Teaches About Christianity, Violence and the Goals of the Islamic Jihad
http://tinyurl.com/mhd2x9
http://tinyurl.com/nadwpo
the author was an Imam in Giza Egypt who is now a Christian
Posted by antisocialist at 09/21/2009 @ 2:10pm
Posted by Metteyya at 09/20/2009 @ 5:05pm Fuck you! I'm sorry, but just Fuck you! Posted by chaoszen at 09/20/2009 @ 5:09pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--brilliant strategery...
Posted by urmygyro at 09/21/2009 @ 2:10pm
For the first Time. I am ashamed to be an American.... Posted by chaoszen at 09/20/2009 @ 7:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--unable to keep count of how many times it's been ashamed of you...America just laughs
Posted by urmygyro at 09/21/2009 @ 2:12pm
I am sure the same % or more in Afghanistan view the US president (former or current) in a parallel manner. Posted by winyahn at 09/21/2009 @ 2:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person
you must be outa yer mind. the percentage of Afghanis and Iraqis who hate the US and its pres has risen astronomically. how could it be otherwise?
Posted by emile duBois at 09/21/2009 @ 2:13pm
"The Public Policy Polling firm decided to poll New Jersey residents as well as Happy and Rev Larr - known affectionately at Teabagger events as Bradgelina Revr'n Happ
asking if they think President Obama is the anti-Christ, to gage the level of extreme hate exhibited towards President Obama by some conservatives, as recently evidenced by the many offensive signs carried at the DC tea party rally.
The results were astonishing, with one in three conservatives in the garden state believing President Obama is indeed the anti-Christ.
Among everyone polled, 8 percent said yes and 13 percent aren't sure. Among Republicans, 14 percent said yes and 15 percent weren't sure if President Obama is the anti-Christ.
PARALLEL VIEW OF POTUS AS TALIBAN - go Rev Happ!
Posted by winyahn at 09/21/2009 @ 2:19pm
Posted by emile duBois at 09/21/2009 @ 2:13pm
Meant same or higher - certainly there are even more hard right nuts -- but then again, many probably don't feel free to express any other opinion.
Posted by winyahn at 09/21/2009 @ 2:22pm
winyahn
I may have misunderstood your meaning. sorry.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/21/2009 @ 2:35pm
Posted by winyahn at 09/21/2009 @ 2:02pm
You left some facts out from the poll.
the 14% of Republicans is 14% of the 8%
24% of the 8% of those saying Obama is the anti-christ were hispanics
And 19% think Bush knew in advance about 9/11 (truthers) and 40% of that 19% are liberals
Or back to another ongoing argument about conservative vs liberal makeup of the country, it seems even NJ is not actually liberal
Liberal ...................19%
Moderate...................52%
Conservative...............29%
Posted by antisocialist at 09/21/2009 @ 2:38pm
Or back to another ongoing argument about conservative vs liberal makeup of the country, it seems even NJ is not actually liberal Liberal ...................19% Moderate...................52% Conservative...............29% Posted by antisocialist at 09/21/2009 @ 2:38pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--people can call themselves something without defining what policies they believe in...it's not as simple as polling people on what their favorite major league baseball team is (never mind that many will say they have more than one favorite team, and many will say they don't like baseball)
Posted by urmygyro at 09/21/2009 @ 3:05pm
Posted by srjenkins at 09/21/2009 @ 1:49pm
I'm sure that "defense" was the reason they began invading other countries and continents in the 7th century. Africa clear to the Atlantic was a threat?
India was a threat?
How about Spain and France in the 7th & 8th century?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours
Try reading the History of Jihad
http://www.historyofjihad.org/
<It is the very existence of the Jews, not their actions or even their Zionism, that fuels the rhetoric of many Islamic political and religious leaders.
"If the Jews left Palestine to us, would we start loving them? Of course not ... They are enemies not because they occupied Palestine. They would have been enemies even if they did not occupy a thing," said Egyptian cleric Muhammad Hussein Ya'qoub. "...
You must believe that we will fight, defeat, and annihilate them, until not a single Jew remains on the face of the Earth."
(Al-Rahma TV (Egypt), Jan. 17, 2009)>
And this
<Fourteen Centuries of War Against European Civilization
"The Jihad, the Islamic so-called Holy War, has been a fact of life in Europe, Asia, Africa and the Near and Middle East for more than 1300 years...
perhaps the most comprehensive and scholarly book on the subject to date, The Legacy of Jihad, was published by Andrew G. Bostom.
Bostom notes that "an aggressive jihad was already being waged against the United States almost 200 years prior to America becoming a dominant international power in the Middle East." Israel has nothing to do with it. The Barbary Jihad piracy had been going on since the earliest Arab-Islamic expansion in the 7th and 8th centuries.>
http://tinyurl.com/4cq8u9
Posted by antisocialist at 09/21/2009 @ 3:12pm
Posted by antisocialist at 09/21/2009 @ 2:10pm
But, context does matter. So, one interpretation is that if you should find yourself in a situation where you have made a treaty with someone which they break, give them a chance to reconcile, and if you go to war, do what you have to do.
As for Mark A. Gabriel, he trips off my bullshit detector. At the very least, he has an ax to grind. At the worst, he is astroturf. I particularly am not interested in reading accounts of Islam that relate the author's miraculous experiences while discovering the truth in Christ. If you are reading this for your information, it goes far in explaining why your understanding of Islam is so bad.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/21/2009 @ 3:12pm
And this is just silly. You will not make the same exceptions for Muslim rulers that you do for Christian ones. I'd argue that Muslim expansion was based on competing empires, the Umayyad Caliphate and the Byzantine - and neither empire reflects the religions they thought they represented.
"According to one common view, the Umayyads transformed the caliphate from a religious institution (during the rashidun) to a dynastic one...The Umayyads have met with a largely negative reception from later Islamic historians, who have accused them of promoting a kingship (mulk, a term with connotations of tyranny) instead of a true caliphate."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad_Caliphate
The Nation is borking my posts, and I tire of re-posting things. Catch you all later.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/21/2009 @ 3:50pm
srjenkins at 09/21/2009 @ 08:40am said:
>> Very funny. Pirovano believes that Jeremiah Wright is something special that every black American hasn't seen in one form or another in his church.<<
Unfunny and unrelatied to my post. Moreover, I doubt that every black church is led by a black bigot, or that honest patriots make such creatures their close friends, mentors and spiritual guides.
>> your comfortability with Clinton and McCain shows us that your ideology is the status quo of the moderate right - that isn't comfortable with any kind of change. Every poster is equally ideological. The question is how dogmatic you are about stereotypical ideologies. <<
You are right if you mean - supporting a republic of elected officials obedient to the Constitution and favoring small govt, and slow, incremental change, originating less from govt than from society - is also an ideology. But it is not what your types consider a stereotypical ideology.
The US is not really ideologically divided between Democrats and Republicans. They are two like-minded teams with similar goals, playing by the same rules, vying for power and in the process policing one another. Whoever wins, the result is a status quo govt where abuses are kept in check.
Today however novel circumstances have put an Alfred E Neuman character into the White House who really wants to "transform America fundamentally." He let that slip in his Iowa caucus victory speech. It wasn't much noticed because people didn't believe their ears. Except you boys and girls, dogmatists of a stereotypical non-American ideology. You think that that CHANGE proponent, who understands and likes America as little as you, is your redeemer. You are a sad bunch of losers.
Posted by Pirovano at 09/21/2009 @ 4:44pm
ANTI:
21
A new Public Policy Polling survey of New Jersey voters has some shocking results: 21 percent either believe or aren't sure that President Obama is the Anti-Christ.
29-->35
Twenty-nine percent of Republicans and 35 percent of "conservative" voters also either believe he is or aren't sure.
58
Only 42 percent of Republicans believe President Obama is a citizen. 28 percent think he's not, and 30 percent say they're not sure.
Posted by winyahn at 09/21/2009 @ 6:04pm
winyahn at 09/21/2009 @ 6:04pm
I don't only believe you are a jerk, I am sure.
Posted by Pirovano at 09/21/2009 @ 6:20pm
one thing a people have a right to expect from its wars, and that is success. after eight years of failure, it is time to try another tack. Posted by emile duBois at 09/21/2009 @ 07:57am
Yes, I agree completely...
And I know Waziristan is not in Afghanistan; it's a region of Pakistan, (on the border of Afghanistan), so the way I stated it was NOT incorrect.
It was just not the way you wanted it to read. I'll keep Strunk and White handy in future.
Just to be extra, extra clear...
I don't think we should have gone into Afghanistan at all, especially after letting bin Laden (supposedly) slip away near Tora Bora (Could be an urban myth). I also never said anyone was going to turn him in.
Posted by ficheye at 09/21/2009 @ 7:09pm
Posted by winyahn at 09/21/2009 @ 6:04pm
It's not nice to lie.
The poll showed that 21% of respondents believe that Obama is not a citizen. 33% of the 21% were Republicans. that equals 7% of those polled, not 28%
You're off by a factor of 4.
And the Obama anti-christ poll. It was 8% of those polled overall.
http://tinyurl.com/q9lm8p
Posted by antisocialist at 09/21/2009 @ 7:42pm
By exclusion he's sort of running out of good places to hide that want to harbor him and/or run the chance of having their wedding parties disrupted by a predator drone. Better? Posted by ficheye at 09/21/2009 @ 12:14am | ignore this person | warn this person
this is highly unlikely for the reason I stated.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/21/2009 @ 8:14pm
Posted by Pirovano at 09/21/2009 @ 4:44pm
"You think that that CHANGE proponent, who understands and likes America as little as you, is your redeemer."
Given I didn't vote for Obama, would you care to take a moment and extract your head from your ass? The problem that you exhibit - and I'm talking about you specifically and not some nebulous group of Ron Paul tea bag fuck nuts - is that you think you are the only one with a brain in your head, and you mistake your little piece of the truth as the only piece.
Why don't you work on that a bit and start on the assumption that everyone isn't as stupid as you believe them to be? Then, people like me won't come to the conclusion that you're a fucktard.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/21/2009 @ 10:07pm
Then, people like me won't come to the conclusion that you're a fucktard. Posted by srjenkins at 09/21/2009 @ 10:07pm | ignore this person | warn this person
gosh, I love that kind of talk.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/22/2009 @ 09:20am
Posted by emile duBois at 09/22/2009 @ 09:20am
I use the language appropriate for my audience. The only difference between my post and Pirovano's is that I've dispensed with the surface veneer bullshit of using out-dated references to Alfred E. Newman and say what I mean in colorful profanity that he isn't used to hearing because people are too polite to tell him when he's acting like a jackass.
Take your post for example, it would be better if you said, "Hey, stop pistol whipping Piroveno. We should exhibit some noblesse oblige and allow these nitwits to describe the world according to their fantasies about teleprompters, birth certificates and limited republics that never existed."
And if you had made such a comment, I would have asked why should I (or anyone) sit here and read such nonsense without calling it what it is and in language that clearly demonstrates the scorn/disdain it deserves...because it's polite? And why is it again that we hold ourselves to different standards of politeness, because he's a little more coy about it and puts a little of the veneer on - using loser instead of fucktard?
Posted by srjenkins at 09/22/2009 @ 10:09am
don't get excited. my statement is ambiguous, as intended.
it could be sincere. it could be ironic, it could be comic, it could be a rebuke, it could be one of approval.
these are just a few of the possibilities. you have in your reply voted for the penultimate in the above list.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/22/2009 @ 10:31am
And if you had made such a comment, I would have asked why should I (or anyone) sit here and read such nonsense without calling it what it is and in language that clearly demonstrates the scorn/disdain it deserves...because it's polite? And why is it again that we hold ourselves to different standards of politeness, because he's a little more coy about it and puts a little of the veneer on - using loser instead of fucktard?
Posted by srjenkins at 09/22/2009 @ 10:09am
Actually it's because you're a arrogant elitist. Yeah, that's a better fit.
Cursing is what people do who either lack any class or cannot communicate.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/22/2009 @ 11:08am
I don't only believe you are a jerk, I am sure. Posted by Pirovano at 09/21/2009 @ 6:20pm
fucktard? Posted by srjenkins at 09/22/2009 @ 10:09am
my statement is ambiguous, as intended. Posted by emile duBois at 09/22/2009 @ 10:31am
you're a(n) arrogant elitist. Posted by antisocialist at 09/22/2009 @ 11:08am
Gentlemen, step away from the vehicle!! Keep your hands away from your keyboards!!
Posted by ficheye at 09/22/2009 @ 11:41am
I don't only believe you are a jerk, I am sure. Posted by Pirovano at 09/21/2009 @ 6:20pm
fucktard? Posted by srjenkins at 09/22/2009 @ 10:09am
my statement is ambiguous, as intended. Posted by emile duBois at 09/22/2009 @ 10:31am
you're a(n) arrogant elitist. Posted by antisocialist at 09/22/2009 @ 11:08am
Gentlemen, step away from the vehicle!! Keep your hands away from your keyboards!!
Posted by ficheye at 09/22/2009 @ 11:41am
Not bad ficheye
Posted by antisocialist at 09/22/2009 @ 11:44am
Posted by emile duBois at 09/22/2009 @ 10:31am
Point taken.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/22/2009 @ 11:08am
You'll notice that I rarely use such language with you, because even though I disagree with much of your position on a wide variety of topics, I believe you argue in good faith and your arguments are generally logical.
However, I don't believe in engaging in civil discourse with those that have no interest in it. And if we aren't going to have civil discourse, let's dispense with civility altogether. Let's see how those that like to dish it out, like being on the receiving end - and in the process we might have an interesting discussion about the need for civility.
"Cursing is what people do who either lack any class or cannot communicate."
My ability to communicate is not in question. In your mind, it's a question of class then. I am not particularly hung up on your notions about class. Cursing is sometimes an effective tool. Maybe this is less frequently true for a pastor trying to maintain his moral authority over his flock, which explains your prissy notions on the topic. But, the very occasional use of curse words gives emphasis, like shouting or a hand gesture, and it certainly has a place in a medium that doesn't allow for shouting or hand gestures.
As for your ideas about whether I am an arrogant elitest, your ideas about how I should express myself, or your sense of my class, I'm really not all the interested. You're not in a position to have any ideas on these topics. You don't know me as a person, so your not in a position to make an judgments about me as a person. So, why not stick to my arguments, eh?
Posted by srjenkins at 09/22/2009 @ 11:49am
21 ----- 21 percent either believe OR aren't sure that President Obama is the Anti-Christ.
29 ----- 29 percent of Republicans either believe OR aren't sure that President Obama is the Anti-Christ.
35 ------ 35 percent either believe OR aren't sure that President Obama is the Anti-Christ.
58 ----- 58 percent of Republicans either think Obama's not a citizen or aren't sure of he is.
Posted by winyahn at 09/22/2009 @ 12:03pm
In other news- Obama's favorable rating:
Jordan 58 percent
Saudi Arabians 53 percent
United Arab Emirates 52 percent
Kuwait 47 percent
USA: Rasmussen 49, Zogby 50
Posted by winyahn at 09/22/2009 @ 12:13pm
Left out the word "conservative":
35 ------ 35 percent of conservatives either believe that OR aren't sure whether President Obama is the Anti-Christ.
Posted by winyahn at 09/22/2009 @ 12:16pm
THIRTY FIVE (Eighteen percent of "conservative" voters think Obama is the Anti-Christ. Seventeen percent are not sure) of Bradgelina Rev. Happy's folks
-- that a human being named Barack Obama...
IS or MAY BE
--- something like --- a super villain who will rule the world until overthrown by the Second Coming of Christ
---- fill the world with wickedness but to be conquered forever by Christ at his second coming
Posted by winyahn at 09/22/2009 @ 12:40pm
What happens when an irresistible force meets an immoveable object?
Nothing.
Such is the substance of this 'debate'.
It's energy wasted in keystrokes if no one is ever going to infer that they might consider the others point. That's not going to happen.
Maybe it's possible to disclose someone's lack of knowledge on an issue or to denigrate them in one of the many ways, but there is a serious lack of discourse going on here. It just points out the inherent futility of one of our primary assumptions:
That we are human.
I don't think we've arrived there yet.
Posted by ficheye at 09/22/2009 @ 12:43pm
Posted by srjenkins at 09/22/2009 @ 11:49am
Thanks SRJ, that post gave me a real chuckle.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/22/2009 @ 2:07pm
Anti,
1- Do you believe in the Anti-Christ?
2- Is it fair in your opinion to speculate that of the 18 percent of self described conservatives (how many scores of millions is this?!) willing to admit that they think the POTUS is the Anti-Christ, that they may also by implication be expecting the second coming either in his lifetime, or that he will live super extra long - like maybe 350 or 12000 years -- and then finally the real Christ will kick his butt -- or that they don't even know this part of prophecy? You preach to these folks all the time, I think you'd have a feel for this.
Posted by winyahn at 09/22/2009 @ 3:02pm
Posted by antisocialist at 09/22/2009 @ 2:07pm
You're welcome. I try to be entertaining when I can.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/22/2009 @ 3:24pm
Anti,
1- Do you believe in the Anti-Christ?
2- Is it fair in your opinion to speculate that of the 18 percent of self described conservatives (how many scores of millions is this?!) willing to admit that they think the POTUS is the Anti-Christ, that they may also by implication be expecting the second coming either in his lifetime, or that he will live super extra long - like maybe 350 or 12000 years -- and then finally the real Christ will kick his butt -- or that they don't even know this part of prophecy? You preach to these folks all the time, I think you'd have a feel for this.
Posted by winyahn at 09/22/2009 @ 3:02pm
1. Of course as a Christian I believe in the coming of the anti-christ.
2. I've debunked this lie of yours previously. There is no poll showing 18% of conservatives believe that Obama is the anti-christ.
Let's break it down for you again.
The poll actually said that 8% of people in NEW JERSEY think that Obama is the anti-christ. Not 8% of conservatives, and not even 18% of all voters.
4.6% of NEW JERSEY REPUBLICANS think Obama is the anti-christ
2.3% of NEW JERSEY DEMOCRATS think Obama is the anti-christ.
For New Jersey Conservatives, the number is 5.9%. that means from the above numbers that some of many of conservatives are Democrats.
First of all, you are attempting to convert a New Jersey poll into national results. Secondly, you lie about the numbers.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/22/2009 @ 4:03pm
But who prays for Satan? Who, in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it most? Mark Twain
Just thought I'd throw that one out there for kicks.
Posted by ficheye at 09/22/2009 @ 10:17pm
Antigelina says: "I've debunked this lie of yours previously. There is no poll showing 18% of conservatives believe that Obama is the anti-christ. "
Reality says:
To be precise, 18% of self-identified New Jersey conservatives affirmatively say that Obama is the anti-Christ, with 17% not sure whether he is or not.
Reality says it again:
1/3 of New Jersey conservatives believe Obama could be the anti-Christ. 18% are certain. 17% think it's possible.
----- New Jersey!
Reality says it again:
Among "conservative" voters, 18% are sure of it, while 17% are undecided.
And again:
1 in 3 NJ Conservatives Thinks Obama Might Be the Anti-Christ
Anti, I thought your were intelligent. I'm almost surprised. But you are not among these are you: Conservatives Urge Ban on 'Harry Potter' Over Witchcraft, Homosexuality
Posted by winyahn at 09/23/2009 @ 04:04am
The Antichrist data helps to illuminate the hype and paranoia and magical thinking and coded racism and fear and hate running through the Muslim-racism-reparations-socialism-birther-Endtimer/AntiChrist projections neocons (and self-identified Libertarians like Bill O'Reilly) project continuously at on the POTUS.
Posted by winyahn at 09/23/2009 @ 04:15am
Posted by winyahn at 09/23/2009 @ 04:04am
waste of time arguing with you since you insist on being a liar.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/23/2009 @ 11:37am
good throw.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/23/2009 @ 2:49pm
Rev,
It's on page 8 of the url you posted. The box shows the breakdown by ideology. Gosh, too bad there's not one other poster here willing to speak up about this. Anyway, you're very comfortable calling me a liar as 18% of your types, yes in New Jersey - not 18% of 8 or whatever arithmetic dyslexic fixation you claim - are calling Obama the AntiChrist.
I think maybe your miscalculation arises from thinking the stats add up to 100% horizontally, in these tables - perhaps, not sure how you remain confused - but they add up vertically. Base just means basis for the box, the aggregate of what's broken down in the columns.
See other analyses. For ex., 11% of Blacks (in NJ) say "not sure", 89% say no = 100%
Those who voted for McCain are 12% yes, 68% no, 21% not sure... with rounding up = 100%
And to beat the world deadest horse!:
Self described conservatives in NJ are 18% yes, 66% no, 17% not sure... with rounding up = 100%
http://tinyurl.com/q9lm8p
Can anyone else help out here and declare a winner??
Check page 8 of this pdf - http://tinyurl.com/q9lm8p
Posted by winyahn at 09/23/2009 @ 3:41pm
This is a very serious issue. On the one hand, escalation from the current 70,000+ soldiers on the ground means a deeper commitment to a conflict with uncertain goals and future. On the other, we have the prospect of having wasted 8 years in a country only to have the displaced regime, the Taliban, return again to impose their dictatorial rules and possibly again become a safe haven for terrorists.
I think McChrystal is right. More troops are definitely needed if we are going to be able to return the country to law and order. I appreciate Obama's deliberation in the matter, as it is a very difficult decision to make. While I am not thrilled at the prospect of drawing up the conflict, the impact of the surge seems to have brought a reasonable amount of control to Iraq, and the same may apply for Afghanistan. However, the greatest challenge in the country remains the lack of proper civilian advising, i.e. agricultural experts, judicial expertise, election officials, etc. The greatest source of income in Afghanistan is heroin, and the only reason they turn to the illegal substance is because Afghan farmers have no protection or means for legal farming. Civilian presence can alleviate this problem substantially. We need to increase the civilian advising presence of the United States if we are to increase the troop levels. Otherwise, all bets are off.
Posted by HuntleyRussell at 09/23/2009 @ 8:44pm
the only reason they turn to the illegal substance is because Afghan farmers have no protection or means for legal farming.
nonsense. they've been growing poppy for millennia. when the Taleban were in charge they moved against the drug trade, so much so that they received a $50 million from the US as a reward.
you'll note the US did not invest $50 million in the protection of women and girls.
as far as the war, you advocate continuing a war which we are losing, throwing good money and troops after bad. have we learned NOTHING in eight years of war?
we have not displaced the Taleban. by all reports they control 80% of the country side. we have evicted them from Kabul in the first weeks of the "invasion". it was a phony war from the beginning. 15,000 troops sent into a country the size of Texas. in NYC we have 30,000 cops, just for context.
everyday you and your ilk come here with your shop worn strategy and gung ho war talk. it ain't working.
the american people have had enough. it's time to cut our losses.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/24/2009 @ 07:58am
Are fellow liberals in here still wondering why there are any rebublican senators and congressmen left in office after decades of destroying everything they touch? Is is SO OBVIOUS, that the RIGHT is nothing but corrupt and evil. They have NEVER done anything for the average American who voted for them. It is FEAR AND BIGOTRY that grabs the right wing crazy voter's attention, as short and ignorant as it is. We Democrats need to get the party's ass in gear and if they don't listen, vote most of them out. A politician should serve the people, not the corporations.
Posted by Tiger2Lover at 09/24/2009 @ 7:12pm