Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
President Obama is expected to make a decision regarding his Afghanistan strategy after Thanksgiving. Before doing so, he would be wise to consider an alternative which has, until now, been excluded from the systematic review of the gravest decision a president must make. That alternative is laid out clearly in a just-released letter to President Obama from the Congressional Progressive Caucus' Afghanistan Taskforce.
Through careful consultation with a wide array of experts, including those who testified at a series of forums on Afghanistan earlier this year, the Taskforce has developed a smart, alternative approach that would be more effective in providing for both US and Afghanistan security, and far less costly in treasure and lives.
In the letter, Taskforce Chair Michael Honda, along with CPC co-chairs, Representatives Raúl Grijalva and Lynn Woolsey, and CPC members, Representatives Barbara Lee and James McGovern, outline their strategy and request a meeting.
The legislators write that their "perspectives have manifested…via Congressional Progressive Caucus Member-led legislation" including: a timeline for eventual troop withdrawal, prohibiting funds for additional troop surges, reorienting the mission so that 80 percent of US resources are devoted to economic and political development and 20 percent towards security, and prioritizing diplomacy and development over the use of force.
"We now have an opportunity to realign our defense development and diplomatic engagement to ensure political, economic, and social security for a nation deeply impoverished," the letter closes. "This new tack, if taken today, can transform the conflict while remaining consistent with America's strategic interests."
You can find the letter here. You can also contact the White House and ask the President to expand his review so it includes the proposals of the CPC's Afghanistan Taskforce.
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
i love raul grijalva. and he's from tucson, a wonderful town.
unfortunately, there is no positive solution to this awful, stupid war. and i really would not want to be in obama's shoes.
i've been really, really disappointed with obama's performance thus far, but you have to give him credit for not losing his mind yet.
Posted by darladoon at 11/20/2009 @ 11:28am
Wow I read the letter! Have those guys converted to Wahhabism? Well I'm an old guy who thinks when our country is attacked, that is an act of war against the U.S.A. Al Qaeda has attacked us with two major attacks and who knows how many smaller attacks. The latest at Ft Hood this month. Iraq? They did not attack us and our attack on them is a war crime. For how to proceed with Afghanistan, read on the tactics of G.S. Patton. The real one not those "things" you see youtube. Nation building? Can't be done, don't try or the result will be an unending war. We have two now. We just got lucky after WWII with Japan and Germany.>Bill
Posted by BillWilliam at 11/20/2009 @ 11:34am
Hi darladoon, >I agree with you on Obama, I had a slim hope when I voted for him but so far he has failed at almost everything that needed doing. You call the war in Afghanistan awful and stupid. Both terms are correct in regarding what we have done up to now. Bush went there and basically did nothing but help the neighboring countries invade Afghanistan. On Google Earth you can see the attack on the cave Osama bin Laden was in. The aim of the weapons is no better than WWII bombers. Osama got out the back door? We helped rebuild that tunnel during the Russian -Afghanistan war. We knew about the back doors. Did Bush let him go? Al Qaeda attacked our country with 2 major attacks,1993 and 2001, and other minor attacks. Al Qaeda committed an act of war, killing thousands of Americans. Read my previous post. Osama bin Laden follows the same sect as Saudi Arabia. That is where the enemy lives and spreads it's filth. Up to now they have spent 100 Billion dollars of their oil money on schools around the world teaching their "Wahhabism" sect of the Muslim religion. They do not like that word, too bad. Look it up, fun reading. >Bill
Posted by BillWilliam at 11/20/2009 @ 12:13pm
For BillWillliam, This ain't WWII and the Taliban and AQ are not one and the same. If you really want to attack the nations responsible for 9/11 try looking at Saudi Arabia.
Here's some food for thought for Obama. He is the president which makes him commander in chief of the armed forces, not the GOP nor Congress. Congress declares war, but the president carries it out. Since everyone in D.C. is up to their ears in defense spending corruption, I suggest that Obama play their game their way. Tell the war hawks that not one dime or one soldier will go to either Afghanistan or Iraq unless a comprehensive health care bill including a public option are passed.
Our leaders are more worried about running up our national debt and continuing wars on foreign soil than creating jobs here in the U.S. and taking care of the American citizens. Neither Iraq, Afghanistan or even Pakistan poses a threat to the United States. The only nation they are a threat to is Israel....which is not a state or U.S. territory.
We are going broke people and we can't afford the god damned wars.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/20/2009 @ 12:15pm
"and prioritizing diplomacy and development over the use of force.
It's about damn time, this is what the majority of the other nations wanted initially.
Posted by DrPiggy at 11/20/2009 @ 12:27pm
Dear President Obama
Don't let the military hawks bully you. They have proved to be a disaster so far, and will inevitably prove to be a future disaster if they get their way. Stand up for what you truly believe is the right course , and we will back you all the way if it does not escalate this no-win War .
julia.ryan1@ntlworld.com
Posted by Julia Ryan at 11/20/2009 @ 1:12pm
As always with Afghanistan...a simple question for our neo-con friends-
Why didn't Bush "win it" in Afghanistan the way you say he "won it" in Iraq?
It was first.....smaller population even. What stopped him that didn't "stop him" in Iraq?
Posted by Mask at 11/20/2009 @ 1:12pm
As usual the letter by the "progressive" reads like the fairy tale land their minds live in.
And the echoed sentiment by other anti-war leftists here which ignores the fact that Al Qaeda and the Taliban have announced their merger. I have posted evidence of their statements.
It seems the left just wants to believe that if they ignore the region the US somehow magically, will not be threatened.
I give Obama credit. He at least recognizes both the sheer idiocy of this fairy tale view of the region by the far left, and the very real threat to the US and civilization if Afghanistan and Pakistan fall into the hands of Al Qaeda/Taliban.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/20/2009 @ 1:13pm
It's about damn time, this is what the majority of the other nations wanted initially.
Posted by DrPiggy at 11/20/2009 @ 12:27pm
Probably because they understood that a nation cannot commit itself to a war on a tactic, such as the War on Terror. The Taliban is a nationalist movement within Afghanistan, AQ is dispersed worldwide. When AQ left Afghanistan, our reason for fighting there also left, but the Bush Administration continued the war with no goal in mind, except "victory" which I have STILL seen absolutely no definition of from our right wing friends on this blog, nor Republican politicians. They had no strategy to win the war either because of their hardon for Saddam and his oil.
The "go it alone" strategy in Afghanistan has failed miserably and I think Obama understands that. I await his decision regarding Afghanistan with baited breath.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/20/2009 @ 1:15pm
Oh my God. This letter is the most laughable piece of garbage I've ever seen presented to a President for consideration. Here's my reply paragraph by paragraph:
1. 'We want to thank you, first and foremost, for taking the appropriate time to discern and consider multiple perspectives and policy precriptions.'
Obama took so long because he wanted to get past the elections in N.J., N.C. and N.Y. He thought that sending more troops would adversly effect the outcome. Now that he was slapped down in both states, he had to delay longer to make it look like it wasn't political. In reality, Obama has serious trouble making decisions except where it's to give money to his backers.
2. 'especially when the U.S. mission is unclear."
It's not unclear to Gen. McCrystal and other military leaders.
3. 'We are concerned.....specifically that foreign aid has thus far failed to rebuild Afghan institutions, infrastructure'
Well duh, the country is not secured yet!
4. 'concerned about political legitimacy'
See above answer.
5. 'additionally, our overall strategy in Afghanistan must be guarded by smart security......put diplomacy and development above the use of force'
Uh, wouldn't that be putting the cart before the horse?
6. 'We recommend therefore, a comprehensive rethinking of our military mission'
That's what Gen. McChrystal is charged to do. He's rethought it and sent the President his advise.....MONTHS AGO!
7. 'With your leadership, we now havean opportunity to realign our defense.'
WHAT! What leadership. Since when are liberals concerned about defense.
8. 'We respectfully respect a meeting with you.'
Don't hold your collective hands on your collective asses. Although, Obama will probably grant a meeting to STALL.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/20/2009 @ 1:20pm
"Al Qaeda and the Taliban have announced their merger"
(quote of the day)
Posted by darladoon at 11/20/2009 @ 1:21pm
RX FOR POLITICAL SYPHILIS: Focused Anger, Renewed Resolve and Leadership Most of All
Here's a special to the Nation magazine by yours truly, B Kool:
Excerpt:
"Massive military spending is not only counterproductive and destabilizing for the entire planet, it simultaneously deprives us of the funding sorely needed to educate ourselves and prevent so many from falling in love with soulless, sadistic, hideously ugly, ignorant, media whores like Sarah Palin…..If Palinism is a disease, the American body politic is quickly degenerating into a syphilitic monster."
EXTRAORDINARY TIMES DEMAND EXTRAORDINARY EFFORTS
Allow me to begin with the easy and obvious. What's wrong with the right? This is like shooting fish in a barrel, only I find fish far more beautiful, diverse and fascinating than right wingers in America. In Sarah Palin, we have the answer for us, nice and tidy. No, she's not likely to win an election for anything important any time soon, and yes, we should probably be thankful if she's in the conversation for a presidential nomination in 2012 –astronomically unlikely, in my opinion. She's an albatross around conservative's necks, but that's an awful lot of necks connected to an awful lot of absurdly ignorant heads. The problem with the right, broadly, is that there are far too many of them, and they are so obscenely wrong on a multitude of issues that affect the quality of life for all of us. This has been in the making for decades now, but the consequences have begun to queue up like a police line-up of thick-skulled thugs straight out of your worst nightmares.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/20/2009 @ 1:21pm
It was Carl Sagan who warned us just before his untimely death in late 1996, that we live in a demon haunted world, at least that's what too many of us see –demons, angels and darkness instead of the intelligent illumination of human love, kindness, felicity and fairness. The disturbing climax of Sagan's superb book, "The Demon Haunted World" is a midway chapter consisting of excerpted letters chosen randomly, written in response to his Parade magazine article that was crafted to debunk claims of alien visitations and abductions of humans on Earth. The chapter, appropriately titled, "City of Grief", is an indictment of our broad abilities to think clearly, and even if it does not represent a scientifically constructed poll, the results should represent a wake up call to our society. We can do much better, and we MUST if we are going to survive for the long haul.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/20/2009 @ 1:21pm
I think Jonathan Schell's latest superb Nation piece, "The Fifty-Year War", helps to illuminate the political consequences of a demon haunted world –coincidentally, Tom Engelhardt elaborates on Schell's excellent points here, tinyurl.com/yaxswmf. It's a place where Presidents dance like marionettes to the whims of a fearful and ignorant rightwing mob instead of responding to the reasoned and well-constructed arguments of the best of the left. [Actually, as I've stated on these blog threads before, perhaps a more meaningful division is between the sane and reasonable and the fearful and ignorant rather than "left" versus "right". Sadly, much of the right has essentially found itself in the powerful jaws of a rabid pit bull, being violently whipped around like a rag doll. They seem to enjoy it.] The left in America has been, and certainly is now, an abject failure. Presidents don't respond to it because it doesn't froth at the mouth. But mouth foaming (fortunately) is not the only way to wield influence.
We on the left need to be much more assertive, monolithic and far more spinally principled on at least a few of the critical issues we face such as 1) the need to dramatically downsize our military and its overseas footprint, 2) renewed and massive investment at home to create jobs and emphasize environmentally sound living, 3) a T. Roosevelt-like program of big bank busting and 4) a completely revamped system of publicly financed elections to wrest away control of our dying democracy from plutocrats.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/20/2009 @ 1:21pm
Why is it that we almost never hear anyone in the so-called mainstream media stating that our military is beached-whale-bloated beyond any reasonable requirement of a so-called democracy? Ours is the military of a fascist state. But you won't hear that because Rachel and Keith and Katrina simply will not get on the same page and repeat it enough Why is it that we almost never hear anyone in the so-called mainstream media bluntly for it to sink in with the general public. This is a gargantuan failure to acknowledge the obvious. Massive military spending is not only counterproductive and destabilizing for the entire planet, it simultaneously deprives us of the funding sorely needed to educate ourselves and prevent so many from falling in love with soulless, sadistic, hideously ugly, ignorant, media whores like Sarah Palin.
Let me be clear, I don't actually hate Sarah Palin, and she's probably less evil than the quintessential Hitlerian propaganda screech doll, Ann Coulter. But Palin is also vapid, mean spirited, misguided to the point of derangement, and she represents a doppelganger of the abject ignorance and callous-heartedness of a distressingly large swath of America's populace. But what is most disturbing about Sarah Palin is how she has managed to reach such a pinnacle of popularity via a blizzard of lies, half-truths and uncorrected misinformation. If Palinism is a disease, the American body politic is quickly degenerating into a syphilitic monster. None of us should be comforted by the fact that we are not yet affected-- we are, regardless of whether we choose to acknowledge it.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/20/2009 @ 1:21pm
The battle, as many of us can clearly see, is an epic one, and it is one that we are losing badly as we speak. And when this war is lost, NO ONE will profit. As Sagan once wisely said, "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence". We have now arrived at the time for its desperately needed corollary, "Extraordinary times demand extraordinary efforts".
We need to be keenly aware that virtually everything we think and do is ultimately a political act far more profound than our infrequent, and largely, weakly symbolic visits to the polls. It is time to take seriously the need to change how we live and how we consume, including most intimately, what and how we eat. I strongly encourage readers to investigate some of the fabulously readable books (or CDs) by Michael Pollan, such as "The Botany of Desire", "The Omnivore's Dilemma" or most recently, "In Defense of Food". And then walk and bike more, and eat less and better. If not, perhaps, a giant leap, such moves would represent a giant step in the right direction.
No, we likely cannot change the world by ourselves, but we have no choice but to try, and then someday maybe….just MAYBE, we'll get the leaders we deserve who will in turn respond to our informed and well-founded wishes.
The ultimate goal must be nothing less than an unprecedented paradigm shift –for the better-- in what it means to be "human". In the meantime, batten down the hatches and prepare the figurative candles, matches and emergency supplies, because we are most certainly on a direct path into the teeth of a torrential storm of darkness and fear.
The surest route to blunting its force would be an effective leader –the planet is waiting.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/20/2009 @ 1:21pm
The purpose of the Afghanistan war is to waste money Wolfgang1. Afghanistan is going perfectly for Congress and the White House.
Imagine this. The real enemy being fought by our Federal Government is not Osama Bin Laden. The real enemy being fought by our Federal Government is the Constitution of the United States of America.
If you actually believe our military is unable to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden at will, you are a fool. We are being duped. Wake up.
Watch. Watch while Obama escalates and justifies his actions. Afghanistan is a contrived crisis too good to waste. This was has virtually nothing to do with Afghanistan. It is designed to erode our Constitution.
But most of you probably think there is a difference between the Neo-Cons and Obama.
Posted by freiheit1 at 11/20/2009 @ 1:28pm
Katrina
the reason we are in Afghanistan is not to, "have an opportunity to realign our defense development and diplomatic engagement to ensure political, economic, and social security for a nation deeply impoverished,"
Nope thats not why we are there. if we are why don't you and a few wacked out progressives go over and volunteer your time if you feel so compelled because we as tax payers have no interest in using tax dollars to build up a country run by a bunch of tribal leaders for the last 2,000 years.
Our present fearless leader president during his capaign and the previous fearless leader made it clear we are there to kill and capture the bad guys including foremost, Bin laden. So unless we are going to do it...lets get everyone home now. The general that is there knows how to do it and and holding back this decsion is killing more american troops...those dying right now in record numbers is blood on Obama's hands and peopel like you who contend we should stiffle the efforts that are underway...you all make me ill.
Posted by Obamunut at 11/20/2009 @ 1:32pm
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/20/2009 @ 1:15pm
It looks so reasonable at a glance to call the war on terror a "tactic" instead of an actual war. But that just shows how deceptively wrong a glancing thought can be.
It is a very real war in which thousands are dying every year. Lots of advanced weaponry, battlefield engagements, advances and retreats, and prisoners captured; all the normal elements of a war.
The rationale of "AQ left Afghanistan, our reason for fighting there also left" is so empty-headed that I have to wonder at whether you thought out that statement at all. When we finally chased the Japanese off of the Philippine Islands, did that mean that our troops were no longer needed there to hold the island against the threat of the Japanese attempting to retake the islands? Of course not. Your comments seem to display a total lack of awareness of how war is fought and won.
Also, you conflated Iraq with Afghanistan in this comment
<but the Bush Administration continued the war with no goal in mind, except "victory" which I have STILL seen absolutely no definition of from our right wing friends on this blog, nor Republican politicians. They had no strategy to win the war either because of their hardon for Saddam and his oil.>
Care to share with us what Saddam and Iraqi oil have to do with Afghanistan?
You also lied about the "go it alone" charge. Since we invaded Afghanistan, we have had more non-US military personnel from other nations involved in Afghanistan than our own. It has been an international effort from the beginning. But the truth just doesn't fit with your bias.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/20/2009 @ 1:40pm
"Al Qaeda and the Taliban have announced their merger"
Posted by darladoon at 11/20/2009 @ 1:21pm
Darla, this is why people like yourself are dangerous to any possible peace and security from jihadist threats.
<In recent years, Taliban leaders have drawn especially close to Al Qaeda. (There are basically two branches of the Taliban-Pakistani and Afghan-but both are currently headquartered in Pakistan, and they are quite a bit more interwoven than is commonly thought.) Today, at the leadership level, the Taliban and Al Qaeda function more or less as a single entity.
This summer, Mustafa Abu Al Yazid, one of Al Qaeda's founders and a current member of its leadership council, described his group's rapport with the Taliban during an interview with Al Jazeera in Afghanistan. "We are on a good and strong relationship with them," he explained, "and we frequently meet them." He also said that his organization continues to regard Mullah Omar as the "Commander of the Faithful"-in effect acknowledging that the Taliban leader is Al Qaeda's religious guide, a position he has enjoyed for the past decade.>
http://tinyurl.com/yfzqxj9
Waheed Mujda is a former high-ranking foreign ministry official of the Taliban and an expert on Al Qaeda.
<Kabul Direct: You said Al Qaeda has only grown more popular in the Islamic world. How would you rate its popularity among Afghans, in the land where Al Qaeda was first conceived?
Mujda: Outside Kabul, in the eastern and southern provinces of Afghanistan, you can see and feel its strength. In these parts, nobody can save you if you criticize either Al Qaeda or their local arm, the Taliban – not even the government's security forces>
http://kabulcenter.org/?p=89
continued
Posted by antisocialist at 11/20/2009 @ 2:00pm
<Osama bin Laden and his cohorts deliberately fashioned their organization to be the tip of a much longer jihadist spear.
This was true during the years of the Soviet Jihad, when al Qaeda established a vast rolodex of like-minded jihadist leaders who, despite what were sometimes deep differences of opinion over tactical issues, could nonetheless be called upon as allies. It was true in the pre-9/11 world, from the early 1990s through September 10, when al Qaeda forged relationships with allied terrorist organizations first in the Sudan, al Qaeda's base from roughly 1991 until 1996, and then in Afghanistan.
And it is true in the post-9/11 world, where al Qaeda continues to leverage its decades-long relationships with jihadist allies around the globe and especially in the heart of Central and South Asia. Thus, we find that each of the three primary Afghan insurgent groups discussed in General McChrystal's analysis – the Quetta Shura Taliban (QST), the Haqqani Network (HQN), and the Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin (HIG) – is a core ally of al Qaeda with long-established personal ties between these groups' senior leaders and al Qaeda's senior leaders. Moreover, al Qaeda cooperates with each of these organizations in substantive ways in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. If anything, General McChrystal's analysis actually downplayed the interconnectivity between these organizations and al Qaeda.>
http://tinyurl.com/yhjljmd
Posted by antisocialist at 11/20/2009 @ 2:03pm
antisocialist
The problem is we have an administration that won't even acknowledge the term "war on terror". In addition they have effectively, for the apeasement of the LEFT, implied now that they are trying to not only develope a stratedgy for the"actions" there but to define a definition of success.With men dieing at a record number why the hell has this president waited 10 months to redifine this war. Is there something worth more than the lives of these soldiers??? His non action is a travesty and a national disgrace.
Obama got elected on the lie that he was going to destroy Al quaida and kill bin ladin. He additionally lied about being able to be 'smarter than the previous administartion" and that he could get more support from our NATO allies, because he is some much friggin smarter than everyone else. We did not get more combat troops from our allies in fact....why should our allies spill blood in a war that our fearless leader cannot even decide anymore what our stradegy is and definition of success. Would you committ you troops in a war to an Obama administration? He is acting like he always acts with total political contrivence, appeasing the left and placating the right. In the mean time our proffessional generals want more troops to secure themselves..as the mission was defined...BY OBAMA. THIS SITUATION IS COMPLETLY BEING MISMANAGED AND OUR TROOPS ARE DIEING BECAUSE OF IT. OBAMA SHOULD BE IMPEACHED AND REMOVED FROM OFFICE.
Posted by Obamunut at 11/20/2009 @ 2:04pm
The Jihad Connections continued
<But there is a hardened core within Pakistan's military-intelligence establishment – in particular, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Agency - that is dedicated to jihad and sponsors al Qaeda's allies, including each of the primary three insurgent groups in Afghanistan today. We should never forget that Mullah Omar, Jalaluddin Haqqani, and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar – the commanders of the Afghan insurgency – were all originally ISI proxies and, to some degree, remain so today. Parts of the ISI have also worked with al Qaeda proper for years as well.
Then, there is Iran, which has its own longstanding ties to al Qaeda's senior leadership. In the pre-9/11 world, the Iranian regime cooperated with al Qaeda in a variety of ways. In the post-9/11 world, Iran has harbored senior al Qaeda terrorists and even armed and trained the Taliban – Iran's one-time enemy.
http://tinyurl.com/yhjljmd
I recommend reading this entire link as there is substantially more information on the interconnectivity of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and elements of the Pakistan ISI.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/20/2009 @ 2:08pm
Dear President Obama
.....Stand up for what you truly believe is the right course , and we will back you all the way if it does not escalate this no-win War...
Posted by Julia Ryan at 11/20/2009 @ 1:12pm
Are you related to Jessie Jackson....he who said that one can't be black and vote FOR the Health Care bills?
Now, with my first impression/reaction out of the way, I'd like to ask you, by what standard you would know, Magic (that's Dear President Obama) "truly believe is the right course"?
You DO know that he has had many "right courses", right? In fact, every "course" he takes is the "right course" since by definition, as The Messiah, The One, even God according to some, he can never be wrong....to the truly faithful, even beyond just blacks.
Posted by Happy at 11/20/2009 @ 2:10pm
Oops...correction:
"...Jessie Jackson....he who said that one can't be black and vote AGAINST the Health Care bills?"
Posted by Happy at 11/20/2009 @ 2:11pm
Happy, you probably are. Ignorance is bliss.
Posted by slovo at 11/20/2009 @ 2:20pm
Ignorance is bliss.
Posted by slovo at 11/20/2009 @ 2:20pm
That's exactly right, for Obamabots.....and I am, HAPPY and totally ignorant of your religion.....you however, have my blessing to worship The One. Amen!
Posted by Happy at 11/20/2009 @ 2:23pm
Happy, you probably are. Ignorance is bliss.
Posted by slovo at 11/20/2009 @ 2:20pm
LOL!!!lol!!!LOL!!! Good One Slovo!
Posted by DrPiggy at 11/20/2009 @ 2:26pm
"Darla, this is why people like yourself are dangerous to any possible peace and security from jihadist threats"
oh, you mean the grave, impending "threat" of wiping out 0.000000001% of our population? that threat?
and stationing 100,000 troops in.....afghanistan and pakistan.....will curtain that threat?
and the idea that AQ and the Taliban have "merged" (your words, not mine) is hysterical, to put it mildly.
Posted by darladoon at 11/20/2009 @ 2:35pm
all I know is this...our troops have been dieing in Afghaistan in record numbers under this Commander and Theif. He has no stradegy all of a sudden and no plan for success. He is weak and indesisive and because of it our ENEMIES DO NOT FEAR US and OUR ALLIES DO NOT RESPECT US.
Obama is a walking empty suit disaster.While we all make this into a big idelogical battle of ideas..our young men are being demoralized as they were in the Viet nam war...this is a disgrace, and unlike in that war there was a reason to fight. 3500 innocent civilians have died because of a weak Clinton administration who watched Al queda expand in Afghanistan and did nothing about it. This president is about to do the same... and waste the precious blodd of those fallen warriors in the process..Impeach Obam now
Posted by Obamunut at 11/20/2009 @ 2:37pm
AQ is about as popular as lyndon larouche.
Posted by darladoon at 11/20/2009 @ 2:37pm
and the idea that AQ and the Taliban have "merged" (your words, not mine) is hysterical, to put it mildly.
Posted by darladoon at 11/20/2009 @ 2:35pm
I did not have any real expectation that facts would change your view. They haven't on any other issue. The facts are as stated by terrorism analysts and by former members of the Taliban as I provided, that these groups operate as one.
Besides your insulting dismissal of the 3000 lives lost on 9/11 as insignificant, how many Americans have to die before their lives are significant to you?
As I and others including Obama have stated, the threat is two fold.
1. AQ and the Taliban retaking Afghanistan as their worldwide base for global terrorism
2. AQ and the Taliban also taking Pakistan and having access to their nuclear weapons.
You, Darla, are on a side that is very tiny and outside of even most in the Democratic Party including our president when it comes to this issue.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/20/2009 @ 2:41pm
"The facts are as stated by terrorism analysts and by former members of the Taliban as I provided, that these groups operate as one"
(quote of the day, esp for the words "as one")
"1. AQ and the Taliban retaking Afghanistan as their worldwide base for global terrorism
2. AQ and the Taliban also taking Pakistan and having access to their nuclear weapons"
is it any wonder why republicans are in such disarray when you consider the above hysteria?
Posted by darladoon at 11/20/2009 @ 2:47pm
"Besides your insulting dismissal of the 3000 lives lost on 9/11 as insignificant, how many Americans have to die before their lives are significant to you?"
oh, you're concerned about human lives now? oh, i'm sorry, you're only concerned about AMERICAN lives.
those poor, rural pashtuns don't really matter. after all, they're not really productive people; they don't speak english; they don't pay taxes. fuck 'em.
Posted by darladoon at 11/20/2009 @ 2:49pm
it's hard to believe antisocialist is a christian, and even a MINISTER, when you consider his stance on the most belligerent, aggressive, and dehumanizing foreign policy the globe has ever seen.
Posted by darladoon at 11/20/2009 @ 2:51pm
"Besides your insulting dismissal of the 3000 lives lost on 9/11 as insignificant, how many Americans have to die before their lives are significant to you?"
oh, you're concerned about human lives now? oh, i'm sorry, you're only concerned about AMERICAN lives.
those poor, rural pashtuns don't really matter. after all, they're not really productive people; they don't speak english; they don't pay taxes. fuck 'em.
Posted by darladoon at 11/20/2009 @ 2:49pm
Darla, you're really an idiot. When have I ever said that I don't care about the Pashtun's?
In fact I care more than you do because I want them to at least have a chance to live life in freedom instead of the totalitarian life they had under the Taliban.
It is you Darla who does not care about others. You could care less about people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Sudan, and other places that suffer from radical totalitarianism. As long as you get free medical care and the state doesn't bust you for your drug use, you are happy.
Tell me what 3rd world countries you have ever travelled to help the poor?
Posted by antisocialist at 11/20/2009 @ 3:06pm
1. "AQ and the Taliban retaking Afghanistan as their worldwide base for global terrorism
2. AQ and the Taliban also taking Pakistan and having access to their nuclear weapons"
is it any wonder why republicans are in such disarray when you consider the above hysteria?
Posted by darladoon at 11/20/2009 @ 2:47pm
Darla, why do you think so little of President Obama?
Learn something.
<And now I'd like to speak clearly and candidly to the American people. The situation is increasingly perilous. It's been more than seven years since the Taliban was removed from power yet war rages on and insurgents control parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Attacks against our troops, our NATO allies, and the Afghanistan government has risen steadily.
So let me be clear. Al Qaida and its allies, the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that Al Qaida is actively planning attacks on the United States homeland from its safe haven in Pakistan. And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban or allows Al Qaida to go unchallenged, that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.
The future of Afghanistan is inextricably linked to the future of its neighbor Pakistan. In the nearly eight years since 9/11, Al Qaida and its extremist allies have moved across the border to remote areas of the Pakistani frontier. This almost certainly includes Al Qaida's leadership, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. They have used this mountainous terrain as a safe haven to hide, to train terrorists, and communicate with followers, to plot attacks, and to send fighters to support the insurgency in Afghanistan."
continued
Posted by antisocialist at 11/20/2009 @ 3:18pm
to Darla,
Prsident Obama's speech continued
<For the American people, this border region has become the most dangerous place in the world. But this is not simply an American problem, far from it. It is, instead, international security challenge of the highest order. The safety of people around the world is at stake. For the Afghan people, the return to Taliban rule would condemn their country to brutal governance, international isolation, a paralyzed economy, and the denial of basic human rights to the Afghan people, especially, women and girls.
A return in force of Al Qaida terrorists who would accompany the core Taliban leadership would cast Afghanistan under the shadow of perpetual violence. OBAMA: I don't ask for this support lightly. These are challenging times. Resources are stretched. But the American people must understand that this is a down payment on our own future because the security of American and Pakistan is shared. Pakistan's government must be a stronger partner in destroying these safe havens, and we must isolate Al Qaida from the Pakistani people.
These steps in Pakistan are also indispensable to our efforts in Afghanistan which will see no end to violence if insurgents move freely back and forth across the border. Security demands a new sense of shared responsibility, and that's why we will launch a standing, trilateral dialogue among the United States, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. >
continued
Posted by antisocialist at 11/20/2009 @ 3:19pm
Posted by Mask at 11/20/2009 @ 1:12pm
Obviously my question was too hard.
I apologize.
Posted by Mask at 11/20/2009 @ 3:21pm
to Darla,
President Obama's speech continued
<I remind everybody the United States of America did not choose to fight a war in Afghanistan. Nearly 3,000 of our people were killed on September 11, 2001 for doing nothing for than going about their daily lives. Al Qaida and its allies have since killed thousands of people in many countries. Most of the blood on their hands is the blood of Muslims who Al Qaida has killed and maimed in far greater number than any other people.
That is the future that Al Qaida is offering to the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan, a future without hope or opportunity, a future without justice or peace. So understand the road ahead will be long, and there will be difficult days ahead. But we will seek lastly partnerships with Afghanistan and Pakistan that promise a new day for their people.>
http://tinyurl.com/d6xofk
Is President Obama now a a Republican Darla? Is President Obama "hysterical" for holding this view?
Posted by antisocialist at 11/20/2009 @ 3:22pm
I had to laugh at the sight of Barack Obama, supposedly a black man, bowing to someone who isn't black. Blacks all over America must have had a collective cringe at the sight. He's done this at least twice now that we know of, in Saudi Arabia and now in Japan.
I wonder if the proud, descendent of slaves black community knew that this guy would go around bowing to people if he was elected, protocol or no protocol. It really is funny.
I wonder if he would bow before Osama Bin Laden if they ever met. If he keeps up with his present indecisive performance, the day might very well come, especially if Al Qaeda gets their hands on nuclear weapons.
Can you just imagine Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson bowing to anybody. The fact remains that Obama is not a descendent of slaves and therefore does not have the slightest clue of how offensive he is to those who are, in his readiness to bow.
No wonder he's now below 50% approval rating. how low can you go?
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/20/2009 @ 3:22pm
"In fact I care more than you do because I want them to at least have a chance to live life in freedom instead of the totalitarian life they had under the Taliban"
after 9.11, i don't remember bush saying anything about rebuilding an entire country. i remember him saying a lot about OBL and AQ, but rebuilding afghanistan was not part of the plan. that came about after the invasion.
antisocialist, afghanistan is not our responsibility. and even if it were, then we should not have started our nation-building adventure with afghanistan. we should have started right here in the united f*cking states.
"Tell me what 3rd world countries you have ever travelled to help the poor?"
west oakland. tenderloin, san francisco. south side chicago. queens, nyc. compton, LA.
there are a lot of poor people right here in california.
"You could care less about people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Sudan, and other places that suffer from radical totalitarianism"
translation: since you don't support an escalation of violence in afghanistan, you obviously could care less about the people in those countries.
Posted by darladoon at 11/20/2009 @ 4:57pm
of course, anti has probably helped poor people in 3rd world countries.......convert to christianity.
Posted by darladoon at 11/20/2009 @ 4:58pm
Santi- You have some valid points but answer this question clearly and succinctly? How many years does the U.S. need to achieve victory?How in this age of advanced technology can we not find Bin Laden?How can you discuss three terrorist groups and talk of their alliance and not their destruction?How can you compare our 6 year excursion in Afghanistan to a full fledged invasion by the Russians and expect"victory".Are you open to taxation to achieve victory? It is obvious you have read and studied this situation.The geography of the region is unfavorable.The religious differences between our cultures is another point of contention. Corruption seems to be a way of life in this region,how would you trust "recruits " in the region.This is a long odds proposition under good circumstances.Bottom line is that you propose a doctrine of long range defense of our country over the health of ordinary citizens.You want to spend on our military but not on uninsured children.There is no real concrete reason for the Afghans or Pakistanis to want to throw the Taliban out of their respective countries.These countries have a long tradition of shifting alliances.They also throw out foreigners after they feel their usefulness is over.I take it you feel it can be a new era of the blank check.I think you want another set of forward U.S. military bases.If Obama gives in to the military you will campaign for him in 2012.
Posted by whatozz at 11/20/2009 @ 5:42pm
west oakland. tenderloin, san francisco. south side chicago. queens, nyc. compton, LA.
In your travels, professor darladoon, what % of the poor people in the areas you cite can attribute their poverty to substance abuse?
The question to you, Darla, was what 3rd world countries you have ever travelled to help the poor? Let me help you...
Your correct answer is NONE. Why can't you say that?
Instead you provide a list of where you score your drugs.
More evidence of your cluelessness. You've not seen poverty until you've gotten out of the US.
Posted by freiheit1 at 11/20/2009 @ 5:43pm
Posted by freiheit1 at 11/20/2009 @ 5:43pm
And Indian reservations are indeed technically outside of the US, but in my experience with poverty at a level seen in the 3rd world. It is a horrible fact.
Posted by freiheit1 at 11/20/2009 @ 5:50pm
Posted by antisocialist at 11/20/2009 @ 1:40pm
Larry, we had a war against North Korea and called it a police action, and now we're fighting a tactic and calling it a war. Orwell lives on.
Comparing the battle in the Pacific in WWII to modern day Afghanistan is laughable. That was a war between nations. Afghanistan has never been a nation and we're (according to W.) not supposed to be in the nation-building business. So, why are we trying to build a nation when all our AQ enemies are in Pakistan?
"Care to share with us what Saddam and Iraqi oil have to do with Afghanistan?"
The war in Iraq was a distraction to the war in Afghanistan; because W and pals had a hardon for Saddam from BEFORE he became President, it distracted from our TRUE enemies, AQ in Afghanistan. Re-read my statement in that light: but the Bush Administration continued the war with no goal in mind, except "victory" which I have STILL seen absolutely no definition of from our right wing friends on this blog, nor Republican politicians. They had no strategy to win the war either because of their hardon for Saddam and his oil.
Any conservative care to define "victory in Afghanistan" yet? Yeah, I didn't think so.
OK...I will admit that Afghanistan has been more of an international fight. However, because of Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, which should have lasted three or fours years MAX, has now stretched out to 8. We defeated Hitler and the Nazi machine in 4.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/20/2009 @ 6:05pm
Hey Steve, That question of what victory looks like in Afghanistan is a good, fair question, to a conservative, or a liberal.
To a conservative, victory in Afghanistan would look a lot like material advancement we are witnessing in China, but with stronger and better defined property rights. Freedom of religion. A trustworthy government, court system and a rule of law. Throw in a walmart, starbucks and a Mcdonalds or two and we're there. Golly, yes, I see that as a huge problem. I don't even know where to begin.
hmmm, how would a liberal define victory in Afghanistan? A population entirely subservient to and dependent on a central, fully secular government based on planned parenthood guidelines. haha, sorry, I seriously can't even guess what liberals think without being sarcastic.
But I suspect drones accidentally killing civilians isn't victory to conservatives or liberals. And speaking personally, I would like to see the US withdrawal forces from Afghanistan entirely. Our action there is no longer constitutional in my opinion. But, of course, why we remain there is the real question.
Posted by freiheit1 at 11/20/2009 @ 6:30pm
But, of course, why we remain there is the real question.
Posted by freiheit1 at 11/20/2009 @ 6:30pm
And that answer lies in the fundamental reason most (but not all) wars are fought anyway - including a war against global warming, poverty and drugs.
To control populations, legitimize a ruling class, consolidate government power and redistribute wealth.
Posted by freiheit1 at 11/20/2009 @ 6:40pm
and you also obviously recuse yourself from complaining that obama is "dithering" on job creation, you asshole!
what? you think obama can juse create jobs without........spending money?
Posted by darladoon at 11/20/2009 @ 6:48pm
oops, wrong thread
Posted by darladoon at 11/20/2009 @ 6:49pm
I think anyone who compares AQ or even the Taliban or even a wider jihadist movement with Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo and thinks we are at "war" are insulting all those from the Greatest Generation who defeated those enemies in an actual War. AQ, etc. are gangs not armies.
Posted by smithy at 11/20/2009 @ 8:31pm
I think anyone who compares AQ or even the Taliban or even a wider jihadist movement with Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo and thinks we are at "war" are insulting all those from the Greatest Generation who defeated those enemies in an actual War. AQ, etc. are gangs not armies.
Posted by smithy at 11/20/2009 @ 8:31pm |
The problem is that "we" couldn't get a fair go at the gangs without having a 3 week conventional war with Saddam's army and dislodging the existing Taliban government from the government buildings in Kabul.
Both unfortunately required a war before getting down to the real business you mentioned. Seems to have worked. At least "we" were able to get stuck into the gangs. Killed about 4000 gang members in Iraq up to September 2006. Not a bad sort of kill rate by any standard, you must agree.
Why are they still there you ask? Killing gangsters must be addictive.
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/20/2009 @ 10:43pm
Posted by darladoon at 11/20/2009 @ 4:57pm
Rebuilding Afghanistan: The US is required under the Laws of the Hague Articles of War
Article 43 of the Annex to the Hague Convention of 1907, which requires that the occupying power "shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country."
Posted by antisocialist at 11/21/2009 @ 05:23am
Posted by whatozz at 11/20/2009 @ 5:42pm
See my response to Darla on the requirements for an occupying power for part of the answer.
I do want the destruction of these groups. Despite their overall goal of regional domination, they still make up added force to the alliance of jihadist groups that Al Qaeda can utilize. As such they represent a serious threat to both the region and the west. The threat of these groups taking over Pakistan is a serious concern to us and to the region. India is very concerned about this. They recognize that they could face not only increased terrorism, but nuclear attack should Pakistan fall.
Taxation? I don't see that as necessary at this stage because the percentage of the budget for Afghanistan, even if we doubled, or tripled our presence is still less than 1% of the budget. The February stimulus was over 15 times the annual budget for Afghanistan. FDR increased taxes in WWII to pay for having over 5 million soldiers deployed. We aren't even on a scale factor with that.
As I've said before, defense of the nation is a constitutional responsibility enumerated in the Constitution. I don't see how you can compare health care which is not mentioned in the Constitution. Also, I've repeated stated that I believe the Constitution leaves issues like this to the states to determine.
Finally, I have no desire to see permanent US bases in Afghanistan.
No, I would never vote for Obama because of his views on abortion and domestic policy.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/21/2009 @ 05:23am
Any conservative care to define "victory in Afghanistan" yet? Yeah, I didn't think so.
OK...I will admit that Afghanistan has been more of an international fight. However, because of Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, which should have lasted three or fours years MAX, has now stretched out to 8. We defeated Hitler and the Nazi machine in 4.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/20/2009 @ 6:05pm
I'll use the International Law of War Hague 1907
Article 43 of the Annex to the Hague Convention of 1907, which requires that the occupying power "shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country."
Posted by antisocialist at 11/21/2009 @ 05:24am
In October of 2001, at the beginning of our assault into Afghanistan, the Taliban wanted to bargain to give us bin Laden - but bush demanded that all who harbor bin Laden are our enemies; One faction of the Taliban recently told the US that it would not harbor Al Qaeda; Karzai and his family are crooks taking US money and running with it sending this money to the Taliban;100,000 soviet troops tried to dislodge Afghan fighters and failed in 9 years to make any headway; the Taliban is not our enemy and defeating, which the US can never do, the Taliban and securing Afghanistan will not make the US any safer; and, get this, Al Qaeda is in Pakistan.
Here's a progressive stand - get the hell out of Afghanistan and quit listening to whinning, cowardly 'patriots'. both in Congress and in America calling for revenge killing.
Posted by LarryB at 11/21/2009 @ 09:53am
The military has one mission - to keep the military in business. It dosen't matter how many men and women are killed or injured in an unjust war. They need to keep putting ribbons on their chests to make them feel important.
Maybe once, just once, a general will get his head out of his behind and ask a simple question. What the hell are we doing here? - after they are given a mission.
Westmoreland would have killed a lot more Americans in Vietnam, and surely, killing a mere 4.2 million Vietnamese didn't appease his appetite.
Is McChrystal our new Westmoreland?
Posted by JustOneBobofMany at 11/21/2009 @ 10:08am
Santi-Did the Russians follow this in the aftermath of their war?Afghanistan is a much larger concern to Pakistan and India.We consider Pakistan an ally in this "quest" to destroy the Taliban.They have proven to be corrupt and in cases in "cahoots" with the Taliban.You basically are saying we should give a blank check to this action. Also you have no idea when it would end,it sounds from the tone of your post that it would become just another part of the budget.India as you know is a long time arch enemy of Pakistan.Any thing they could engineer in this situation would be for their benefit first.They are no different from us and they are the power in the region.Of course religious differences also pay a role in this situation.We are standing on a powder keg here.Unfortunately the real pawn is Afghanistan.It is a geographical piece,no more no less.Do we have "restore" some destroyed areas.Yes I would believe that to be the case. The Afghans would like to return to their centuries old societal structure.Armies have come and gone,the people have stayed the same.I wonder why health care for children is not pertinent but death and destruction is.Did the Constitution say "we"could go to foreign lands and cause maiming and death.No,it provided for an army for defense of our country.Our forefathers would never have envisioned the fiasco in Iraq.At the same time our forefathers would not believe we would fight a war of Independence from oppression in the 1770-1780's in order to not provide for the health and happiness of our children in the 2000's.You know my stance on our Asian borrowing partner.
Posted by whatozz at 11/21/2009 @ 10:23am
freiheitz, you speak the truth about the rez, I have been to a few and it is like a third world, unbelievable in this day and age.
Posted by Denise29 at 11/21/2009 @ 10:28am
"the percentage of the budget for Afghanistan, even if we doubled, or tripled our presence is still less than 1% of the budget"
the afghanistan war costs 3.6 billion/month. each soldier costs 1 million per year. so if we double or triple our presence, juts do the math.
where is the money coming from, anti? gotta cut something else in order to pay for this.
"Article 43 of the Annex to the Hague Convention of 1907"
obama can still order a timeline for withdrawl.
Posted by darladoon at 11/21/2009 @ 10:39am
now larry's quoting the hague, i love it.
Posted by darladoon at 11/21/2009 @ 10:40am
Denise,your friendly Senator John Mccain has had his fingers in Indian Affairs the past 20 years. He sure has helped out hasn't he.
Posted by whatozz at 11/21/2009 @ 10:43am
I believe Goldwater was the last politician to really want to help the native peoples, he loved and understood them. McCain cares for nothing but his political life, and Kyl is a complete screw up, no help there, actually no there, there.
Posted by Denise29 at 11/21/2009 @ 10:52am
now larry's quoting the hague, i love it.
Posted by darladoon at 11/21/2009 @ 10:40am
I've been quoting it here for over 4 years.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/21/2009 @ 11:22am
Thanks for posting this, KVH!
The letter from the caucus members has some good points. The conflict should NOT be open ended, and we should have some well defined "goal" to eventually bring our troops home.
The caucus is correct to note that there are serious political legitimacy questions and widespread corruption that makes an "immediate" withdrawal foolish if we are serious about preventing Afghanistan from reemerging as a have for terrorists. And while I do not know if 80/20 is the correct formulation, certainly a 100% military solution is really not a solution to ending the conflict.
Poverty and lack of well developed infrastructure are also a serious problems, and bolder economic and political development in Afghanistan will go a long way toward solving our security interests in the region.
There also has to be a way to use this conflict to transition the US out of the world cop role, and develop international forces and structures for dealing with international terrorism. This does NOT mean that the US will not unilaterally defend our nation if threatened - and the US will always reserve the right to defend itself - but if we are to "progress" from the fulcrum actor balance of power theory that relies on a single dominant country to a truly international model, Afghanistan could be a convenient starting point.
It will be interesting to see what the President decides.
Posted by Metteyya at 11/21/2009 @ 11:28am
Where is the George Ball of the Obama Administration?
In Gordon Goldstein's book, "Lessons in Disaster", the current presidential book club favorite, George Ball, Under Secretary of State under Kennedy and Johnson, was the only upper level administrator voting against escalation of the war in Vietnam, versus Westmorelands et al, call for 44 battalions.
Goldstein's book made one clear point - do not use military might for undetermined political gains.
Read the book Prez. Don't be worried about the next election. Get out of Afghanistan, and start a new tact of finding Al Qaeda in Pakistan and working WITH the Taliban to assure Al Qaeda wont return to Afghanistan.
Posted by JustOneBobofMany at 11/21/2009 @ 11:45am
Posted by Denise29 at 11/21/2009 @ 10:52am
Goldwater had the ability to muzzle the tire-iron wielding rednecks, but they were still there, a big part of his constituency. These guys were taught to roll over when some years later, the "free market" shut down the copper mines & they lost the best paying jobs in the state.
Their sons & daughters must now be lining up to get into the National Guard.
Posted by Sorelish at 11/21/2009 @ 11:53am
Their sons & daughters must now be lining up to get into the National Guard.
Posted by Sorelish at 11/21/2009 @ 11:53am
No, mine served in the Marines.
One was decorated by Clinton for his work in counter-terrorism
Another was in the first Marine unit to cross into Baghdad
Posted by antisocialist at 11/21/2009 @ 12:20pm
Katrina,
I really appreciate that finally Obama may get to hear some people west of the center...i.e. the left, and so know the other part of the story as compared to military, warmongers, imperialist necons, "frightened on anything that moves and has turbans" and so.
However, I don't think that Obama will be bold enough to do the right move: start a withdrawal program to be finished at the end of his administration.
Posted by Frank42 at 11/21/2009 @ 4:28pm
"I've been quoting it here for over 4 years."
have you been quoting the convention against torture, too? or what about the declaration of human rights? or, are those....invalid?
Posted by darladoon at 11/21/2009 @ 4:55pm
"I've been quoting it here for over 4 years."
have you been quoting the convention against torture, too? or what about the declaration of human rights? or, are those....invalid?
Posted by darladoon at 11/21/2009 @ 4:55pm
Convention against torture? Nope, it's too vague to be enforced
Declaration of Human Rights? Nope, I don't support anything from the UN and besides the DHR is only a recommendation and carries no weight of enforcement.
The Hague Convention on the other hand is a 100 plus year old treaty document signed by the US and most civilized nations.
<The Hague Conventions were international treaties negotiated at the First and Second Peace Conferences at The Hague, Netherlands in 1899 and 1907, respectively, and were, along with the Geneva Conventions, among the first formal statements of the laws of war and war crimes in the nascent body of secular international law.>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_(1899_and_1907)
The Geneva Convention which I also support is an extension of the Hague Convention
Posted by antisocialist at 11/21/2009 @ 5:51pm
the sheer mind-numbing stupidity of larry in full effect:
statement #1:
"Convention against torture? Nope, it's too vague to be enforced"
statement #2:
"The Geneva Convention which I also support is an extension of the Hague Convention"
the geneva convention also.....bans torture.
antisocialist, mind-numbing brainless a*hole
Posted by darladoon at 11/21/2009 @ 6:00pm
the geneva convention also.....bans torture.
antisocialist, mind-numbing brainless a*hole
Posted by darladoon at 11/21/2009 @ 6:00pm
1. We have not tortured-despite your assertions over and over again.
2. The Supreme Court went outside of both the Constitution and the Geneva Convention itself in ruling that the GC applied to the jihadists at Gitmo. That terribly wrong decision ranks as one of the worst in the Supreme Courts history.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/21/2009 @ 6:16pm
BTW Darla neither the word torture, nor a description of means of torture are described in the Third Geneva Convention Treatment of Prisoners
Posted by antisocialist at 11/21/2009 @ 6:31pm
The fact that Obama would even consider expanding the war in Afghanistan suggests he is totally unfit for office. In plain English, you have to be out of your goddamn mind to consider blowing another trillion dollars on yet another made-in-America massacre in the midst of an economic and environmental meltdown. In any case, Obama's war is surging ahead, all but ensuring that the United States will be attacked again.
Posted by SmashIsrael at 11/21/2009 @ 6:50pm
"We have not tortured-despite your assertions over and over again"
(quote of the day)
i'll just quote it:
"willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments
willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
compelling one to serve in the forces of a hostile power
willfully depriving one of the right to a fair trial"
and then antisocialist says this:
"Darla neither the word torture, nor a description of means of torture are described in the Third Geneva Convention Treatment of Prisoners"
torture is clearly mentioned in the GC.
a self-described "christian" goes out of his way to defend the inhumane treatment of prisoners.
incredible.
larry = fraud, imposter, in short....evil.
Posted by darladoon at 11/21/2009 @ 9:35pm
larry, what is your opinion on those japanese who waterboarded american prisoners.....getting prosecuted, and even put to death, by the US govnt after WWII?
your thoughts on the convention against torture?
btw, reagan signed that one.
is it invalid, in your "expert" opinion?
btw, i hope you one day rot in hell. i'm serious.
Posted by darladoon at 11/21/2009 @ 9:37pm
"The problem is that "we" couldn't get a fair go at the gangs without having a 3 week conventional war with Saddam's army"
Sorry Mr. Jones, the only gang was Zarqawi's Ansar group and that was in the Kurdistan area from which we had excluded Hussein.
Posted by brunowe at 11/22/2009 @ 12:35am
Darla, Yeeeeow. There are lots of redneck-narcissists with above average IQs, below average moral development, huh? Their strongest aptitude is instigating. So pleasurable is this for them that they go decades, if not lifetimes never getting past whatever early life pain shut than off.
Like Osama, as a new book shows, they (love to) hate their enemies more than they actually love, actively, really, love their own "loved ones".
"His son eventually concluded Bin Laden hated his enemies more than he loved his family."
Omar Bin Laden's book is "Growing Up Bin Laden"
Pointing out hypocrisy paradoxically these sorts to bolster their self deception.
So whither you "ignore" or go for it - so long as he learns nothing, he loses! Time marches on. Know what I mean?
Posted by winyahn at 11/22/2009 @ 10:54pm
There are 28 million people in Afghanistan, if we gave each one of them $1000 (about 2.5 times the current Afghan per capita yearly income) that would only cost 28 billion, or about 10 weeks worth of what we are spending to keep our forces there.
It would be 5 times cheaper for us to pull our troops out and hire everyone in Afghanistan at over twice what they are earning now. Why would they work for Al Queda or the Taliban when we pay so much better? People with good jobs do not tend to be troublemakers. Also since we are hiring the whole country as a bonus we could actually get them to make stuff we want, build goodwill and their economy without having to kill anyone. Then we could use the money we save to create some jobs here.
Posted by macrumpton at 11/23/2009 @ 08:26am
The soviets suffered a humiliating defeat from the Afghans and all know who helped the Afghans. The history is going to be repeated there without much outside help for the Afghans.A troop surge will not help there. This illegal war is going on there for over 9 years.And what results the Westerners expect other than more civilian deaths. What about the casualties of the coalition troops?
Posted by Dastu11 at 11/23/2009 @ 09:20am
start a new tact of finding Al Qaeda ...
the word you are looking for is a new TACK, from sailing parlance. nothing to do with good manners.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/23/2009 @ 1:23pm
Posted by BillWilliam at 11/20/2009 @ 11:34am | ignore this person | warn this person
you do not know what you are talking about. Afghanistan, a mountainous country, is not suited to the kind of tank warfare Patton is known for.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/23/2009 @ 1:33pm
obama should be impeached. His cabinet is an affront to all of America!!! He did not put a single liberal in his group, yet is surrounded by middle of the roaders, conservatives and right wing nuts!! obama lied to America!!! Lets elect a TRUE DEMOCRAT in 2012!!!
Posted by Tiger2Lover at 11/25/2009 @ 05:44am
I should be ignored Posted by Tiger2Lover at 11/25/2009 @ 05:44am | ignore this person | warn this person
done.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/25/2009 @ 08:22am
The Commander and Thief has done it again. Broken another promise from his lips to our ears in the capaign. Remember this one:
Obama vows to 'kill Bin Laden, crush al-Qaeda' Posted: October 7th, 2008 10:16 PM ET
NASHVILLE, Tennessee (CNN) – "We will kill Bin Laden, we will crush al-Qaeda," Barack Obama said Tuesday as he faced John McCain in their second head-to-head presidential debate. Well quess what. Next Tuesday at West Point his new policy will be announced. And like everything else his snake oil sales representatives have already released the details. His new mission...not to kill bin laden but to:
Mr. Obama will announce a change in the American goal--without calling attention to the new objective. His goal up to now has been to "defeat" al Qaeda. The new mission: to "dismantle and degrade" the terrorists
Thanks commander...you are a friggin coward and lier...always were and always will be ...its a disgrace to let him onto the grounds of West Point
Posted by Obamunut at 11/26/2009 @ 09:57am
Does anyone even belive that Osama Bin Laden is still alive, really?
Posted by DrPiggy at 11/26/2009 @ 6:44pm