Obama Should Meet With 'Rethink Afghanistan' Caucus

posted by John Nichols on 10/06/2009 @ 2:08pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (149)

Subscribe Now

President Obama, who is under pressure from the Pentagon and defense contractors to surge 40,000 additional U.S. troops into occupied Afghanistan, met Tuesday with members of Congress to discuss the sorry state of the mission and its uncertain future.

That's the good news -- sort of.

At least the president is talking to the civilian leaders who, according to the U.S. Constitution, are supposed to be making decisions about whether to engage in and escalate wars.

The bad news is that the president -- who disptached Defense Secretary Robert Gates to say before the meeting: "We are not leaving Afghanistan" -- did not sit down with members of Congress who have studied the conflict and determined that it is time to develop a flexible exit strategy.

Here is the list of House and Senate members who got the White House invite:

SENATORS: Harry Reid, Majority Leader, D-NV * Dick Durbin, Majority Whip, D-IL * Mitch McConnell, Republican Leader, R-KY * Jon Kyl, Republican Whip, R-AZ * Carl Levin, Armed Services Chair, D-MI * John McCain, Armed Services Ranking Member, R-AZ * Daniel Inouye, Appropriations Chair and Defense Subcommittee Chair, D-HI * Thad Cochran, Appropriations Ranking Member and Defense Subcommittee Ranking, R-MS * John Kerry, Foreign Affairs Chair, D-MA * Richard Lugar, Foreign Affairs Ranking Member, R-IN * Patrick Leahy, Foreign Operations Appropriations Chair, D-VT * Judd Gregg, Foreign Operations Appropriations Ranking Member, R-NH * Dianne Feinstein, Intelligence Committee Chair, D-CA * Kit Bond, Intelligence Committee Ranking Member, R-MO

REPRESENTATIVES: Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA * Steny Hoyer, Majority Leader, D-MD * John Boehner, Republican Leader, R-OH * James Clyburn, Majority Whip, D-SC * Eric Cantor, Republican Whip, R-VA * Ike Skelton, Armed Services Chair, D-MO * Howard McKeon, Armed Services Ranking Member, R-CA * Howard Berman, Foreign Affairs Chair, D-CA * Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Foreign Affairs Ranking Member, R-FL * David Obey, Appropriations Chair, D-WI * Jerry Lewis, Appropriations Ranking Member, R-CA * Nita Lowey, Foreign Operations Appropriations Chair, D-NY * Kay Granger, Foreign Operations Appropriations Ranking Member, R-TX * John Murtha, Appropriations, Defense Subcommittee Chair, D-PA * Bill Young, Appropriations, Defense Subcommittee Ranking Member, R-FL * Silvestre Reyes, Intelligence Committee Chairman, D-TX * Peter Hoekstra, Intelligence Committee Ranking Member, R-MI

Readers will note that there are plenty of Republican hawks -- led by McCain -- on the list.

And, yes, there are some skeptics -- such as Durbin and Kerry.

But where are Senator Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, and Senator Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, who have emerged as outspoken advocates for a rethink of the occupation and, in Feingold's case, a flexible exit strategy? Feingold, a member of the Intelligence Committee who has spent more time than most members in southern Asia, knows the territory well. And he would bring an alternative point of view to what is, after all, being billed as a frank and open discussions of strategy. (White House spokesman Robert Gibbs says: "The president has discussed wanting to hear from all of those that are involved in this, and certainly Congress plays a big role in this.")

Where is Massachusetts Congressman Jim McGovern's name on the list? McGovern has visited Afghanistan, met with troops and commanders, consulted with international security and development strategists, and come to share their conclusion that an escalation of U.S. forces would be a bad idea. The well-regarded vice chair of the Rules Committee is, as well, the sponsor of legislation demanding the development of an exit strategy. That legislation just attracted its 99th cosponsor in the House, meaning that with McGovern himself it now has 100 signed-on backers -- including a number of conservative Republicans.

McGovern and Congressman Walter Jones, R-North Carolina, recently circulated a letter opposing General Stanley McChrystal's bid to shift 40,000 additional troops to Afghanistan.

More than 50 House Democrats and Republicans signed the letter, which argues that "the last thing that our nation needs as it struggles with the pain of a severe economic crisis and a mountain of debt is another military quagmire. We believe that is why recent polls consistently show that a majority of Americans are opposed to a military escalation in Afghanistan."

The dissenting members are right about the polls. Opposition to the occupation is building.

They are right about the quagmire, a point brilliantly made by Robert Greenwald's just-released documentary "Rethink Afghanistan".

The president is right to consult Congress.

But he is wrong -- very wrong -- to consult only with supporters of the escalation and cautious critics. It reinforces a problem highlighted by Greenwald. "The echo chambers in Washington have long argued that Afghanistan is the war of necessity," the director explains. "This reasoning excluded any opposing viewpoints and has mired us in what is now perceived as the endless war."

The president should at least give a hearing to those members of the House and Senate who have had the wherewithal and the courage to challenge the convention wisdom that says the occupation of Afghanistan must continue -- and must continue to expand. He would quickly find that there are sound diplomacy-and-development strategies that offer alternatives not just to escalation but to maintaining the occupation.

Instead of limiting the discussion to the defenders of a failed status quo, and those who are satisfied to tinker rather than change direction, Obama should consult the "Rethink Afghanistan" caucus.

Comments (149)

JOHN NICHOLS,

I think it is a mischaracterization that Obama is only interested in talking to "pro-escalation" folks.

I think the only thing that could be gleaned from the invite list is that those without a "plan" to deal with legitimate threats from the region, and who only want to withdraw without any regard to the consequences, seem to be absent.

But this is the point I have been harping on for several weeks - COME UP WITH A "PROGRESSIVE" PLAN to deal with legitimate terrorists threats or you will not be taken seriously by those who actually have to govern.

Whether you like it or not, Obama is tasked with keeping America safe as our president. So are you going to help him in this effort of fall back into reflexive anti-war positions?

I don't like the military-industrial-complex any more than you, and I am anxious to see them finally put under some sort of control as we move into a progressive era. But when all you can advocate for is withdrawal without any acknowledgment of legitimate threats or a real plan to deal with them, you just don't sound very credible.

I think there is consensus in the progressive community to defend our country from "legitimate" threats, and to subordinate the US to a real world community to deal with future threats and hotspots that require global action to prevent, like Rwanda or Kosovo where people have been slaughtered based on their ethnicity or religion.

As a Buddhist, I am very much against military conflict, and always seek ways to avoid it. But when a greater number of people will suffer if we and the rest of the world do not act in a particular case, then action must be taken.

Is this so difficult to understand, JOHN NICHOLS?

Posted by Metteyya at 10/05/2009 @ 10:41pm
"But when a greater number of people will suffer if we and the rest of the world do not act in a particular case, then action must be taken."

buddhist, eh?

evidence that a "greater number of people will suffer" if we continue to inflict.......more suffering on innocent people?

or, are you only interested in the suffering of white, westerners?

Posted by darladoon at 10/05/2009 @ 11:22pm
Posted by darladoon at 10/05/2009 @ 11:22pm

It's just basic mathematics...if a greater number suffer from inaction than action, then action must be taken by those who are commited to alieviating human suffering.

This s ENTIRELY Buddhist, and even the Dali Lama has confirmed this while cautioning against "knowing" whether more suffering will be prevented by action. And sometimes it is indeed hard to know, and in those cases inaction may be appropriate.

But in actions in Rwanda where we "knew" almost a million Tutsis would be slaughtered, even Iraq-like causalities would make action preferable to prevent human suffering.

"Minimizing" human suffering must include action to prevent greater human suffering than would occur with inaction. <---This must be the "progressive" point of view toward engagement, or how can we call ourselves "progressive"?

Posted by Metteyya at 10/05/2009 @ 11:36pm
buy the damn poppy crop, for chrissakes.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/06/2009 @ 12:08am
this is NOT off-topic:

"In the most profound financial change in recent Middle East history, Gulf Arabs are planning � along with China, Russia, Japan and France � to end dollar dealings for oil, moving instead to a basket of currencies including the Japanese yen and Chinese yuan, the euro, gold and a new, unified currency planned for nations in the Gulf Co-operation Council, including Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait and Qatar.

Secret meetings have already been held by finance ministers and central bank governors in Russia, China, Japan and Brazil to work on the scheme, which will mean that oil will no longer be priced in dollars�"

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/06/2009 @ 12:16am
Here is what Obama might do if someone helps him make up his mind:

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates says US troops will stay in Afghanistan despite support for the war falling

October 06, 2009 2:44PM

The White House has ruled out any consideration of a US withdrawal from Afghanistan as part of President Barack Obama's sweeping strategy review of the increasingly unpopular war there.

"We are not leaving Afghanistan. This discussion is about next steps forward and the president has some momentous decisions to make," Defence Secretary Robert Gates said in an interview that will air on CNN later today.

Gates said the Afghan and Pakistani governments should not be "nervous" about the US review as Obama prepared to brief congressional leaders and to convene his war council again this week on how to deal with the deteriorating security situation.

"I don't think we have the option to leave," said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs. "That's quite clear.

Posted by lrjones4 at 10/06/2009 @ 12:44am
buy the damn poppy crop, for chrissakes.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/06/2009 @ 12:08am

"I don't think we have the option to leave," said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs. "That's quite clear.

Posted by lrjones4 at 10/06/2009 @ 12:44am

Isn't it clear....we are in Afghanistan to enjoy the `goods'?

Back!

Posted by Happy at 10/06/2009 @ 01:18am
Obamanation is "channeling" LBJ and politicians who ran the vietnam war into the ground and he will ultimately snatch defeat from the jaws of victory just as politicians have done historically when they and not the military fight wars!

He will ultimately be the fool who tries to defeat terrorism by "committee"!

Posted by BigPasture at 10/06/2009 @ 02:31am
Obama is turning out to be a bit of a disappointment.

:-(

Posted by mikecope at 10/06/2009 @ 02:47am
Posted by BigPasture at 10/06/2009 @ 02:31am

Rio, why couldn't Dubya win a victory in Afghanistan?

We went in under him in October 2001 and he left office in January 2009. That's seven years, three months...nearly double the time it took those "Demoncrats" FDR and Truman to defeat BOTH Germany and Japan.

Posted by Mask at 10/06/2009 @ 07:22am
'Metteyya's' interpretation of Buddhism is one of the greatest distortions of Buddhism I have ever heard. And 'Metteyya' actually means compassion. The gist of Buddhism is 'karuna' - loving-kindness, not some utilitarian principle of happiness of the greatest number. What a crock! Please don't hide your warmongering behind the sacred robe of Buddhism. Its the same thing Obama is doing - hiding his warmongering behind nice, palatable words of democracy, world security, etc. Mobilize and resist Obama's war! Hey, hey, Obama, how many children have you killed today?

Posted by trueleftist at 10/06/2009 @ 07:25am
Hey, hey, Obama, how many children have you killed today? Posted by trueleftist at 10/06/2009 @ 07:25am |

O-B-A-M-A...how many kids have you killed today?

Better scansion.

Posted by snowball777 at 10/06/2009 @ 07:50am
Posted by BigPasture at 10/06/2009 @ 02:31am Rio, why couldn't Dubya win a victory in Afghanistan? We went in under him in October 2001 and he left office in January 2009. That's seven years, three months...nearly double the time it took those "Demoncrats" FDR and Truman to defeat BOTH Germany and Japan. Posted by Mask at 10/06/2009 @ 07:22am | ignore this person |

--they had help. bush, and now obama, are stupidly trying to go it alone.

Posted by urmygyro at 10/06/2009 @ 07:56am
uh, urms....

United States - 31,855 United Kingdom - 9,000 Germany - 4,245 Italy - 2,795 France - 3,070 Canada - 2,830 Poland - 2,025 Netherlands - 2160 Turkey - 820 Australia - 1,200 Romania - 990 Bulgaria - 460 Spain - 1000 Denmark - 750 Belgium - 510 Norway - 600 Czech Republic - 340 Croatia - 295 Sweden - 430 Hungary - 310 Slovakia - 230 Lithuania - 250 Macedonia - 165 Latvia - 165 New Zealand - 220 Albania - 250 Estonia - 150 Greece - 125 Finland - 130 Azerbaijan - 90 Slovenia - 80 Portugal - 105 United Arab Emirates - 25 Singapore - 8 Ukraine - 10 Luxembourg - 9 Iceland - 8 Ireland - 7 Jordan - 7 Austria - 4 Bosnia and Herzegovina - 2 Georgia - 1

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/06/2009 @ 08:17am
Perhaps Obama should read up about Ashoka, a Buddhist Emperor, who controlled most of South Asia in his time (including Afghanistan). Ashoka turned to Buddhism after feeling remorse for his brutal military campaigns in South Asia. He sent out emissaries to Sri Lanka, Afghanistan and most of SE Asia. Buddhism spread to Asia in a non-violent fashion. The Buddhist message of non-violence, peace, justice brought in a new age of enlightnment in Asia as a whole. Obama mouthed words of goodwill, and peace to the world, but his actions have been nothing but a continuation of the Bush doctrine. It has been said that the two philosophers who have influenced him greatly are Niebuhr and Nietzche. The mix of Niebuhr's 'Christian realism' and Nietzche's 'will to power' may be nothing other than a way to transform neoconservatism from a conservative phenomenon (Strauss and Nietzsche)to a liberal one (i.e. replace Strauss with Niebuhr). Neoconservatism has moved back to the Democratic party from where it originally came. Obama - the first liberal neocon president. A tricky version of George Bush.

Posted by trueleftist at 10/06/2009 @ 08:23am
uh, urms....

United States - 31,855 United Kingdom - 9,000 Germany - 4,245 Italy - 2,795 France - 3,070 Canada - 2,830 Poland - 2,025 Netherlands - 2160 Turkey - 820 Australia - 1,200 Romania - 990 Bulgaria - 460 Spain - 1000 Denmark - 750 Belgium - 510 Norway - 600 Czech Republic - 340 Croatia - 295 Sweden - 430 Hungary - 310 Slovakia - 230 Lithuania - 250 Macedonia - 165 Latvia - 165 New Zealand - 220 Albania - 250 Estonia - 150 Greece - 125 Finland - 130 Azerbaijan - 90 Slovenia - 80 Portugal - 105 United Arab Emirates - 25 Singapore - 8 Ukraine - 10 Luxembourg - 9 Iceland - 8 Ireland - 7 Jordan - 7 Austria - 4 Bosnia and Herzegovina - 2 Georgia - 1

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/06/2009 @ 08:17am | ignore this person | warn this person

--there's a bosnian and a herzegovinian helping out! how have the terrorists not surrendered yet?

Posted by urmygyro at 10/06/2009 @ 08:37am
Posted by trueleftist at 10/06/2009 @ 07:25am

Go tell that to the families of the 800,000 Tutsis that were slaughtered because we failed to act.

And while you are at it, go tell the Jews that inaction against Hitler would have been preferable because we don't want to "kill" anyone to prevent greater numbers of death and atrocity.

You are certainly entitled to practice a "no killing of anyone regardless of the circumstances" sort of Buddhism, and I would NEVER discourage you from holding on to that point of view.

My only hope is that you consider the "consequences" of this view on human suffering, and that you are able to live with these consequences.

Posted by Metteyya at 10/06/2009 @ 08:49am
As a Buddhist, I am very much against military conflict, and always seek ways to avoid it. But when a greater number of people will suffer if we and the rest of the world do not act in a particular case, then action must be taken. Is this so difficult to understand, JOHN NICHOLS? Posted by Metteyya at 10/05/2009 @ 10:41pm | +++

Didn't Buddha teach that life equals suffering?

Or as the Lotus Sutra says: Living in this world is like living in a house on fire.

Posted by Citizen54 at 10/06/2009 @ 08:51am
Typically, a centrist Democratic president snubs the left-wing of his party and, typically in Metteyya's case, because said president is Obama, that's OK with him.

I don't know the specifics of Feingold's or Sanders' "plans" but I would imagine they rely much more on diplomacy and international law enforcement, and even covert ops when it comes to Al Queida, then on 100,000+ U.S. troops and drone missle attacks with high civilian casualties. The fact that Obama won't even talk to these folks, that his press secretary has said that everything is on the table except withdrawal, says more about Obama and the beltway consensus than it does about the 100 congresspeople who, like the majority of Americans, want us to at least start planning for withdrawal.

Posted by cka2nd at 10/06/2009 @ 09:36am
"But when a greater number of people will suffer if we and the rest of the world do not act in a particular case, then action must be taken."

buddhist, eh?

evidence that a "greater number of people will suffer" if we continue to inflict.......more suffering on innocent people?

or, are you only interested in the suffering of white, westerners?

Posted by darladoon at 10/05/2009 @ 11:22pm

Mobilize and resist Obama's war! Hey, hey, Obama, how many children have you killed today?

Posted by trueleftist at 10/06/2009 @ 07:25am

Here we have two prime examples of the idiot element of the far left. Certainly they don't reflect all liberals or leftists. But their's is the worst kind of leftist.

They hate US military action so much they are willing to see Afghan women and children put back into a life of slavery, torture and death.

If the US and NATO pull out of Afghanistan, not only will women and children see their lives returned to the horrors of the Taliban regime, but there is a strong likelihood of a threat to a combined Taliban/Al Qaeda take over of Pakistan. Should that occur, the entire world could well go up in a nuclear holocaust.

I'm glad to see that President Obama understands this threat and is not willing to become the president that destroyed the world, just so he can satisfy the 1-2% of the population that these people represent.

Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 09:50am
>>>I don't know the specifics of Feingold's or Sanders' "plans" but I would imagine they rely much more on diplomacy and international law enforcement, and even covert ops when it comes to Al Queida, then on 100,000+ U.S. troops and drone missle attacks with high civilian casualties.

Posted by cka2nd at 10/06/2009 @ 09:36am<<<

This is TOO vague to be considered a "plan".

What sort of "international law enforcement" do you envision? What nations? What command structure? Who decides when they act and what they can do?

The problem with NICHOLS article here, is that he "assumes" that escalation is the only thing being considered. If that were the case, why even "re-review" Afghanistan policy?

The progressive community needs to come up with a detailed PLAN to deal with threats from Afghanistan and around the world. This becomes exceedingly difficult if we hang on to reflexive anti-war pacifism as the "only" approach.

I am an admirer of Ghandi and learned a great deal from the success of non-violent movements. But does anyone on this board really think Ghandi's approach would have stopped Hitler from slaughtering the Jews, or Hutus from slaughtering Tutsis? And if not, are you just willing to accept atrocities of this sort and the extraordinary human suffering it causes even if you could prevent it with military action?

These are tough questions, but they demand answers if we are to be taken seriously on the world stage.

Posted by Metteyya at 10/06/2009 @ 09:59am
Hay metteyya

Your boy clinton and the american government in general were aware of the genocide in rwanda and deliberatley did not do anything about it.you seem to suggest that the presence of occupation forces in afghanistan is to "protect" the afgans and eliminate an incoming genocide.maybe you should pay a bit of attention to those drones that are butchering 100,s of civillians a month. the great majority of aan people do not WANT the presence of western military boots on their homeland and that is why they are resisting.

By the way why don,t you ask your emperor obama to intervene on behalf of palestinian people?they have been butchered,raped and turned into refugees for the last 64 yrs and their tormentors the zionist criminals along with republican fascists are the ones who are seeking the escalation of war in afganistan.

i think you need to join glen beck and limbaugh.they both sound like you.

Posted by excalibur999 at 10/06/2009 @ 10:31am
Posted by excalibur999 at 10/06/2009 @ 10:31am

Clinton made a mistake in Rwanda and has admitted as much.

Afghanistan is NOT about genocide, I am just trying to present a wide range of future threats - including the terrorist threat - that must be deal with if Obama is to make good on his promise to keep America safe.

The challenge for progressives who want to be part of this discussion is to come up with a PLAN to deal with the terrorist threat from Afghanistan. I also simply think it is more "progressive" to also include in this plan some "making the country whole" efforts so that we leave the place better than we found it. These are just basic human values that I would think all progressives share.

Unfortunately, all I am hearing is timelines and plans for withdrawal with not much thought at all as to the probable consequences of withdrawal. This is not very responsible, and could explain why some people are not being included in the discussion.

Posted by Metteyya at 10/06/2009 @ 10:44am
"I don't think we have the option to leave," said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs. "That's quite clear.

Posted by lrjones4 at 10/06/2009 @ 12:44am | ignore this person | warn this person

Congrats mate on Australia's Top Ten Ranking - make that "Top Three Ranking" on the UN's best places to live!

Refugee rafts already being constructed here in the US.

"I don't think we have the option to leave"....hmmmm......in more ways than one.

Posted by OneVote at 10/06/2009 @ 10:49am
'Metteyya's' interpretation of Buddhism is one of the greatest distortions of Buddhism I have ever heard.

Posted by trueleftist at 10/06/2009 @ 07:25am | ignore this person | warn this person

Nearly choked on my rice crispies...lol....

Compassionate War-Mongering.

aaaaauuuuummmmmmmmmm..............

Posted by OneVote at 10/06/2009 @ 10:56am
i think you need to join glen beck and limbaugh.they both sound like you.

Posted by excalibur999 at 10/06/2009 @ 10:31am | ignore this person | warn this person

Is there such a thing as a Buddhist-Zionist?

You bet!

Posted by OneVote at 10/06/2009 @ 11:12am
Ann Coulter typically characterizes sentiment similar to Nichols' as, "Surrender Now Great Satan!"

As inflamatory as that is, some of the real sentiments are worse. Here is an article by Jesse Jackson:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/jackson/ 1808022,CST-EDT-jesse06.article

It talks about the senseless murder of an honor student in Chicago and Jesse's presscription is that we need to do what they did in Little Rock for desegregation:

"children are sensibly scared as they go to school. They should have safe passage to school. In Little Rock, Ark., when we first desegregated students, the federal government sent in troops to guarantee safe passage to school."

Chicago has been run by Democrats for the last several decades and now children can't even go to school without the protection of federal troops in violation of the Posse Comitus Act.

New York was headed in the same direction as Chicago, but Dinkins was bad enough to elect Guliani and now you don't need federal troops to get to school.

Unless someone can construct an argument that refutes the proposition that decades of entrenched Democratic rule don'ts inextricably lead to entrenched government dependance and the ensuing civil violence that always follows.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/06/2009 @ 11:24am
Posted by OneVote at 10/06/2009 @ 11:12am

You can write this off as a joke if you want, but Obama is committed to keeping America safe.

Pacifism for pacifism's sake is a little too puritanical for my taste, as I know the world is much more complicated than any position that does not consider real-world consequences of behavior.

We live in the REAL world, and therefore need to ensure that we are doing all we can do to make this world more secure while minimizing human suffering. We have an opportunity to present a plan that addresses these real world concerns using "progressive" values, but I guess we are going to "punt" and fall back into reflexive anti-war isolationism.

When progressives refuse the deal with the way the world really is, then WE are written off by those who actually have to govern in the real world.

Posted by Metteyya at 10/06/2009 @ 11:24am
I mean if you spend forty years telling someone that the reason his life sucks is because of these greedy "other" people who just aren't giving him what he deserves, you are bound to get violence.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/06/2009 @ 11:26am
metteyya

america can be the safest place on earth if our politicians pay attention to inetrests of american nation and not stick their noses in other people,s bussiness.what bussiness this country have supporting drug dealers of karzai illegitimate regime?this guy was not even elected by his people and unfortunatley there are many out there asking that american lives and tax money be wasted so that low life bum can be protected.

the best way to protect and safeguard america is to strengthen from within by creating jobs,reforming healthcare and spending more on education and other public projects and not squander the nation,s wealth on behalf of occupiers and dictators.

Posted by excalibur999 at 10/06/2009 @ 11:31am
Posted by excalibur999 at 10/06/2009 @ 11:31am

But until the US is replaced by some "international" force capable of policing the world, we still have to play this world cop role. Withdrawing unto ourselves at this point would be absolutely disastrous. The world won't sit still while America focuses on domestic affairs.

Are you really not able to see this?

Posted by Metteyya at 10/06/2009 @ 11:37am
"'Metteyya's' interpretation of Buddhism is one of the greatest distortions of Buddhism I have ever heard. "

Thanks, trueleftist. It's just one more example of religious freaks twisting doctrine (even though Buddhism has none) for their own twisted ends. I'm a Buddhist, and Metteyya has a long, long way to go on his/her path to enlightenment, if he/she really believes this crap.

Posted by DejaVu at 10/06/2009 @ 11:37am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/06/2009 @ 11:24am

Anything more destructive to Darin's "credibility" ...

than the fact he cites Ann Coulter????

heheh

Posted by Mask at 10/06/2009 @ 11:42am
"I'm glad to see that President Obama understands this threat and is not willing to become the president that destroyed the world, just so he can satisfy the 1-2% of the population that these people represent."------Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 09:50am

Wow, Larry. You mean if the Taliban re-takes Afghanistan the entire world will be destroyed by them?!??!!?!? Those guys ARE bad asses, aren't they?

(Here's where you slowly back away, throwing out caveats, and "okay, not destroyed, buts" and realizing how your hyperbole made you look kind of idiotic when somebody...i.e. me...pointed it out!)

Posted by Mask at 10/06/2009 @ 11:44am
But until the US is replaced by some "international" force capable of policing the world, we still have to play this world cop role. Withdrawing unto ourselves at this point would be absolutely disastrous. The world won't sit still while America focuses on domestic affairs.

Are you really not able to see this?

Posted by Metteyya at 10/06/2009 @ 11:37am

Kudos Mett for actually facing the facts in a realistic way instead of the bizarre responses from many here on the left.

Evil has never played "fair" and they are not likely to begin now.

Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 11:51am
When progressives refuse the deal with the way the world really is, then WE are written off by those who actually have to govern in the real world.

Posted by Metteyya at 10/06/2009 @ 11:24am | ignore this person | warn this person

'Charity begins at home'

Ancient Proverb

Those who govern has absolutely no frickin idea of what there are doing.

You are inviting terrorism in this country.

These clueless bastards aren't making anybody safe, and they are getting their butts kicked on the Paki border.

This shit is the same as Iraq - first WMD, then get Saddam, then bring democracy, then try to stabilize the situation.......blah..blah....blah....

This country is GD bankrupt and you are talking about nation building in Afghanistan?????????????????????

You need to be brutally honest about what your real concern is.

The US wants to nation build Afghanistan - a country that is tribal and largely illiterate.

What we are really doing to trying maintain military outposts in a country that doesn't want us there.

Bribe money buys allegiance as long as the bribe money flows.

We are in way over our head.

Best that we can do is defend Kabul and Khandahar - turn them into perpetual Green Zones.

There will be no Afghan president that has support of the people - there isn't even real support for the US sponsored Constitution.

You are fomenting civil war.

Check out Dreyfuss today.

We've been there how long, and we still are clueless?

You need to be realistic, and you need to put America first.

Posted by OneVote at 10/06/2009 @ 11:52am
"I'm glad to see that President Obama understands this threat and is not willing to become the president that destroyed the world, just so he can satisfy the 1-2% of the population that these people represent."------Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 09:50am

Wow, Larry. You mean if the Taliban re-takes Afghanistan the entire world will be destroyed by them?!??!!?!? Those guys ARE bad asses, aren't they?

(Here's where you slowly back away, throwing out caveats, and "okay, not destroyed, buts" and realizing how your hyperbole made you look kind of idiotic when somebody...i.e. me...pointed it out!)

Posted by Mask at 10/06/2009 @ 11:44am

You remain consistent in lying, I give you that.

<If the US and NATO pull out of Afghanistan, not only will women and children see their lives returned to the horrors of the Taliban regime, but there is a strong likelihood of a threat to a combined Taliban/Al Qaeda take over of Pakistan. Should that occur, the entire world could well go up in a nuclear holocaust.

I'm glad to see that President Obama understands this threat and is not willing to become the president that destroyed the world, just so he can satisfy the 1-2% of the population that these people represent.

Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 09:50am>

Left out little details from my post, like the Taliban and Al Qaeda taking over Pakistan. Which means having the Pakistani nukes.

Kind puts a different spin than the distorted view you try and misrepresent. Try being honest in your criticisms once in a while.

Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 11:54am
>>>you need to put America first.

Posted by OneVote at 10/06/2009 @ 11:52am<<<

Wasn't that McCain-Palin's slogan?

We clearly need a lot of work domestically, and Obama has hit the ground running with the stimulus package and a wide range of other initiatives which will bear fruit in the next two years.

As I asked earlier, if there is no "international" force capable of playing the world cop role, doesn't America have to continue to play this role to ensure some measure of global security?

Posted by Metteyya at 10/06/2009 @ 12:13pm
Darin,

You said up above ".....Unless someone can construct an argument that refutes the proposition that decades of entrenched Democratic rule don'ts inextricably lead to entrenched government dependance and the ensuing civil violence that always follows.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/06/2009 @ 11:24am | ...."

In addition to violence, Democrat rule leads to misery.

Then when you mix the misery created by Democrat rule with other things, a catastropic hurricane, perhaps.....then you have catastrophe.

New Orleans and Louisiana had been under Democrat governance for years.....with the resulting poverty and misery.

When Katrina hit, the people suffered greatly....people who had little to begin with were stuck in situations they could not deal with.....they could not escape the flooding....they suffered and died......things were VERY bad in New Orleans for a lot of people.

(Correction....VERY bad is too mild of an expression here, things in New Orleans were FAR worse then VERY bad)

But libs immediately got going at warp speed to blame everybody else but themselves for the situation many people were in. The media stepped in and gave the libs an assist, to help the libs deflect the blame.

The local governments are the first responders in a disaster, New Orleans city and Louisiana state governments did an extremely lousy job responding.

So libs and the media blamed President Bush.

The people should not have been in the impoverished, hopeless, dependent-on-government state they were in to begin with, but they were, thanks to libs.

So libs and the media blamed President Bush instead.

Whenever you see or hear a lib blaming somebody for something, stop and think, is that lib just deflecting blame that belongs on them?

Posted by sjchermak at 10/06/2009 @ 12:14pm
Why aren't the dissenters there? Because the decision to expand the war against Afghanistan has already been made. And the US will be the next power of many before to "nation build" Afghanistan which could be a long and dubious colonial project.

Charles M.

Posted by cmsandia at 10/06/2009 @ 12:16pm
Libs will mock my sentence above

"......Then when you mix the misery created by Democrat rule with other things, a catastropic hurricane, perhaps.....then you have catastrophe......"

It DOES sound like something Yogi Berra would say.....but as libs mock the sentence they DO know full well what I mean.....that it was their policy that set things up such that many in the ninth ward and other impoverished areas of New Orleans had no means to cope with the disaster and thus had to suffer and in many cases die.

Posted by sjchermak at 10/06/2009 @ 12:20pm
sjchermak, I believe there is enough blame to go around, but blaming it all on democrates is a little disengenuous isn't it, I mean, come on!!!

Posted by Denise29 at 10/06/2009 @ 12:25pm
Posted by DejaVu at 10/06/2009 @ 11:37am

Thank you for being my Buddhist judge, DEJAVU.

My limited view of enlightenment doesn't allow me to be anyone's judge, and perhaps I will never reach your heightened enlightened state of judging someone elses Buddhism.

But I am able to live with this less than enlightened state....what about you?

Posted by Metteyya at 10/06/2009 @ 12:26pm
As I asked earlier, if there is no "international" force capable of playing the world cop role, doesn't America have to continue to play this role to ensure some measure of global security?

Posted by Metteyya at 10/06/2009 @ 12:13pm

No.

We are weaker today then ever before.

Short of nukes, we couldn't stop North Korea from taking Japan.

You are inviting real threats to global security by weakening and wasting away America's dwindling resources.

We have gone from Superpower I back to Tri-Polar in a matter of a decade, starting with Operation Enduring Freedom.

When and if a real threat manifests, we are going to be helpless. Based on history, it is only a matter of time.

Chasing bands of bearded bandits with 500,000 soldiers.

Sun Tzu is laughing out loud.

Posted by OneVote at 10/06/2009 @ 12:42pm
Denise29,

Why not? Democrats and the media blamed it all on Republicans, wrongly so.

Posted by sjchermak at 10/06/2009 @ 12:47pm
Like I said there is enough blame to go around.

Posted by Denise29 at 10/06/2009 @ 12:54pm
Its weird, we all sit here and argue past each other and they are all crooks, on both sides of the isle, laughing all the way to the bank. We need to unite and vote them all out.

Posted by Denise29 at 10/06/2009 @ 12:57pm
sjchermak, I believe there is enough blame to go around, but blaming it all on democrates is a little disengenuous isn't it, I mean, come on!!!

Posted by Denise29 at 10/06/2009 @ 12:25pm | ignore this person | warn this person

What I can't seem to grasp, silly me, is what all this N.O. stuff has to do with Afghanistan???

Whattabunchofcrap.

Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/06/2009 @ 1:08pm
>>>Neoconservatism has moved back to the Democratic party from where it originally came. Obama - the first liberal neocon president. A tricky version of George Bush.

Posted by trueleftist at 10/06/2009 @ 08:23am<<<

WRONG!

The ROOT of conservative politics that was at the core of the Reagan Revolution was Ayn Rand "selfishness".

Isolationism dressed up as anti-war pacifism IS selfishness! You are basically saying F the world, and therefore draw up the bridges and become an island unto ourselves.

The isolationist appeal is why George Will and Pat Buchanan share your point of view on Afghanistan. They also want Obama to fail to preserve Reagan's legacy, and their best shot of doing that is have Obama withdraw from Afghanistan and then have a another terrorist attack on America orchestrated from that region.

You guys simply are not paying attention!

Posted by Metteyya at 10/06/2009 @ 1:08pm
The people should not have been in the impoverished, hopeless, dependent-on-government state they were in to begin with, but they were, thanks to libs.

So libs and the media blamed President Bush instead.

Whenever you see or hear a lib blaming somebody for something, stop and think, is that lib just deflecting blame that belongs on them?

Posted by sjchermak at 10/06/2009 @ 12:14pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Dependent on the guvmint--like the PIMPS who run Halliburton, Blackwater et al.?

Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/06/2009 @ 1:10pm
schnellerheinz,

You don't like hearing what I have to say, so you call it crap.

Ok, so here is an aritcle on Afghanistan...it explains why we shouldn't cut and run...

Don't Go Wobbly on Afghanistan President Obama was right in March. by Frederick W. Kagan & Kimberly Kagan 10/12/2009, Volume 015, Issue 04 http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/ Public/Articles/000/000/017/024cuejv.asp

(link may contain spaces after pasting into your browser)

Posted by sjchermak at 10/06/2009 @ 1:22pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 11:54am

So if the Taliban take over Pakistan...they will destroy the entire world?

Posted by Mask at 10/06/2009 @ 1:24pm
(link may contain spaces after pasting into your browser)

Posted by sjchermak at 10/06/2009 @ 1:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person

No, that is not the case. I just queried what New Orleans had to do with this thread. That's all.

Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/06/2009 @ 1:28pm
Metteyya,

As I see it, one of the reasons an international force is not capable of policing the world is because some other countries, especially our natural allies in Western Europe, do not put enough of their own resources into their own military forces.

They put money into their domestic social programs instead, programs which in many ways create a nanny state for their citizens.

Some say that these countries "have their priorites right"

I say that these countries are shirking their responsibilites to both their own citizens (shortchanging them on the ability of that country to defend itself against future enemies)...and to the international community for not having enough resources to help fight against the evil that pops up in various places such as the Sudan and against the different terrorists/opressors such as the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

I can understand where the Germans and the Japanese might have a natural reluctance to commit to and enlarge military capability, lest they be accused of re-creating their past, but many other countries such as France adn Sweden, for example, could and should have a larger capability to defend themselves and come to the aid of others.

Posted by sjchermak at 10/06/2009 @ 1:32pm
schnellerheinz,

I expanded upon a comment someone else made, in this case Darin commented on how Democrat rule contributes to government dependence which leads to civil unrest.

And I pointed out how it leads to misery.

So that is how I got from point A to point B, if you require the roadmap.

This does happen on threads sometimes, in fact most of the time, where a comment by one leads to comments by others that wind up departing from the orignial subject of the thread.

Posted by sjchermak at 10/06/2009 @ 1:35pm
Must keep in mind that a MUCH LESS CASUALTY-SENSITIVE nation, the Soviet Union, laid it on the Afghans and called it quits. (Remember, those commies don't value life, even those of their own men, like we do, right?)

The American public won't stomach, ultimately, the casualties that will result from an escalated conventional conflict there. The support is just not there, and a protracted, high-casualty conflict there WILL take down the President, no matter who he is.

Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/06/2009 @ 1:39pm
What I can't seem to grasp, silly me, is what all this N.O. stuff has to do with Afghanistan???

Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/06/2009 @ 1:08pm

For easy steps

(1) Nichols is in favor of brining the troops home.

(2) Jesse Jackson wants the troops home so that they can protect school children in Chicago.

(3) I said is Chicago wasn't run by Democrats, the children wouldn't need federal troops to protect them so they can stay in Afghanistan.

(4)sjchermak noted that New Orleans was another example of a place run into the ground by Democrats over several decades so that the inhabitant were so helpless that federal troops were the only thing standing between life and death.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/06/2009 @ 1:44pm
Posted by sjchermak at 10/06/2009 @ 1:32pm

I recently visited the ISAF website, and it appears that they are now completely independent from NATO, and currently have troops from 40 countries. I hope this expands to about 150 countries, and either the UN Security Council (which also needs reform) or some other body that represents global consensus would make the decision of when and where to use ISAF forces.

This "could" become a model for a truly international rapid response force if it continues to evolve. The danger always is that one or a small group of countries dominate ISAF in a way that just makes it an extension of our own military. But it doesn't have to evolve in that way, so let's see what happens.

Posted by Metteyya at 10/06/2009 @ 1:45pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/06/2009 @ 1:44pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Thanks.

Rube Goldberg would be proud.

Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/06/2009 @ 1:47pm
And while you are at it, go tell the Jews that inaction against Hitler would have been preferable because we don't want to "kill" anyone to prevent greater numbers of death and atrocity.

the US did not make war on Hitler's Germany to save the jews. Nothing was done to ease the suffering of the persecuted. refugee ships were turned away, rail lines to the extermination camps went unbombed.

Mett is a member of the grrrr, kill, kill club. he wears gloves, thass all.

"and their best shot of doing that is have Obama withdraw from Afghanistan and then have a another terrorist attack on America orchestrated from that region."

this is nonsense. our presence in Afghanistan is and has insufficient to stop anything. the Taleban control most of the country, it has been reported.

and stop praying for another attack on America, to satisfy your blood lust, y'all.

Posted by emile duBois at 10/06/2009 @ 1:52pm
is and has been....

Posted by emile duBois at 10/06/2009 @ 1:53pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 11:54am

So if the Taliban take over Pakistan...they will destroy the entire world?

Posted by Mask at 10/06/2009 @ 1:24pm

Try coming up with a list of analysts who DON'T think that if the Taliban and Al Qaeda took over Pakistan that they wouldn't use a nuke. If it even exists, the list would be very short.

And why do you keep leaving Al Qaeda out when I specifically cited them in partnership with the Taliban?

Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 1:53pm
Must keep in mind that a MUCH LESS CASUALTY-SENSITIVE nation, the Soviet Union, laid it on the Afghans and called it quits. (Remember, those commies don't value life, even those of their own men, like we do, right?)

Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/06/2009 @ 1:39pm

Don't forget, when the Soviets were in Afghanistan, the US was giving the rebels weapons (one of the countless cold war battles by proxy. Like when the Russians helped North Vietnam against us and the Chinese helped the North Koreans.)

With the Cold war over, we don't have to fight the Afghans AND the SOVIETS like when the SOVIETS were fighting the AFGHANS and the US.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/06/2009 @ 1:53pm
Metteyya, you are not Buddhist. You are just a self righteous right wing crazy who would like nothing better than nuking the whole world under the guise of saving the world. Remember Vietnam, we wanted to destroy Vietnam in order to save it. That's your twisted logic. What you are suggesting is imperialism disguised as a concern for the world. Its the same old self deception. In the old days of the British Empire, it used to be called the "white man's burden" or the "mission of civilization". Its just a cloak for the will to power. There is no truth in your soul. Get thee to the pratapana naraka, you fake buddhist!

Posted by trueleftist at 10/06/2009 @ 1:54pm
We need to unite and vote them all out. Posted by Denise29 at 10/06/2009 @ 12:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person

you will have to vote someone in, politics abhors a vacuum. this will require some thought.

Posted by emile duBois at 10/06/2009 @ 1:57pm
Posted by Metteyya at 10/06/2009 @ 11:24am | ignore this person | warn this person

the pacifism jive is a red herring. no one is talking about pacifism. we are talking about bringing a failure of a war policy, to an end.

Posted by emile duBois at 10/06/2009 @ 2:00pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/06/2009 @ 1:53pm

Put another way, during the cold war, we fought the enemies of free market capitalism and the Soviets fought the enemies of greater collectivism.

Today, we are fighting the enemies of civilization. Who is going to join our opponents and fight us as an enemy of barbarism?

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/06/2009 @ 2:01pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/06/2009 @ 1:53pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Sorry.

Still doesn't address the fact the American public won't stomach the casualties a Soviet regime would, no matter who is buying the rifles.

Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/06/2009 @ 2:02pm
Go tell that to the families of the 800,000 Tutsis that were slaughtered because we failed to act.

they were NOT slaughtered because we failed to act. that is just absurd nonsense.

they were slaughtered because their neighbors went on a murderous rampage.

Posted by emile duBois at 10/06/2009 @ 2:02pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 1:53pm

You should do stand up comedy. The Taliban would use a nuke on whom? And after the inevitable retaliation, who's going to care about the smoking, radioactive parking lot formerly known as Pakistan? You describe irrational actors and then pretend that the "intelligence" community agrees with you. Didn't Uncle Jim tell you that Kool-Aid and crack, will lead to the second coming of J. R. "Bob" Dobbs? Don't make that happen. Jesus would be very upset with you.

Posted by srjenkins at 10/06/2009 @ 2:03pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/06/2009 @ 2:01pm

I think the more interesting question is whether civilization is in fact a nasty form of barbarism. I'll refer to my favorite late term abortionist, Dr. Hern.

http://www.drhern.com/pdfs/humancancerplanet.pdf

Posted by srjenkins at 10/06/2009 @ 2:16pm
Posted by srjenkins at 10/06/2009 @ 2:03pm

Really?

<"You've written no one should be surprised when Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda detonate a weapon of mass destruction in the United States," says Kroft. "You believe that's going to happen?"

"I don't believe in inevitability. But I think it's pretty close to being inevitable," says Scheuer.

A nuclear weapon? "A nuclear weapon of some dimension, whether it's actually a nuclear weapon, or a dirty bomb, or some kind of radiological device," says Scheuer. "Yes, I think it's probably a near thing."

What evidence is there that bin Laden's actually working to do this? "He's told us it. Bin Laden is remarkably eager for Americans to know why he doesn't like us, what he intends to do about it and then following up and doing something about it in terms of military actions," says Scheuer. "He's told us that, 'We are going to acquire a weapon of mass destruction, and if we acquire it, we will use it.'">

http://tinyurl.com/4vms5

I guess Obama's a comedian also?

<WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Obama will seek assurances this week from Pakistani President Asif Ali Zadari that his country's nuclear arsenal is safe and that Pakistan's military intends to face down Taliban extremists in coordination with Afghanistan and the United States, U.S. officials said Monday. Although the administration thinks Pakistan's nuclear weapons are secure for the moment, concern that militants might try to seize one or several of them is acute. Those anxieties heightened amid the Taliban's recent advances and American worry about the commitment from Pakistan's government and military in battling the extremists, the officials said.>

http://tinyurl.com/y8jvpee

Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 2:24pm
The last time Metteyya's brand of Buddhism was practised by the US ruling elite, a million Iraqi innocents died.

Posted by zionopp at 10/06/2009 @ 2:26pm
Still doesn't address the fact the American public won't stomach the casualties a Soviet regime would, no matter who is buying the rifles.

Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/06/2009 @ 2:02pm

The American public won't have to endure what the Soviet Public did. The Soviets fought against American guns and boms. We are fighting against rocks and sticks.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/06/2009 @ 2:27pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 2:24pm

This just in, Osama Bin Ladin also said that if he could get Star Trek warp drive technology, he'd go to the moon - maybe even pluto. Quick, let me turn on Fox News or Rush Limbaugh so I know how to feel about this important, new development.

Obama's public statements used to damping right wing lunacy shouldn't be confused with what he thinks. Further, basing your thinking on a politician - a person who is paid to lie for a living - strikes me as bad idea. But, hey, you're like a veritable Pez dispenser of bad ideas. Keep them coming - so sugary, so sweet!

Posted by srjenkins at 10/06/2009 @ 2:34pm
Metteyya,

Richard Clark, among other establishment voices, has pointed out that the U.S. works with the secret services of many nations - ally and not - to capture or kill various threats or perceived threats. The Syrian secret police was supposed to be particularly helpful in the months after 9/11.

Even I, a Trotskyist, would not have opposed such bilateral and multilateral cooperation for national self-defense between bourgeois governments after 9/11 if it were precisely targeted at Osama bin-Ladin and Co. (whereas I would have opposed U.S. cooperation with South Africa to capture and imprison Nelson Mandela).

I am no pacifist, but I am an anti-imperialist. You are a "humanitarian" imperialist who believes that the U.S. has the responsibility and the competence to police the world. What is worse, you are naive enough to believe that the U.S. would do "leave a place better than we found it." Tell that to the people of El Salvador, Nicaragua, Haiti, Lebanon, South Africa, Cambodia or Vietnam.

We have a bourgeois government engaged in imperialism (or neo-imperialism for those who think the former "requires" colonies) in Iraq, Afghanistan and with our hundreds of military bases worldwide. 99% of the time, our rulers support the powers that be, or were, or just makes things worse.

It is not up to the U.S. government to keep the Taliban from regaining power; it was happy enough to discuss pipelines with them when they ruled Kabul. If we fear they would host anti-US terrorists, Washington can cut deals with them to prevent that.

The American working class needs an independent foreign policy, to support those workers, peasants and progressive organizations working to free the masses from their, and our, landlords, exploiters and oppressors.

Posted by cka2nd at 10/06/2009 @ 2:37pm
"We are fighting against rocks and sticks."----Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/06/2009 @ 2:27pm

How do "rocks and sticks"....EXPLODE in downtown Kabul?

And why does McChrystal need more troops to fight "rocks and sticks"!??!?!!??

Posted by Mask at 10/06/2009 @ 2:39pm
This just in, Osama Bin Ladin also said that if he could get Star Trek warp drive technology, he'd go to the moon - maybe even pluto. Quick, let me turn on Fox News or Rush Limbaugh so I know how to feel about this important, new development.

Obama's public statements used to damping right wing lunacy shouldn't be confused with what he thinks. Further, basing your thinking on a politician - a person who is paid to lie for a living - strikes me as bad idea. But, hey, you're like a veritable Pez dispenser of bad ideas. Keep them coming - so sugary, so sweet!

Posted by srjenkins at 10/06/2009 @ 2:34pm

Ok, SRJ, just wanted to get this straight.

You don't believe Bin Laden, the CIA, and the president and believe that you are not only better informed, but you know what they will and will not do?

Ok, I got it now.

Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 3:00pm
As I recall, Barack Obama was the candidate that "The Nation" editorially supported for the presidency. This was after he declared his judgment, based on his credentials as an earnest student of military strategy and foreign policy, to intensify the US military presence in Afghanistan - indeed to shift the focus of our efforts to that historically unconquerable land.

"The Nation" editors wanted so badly to support a winning candidate that it abandoned progressive alternatives (e.g. Ralph Nader) as losers.

The advice of Eugene Debs was forgotten: better support a losing candidate than a winner who will betray you. A caveat: with regard to his imperial policies, Obama has not betrayed his enthusiasts. He said what he would do and is doing it. I guess he's better than LBJ who said, "I'll never send American boys (sic) to do the fighting that Asian boys should do." Who says our politics never get better!

Posted by goedel at 10/06/2009 @ 3:16pm
>>>You are a "humanitarian" imperialist who believes that the U.S. has the responsibility and the competence to police the world.

Posted by cka2nd at 10/06/2009 @ 2:37pm<<<

No, not an imperialist - not even close. The first time I waved an American flag was at Obama's inauguration.

I have ALWAYS had a problem with imperialism, and that is why I believe a "truly international" rapid response force is needed to REPLACE the US as the world's cop.

But until we have that, the US continues to be stuck in this role.

Posted by Metteyya at 10/06/2009 @ 3:23pm
Yes, the taliban/al qaeda forces will be in competition with the persian menance to see who can nuke the US first. You nutjobs live in ga ga land. Meanwhile back in Iraq.....

Posted by stpwarsnow at 10/06/2009 @ 3:24pm
I hate to agree with 2 sentence but the women and children of Afghanistan are at risk. They are at best second class citizens. The Taliban though to me are not a whole lot different than other Muslims in their thoughts towards women. Does India have a tie in this situation?Pakistan is another disaster with corruption every way you turn.My trust level of their regime is very low. Again it is all about money and military budgets. Most countries will not spend the money. We cannot do it alone.

Posted by whatozz at 10/06/2009 @ 3:26pm
"The Nation" editors wanted so badly to support a winning candidate that it abandoned progressive alternatives (e.g. Ralph Nader) as losers.

and it's a good thing they did too.

Nader has never been anything but a loser as a politician.

he has never been any kind of alternative, as he is unelectable for the office he seeks.

Posted by emile duBois at 10/06/2009 @ 3:26pm
Yes, the taliban/al qaeda forces will be in competition with the persian menance to see who can nuke the US first. You nutjobs live in ga ga land. Meanwhile back in Iraq.....

Posted by stpwarsnow at 10/06/2009 @ 3:24pm

So we can put you on the record that:

1. Bin Laden lied about wanting to obtain a nuclear weapon to use against the west?

2. Obama lied about his concern that an overthrow of the Pakistan govt would put the nuclear weapons in the hands of the Taliban and Al Qaeda?

Ok, which libs want to join with stpwarsnow and Srjenkins on calling Obama and Bin Laden liars? Don't be shy, get on the record on this.

Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 3:27pm
Posted by trueleftist at 10/06/2009 @ 1:54pm

I wonder why these threads attract so many "spiritual judges"? I don't know of ANY religion that condones this practice of judging someone else's spiritual path and sincerity - especially Buddhism.

I am free to express a differing point of view than yourself, and you should not feel threatened by my expression to the point of launching personal ad hominem attacks.

This is not about ME, it is about crafting a "progressive" plan to deal with legitimate threats around the world - including Afghanistan - or be excluded from the discussion by those who actually have to govern.

Posted by Metteyya at 10/06/2009 @ 3:31pm
the putative threat posed by Afghanistan is not commensurate with the effort expended there. that is why the American people have lost their patience with that war. and the other one too.

Posted by emile duBois at 10/06/2009 @ 3:34pm
Hands up all those who are surprised that hawks -- led by McCain -- are top heavy on the list while skeptics are noticeable by their absence?

With Obama you get same old, same old.

Posted by fwhite at 10/06/2009 @ 3:48pm
the Dutch have decided to end their military involvement in the Afghanistan war by next year. good.

Posted by emile duBois at 10/06/2009 @ 3:52pm
The question which must be answered to determine a realpolitik policy re: afghanistan is: 1) if the US withdraws, will the Taliban allow Islamic militants to reestablish recruitment, training and planning facilities; and 2) would that pose a significant risk of attacks on the US, here and abroad, to the security of Pakistan, to the security of the oil-rich relatively pro-Western Persian Gulf states. The moral issues are only one factor in the determination of policy.

Posted by gren at 10/06/2009 @ 4:11pm
Here's a reality check. We are in the middle of Asia, in Afghanistan. Surrounded by Russia, China, Pakistan, India, etc. Ever wondered why Russia, China, (forget Pakistan, its probably one of the most corrupt places on earth)etc. are not saying much about American troops on their borders. Is it that they are afraid of America? If you think so, you been fed too much of that "one super power" fantasy. No. It seems that Russia and China have made a sanguine calculation about the Afghanistan situation. They have calculated that America will be overextended, tied down, bogged down and will be financially and militarily exhausted in Afghanistan. Russia after all had about 120,000 troops in Afghanistan and failed to defeat the Afghans. It heralded the end of the Soviet Empire. So, Russia and China have calculated that while America is tied down in Afghanistan, they will be able to expand their economies and build up their military strength. While America wilts in Afghanistan, Russia and China will prosper and flourish. Notice how China has prospered while we have been bogged down in wars in the Middle East. They might be proven wrong. After all we may have a President who will prove to be greater than Pharaoh Rameses, and whose audacity of hope will create a lasting monument to his name. Or maybe not.

Posted by trueleftist at 10/06/2009 @ 4:13pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 3:27pm

Well, I see all those conversations you have had with Mask over the years, you've learned his bad logic to supplement your already bad ideas.

I don't have any problem calling Obama or Bin Laden liars. They are people trying to sway public opinion. They are not people concerned with the truth. Lying, or spinning if you like the PC term for lying, is part and parcel of swaying public opinion. It may not be outright falsehood - but its certainly half-truths and all the other tricks of the trade.

However, I don't think Bin Laden is lying about desiring nuclear weapons - anymore than I think you are lying about wanting to be into heaven or Jay-Z thinking he's the top of the rap game. But, there's a world of difference between wantin' and gettin'. You seem to have a hard time grasping this point.

Then, since we all up in here engaging in hypotheticals. Let's imagine that the Taliban takes over Afghanistan and Pakistan and Bin Laden is cheering, "Fire off the nukes!" You don't think there's not going to be a level headed contingent of the group that thinks about who to fire the missile at (which has a range of what 500km tops?) and what might be coming their way if they detonate a nuke in another country? And we aren't talking suitcase bombs, so limited ability to bring these in someplace else.

Which brings us back to the chicken little mentality of most neoconservatives. We're facing a real, bona fide crisis in climate change and you people are worrying about the stupid straight-from a comic book scenarios.

Posted by srjenkins at 10/06/2009 @ 4:16pm
We're facing a real, bona fide crisis in climate change and you people are worrying about the stupid straight-from a comic book scenarios.

Posted by srjenkins at 10/06/2009 @ 4:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Climate change is not the most important issue facing us today. The global warming hoax is just another web of deception used by the global oligarchy to achieve global governance by faceless committees and transnational corporations, to destroy progress & enslave the human race. There is no real science to support the global warming hoax. More importantly, with Al Gore now making lots of money from "cap & trade" it has morphed from a hoax to a fraud. All my friends on the left who have drunk Al Gore's Kool-Aid are going to be in for a rude awakening when prosecutions start over this cap & trade fraud. In deed, the cap & trade fraud and the underlying global warming hoax are the greatest threat to all the real & necessary goals we have on the left. Because if we are wrong about global warming (and currently much of the left is dead wrong about this) then the right will be able to say for many decades to come that we are wrong about everything.

Posted by dont_know at 10/06/2009 @ 4:26pm
And Obama will not meet with the "rethink Afghanistan" caucus because he has drank the Kool-Aid on Afghanistan. Obama is going to have to be FORCED to rethink Afghanistan, just as we had to force LBJ to rethink his policy on Vietnam. LBJ's choice was to not run again. Perhaps, it is time for the left and the Democratic Party to start looking for a new candidate for president in 2012.

And force, against a president, will not come from Congress, it must come from the streets.

We on the left should retool our protests to realize that Obama has just become another warmonger.

OBAMA, HEY! HEY! HOW MANY KIDS HAVE YOU KILLED TODAY?

Posted by dont_know at 10/06/2009 @ 4:32pm
Posted by trueleftist at 10/06/2009 @ 4:13pm

What's funny is that we fell into our own trap.

'let's give em [Soviet Union] their own Vietnam'......

Russia and China just lovin it.

Russia says - sure you transport your crap a gazillion miles over our territory, China says - sure we will lend you the money with interest of course, and BTW we will be calling some of the shots on your fiscal and monetary policy from now on...

yes, yes, fight those terrorists. you are doing a great job..........We {Russia and China] feel safer already.

Posted by OneVote at 10/06/2009 @ 4:41pm
Oh Boy! Buddha was brought into this crappy discussion among some neanderthals. Let us go to dirty Harry. What would he say: "A man must know his limitations." If any of you think 100000 Americans and Carpet bombing by our brave soldiers using drones would liberate women and children of Afghanistan, you should have your brains scanned. It is not going to happen. You will not save a single child or woman by this procedure. Even O knows that. He is there to secure America. That is his priority. Let me tell you another thing. That too is an illusion. By alienating Muslims everywhere you do not secure any one. It is a fool's dream. I voted for O but never thought he is such a fool. Better know your limitations. That is the Buddhist way.

Posted by rnagisetty at 10/06/2009 @ 4:43pm
Posted by rnagisetty at 10/06/2009 @ 4:43pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Dalai Lama:

Where ignorance is our master, there is no possibility of real peace.

Posted by OneVote at 10/06/2009 @ 4:55pm
dont_know, very appropiate name.

Posted by Denise29 at 10/06/2009 @ 5:07pm
Posted by dont_know at 10/06/2009 @ 4:26pm

Lest anyone suggest that I only blast right-wing nuts...

It may well be that people are using the climate change issue to further an agenda of "global oligarchy". But the facts about the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, the depletion of fish stocks around the world, ocean acidification, desertification, historical precedent in levels of green house gases, extinction rates for animals, so forth and so on presents a lot of evidence that the "progress" that humanity has been involved in at least since the industrial revolution and possibly extending back to the agricultural might come with a high price tag in human lives.

One example should suffice to aid your Google search: http://tinyurl.com/yawcabk

Al Gore is an asshole. I don't like cap & trade anymore than you do. But, Al Gore no more invented climate change than he invented the internet. So, stop being an idiot about using Al Gore or cap & trade in your argumentation. Al Gore or any specific plan to address climate change is beside the point.

The point, my fine little friend, is that Western Civilization is coming to a close. And while I may be on the "left", I'm not on the team of any asshat that thinks climate change is a hoax - left or right. It's not a hoax, and your lame ass denials of what even a child can understand who can't read the reams of reports that all tell us were screwed - even if they can't pin-point how screwed we are - scream idiot.

While I like Krugman about as much as I like Al Gore, I think he pretty much nails the climate change question in this op-ed piece.

http://tinyurl.com/yacquhx

So, time to wake up and realize that your precious progress and lifestyle are all going to drastically change for the worse. That's the (inconvenient) truth.

Posted by srjenkins at 10/06/2009 @ 5:31pm
Emile DuBois -

My message called Ralph Nader a loser, but if you read the message you may learn that a betrayer is worse.

In almost every regard, Barack Obama has betrayed ordinary Americans. I would much rather vote for someone whom I trust than for the liar and betrayer who won. He is the most over-rated candidate to enter the White House I can remember.

You have your change-President. He is not even worth small change.

Posted by goedel at 10/06/2009 @ 5:58pm
the Dutch have decided to end their military involvement in the Afghanistan war by next year. good.

Posted by emile duBois at 10/06/2009 @ 3:52p

No wonder Austin Powers despises them.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/06/2009 @ 6:19pm
Posted by srjenkins at 10/06/2009 @ 4:16pm

Pakistan has over 200 nuclear warheads and has both land based intermediate range missiles and cruise missiles (both air launched and ground launched) that carry nuclear warheads. I have no idea where you are getting your facts. But the Indian govt is certainly just as worried as we are about the idea of a Taliban/Al Qaeda threat. How you can posit about level headedness with people who elevate martyrdom to the height of Islam, is beyond me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babur_cruise_missile

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra%27ad

How about the 4500 KM Shaheen III that can carry a nuke warhead?

http://tinyurl.com/ycnw5rc

Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 8:34pm
I have ALWAYS had a problem with imperialism, and that is why I believe a "truly international" rapid response force is needed to REPLACE the US as the world's cop.

But until we have that, the US continues to be stuck in this role.

Posted by Metteyya at 10/06/2009 @ 3:23pm

Well, I haven't said this here in a few years, so here goes: The United Nations is a den of thieves (the representatives of the world's bourgeois, Stalinist and royal governments) and, here's a new one, arrogant, self-righteous busybodies and control-freaks (the staff). An international rapid response force will be just like the international criminal court: it will go after the small fry - despicable as they may be - and leave the big boys alone.

Sorry, but I'll take a class-based foreign policy, thank you. The class war is international, and has largely been fought only from the top for the last 30 years.

Posted by cka2nd at 10/06/2009 @ 9:01pm
Posted by goedel at 10/06/2009 @ 5:58pm | ignore this person | warn this person

opinions vary.

Posted by emile duBois at 10/06/2009 @ 9:07pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 8:34pm

The FAS and the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists tends to have good information. They put the number at 70-90 and a striking distance of their longest distance missile is about 1,200 km - but most hover in the 500 km range. Considering they'd need something that can fire at +10,000km to hit the United States, I have a hard time figuring out what problem this poses for the U.S. - beyond the fact that part of our arsenal would be used to turn Pakistan into a parking lot if they were unwise enough to use these weapons.

Also, this idea that you have that the Taliban is crazed loons intent on getting their virgins in heaven - that's the crack talking. When you wake up out of that smoked filled dream, you'd realize that it might sound good to talk about Allah but no one wants to be on the receiving end of retaliatory nuclear strikes - and the Taliban ain't all religious lunatics that want to die.

http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/ 2009/08/pakistan2009.php

http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/ f828323447768858/fulltext.pdf

Posted by srjenkins at 10/06/2009 @ 10:00pm
We have a newly elected President of Afganistan who controls 10% of his country. WOW. Talk about power and leadership for the masses. And we support that kind of control. Zowie

Is Obama talking to the Taliban as he said he would....no.

What policies would the Taliban implement if we left? Killing and raping their own countrymen? Don't think so. But there are those out there who just want to kill all Taliban....more genocide.

Do you want armed foreigners in this country?

If you had a problem with Russian mafia burglarizing your community would you send your sons to Moscow to stop it.

Sarcasm...just love it

Posted by notsleepy at 10/06/2009 @ 10:02pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 8:34pm

The FAS and the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists tends to have good information. They put the number at 70-90 and a striking distance of their longest distance missile is about 1,200 km - but most hover in the 500 km range. Considering they'd need something that can fire at +10,000km to hit the United States, I have a hard time figuring out what problem this poses for the U.S. - beyond the fact that part of our arsenal would be used to turn Pakistan into a parking lot if they were unwise enough to use these weapons.

Also, this idea that you have that the Taliban is crazed loons intent on getting their virgins in heaven - that's the crack talking. When you wake up out of that smoked filled dream, you'd realize that it might sound good to talk about Allah but no one wants to be on the receiving end of retaliatory nuclear strikes - and the Taliban ain't all religious lunatics that want to die.

http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/ 2009/08/pakistan2009.php

http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/ f828323447768858/fulltext.pdf

Posted by srjenkins at 10/06/2009 @ 10:00pm

That data you show is woefully incomplete.

Secondly you ignore their cruise missiles and bombs that can be fired from their aircraft including the French Mirage V, the Chinese JP-7 and the new Chinese JP-17.

Again, India is certainly worried about this and with your family, I would think it would bother you also. Secondly with their launchers and aircraft, US bases, Israel and NATO countries are all in play. Not to mention the ability Al Qaeda would have to smuggle a nuke converted into a smaller device.

Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 10:40pm
What policies would the Taliban implement if we left? Killing and raping their own countrymen? Don't think so.

Posted by notsleepy at 10/06/2009 @ 10:02pm

You mean the way they were doing prior to our invasion?

Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 10:41pm
Posted by srjenkins at 10/06/2009 @ 5:31pm

Your comments are typical of those who have a religious belief in global warming. When you can't actually debate the science you resort to name calling.

And then you recite the dogma of your religion and say even a child can understand that global warming is not a hoax because of the scores of reports that say otherwise.

Well, there are millions of copies of the Bible out there and the believers in the Bible (or the Koran for that matter) are ever bit as fervent in their beliefs as you are in global warming. But "faith" is not the same as truth and I suspect that somewhere in the Bible there is less than truth. But even proving that something in the Bible is wrong will not deter the true believers. And obviously, the fact that every one of those scores of reports you reference have been debunked by real, professional scientists is not going to deter your faith that the world is coming to an end.

As for my reference to Al Gore, I only mention him because he has been and still is the Pope of your faith and, more significantly, he is making money off of cap & trade with his firm in London known in the press as Blood & Gore (because his partner is named Blood). He is only making his millions because there are true believers out there, like you, who don't want to actually look at the science, only at the religious printings of your faith.

My point is that the left used to be for truth not religious dogma, and for science not pseudoscience.

You true believers in global warming are no different in your putting "faith" before fact than any born-again Bible-thumper or Islamic jihadist.

The same with you true believers on the left (or the right) who think the war in Afghanistan is "necessary".

Posted by dont_know at 10/06/2009 @ 10:50pm
Posted by dont_know at 10/06/2009 @ 10:50pm

Your comments are typical of someone that likes to deal with categories of people rather than actual people or the actual arguments they make.

I don't recall where you talked about the science of global warming at all. I saw lots of talk about hoaxes - but none of it backed up with anything beyond unadulterated bullshit.

Here's clue number 1: Scientific studies aren't the Bible. If you have trouble distinguishing what makes a work of scripture different from scientific evidence published in peer-reviewed journals, how am I going to explain it to you?

Here's clue number 2:

"And obviously, the fact that every one of those scores of reports you reference have been debunked by real, professional scientists is not going to deter your faith that the world is coming to an end."

Why don't you take a look at "Scientific Opinion on climate change" on Wikipedia? Here's the key part:

"Statements by dissenting organizations...With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change...Statements by individual scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming do include claims that the observed warming is likely to be attributable to natural causes."

My point is your logic is bad and you are confusing yourself by your bad analogies to religion when you haven't done the work of explaining why it is a hoax in the face of the preponderance of evidence.

I attribute the problem to poster stupidity - which is the problem in 90% of the posts in this and practically every other forum on the Internet. Now prove the consensus is wrong.

Posted by srjenkins at 10/06/2009 @ 11:08pm
Indeed, we are progressive, for it's true

our heads into our recta deeply advance

why don't we try and change that awful stance

and toil and strive to get some kind of clue?.

thus, maybe, it'll one day come to pass

that from the comfy chair we lift our ass.

Posted by WWW at 10/07/2009 @ 02:11am
US is wasting it's money, men and materials to invade other countries for the sake of Zionists and Neo-cons. It is a sinking ship. If it continue this kind of policies. the speed of the sinking will increase. Nobody want to stay in a sinking ship, and that is why some countries planning to change the oil deals into another currencies.Please note that, all these countries are US's friends.

Posted by Dastu11 at 10/07/2009 @ 02:50am
Isn't it clear that Obamas reluctance to withdraw from Afghanistan shows his "anti-war, peacenik Marxist socialist" system is intact?

Or, could it be that those concerns, raised by celebrity entertainers was......wrong?

GASP!

Sarah Palin wrong too?

Say it ain't so.

Posted by crabwalk at 10/07/2009 @ 06:29am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/06/2009 @ 1:44pm

In the reverenced post, I mentioned Jesse Jackson's call for federal troops to protect Chicago's school children.

This just pisses me off.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news? pid=newsarchive&sid=a3duFSs.mpT4

Gun control advocates are angry with President Obama.

You see, 47 chicago students have been murdered with guns since January. While the Obamas were in Copenhagen there was another murder in Chicago so upon his return President Obama dispatched someone to Chicago to make it look like he is going to do something.

This was terribly unfortunate timing because the most recent murder was videotaped and broadcast widely and it clearly shows the boy being beaten to death with splintered railroad ties. UNFORTUNATELY, the boy wasn't murdered with a gun so by responding to the murder that (slightly) diminished Chicago's opportunity for the Olympics, President Obama won't be able to use the tragic death to manipulate public opinion about gun control.

This is what has the gun control lobby so angry.

I'll take my fringe (the creationists) over these assholes any day.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/07/2009 @ 07:39am
Posted by WWW at 10/07/2009 @ 02:11am

Awesome! Another poet to keep Frosty company.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/07/2009 @ 07:43am
Because if we are wrong about global warming (and currently much of the left is dead wrong about this) then the right will be able to say for many decades to come that we are wrong about everything.

Posted by dont_know at 10/06/2009 @ 4:26pm

Hey, don't beat yourself up. We'll say that anyway even if AGW is real.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/07/2009 @ 07:51am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/07/2009 @ 07:39am

Finally something I can agree with Darin on. Gun control advocates rank right up there with creationists - although I'd rather deal with gun control nuts.

Posted by srjenkins at 10/07/2009 @ 09:30am
Posted by srjenkins at 10/07/2009 @ 09:30am

Not sure I'd trust Darin on the topic of guns, srj....

he said yesterday that the Taliban only had "sticks and rocks"!

Posted by Mask at 10/07/2009 @ 09:35am
The situation in the Afghanistan is changing to worse from bad.The Afghan presidential election and now the demand for the troop surge exemplify the problems the US and NATO have caused since their forces invaded Afghanistan on October 7, 2001 in the name of 'Global war on terror'.The so-called election results will not be known for several weeks,but evidence has emerged of widespread fraud.Karzai failed to get the required percentage of votes.In Kunnar, voting occurred only because the US military paid a local warlord to defend positions against possible Taliban attacks.In 14 out of 34 provinces, insurgent activity made election monitoring impossible. Electoral fraud and all pervasive corruptions are not the only problems.The civilian death toll is estimated to exceed 31,ooo since the 2001 invasion.The reckons that over 60 per cent of the 33 million population has been directly affected by the conflict.NATO troops have even called the local warlords to pacify angry locals following civilian deaths.The civilian deaths helps the Taliban to recruit more people to their fold.The Taliban, by every credible account have expanded their strength and influence. The increasing death toll of the NATO troops is a clear example of this.Attempts by NATO to train the Afghan National Army appear to have had no more success than attempts to build Afghan political institutions.The country that had defied invaders through history has one again proved to be a trap of calamitous proportions. This is a losing war and withdrawal is the only option, the sooner, the better.

Posted by Dastu11 at 10/07/2009 @ 09:57am
(Here's where you slowly back away, throwing out caveats, and "okay, not destroyed, buts" and realizing how your hyperbole made you look kind of idiotic when somebody...i.e. me...pointed it out!)

Posted by Mask at 10/06/2009 @ 11:44am

Speaking of hyperbole Maskie....weren't you telling us that sanctions against Israel and cutting off military and economic aid would be useless - just look at Saddam as example of the futility of sanctions?

No hyperboles and distortions there eh Maskie?

Posted by OneVote at 10/07/2009 @ 09:59am
The country that had defied invaders through history has one again proved to be a trap of calamitous proportions. This is a losing war and withdrawal is the only option, the sooner, the better.

Posted by Dastu11 at 10/07/2009 @ 09:57am | ignore this person | warn this person

Everyone should watch the video "Breaking the Silence" by John Pilger once again as a refresher course on the pig-head war mongers.

How far we have come in 9 years. Not!

Posted by OneVote at 10/07/2009 @ 10:03am
Once again, it is grimly hilarious to see pro-War uber-macho man tuff guys like SJ "BLACKS DON'T WANNA VOTE" CHERMAK go apeshit about things like...oh, the way in which the US attacked Vietnam with "one hand tied behind its back"...

...While falling stupidly over themeslves with an endless litany of grotesque mealy mouth apologetica for George W Loser who "fought" in 'Nam with effectively *both* hands tied behind his back as he commanded the bar stool and engaged bravely in "battle" in the disco dance floor following an extensive "intelligence brefing" with General Jack (Daniels) and Colonel Jim (Beam). (And notice...These same drooling sicko rightwing apologists also have the ass to literally link Max Clelland with OBL since, y'know, to a grunting rightwing animal losing limbs in Vietnam in the US uniform is *just like* slaughtering thousands of innocents in America)...

Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 10/07/2009 @ 10:15am
The war-mongers must have to tell the world, what US and it's NATO allies gained after 8 years of war in Afghan soil.Is the world safer Now?

Posted by Dastu11 at 10/07/2009 @ 10:16am
Please people, everyone needs to calm down. It seems we've all forgotten that a skeleton crew was left in Afganistan when BUSH pulled out of Afganistan in 2003 when we were winning. So to say we've had the force there, the resources on the ground to do anything, USAID and State Dept. involvement is ridiculous.

There's also the problem of the UN still refusing to issue a report on the corrupt election, Karzi's corruption and bringing in nothing but Warlords in his government. Do any of you think the President doesn't have to take all this into consideration with the other 1,000 things he needs to?

There has not been a true effort by the US, support for our troops or giving them anything they needed in order to get the job done since 2003.

I'm totally against War, stand totally behind President Obama's use of true diplomacy, instead of us sticking our chest out, making threats like McCain thinks is what we need to do on everything. If McCain had won the election we would have already been tied to the hip with Israel and launched WWIII on Iran.

Calm down people, President Obama was handed a damn depression, two wars, a National Debt from the GOP, he's trying to get Health Care for us and the list goes on & on. Plus he's been called every ugly name in the book by the nuts in this country and "WE", the sane people, need to stop ripping ourselves & him to pieces like the media & GOP do on a daily basis.

I don't pretend to know everything the President knows or what he's been told regarding Afganistan & Pakistan like so many corrupt politicans seem to pretend they know & are using for the purpose of poltical posturing in front of a camera. The same goes for the so-called "Media" who didn't do there job during Bush's entire 8 years due to their fear of him & Cheney. Now all of a sudden we should believe a damn word the media says or the way they tilt a story when they don't have the Classified Info our Commander-In-Chief has. Not hardly!

Our soldiers aren't political pawns and they see nothing but arguing by us, the people & our politicans who are in bed with Big Military Contractors & the likes of Blackwater. We need to trust our young President, he has listened to opposing views despite what this article claims and a lot of that has come from his own staff, his Cabinet Members and yes...Congress who don't want to increase our troops mainly due to political pressure from people in this country who don't know all the facts or the dangers if we do or don't.

Our soldiers in the field need help, they've ask for it and the President is waying all the options. I will support him, his decision and I support our troops who need help that was taken from them in 2003 by Bush!

We can't make a commitment to the people in Afganistan like we did in 2001, leave them in 2003, make another commitment to them in 2008/2009 and simply leave them again. My God, everyone in that country will want to kill us, and no, not all of them do at this point.

What will we be saying when we're attacked again..."President Obama just pulled out, let the Taliban & Al-Qeada take over the country again so it's his fault then because we abandoned Afganistan?" There are no good options. We the people and this President were handed many piles of crap with no good options. That's just the facts folks!

Posted by Lenora13 at 10/07/2009 @ 11:06am
That's just the facts folks!

Posted by Lenora13 at 10/07/2009 @ 11:06am | ignore this person | warn this person

Uh-huh. So why do suppose BO has yet to formulate a coherent goal and plan for Afghanistan? Hasn't he been promising one for some time now?

Tell you what Lenora - get your check book out and send your money to Afghanistan relief organizations. That will show your commitment to support the Afghan people.

90% of the money is to the military. About the same as BushCo. We had a troop surge, and yet we haven't seen improvement, rather we are pulling back from Paki border.

When you are digging your own grave, stop digging.

Those are the facts.

Posted by OneVote at 10/07/2009 @ 11:32am
Posted by OneVote at 10/07/2009 @ 09:59am

But OV, I was mocking YOUR plan to end the Israeli-Palestinian situation.

So how is it "my" hyperbole...when it's your boiled-down "solution"????

Again, unless you want to say that "No military or foreign aid for Israel until they do what the Palestinians want...and that's it. No further sanctions will I support if they don't!"....do you?

Posted by Mask at 10/07/2009 @ 12:01pm
Finally something I can agree with Darin on. Gun control advocates rank right up there with creationists - although I'd rather deal with gun control nuts.

Posted by srjenkins at 10/07/2009 @ 09:30am

Probably because you don't want to be put into defending an argument that you cannot win.

Posted by antisocialist at 10/07/2009 @ 12:03pm
We can't make a commitment to the people in Afganistan like we did in 2001,

this is complete nonsense. we went into Afghanistan with 16,000 soldiers and suitcases of cash for the Northern Alliance, read warlords.

what was accomplished then was a change of address for the Taleban, evicted from Kabul and nothing more.

it was a phony war from the beginning, a mere stalking horse for the war they were really itching for, Iraq.

we need a whole lot less revisionism, folks. the truth shall set you free.

Posted by emile duBois at 10/07/2009 @ 12:14pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/07/2009 @ 12:03pm

Strangely, LVL, I support 2nd amendment rights on revolutionary and efficacy grounds. An armed population is the surest check on government tyranny.

And while unnecessary to my argument, I also like to point out that gun control doesn't stop crime. It just makes the law abiding use knives.

Posted by srjenkins at 10/07/2009 @ 12:21pm
Again, unless you want to say that "No military or foreign aid for Israel until they do what the Palestinians want...and that's it. No further sanctions will I support if they don't!"....do you?

Posted by Mask at 10/07/2009 @ 12:01pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Nope Maskie....it is what your Messiah wants. Nice try.

And, please answer my question that if you don't think sanctions will work, why the hell are we giving money to Israel?

Hmmmmm???????

Posted by OneVote at 10/07/2009 @ 12:35pm
just for context, Afghanistan is roughly FOUR times the size of South Vietnam. twice as large as all of Vietnam. how many troops did we have there in a losing effort?

Posted by emile duBois at 10/07/2009 @ 12:42pm
when BUSH pulled out of Afganistan in 2003 when we were winning.

balderdash.

Posted by emile duBois at 10/07/2009 @ 12:43pm
I think many on the left would agree to occupation in Afghanistan along the lines of Japan and Germany at the end of WWII?

Posted by antisocialist at 10/07/2009 @ 12:49pm
this is complete nonsense. we went into Afghanistan with 16,000 soldiers and suitcases of cash for the Northern Alliance, read warlords.

Posted by emile duBois at 10/07/2009 @ 12:14pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Yes JR. And "the people" fear these warlords as much or more than Taliban!

How many people got killed by warlords in Bush's triumph in Kabul? More than Taliban has ever killed.

Nice call!

Posted by OneVote at 10/07/2009 @ 12:52pm
Posted by OneVote at 10/07/2009 @ 12:35pm

You "called me out" on what I said being hyperbole, OV and I'm asking you how it is hyperbolic if it's the only option left under YOUR "plan" for Mid-east peace?

Israel, as I assume you'll agree, made no major policy changes BEFORE they received tons of aid and weapons from us back in the 1940s and early 50s....why would they "knuckle under" now?

Again, you think Netanyahu and most Israelis are no better, maybe worse than Saddam or Kim Jong-Il....

so why will they "do as they're told" under simple aid cut-offs???

And if not....what's your NEXT step???

Posted by Mask at 10/07/2009 @ 1:16pm
Uh-huh. So why do suppose BO has yet to formulate a coherent goal and plan for Afghanistan? Hasn't he been promising one for some time now?

Tell you what Lenora - get your check book out and send your money to Afghanistan relief organizations. That will show your commitment to support the Afghan people.

Posted by OneVote at 10/07/2009 @ 11:32am | ignore this person | warn this person

OneVote: Since you prefer to attack me instead of actually making a real argument for discussion...why don't you tell us why BO should be able to so easily fix all the problems caused by Bush/Cheney abandoning our progress in 2003 and now it's our fault and a President's fault who has been in office for 9 months? He's had the military recommendations for about 10 days! Last time I checked, he hasn't decided and it's not something that should be decided in 5 minutes like what happened in Iraq. That was my whole point. It's good he's not making spur of the moment decisions on issues that are so important and none of us really like any of the options. That we should be able to agree on.

I respect your opinion and don't want more troops going but I do concede I don't know everything involved in making that decision anymore than you do.

And for your information, I am a proud Humanitarian Worker, very proud of it, have been to the region...so I damn sure don't need YOU telling me to put my money where my mouth is. I do so and have done so in some very risky areas of the world.

So thank you for your opinions, views but we're all torn about this and it's hard on all of us. We all want Peace and Security! Thanks.

Posted by Lenora13 at 10/07/2009 @ 2:15pm
I have to believe that, as mismanaged the Afghanistan war was under the Bush regime (he couldn't even find Usama in 7 years), Obama is taking the slow and thoughtful approach for a reason. He seems to understand that while the Taliban is horrible, and I mean horrible, they were NOT the reason we went into Afghanistan in the first place, and they should not be the reason we are still there. We will NEVER defeat the Taliban in that country, just as the Soviets could not defeat the mujahedeen (which became AQ) in that country.

I believe that not only is Obama rethinking the Afghanistan policy issues, he is rethinking the entire War on Terror (I hate that title but don't know what else to call it). Simply because he cannot do one without doing the other.

Fighting AQ and other terrorists worldwide means thinking outside Afghanistan and while I agree with Nichols that he should meet with anti-war Congress critters (esp. Feingold), I do believe that Obama is (as he has stated) also anti-war. I think that's where HE starts. As President, he got handed a crappy deal because Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld (or Larry, Curly and Mo) didn't know how to run a war, much less two, and totally screwed up by going into Iraq instead of concentrating on Afghanistan and AQ.

Eventually, we'll probably end up negotiating with the Taliban and hopefully, spending additional resources, (not necessarily men and women) to seek out and destroy AQ wherever it may pop up its ugly head. So, I, am giving Obama the benefit of my doubt, because he is, at the very least, a hell of a lot smarter than Larry, Curly and Mo (put together).

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/07/2009 @ 3:05pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/06/2009 @ 1:44pm

You guys are so full of crap. Look at South Carolina...almost all Republicans ruling that state for decades. It's falling apart. Look at Mississippi, same deal. What about California? Mostly Republican governors for decades going all the way back to your beloved Ronnie Raygun...do you blame Raygun, Wilson and Schwarzenegger for California's problems? Puh-lease.

N.O's problems were not because it was run by Democrats. get over yourselves.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/07/2009 @ 3:15pm
With the Cold war over, we don't have to fight the Afghans AND the SOVIETS like when the SOVIETS were fighting the AFGHANS and the US.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/06/2009 @ 1:53pm

Darin,

Precisely where do you think the Taliban's weapons are coming from, eh? Are they making those shells up there in them thar mountins? Or maybe perhaps, the Russians and or the Chinese are covertly doing the exact same thing we did (covertly - supposedly) when the Soviets were in Afghanistan.

Ever thought about that? Maybe we ARE fighting Russia and/or China in Afghanistan.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/07/2009 @ 3:19pm
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/07/2009 @ 3:19pm | ignore this person | warn this person

we're gonna need a bit more to go on than maybe.

Posted by emile duBois at 10/07/2009 @ 3:25pm
both China and russia have restive muslim minorities. that would make them unlikely supporters of muslim freedom fighters.

Russia has not forgotten the bloody defeat they suffered at the hands of Afghanistan. that would also make them unlikely to support the Taleban.

my hunch is they get the weapons from Pakistan.

Posted by emile duBois at 10/07/2009 @ 5:00pm
Chinese weapons 'reaching the Taliban'

By Stephen Adams Published: 8:28AM BST 04 Sep 2007

Concerns over lax export arrangements have been aired after Afghan officials revealed more and more sophisticated Chinese-made weapons are being found in the country.

These include surface-to-air missiles, anti-aircraft guns, landmines, rocket-propelled grenades and parts to make roadside bombs, members of the Afghan administration have told the BBC.

"Chinese HN-5 anti-aircraft missiles are with the Taliban, we know this... and we are worried where do the Taliban get them, some of these weapons have been made recently in Chinese factories," a 'senior Afghan official' said.>

http://tinyurl.com/yern2tg

Iranian weapons getting through to Taliban

Heavy weapons are continuing to stream across the Afghan border from Iran despite Barack Obama's attempts to enlist Tehran's help in fighting the insurgency, officials have said. Border police say they are regularly intercepting consignments of anti-tank mines and mortars bound for Afghan militants fighting Nato-led forces.

One shipment seized on May 23 along Afghanistan's 580-mile western border contained dozens of anti-tank mines.

"That's a regular occurrence," the official told the Daily Telegraph. "It tends to be heavier weapons like mines and mortars rather than Kalashnikovs".

Quantities regularly run into the hundreds and the weapons are usually brand new he added.

http://tinyurl.com/lkf83p

Posted by antisocialist at 10/07/2009 @ 6:23pm
Posted by Metteyya at 10/06/2009 @ 08:49am |

This a complete joke. On Rwanda, Clinton went out of his way to hinder the miniscule peacekeeping force.

The Holocaust reference is an even worse example. The allies actually refused to take substantive action. Instead, they devoted all resources to the war effort, arguing that a speedy victory was a best solution to the Holocaust. Read "While Six Million Died" by Arthur Morse, my father (a conservative Rabbi) has it on his shelf, its all in there.

Do your research before spewing your pseudo-Buddhist crap.

Posted by nkurland at 10/07/2009 @ 10:26pm
Posted by Metteyya at 10/06/2009 @ 3:31pm

How are you still pushing this interventionist tripe? Your philosophy reminds me of a title of a William Blum book: "Freeing the World to Death"

Posted by nkurland at 10/07/2009 @ 10:37pm
So thank you for your opinions, views but we're all torn about this and it's hard on all of us. We all want Peace and Security! Thanks.

Posted by Lenora13 at 10/07/2009 @ 2:15pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Your President called this the "Good War" and he voted supplemental funding of it everytime. He has got blood on his hands and it is his war now- his crap - and he has killed innocents in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Poser.

I don't remember ever promising to nation build in Afghanistan? You mean because Bush said it? If Bush told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it?

You want to rebuild Afghanistan, get your butt over their with your checkbook and do it. Otherwise, stop trying to filch off the US taxpayer for your foreign policy goals.

I would rather my tax money go to help Americans thank you. Maybe we should rebuild South Chicago.

Afghans want us the hell out. They have got our measure quite well.

Private interests and charities can go over there and do their humanitarian work - just don't try to turn them into Christians or push your Western values on them. Respect their culture. When you do that, they will respect you.

Bush Senior, Clinton, and W have a shameful record and broke many promises. I don't feel obligated because politicians make promises they can't or don't intend to keep.

Save the sob story for another day.

Posted by OneVote at 10/07/2009 @ 11:33pm
Israel, as I assume you'll agree, made no major policy changes BEFORE they received tons of aid and weapons from us back in the 1940s and early 50s....why would they "knuckle under" now?

Posted by Mask at 10/07/2009 @ 1:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person

I am not going to waste my time on this issue with you Mask. You have "revealed yourself" to my satisfaction.

Posted by OneVote at 10/08/2009 @ 12:02am
Posted by OneVote at 10/07/2009 @ 11:33pm

Is Obama not YOUR President, too?

Regardless of how much I hated almost everything Bush did while he was President and believed that his Presidency was illegitimate and his policies sent this country completely off the rails, I never denied him the dignity of the office by denying him as my President. I was always more than happy to tell anyone that I didn't vote for him, but he was still my President.

Why, because I am a loyal and true patriot who believes that whatever mistakes are made in my name (spying, illegal war, torture just to name a few), we are all Americans and we are ALL in this together, regardless of who is leading us.

I guess I'm just a better American than you.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/08/2009 @ 12:09pm
you have got to be kidding.

Posted by emile duBois at 10/08/2009 @ 2:39pm
For those of you concerned about Chinese, Soviet or Iranian arms reaching the Taliban, you need not worry. Seems they are getting plenty of U.S. arms due to our presence in the region.

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet /Satellite?c=Article_C&pagename=Zone-English- News/NWELayout&cid=1252187923941

Mullah Omar must have listened to The Clash's second album, Give 'Em Enough Rope (and they will hang themselves). 'Em being 'Us.

Posted by dont_know at 10/09/2009 @ 10:27am
Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 10:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Don't you think the Pentagon has a standing Oplan for evacuating or destroying the Pak nukes if the threat that they become captured by the Taliban or Al Qaida becomes real? And if there is no plan, isn't this a massive failure on the part of our Joint Chiefs?

Posted by dont_know at 10/09/2009 @ 10:36am

John Nichols

Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.

Obama Should Meet With 'Rethink Afghanistan' Caucus

posted by John Nichols on 10/06/2009 @ 2:08pm

John Nichols

Archives

» The Beat

» Editor's Cut

» The Notion

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!

» And Another Thing

» Altercation

Obama Should Meet With 'Rethink Afghanistan' Caucus

posted by John Nichols on 10/06/2009 @ 2:08pm

Share this article

John Nichols

Archives

» The Beat

» Editor's Cut

» The Notion

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!

» And Another Thing

» Altercation