Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe California Democratic Party speaks with an loud voice in national politics.
It is, by any reasonable measure, the biggest party in the biggest state in the nation.
And it is a well-organized, forward-looking organization that since the 1950s has had a tradition of delivering vital messages from the base to national Democratic leaders. Indeed, in the 1960s, California Democrats were among the first and loudest critics of President Lyndon Johnson's decision to expand the war in Vietnam. They were not merely opposed to the war; they were worried, wisely, that committing resources, governing energy and political capital to an unwise and unnecessary war would undermine the ability of an otherwise popular Democratic president to deliver on his ambitious domestic agenda.
With their history and their heft in mind, it is reasonable to say that when California Democrats take a strong stand on a contentious issues, it matters -- both as a signal with regard to popular sentiment within the party and as an indicator of the issues that could cause political headaches for a Democratic president.
So what does the California Democratic Party have to say about the global conflict that many believe could be for Barack Obama's presidency what Vietnam was for Lyndon Johnson's?
"End the U.S. Occupation and Air War in Afghanistan."
That's the title of a resolution endorsed over the weekend by the 300-member executive board of the California party.
The resolution calls for establishing "a timetable for withdrawal of our military personnel" and seeks "an end to the use of mercenary contractors as well as an end to air strikes that cause heavy civilian casualties."
In place of a continuing U.S. military presence, the California Democrats are urging Obama "to oversee a redirection of our funding and resources to include an increase in humanitarian and developmental aid."
That's sound advice for a president who is wrestling with the issue of how to respond to a request from some military commanders for a surge of more troops into what looks to a many savvy observers like a quagmire.
Among those speaking for the resolution was former Marine Corporal Rick Reyes, who described how his experience in Afghanistan led him to the conclusion that the U.S. occupation was illegitimate. "There is no military solution in Afghanistan," said Reyes, a Los Angeles native. "The problems in Afghanistan are social problems that a military cannot fix."
An Afghanistan and Iraq veteran, Reyes was particularly blunt in his criticism of the corrupt regime of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
The veteran told members of the California party's executive board that: "We dishonor the patriotism and the sense of justice of our brave men and women by sending them to fight, proclaiming that they sacrifice for democracy and national security when really they struggle and die in support of nothing more than a proven criminal regime."
In addition to bringing Reyes to the executive committee session, proponents of the resolution showed clips of Robert Greenwald's groundbreaking documentary "Rethink Afghanistan" to drive home their points.
The resolution was co-authored by writer and filmmaker Norman Solomon, key player in the "Health Care Not Warfare" campaign of Progressive Democrats of America who was an Obama delegate to the 2008 Democratic National Convention, along with Karen Bernal, who chairs the party's Progressive Caucus, and congressional candidate Marcy Winograd.
Winograd, who is challenging Democratic Congresswoman Jane Harman, a war supporter, in a 2010 primary in a Los Angeles area district, called on state parties across the country to send similar anti-war messages.
"We need progressives in every state Democratic Party to pass a similar resolution calling for an end to the U.S. occupation and air war in Afghanistan," said Winograd. "Bring the veterans to the table, bring our young into the room, and demand an end to this occupation that only destabilizes the region. There is no military solution, only a diplomatic one that requires we cease our role as occupiers if we want our voices to be heard. Yes, this is about Afghanistan -- but it's also about our role in the world at large. Do we want to be global occupiers seizing scarce resources or global partners in shared prosperity? I would argue a partnership is not only the humane choice, but also the choice that grants us the greatest security."
Share this article
Posting a comment requires registration. Click here to register
If you are already registered, login here.
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
What a shock! The marxist CA Dem party is against defeating terrorism. What difference is there between these marxists and Code Pink or a Leslie Cagan?
They all hate this country
Posted by antisocialist at 11/16/2009 @ 09:39am
The only to Fear is Fear itself. The Democratic Majority claims they don't do what's right for us, because they fear Rightwing Extremist's. The leadership of the Democratic Party need to understand, excuses won't work anymore. Congress is completely out of touch with Voters. The left, and right Spin the Truth (lie) to get our support, so you may continue to live in luxury in Washington DC. The US Government itself is Corrupt; All Politicians care about is building war chest of Campaign funds, to prepare the next Election. The Greed of Washington Politicians will destroy them. Business in Washington must change, politicians cannot serve two masters. Congress works for Wall Street, or they work for us. What will Congress do to protect us? Congress can't spin the Truth any longer; because we look around us see the suffering caused by your deception. Most of us know someone, who has personally been effected by the actions of Lawmakers in Washington DC. Here in Oregon, there was a local story in the news, about Murder Suicide, in which the family was believed to be having financial problems. How many more will die as result of stress related to the financial Crises? Lawmakers may not have been aware, of the Consequences of Repealing FDR's new Deal at First. But now lawmakers know, and God will hold lawmakers Accountable for their in action. End the Bush Wars. Fund Job's and Medicare for all. Capitalism will fail without Consumers. People won't by anything they don't need if they fear losing their Job.
Posted by peacekeepertwo at 11/16/2009 @ 09:50am
The only to Fear is Fear itself. The Democratic Majority claims they don't do what's right for us, because they fear Rightwing Extremist's. The leadership of the Democratic Party need to understand, excuses won't work anymore. Congress is completely out of touch with Voters. The left, and right Spin the Truth (lie) to get our support, so you may continue to live in luxury in Washington DC. The US Government itself is Corrupt; All Politicians care about is building war chest of Campaign funds, to prepare the next Election. The Greed of Washington Politicians will destroy them. Business in Washington must change, politicians cannot serve two masters. Congress works for Wall Street, or they work for us. What will Congress do to protect us? Congress can't spin the Truth any longer; because we look around us see the suffering caused by your deception. Most of us know someone, who has personally been effected by the actions of Lawmakers in Washington DC. Here in Oregon, there was a local story in the news, about Murder Suicide, in which the family was believed to be having financial problems. How many more will die as result of stress related to the financial Crises? Lawmakers may not have been aware, of the Consequences of Repealing FDR's new Deal at First. But now lawmakers know, and God will hold lawmakers Accountable for their in action. End the Bush Wars. Fund Job's and Medicare for all. Capitalism will fail without Consumers. People won't by anything they don't need if they fear losing their Job.
Posted by peacekeepertwo at 11/16/2009 @ 09:51am
Posted by peacekeepertwo at 11/16/2009 @ 09:51am
why are so many on the left so detached from the real world?
When was FDR's New Deal repealed? I only wish it were so. We are more socialist than ever.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/16/2009 @ 09:54am
NICHOLS: "The California Democratic Party....is, by any reasonable measure, the biggest party in the biggest state in the nation."
No wonder California is now, the BIGGEST PROBLEM STATE.......the direct relationship is so easy to connect, these `dots' are bigger than the sun!
And how's everyone today! Are we thrilled to have Gold hit another record bright and early?
Oh, Yea, Hope and Change!
Posted by Happy at 11/16/2009 @ 09:58am
Posted by Happy at 11/16/2009 @ 09:58am
Yeah, California's credibility isn't too hot right now.
Nor their credit.
If I were democrats in CA, I would keep a low profile for awhile.
Posted by Benchrest at 11/16/2009 @ 10:08am
antisocialist-Many of them are detached from reality for the same reason that many of you are.That's easier than questioning the strict dogma that so many of you need to adhere to.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/16/2009 @ 10:10am
John Nichols writes: In place of a continuing U.S. military presence, the California Democrats are urging Obama "to oversee a redirection of our funding and resources to include an increase in humanitarian and developmental aid."
But if we have nothing in common with, nor any leverage over the local leadership, how can there be any confidence at all this aid will be distributed fairly according to our intentions?
But that's just details, not a democratic party strength. We'll just let the UN handle it, right? This is just the usual democratic party rhetoric. Nothing but feel-good pretty words. Okay, check that off, we're great humanitarians... Okay next agenda item, sneaking taxpayer funded abortion into the healthcare bill...
I think the democrats are going to get a significant wake-up call come election day. Of course, it won't be due to their shamless collectivism, no, it'll be voter fraud!
You know the worst of it? The current administration isn't going to pull out of Afghanistan, any more than it's dismantling the Patriot Act.
I think the CA Democrats should be focused on reducing their burdensome tax policies that are driving businesses out of the Golden State. And leave Afghanistan to Obama to lie about.
Posted by freiheit1 at 11/16/2009 @ 10:30am
When Obama's army chief wants a troop surge in Afghanistan, how can he stop the war.It is going to be Obama's Vietnam.
Posted by Dastu11 at 11/16/2009 @ 10:51am
I applaud the Cal Dems for their resolution but I ask them, and all opposed to the war in AfPac, "If the US and NATO withdraws from Afghanistan, who is going to protect the opium growers and insure a continued supply of heroin to our junkies? I think this question is central to the deliberations going on in the Administration and NATO re the fighting in Afghanistan. And the answer to this question is why I think Obama will escalate, not withdraw.
Posted by dont_know at 11/16/2009 @ 11:13am
There is one and only one question to ask our neo-con/right-wing friends who oppose us leaving Afghanistan....and they'll do everything they can NOT to answer it. And it is this-
Who still supports the war? What percentage of the American people?
Posted by Mask at 11/16/2009 @ 11:13am
"They all hate this country"
then it follows that a majority of americans "hate this country" as well, as a majority hate the war.
"Okay next agenda item, sneaking taxpayer funded abortion into the healthcare bill..."
the republicans "sneaked" abortion in there, too.
care to comment?
"I think the CA Democrats should be focused on reducing their burdensome tax policies that are driving businesses out of the Golden State."
w/out "burdensome tax policies," how else can you pay for the war, frei?
california pays 110/billion annually for the war.
Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2009 @ 11:15am
"No wonder California is now, the BIGGEST PROBLEM STATE"
with schwarzenegger in charge, and a GOP minority who holds every democratic idea hostage.....
and what of prop 13, a GOP legacy?
don't blame the democrats for california's problems.
Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2009 @ 11:16am
I'm no fan of fighting just for fighting's sake. I've stated before that if the Obama administration does not have the will to win in Afghanistan then not one more life should be lost there by American personnel.
If combined military and political strategy there can be enacted that will result in a stable government and an adequately trained Afghani military, then that should be the course of action, no matter how many troops it takes to get the job done.
A comparison to Vietnam can be helpful is another sense. In the book, 'A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America's Last Years in Vietnam', author Lewis Sorley points out the General Creighton Abrhams, who succeeded William Westmoreland, actually had the war won before Congress, bowing to increased pressure from a disenchanted public, actually took the steps to lose the war. He makes a solid case.
In short, if politicians can learn to trust the Generals on the ground to deliver the victory that they are charged to deliver, the country would be better off for it. Time sould not be a consideration. Results are what matters.
That brings us to the indecisive Obama. My feeling is that he will want to continue the fight, but with restrictions that will in effect hamper the military objective of winning. If he does not have it in him to prosecute this conflict to a proper end, he must withdraw and bring the troops home and accept the blame for defeat. On the other hand, if he decides to give Gen. Mcchrystal the troops and equipment he asks for, he should do so and get the hell out of the way.
We've recently seen by the latest act of terrorism on American soil that the movement is alive and well. The job is not done. The war on terror is not over. Weak kneed politicians aside.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 11:19am
Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2009 @ 11:16am
Doesn't California have a government of, by and for the people? Aren't they predominately democratic? Do they not vote for their leaders? Who else to blame?
Who do you blame for George W. Bush?
Who do you blame for Barack Obama?
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 11:22am
Who still supports the war? What percentage of the American people?
Posted by Mask at 11/16/2009 @ 11:13am
That is a great question! As I've often stated, allow Americans to cut a check every month for their part of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That's sure not going to happen. It would potentially shine a light on ALL government spending, wouldn't it.
Posted by freiheit1 at 11/16/2009 @ 11:23am
All this week on the History Channel, World War Ii in HD is being presented. It's quite good. It's too bad if anyone missed the first two hours but they will be rerun. What is evident is that Americans had the will to defeat it's enemies. The country fought as one unit both at home and abroad.
This is a very different America we live in today. We've been spoiled by our standard of living and we've gronw soft and apathetic. That's why we need to leave it to our Generals to take care of business where ever we send them and then to shut up and stay out of the way until their job is done. Nobody likes loss of life, military or civilian. Running scared will just result in more of both down the road.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 11:27am
Posted by freiheit1 at 11/16/2009 @ 11:23am
Neither functional nor logical, Frei...as is is much of your "Ron Paul" libertarianism.
Who's going to support a farm subsidy?...then the price of food climbs and they all scream about wanting their $2 loaf of bread back.
Who's going to pay for a F-16?...then we have to strike a Syrian training camp and can't do it.
Who's going to pay for drug safety?...until THEIR wife, husband, child, relative dies from bad pharmaceuticals.
Who's going to pay for research grants?...and then we're left in the dust by other countries and our economy goes into permanent malaise.
Posted by Mask at 11/16/2009 @ 11:28am
don't blame the democrats for california's problems.
Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2009 @ 11:16am
Fair enough. Let's do target politicians though. California's problems are based on too much SPENDING and not too little revenue (taxes).
But this doesn't matter to a collectivist like Darla.
Posted by freiheit1 at 11/16/2009 @ 11:30am
Buck the Pentagon & its allies? Even LBJ didn't have the nerve. He saw what happened to JFK for even considering the idea.
We're doomed. And so is Obama.
Posted by sloper at 11/16/2009 @ 11:31am
They all hate this country
Posted by antisocialist at 11/16/2009 @ 09:39am
As usual everyone who has a different opinion than yours concerning the direction of this country "hates this country" and is a "Marxist".
Believe me Anti, you and your opinions do not hold a monopoly on love for this country and it's foundations. In fact, I would say the reverse is true. You consistently express disdain for the government of this country. And by extension to the people themselves.
The people of this country are the government. And the direction in which it goes is decided by "the people". Regardless if that fits into your narrow views or not.
Posted by chaoszen at 11/16/2009 @ 11:31am
Who still supports the war? What percentage of the American people?
Posted by Mask at 11/16/2009 @ 11:13am
If it were left up to lilly-livered citizens, we would all be enslaved. All through our history there have been weak-kneed people who cannot stand the sight of blood who have had their say in opposing the efforts of our military to perserve, protect and defend us. How much loss of moral, national prestiege and delays in results have resulted from the voices of cowards. I'll say it again. This is not the same America that fought WWII.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 11:32am
That's why we need to leave it to our Generals to take care of business where ever we send them and then to shut up and stay out of the way until their job is done.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 11:27am | ignore this person | warn this person
Johnson left it to Waste-more-Land to take care of business and we suffered the political defeat of Tet. Wars are always more political than they are martial and we should never shut up and stay out of the way. Our Generals should have their say but they take orders from the civilian commander in chief who is elected by us. You seem to have forgotten that, gunslinger1.
Posted by dont_know at 11/16/2009 @ 11:33am
It will take a much bigger loss than what we suffered on 9/11 to get people's attention.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 11:33am
afghanistan WAS the only barbarian hellhole we needed to go into.
we should have done so swiftly, brutally, with all the force we could muster and not stupid distractions...should have gone in, hit hard, then rather than stick around dippily and guiltily trying to fix all the problems, dumped some blood money and got the hell out before they REALLY learned to hated us...
iraq would be securely in the hands of a horrible but secular tyrant (her christians, apostates, agnostics, atheists and all non-muslim populations still intact and in possession of property and security)...
without having to rely on sketchy afghan tribesmen and shoestring resources to complete a classical cordon operation we likely would have gotten OBL at tora bora, tried him and executed him by now.
perhaps afghanistan would have filled up with jihadist barbarians again in short order, but with a mollified shia iran helping us (the enemy of our enemy) who knows what kind of goodwill could have been built with THOSE high barbarians...
subtlety, thine name is not neocon...
but this is what happens when self misapprehended demigods start playing the big game.
so now mr. obama, your heart's in the right place - we gotta fix what we effed up!
yes we do. dump one more big bag of money and bugg the eff out.
we can't fix all the problems. there were too many to begin wit and then we showed up and made a lot more...
lets build a base on the moon, ok? out of afghanistan, out of iraq... OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST - except for EATR/REAPER bases on island fortresses...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/16/2009 @ 11:34am
Posted by Mask at 11/16/2009 @ 11:28am
Sounds like you are for tightening our belts and reducing the size of government.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 11:35am
"Aren't they predominately democratic?"
read prop 13, and get back to me, gun.
it takes 2/3 majority to raise taxes, but only a simple majority to cut them.
and during "wartime," we have people complaining about taxes being too HIGH?
ever heard of......35 million people living in this state.....who need.....STUFF to survive?
if people are going to leave california, good! there's already way too many people here.
"California's problems are based on too much SPENDING and not too little revenue (taxes)."
this is what EVERY republican says. too much spending. it's NEVER a tax issue.
well, it is a tax issue. taxes need to raised on upper-income earners.
"We've recently seen by the latest act of terrorism on American soil that the movement is alive and well"
evidence that the ft. hood shootings were an act of terrorism?
Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2009 @ 11:35am
afghanistan was a colossal mistake, perhaps even bigger than iraq.
we marched against both wars. and we were right about both wars.
now look at this country: broke, depressed, and divided.
those wars destroyed our fair country.
Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2009 @ 11:37am
Lets end this war and stop radicalizing those that hate us.
Posted by jfair at 11/16/2009 @ 11:38am
Posted by dont_know at 11/16/2009 @ 11:33am
Westmoreland wanted more troops to fight his war of attrition. Johnson didn't have the cajones to escalate any further. Abrhams too over and trained the S. Vietnamese Army, a job that should have been done much sooner. The war could have ended in victory if the politicians did not fall to political pressure. That is the lesson that Obama should have learned.
If GWB listened to the timidity of the people and their critisism, the surge never would have happened and we would have left Iraq in disgrace.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 11:39am
"If it were left up to lilly-livered citizens, we would all be enslaved. "----Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 11:32am
So, obviously, you don't support democracy here, then huh?
Posted by Mask at 11/16/2009 @ 11:40am
Lets end this war and stop radicalizing those that hate us.
Posted by jfair at 11/16/2009 @ 11:38am
Sure. Let's return to the pre 9/11 mentality that had us seeing terrorist attack after terrorist attack. Only after the tragedy of 9/11 did the idiots in Washington realize that islam jihadists has decleared war on us. I haven't seen them surrender yet. Why should we?
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 11:42am
of course, w/ gunslinger, it's always about "toughness" and never about STRATEGY.
there are no strategies in afghanistan. an escalation means more dead people. and lots of them.
if AQ is going to regroup anywhere and attack americans, then perhaps we should be asking:
why do certain fringe groups want to kill americans? what is it that we're doing overseas that's making people so thirsty for our blood?
can we please have a national discussion about what drives certain extremist groups so ape shit?
we have been dropping bombs on muslim countries for a long, long time. we have tortured. we have maimed. we have imprisoned innocent people. we have removed democratically elected leaders, and replaced them with brutal tyrants.
and then we wonder why these people seek revenge?
Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2009 @ 11:42am
those wars destroyed our fair country.
Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2009 @ 11:37am | ignore this person | warn this person
You are the first person in these blogs who has correctly (in my humble opinion) identified the second reason for the war in Afghanistan -- to destroy America and its place in the world. (The first reason, again in my opinion, is, of course, to insure the traffic in opium.) As we waste more blood and treasure in the valleys and villages of AfPac, America will sink lower and lower both economically and in prestige and moral. If we really wanted to fight AQ terrorists we would go after AQ where they are, not where they aren't.
Posted by dont_know at 11/16/2009 @ 11:42am
"Johnson didn't have the cajones to escalate any further"
see, now it's about "cajones".....
never about.....intelligence, that's for wussies
Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2009 @ 11:44am
conservatives go on and on about obama's spending, about california's spending, while conveniently forgetting that BUSH started not one, but TWO TRILLION DOLLAR WARS. how are we going to pay for even further escalation?
oh, i see, afghanistan is "necessary" but univesal healthcare is not???
think about that, or do you not have the "cajones"?
Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2009 @ 11:46am
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/16/2009 @ 11:34am A journalistic piece on 60 minutes some time ago told the story of the sepecial forces unit, (12 men?) who in conjunction with one of the war lords and his forces managed to have OBL trapped. Google it. Their plan was to wait until dawn and move in for the capture. When dawn came, the war lord and his men were nowhere to be found. The SF unit was undermanned to move in on their quarry. The result was that OBL got away. Was he tipped off by the war lord for a price? Were we duped? That was the impression left.
This was all pre Iraq.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 11:47am
Posted by Mask at 11/16/2009 @ 11:40am
Democracy does not preclude common sense.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 11:48am
"Let's return to the pre 9/11 mentality that had us seeing terrorist attack after terrorist attack."
for a total of.......2 terrorist attacks. one here (which failed) and another abroad.
and then, dubya became prez, and we had the worst of all of them.
guess bush had the pre-9.11 mentality.
Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2009 @ 11:49am
Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2009 @ 11:42am
When did you have a seat at the table with the Joint Chiefs when they discuss strategy?
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 11:49am
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 11:39am | ignore this person | warn this person
if GW and his handlers had been possessed of any sense, they would have never have gone into iraq - see my 20/20 hindsight solution, above.
oh for the ghost of tricky dicky nixon and hank kissinger in their primes...in terms of foreign policy...
co-opt secular saddam, linking a thaw in relationship to at least cosmetic behavior changes, take advantage of iranian hints at willingness to co-operate against sunni extremism in afghanistan...perhaps build a relationship of at least mutual respect rather than non-stop insults and brinksmanship...
but the ghost of intelligent foriegn policy machiavellianism stayed off-stage for eight years and look at the goddamned bill!!!!
stop defending those neocon ignoramuses...not worth it...unless yer the captain of a sinking ship, jump...not your albatross to wear...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/16/2009 @ 11:49am
and then we wonder why these people seek revenge?
Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2009 @ 11:42am
We tried letting them select their own leaders. They failed.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 11:50am
Farm subsidy? You mean "vote purchase", right?
Posted by freiheit1 at 11/16/2009 @ 11:51am
Didn't the German people think that Hitler was all that? Especially after he successfully invaded Poland and started killing Jews.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 11:51am
from today's independent:
"To my surprise, the ex-jihadis said their rage about Western foreign policy -- which was real, and burning -- emerged only after their identity crises, and as a result of it. They identified with the story of oppressed Muslims abroad because it seemed to mirror the oppressive disorientation they felt in their own minds. . . .
But once they had made that leap to identify with the Umma – the global Muslim community -- they got angrier the more abusive our foreign policy came. Every one of them said the Bush administration's response to 9/11 -- from Guantanamo to Iraq -- made jihadism seem more like an accurate description of the world. Hadiya Masieh, a tiny female former HT organiser, tells me: "You'd see Bush on the television building torture camps and bombing Muslims and you think -- anything is justified to stop this. What are we meant to do, just stand still and let him cut our throats?"
But the converse was -- they stressed -- also true. When they saw ordinary Westerners trying to uphold human rights, their jihadism began to stutter. Almost all of them said that they doubted their Islamism when they saw a million non-Muslims march in London to oppose the Iraq War: "How could we demonise people who obviously opposed aggression against Muslims?" asks Hadiya."
Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2009 @ 11:52am
Posted by dont_know at 11/16/2009 @ 11:42am Darla is all for securing hallucinatory substances.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 11:52am
Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2009 @ 11:44am
History prooves your theory wrong.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 11:53am
"We tried letting them select their own leaders. They failed."
"we" tried? "they" failed?
Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2009 @ 11:54am
Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2009 @ 11:46am
Who started the war on terror?
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 11:54am
Visit this site for a prescient view of the Calif. real estate bubble from a few years ago. Title below-
The California Real Estate Bubble: Is it the end?
Posted by Sorelish at 11/16/2009 @ 11:55am
Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2009 @ 11:46am
We are going to need more than universal health care if we do not defeat our enemies. Walking around stonded 24/7 isn't the answer either.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 11:56am
stoned
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 11:56am
greenwald:
"In other words, the very policies the U.S. has been pursuing in the name of combating Terrorism -- invading, occupying, and bombing Muslim countries; locking them up without trials; torturing them; violating the values we've been preaching to the world -- have been the most potent instruments for fueling Islamic radicalism and terrorism. By contrast, those who have been continuously accused of being "soft on Terrorism" and even being allied with the Terrorists -- those who opposes our various wars, who demanded and provided basic human rights protections and equal liberties to Muslims, who objected to their own governments' oppressive and belligerent policies -- have done more to diffuse and impede Muslim radicalism than virtually anyone else in the world."
in gunslinger's world view: the opposite is true.
Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2009 @ 11:56am
gunslinger1,
I know the military backgrounds of several of the bloggers herein, both those vets against the war such as myself as well as those who vets who support your position. But I don't know yours. Have you served in our nation's military? When, where, what units? Just curious?
Posted by dont_know at 11/16/2009 @ 11:56am
"Who started the war on terror?"
bush
Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2009 @ 11:57am
"We are going to need more than universal health care if we do not defeat our enemies"
and who are our "enemies," gun? and approx how many are there?
Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2009 @ 11:58am
Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2009 @ 11:52am
Thank God Sec. Gates just ordered the Pentagon not to release any of the interrogation pics to the nosy public, ACLU be damned.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 11:58am
I believe that was Obama idea.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 11:59am
"Walking around stonded 24/7 isn't the answer either"
i may use marijuana from time to time, but at least i can spell.
Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2009 @ 11:59am
Obama's, damn. Got to quit now.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 12:00pm
Can you spell pacifism?
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 12:00pm
If it were left up to lilly-livered citizens, we would all be enslaved. Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 11:32am
The problem is that it has been left up to lilly-livered cowards and chicken hawks like Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld and those like yourself that support these policies.
And we have all been enslaved by the debt and loss of life that has been perpetuated by these opportunistic immoral occupations.
These are not "Wars" in the classical sense or any sense for that matter. For one thing it is not possible to wage a war on a tactic. These are nothing but occupations and invasions entered into for the sake of power, profit and tyranny.
You know, the kind of crap that cowards engage in.
Posted by chaoszen at 11/16/2009 @ 12:01pm
"Thank God Sec. Gates just ordered the Pentagon not to release any of the interrogation pics to the nosy public, ACLU be damned"
yeah, thank god sec gates cares so much about......OUR RIGHT TO SEE THEM.
or do you not care about the "rights" for which our troops are fighting, gun?
Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2009 @ 12:01pm
gunslinger is (obviously) the ultimate coward. the ultimate armchair warrior, who never fought, and wants others to fight for him.
Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2009 @ 12:02pm
gunslinger is (obviously) the ultimate coward. the ultimate armchair warrior, who never fought, and wants others to fight for him.
Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2009 @ 12:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Gunslinger1 -- can darladoon be right? Say it isn't so. I would like to have some respect for your opinions on war fighting even if I disagree with them totally.
Posted by dont_know at 11/16/2009 @ 12:07pm
most of the experienced writers that i have been reading (about iraq and afghanistan) paint a starkly different picture than our armchair warriors here. the vast majority of them say that our foreign policy is fuelling more anti-americanism. even our own pentagon, under rumsfeld, concluded that in 2004.
Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2009 @ 12:15pm
Thank God Sec. Gates just ordered the Pentagon not to release any of the interrogation pics to the nosy public, ACLU be damned.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 11:58am
The nosy public? Listen up, this crap is being done in our name, with our money and with the lives of our children. Your condescending use of the word "Nosy" seems to fly in the face of a Representative Democratic Republic and the right of the people to know what is being done by their government, in their name.
As always when confronted with willful ignorance by my fellows, I'm mortified...
Posted by chaoszen at 11/16/2009 @ 12:25pm
most of the experienced writers that i have been reading (about iraq and afghanistan) paint a starkly different picture than our armchair warriors here. the vast majority of them say that our foreign policy is fuelling more anti-americanism. even our own pentagon, under rumsfeld, concluded that in 2004.
Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2009 @ 12:15pm | ignore this person | warn this person
The Pashtuns we call collectively the Taliban are not a threat to the U.S., they are only fighting us because we are in their valleys and villages. They only begin to hate us when we kill their kinsfolk. We, ourselves, are the source of any anti-Americanism developing among the Afghans. If we weren't there, most of them would not even be concerned that there was an America somewhere far off and away and not disturbing their bucolic bliss. Thus far the Taliban has been no threat to us, but if we continue sending our boys and girls to die in Afgan valleys and villages, then someday they might. I don't think the Pashtuns will be as forgiving as the Vietnamese have been.
Posted by dont_know at 11/16/2009 @ 12:27pm
Sure. Let's return to the pre 9/11 mentality that had us seeing terrorist attack after terrorist attack. Only after the tragedy of 9/11 did the idiots in Washington realize that islam jihadists has decleared war on us. I haven't seen them surrender yet. Why should we? Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 11:42am
--what's this "we" shit? you're not a "tough guy"--you just play one on the internet.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 12:29pm
What other choice do Muslims have but to believe that the US is out to get them? The ludicrous Arab media tells them ridiculous lies, airs miniseries based on the "Protocols," blames the Jews for 9/11.
The Western MSM rushes in to fuel the anti-Western propaganda. Nevermind this is a country that has deployed troops to defend Muslims from Christians. (What Muslim nation today would reciprocate?)
The campus identity cliques demand rigid conformity to ethnic/religious groupthink and the campus Left acts as hall monitor, ready to taser the stray minority who embraces the individuality allowed to whites.
I've said it before. If German, Japanese, and Italian American soldiers during WWII had been relentlessly taunted with tribalist taunts and entreaties not to "fight against their people" or to "take the war home," Hitler would have won. The Cockburn gang supported the Fascists then, and they support them now.
That said, we can't win with all of these forces arrayed aganinst us. We should get the f*** out of dodge, before another Okie from Muskogee dies defending a coastal lib that would just as soon slit the Okies throat than return the favor.
Posted by gangpapist at 11/16/2009 @ 12:30pm
now look at this country: broke, depressed, and divided.
those wars destroyed our fair country.
Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2009 @ 11:37am
What a load of old garbage.
The American economy is still five times larger than that of China. America manufactures more than China and Japan combined. America still produces twenty five percent of the world's output and it's output is larger than the combined gross domestic product of the next three largest economies Japan, China and Germany.
I mean who's broke? You may be depressed but if so that may be just a sign of collective mental illness and have nothing to do with America's economic and political standing in the world.
Notice nothing has been reported here about America's standing in East Asia. The fact that America is such an important player here and goes unnoticed by the "America - broke and divided" disciples is probably, apart from a sort of mental illness, one reason such people are "depressed".
Iraq, apart from the other good outcomes has stabilised the ME.
Afghanistan may not having anything to do with defeating al Qaeda but it certainly goes beyond America's interest in defeating terrorism and has in view stabilising that part of Asia. It needs to be remembered that it involves Europe and other nations as well. Those costs in terms of America's GDP is a piddle in the ocean.
As far as divided goes when have you been united about anything? Even as far back as WW2. You have a noisy democracy that tends to have a wide variety of malcontents. The way former supporters savage Obama is witness to that.
GW Bush had a handle on this vital 21C hub of the world and Obama to his credit seems to recognize, given his speeches, that America's joint leadership in this region is vital to world peace and prosperity.
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/16/2009 @ 12:31pm
We tried letting them select their own leaders. They failed. Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 11:50am | ignore this person | warn this person
--what's this "we" shit? you're a war-watcher. that's it.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 12:32pm
No mention of the US Defense industry and the zillions of dollars tey are making in all this war. And of course many related companies. How abot Xe Services (Formally Haliburton). Don't they have tens of thousands of people in Iraq and Afganistan_They are also reaping billions from the US Govt. There is a saying, "small money- small crooks, biggest money-biggest crooks. The question is to what extent do these corporations defense related INFLUENCE the continuation of the wars? We see what the large corps do in Health Care legislation - buy Lieberman, Baucus,etc etc. I think Naomi Klein said that the biggest corporations take advantage of war and chaos to get their way at all times. Finally, does Obama know allthis (HA HA) and what is his answer?
Posted by N2Sman at 11/16/2009 @ 12:34pm
That said, we can't win with all of these forces arrayed aganinst us. We should get the f*** out of dodge, before another Okie from Muskogee dies defending a coastal lib that would just as soon slit the Okies throat than return the favor. Posted by gangpapist at 11/16/2009 @ 12:30pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--what's this "us" shit? you're diddling on the interweb.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 12:37pm
"I mean who's broke?"
(question of the day)
and china is considering not taking american currency any longer, such is the power of the dollar.
Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2009 @ 12:39pm
Democracy does not preclude common sense.---Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 11:48am
But answer the question, gunny.
If we "leave things up to lilly-livered citizens, we'll would all be enslaved. " (Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 11:32am)....
obviously, you don't want them voting and controlling our public policy....do you?
Posted by Mask at 11/16/2009 @ 12:40pm
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 12:37pm
Actually, in my case, I have uh, personally, got 'er done, urmy. But I don't think that's a prereq for you know, diddling on the interweb
Posted by gangpapist at 11/16/2009 @ 12:42pm
Cal Libs and Okies must be united to get out of this stupid war. The only thing there worth defending is nutzy Pakistan and ther brother fundalmentalists the former having Atomic Bombs. We must WATCH them. Also I'll never know why we can't find OBL. What the f**k is ge A Phantom, a SuperNatural Being?
Posted by N2Sman at 11/16/2009 @ 12:44pm
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 12:37pm Actually, in my case, I have uh, personally, got 'er done, urmy. But I don't think that's a prereq for you know, diddling on the interweb Posted by gangpapist at 11/16/2009 @ 12:42pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--you're not getting 'er dun right now. you're diddling on the interweb. save the "us" for people actually fighting.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 12:45pm
Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2009 @ 12:02pm
Yeah, now you know me personally. You will only know what I want you to know and you'll have to settle for that. My personal life is nobody's business here. That's for damn sure.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 12:49pm
Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2009 @ 12:02pm Yeah, now you know me personally. You will only know what I want you to know and you'll have to settle for that. My personal life is nobody's business here. That's for damn sure. Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 12:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--in other words she nailed you. you're a war-watching "tough guy"
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 12:51pm
You mean my buddies? I can't use personal pronouns in a fashion that is widely inclusive of myself, my brothers, the country at large? Nope. I won't agree to that.
Posted by gangpapist at 11/16/2009 @ 12:52pm
Posted by chaoszen at 11/16/2009 @ 12:25pm
On the contrary, plenty of what our intelligence agencies do is kept top secret, usually to protect our troops. I'd much rather see them protected than to view supposedly salacious photos of interogagations of terrorists.
I really don't understand why you people hate America so much.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 12:53pm
interrogations, having a terrible time with the keyboard today.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 12:53pm
You mean my buddies? I can't use personal pronouns in a fashion that is widely inclusive of myself, my brothers, the country at large? Nope. I won't agree to that. Posted by gangpapist at 11/16/2009 @ 12:52pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--of course you won't...using "us" makes you feel like you're actually doing something. you're not. you're diddling on the interweb.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 12:54pm
Posted by dont_know at 11/16/2009 @ 12:27pm
We armed the Taliban in their war with Russia. They thanked us by providing traing facilities for OBL and Al Qaeda. With friends like that, who needs enemies.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 12:55pm
I really don't understand why you people hate America so much. Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 12:53pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--larry's favorite line spreading amongst his cohorts...haha!
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 12:55pm
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 12:29pm
Yeah, and you know me personally as well. What a crock. You dangle from strings.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 12:56pm
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/16/2009 @ 12:31pm | ignore this person | warn this person
If our strategic interest is in stabilizing Central Asia, why are we destabilizing the region? Outliers from our battles are appearing in nearly every nation in the region (of course, we only hear about the battles within AfPac, but there are plenty of others). And if our leadership in the region is vital to world peace and prosperity, how can we achieve it through permanent warfare? And where is the prosperity? Your logic seems feckless. Again, the only interests being served by the AfPac wars that I can see are the interest of the opium trade.
Posted by dont_know at 11/16/2009 @ 12:57pm
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 12:54pm
Why the hell would somebody who has been there, done that, need to induce a "feeling" of "actually doing something?"
Posted by gangpapist at 11/16/2009 @ 12:58pm
We armed the Taliban in their war with Russia. They thanked us by providing traing facilities for OBL and Al Qaeda. With friends like that, who needs enemies.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 12:55pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--"friends"? haha! you can't be serious. reagan used them like pawns.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 12:58pm
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 12:32pm
That's 'we' as in American patriots. A term you and most of the Communists on the left seem to have a problem with. When I use the term ,we, people like you and Darla aren't included.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 12:59pm
Well that's just about all I can stomach in arguing with ungrateful idiots for today.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 1:01pm
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 12:29pm Yeah, and you know me personally as well. What a crock. You dangle from strings. Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 12:56pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--no, i don't "dangle from strings." I don't know you personally--but I know you're type. you're easy to peg.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 1:01pm
Yeah, and you know me personally as well. What a crock. You dangle from strings. Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 12:56pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--you haven't served in the military. if you have, you'd proudly say so. no reason to keep it a secret.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 1:02pm
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 12:54pm Why the hell would somebody who has been there, done that, need to induce a "feeling" of "actually doing something?" Posted by gangpapist at 11/16/2009 @ 12:58pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--been where? what have you done?
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 1:03pm
That's 'we' as in American patriots. A term you and most of the Communists on the left seem to have a problem with. When I use the term ,we, people like you and Darla aren't included.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 12:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--how are you a patriot? you haven't served in the military.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 1:04pm
That's 'we' as in American patriots. A term you and most of the Communists on the left seem to have a problem with. When I use the term ,we, people like you and Darla aren't included. Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 12:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--p.s.--I'm no communist. You're engaging in exactly what you decry. Typical.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 1:07pm
now run away gunslinger and gangpapist--you're diddling on the interweb isn't helping win any wars--go be "patriotic"
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 1:07pm
"I mean who's broke?"
(question of the day)
and china is considering not taking american currency any longer, such is the power of the dollar.
Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2009 @ 12:39pm
Your problem along with a lot of the ill informed who post and journalise here and elsewhere is that you simply haven't got a clue about what is happening out there in that big, wide, real world. Then you get fed information that you cannot critically judge.
China is hitched financially and emotionally to America. (Remember it was America that freed China from the awful occupation by Japan. That is a debt it owes along with a lot of other East Asian countries in APEC, which importantly includes Russia.Then it was the prime mover in bringing democracy to Japan and was and still is the "democratic glue" that helps hold all the players in this most vital region of the world together).
Your view of the world is too narrow and constricted and apart from perhaps your natural predisposition, that limited view of the world no doubt would add to your burden of depression and discontent.
You of course are the sample person for what ails the Left generally viz. you select and feed on the material that nourishes your eccentric view of the world.
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/16/2009 @ 1:08pm
You of course are the sample person for what ails the Left generally viz. you select and feed on the material that nourishes your eccentric view of the world. Posted by lrjones4 at 11/16/2009 @ 1:08pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--i've got news for you--this is what all humans do. you're no different.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 1:10pm
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 1:02pm
So what if he didn't? You want us to volunteer for some kind of psychic segregation. Hell no. Destroying the filial bond that has always existed between civilians, whether veterans or non-veterans, and our military may be an important tactic for you, but WE don't have to lie down for your urmygyrations.
Posted by gangpapist at 11/16/2009 @ 1:11pm
Too bad our fearless leaders didn't attack Nicaruga at the same time they attacked Afganistan. Then they could anana Stand in Afganistan. What poor planning.
Posted by jack53 at 11/16/2009 @ 1:12pm
lrjones-Urmygyro is correct.You do the same thing as you say others do, as your post proved.Mostly,you were just stroking your own ego.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/16/2009 @ 1:14pm
So what if he didn't?
--he's not a "patriot" if he hasn't. he's a war-watching diddler.
You want us to volunteer for some kind of psychic segregation.
--man of straw.
Destroying the filial bond that has always existed between civilians, whether veterans or non-veterans, and our military may be an important tactic for you
--what are you talking about? i have relatives and friends in the military who I care for very much. you (and gunslinger) think because I'm for ending the stupid drawn out wars I'm unpatriotic, i'm an enemy, i hate america, blah blah blah. you make your generalizations...which I will NOT lie down for.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 1:15pm
What a shock! The marxist CA Dem party is against defeating terrorism. What difference is there between these marxists and Code Pink or a Leslie Cagan?
They all hate this country
Posted by antisocialist at 11/16/2009 @ 09:39am
Larry,
I am a CA Democrat and am NOT a marxist, socialist, or terrorist-lover, as you call us. I believe in capitalism (regulated), a strong military (properly motivated, supported and funded and with defined goals, and in some ways, I am even a fiscal conservative.
I am not a bible-thumping neo con, such as yourself, looking for holywar against Muslims. You should just come out and say that's what you want.
The war in Afghanistan cannot be "won" and if it could, I would ask you what "victory in Afghanistan" looks like. Who surrenders at the end? What treaties are signed by both nations? What does "victory" look like and how will we know when we've achieved it?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/16/2009 @ 1:19pm
--how are you a patriot? you haven't served in the military.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 1:04pm
Well, it's hilarious that you can see my personal information through a computor screen. Listen sonny, when I was serving AND seeing action you were probably still in diapers. That's all you get. Live with it.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 1:21pm
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 1:15pm
Whoah, now. While there is plenty going on at The Nation that I would call anti-American or unpatriotic, I would not label ending the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan as categorically unpatriotic or anti-American.
Ralph Peters is making pretty effective arguments from the right for getting out of Afghanistan in my hometown paper the NY Post.
Nor would I agree that someone has to serve to be a "patriot."
I don't believe that vets or current military have any special rights to place their arguments above all others.
Posted by gangpapist at 11/16/2009 @ 1:22pm
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 1:15pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Don't let the bastards get you down. The real enemies of America are the ones that get us into quagmires wasting our blood and treasure with their phony patriotism. True patriots reserve our military might for when we might really need it. True patriots don't desire to run up the national debt for further profits for Wall St. (running up the debt has been Wall St.'s prime reason for war since the formation of the Fed and the income tax). True patriots don't invent phantom enemies to justify war. True patriots look for the deeper (economic) reasons for war rather than just knee-jerk chauvinism. You know, and most of the American people know according to the latest polls, that AfPac is not necessary nor prudent nor patriotic. True patriots know that war should be limited not permanent. True patriots care about our troops and veterans and don't leave them to languish in poverty and sickness. So take heart, urmygyro, you know who the true patriots are who blog here at The Nation.
Posted by dont_know at 11/16/2009 @ 1:27pm
--how are you a patriot? you haven't served in the military.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 1:04pm
Well, it's hilarious that you can see my personal information through a computor screen. Listen sonny, when I was serving AND seeing action you were probably still in diapers. That's all you get. Live with it.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 1:21pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--I'm not your "sonny" (thank God). I don't believe you served in the military. And even if you did, what are you doing for these troops now? you donating money? i mean, you want to win the wars right? if you're not giving every extra penny you can how patriotic are you?
doesn't feel good to be stereotyped does it old timer?
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 1:29pm
Whoah, now. While there is plenty going on at The Nation that I would call anti-American or unpatriotic
--like what?
I would not label ending the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan as categorically unpatriotic or anti-American.
--not "categorically" huh? but you would still find ways to label in unpatriotic or anti-American.
Nor would I agree that someone has to serve to be a "patriot."
--but for the people that haven't, you have specific criteria in mind, surely (of which liberals won't qualify, surely).
I don't believe that vets or current military have any special rights to place their arguments above all others.
--no shit.
Posted by gangpapist at 11/16/2009 @ 1:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 1:33pm
Don't let the bastards get you down. The real enemies of America are the ones that get us into quagmires wasting our blood and treasure with their phony patriotism. True patriots reserve our military might for when we might really need it. True patriots don't desire to run up the national debt for further profits for Wall St. (running up the debt has been Wall St.'s prime reason for war since the formation of the Fed and the income tax). True patriots don't invent phantom enemies to justify war. True patriots look for the deeper (economic) reasons for war rather than just knee-jerk chauvinism. You know, and most of the American people know according to the latest polls, that AfPac is not necessary nor prudent nor patriotic. True patriots know that war should be limited not permanent. True patriots care about our troops and veterans and don't leave them to languish in poverty and sickness. So take heart, urmygyro, you know who the true patriots are who blog here at The Nation. Posted by dont_know at 11/16/2009 @ 1:27pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--I concur.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 1:34pm
interrogations, having a terrible time with the keyboard today.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 12:53pm
The word is "torture," not "interrogations." That's why the Pentagon won't release the photos.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/16/2009 @ 1:38pm
Ralph Peters is making pretty effective arguments from the right for getting out of Afghanistan in my hometown paper the NY Post.
Nor would I agree that someone has to serve to be a "patriot."
I don't believe that vets or current military have any special rights to place their arguments above all others.
Posted by gangpapist at 11/16/2009 @ 1:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person
We veterans opposed to the wars in AfPac do not claim to have any special rights to place our arguments above all others, including yours. But I think our readers will listen more to those who have seen war than those who only dream about war. You chickenhawks have a terrible burden to overcome; it's called gravitas. Best of luck to you. And I agree that that murderous, blood-thirsty, war mongering SOB Ralph Peters is making effective arguments against AfPac. I know Peters claims (and I have no reason to doubt him on this issue) that he deeply cares about our troops, so I am hoping that his turnaround (I guess you would call him a turncoat) is due to his care for the troops and vets, but with neocons like Peters, you can never be sure. We should watch him to figure out what is really up with his anti-war sentiments published in Murdock's odious but entertaining rag, the NYPost which I read every day on the subway.
Posted by dont_know at 11/16/2009 @ 1:40pm
You of course are the sample person for what ails the Left generally viz. you select and feed on the material that nourishes your eccentric view of the world. Posted by lrjones4 at 11/16/2009 @ 1:08pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--i've got news for you--this is what all humans do. you're no different.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 1:10pm
Oh yes. Very thoughtful opinion. Brain in gear before posting please. Why do you think I read the Nation and other Left and Right wing opinion, including a limited amount of yours? Never occur to you to ask that question? No intellectual curiosity?
It's called eclectic reading. And one of the best ways, I would suggest, to form an opinion that is not overly captive to a restrictive ideological position. You ought to try it.
Then you may get brave enough to read some geopolitics from non Western sources which doesn't suffer from our specific Left or Right perspectives. The possibilities are only restricted by one's curiosity. Can be very liberating.
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/16/2009 @ 1:42pm
Lets end this war and stop radicalizing those that hate us.
Posted by jfair at 11/16/2009 @ 11:38am
Sure. Let's return to the pre 9/11 mentality that had us seeing terrorist attack after terrorist attack. Only after the tragedy of 9/11 did the idiots in Washington realize that islam jihadists has decleared war on us. I haven't seen them surrender yet. Why should we?
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 11:42am
We need to stop the cycle of killing and retaliation. Continuing this war will only make terrorism worse. Lets end the cycle of death.
"An eye for and eye will only make the world blind" Ghandi
Posted by jfair at 11/16/2009 @ 1:45pm
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 1:33pm
People who characterize every military action we take as motivated by hatred or "Islamophobia." Who apologize for terrorists while claiming that our military are the "true terrorists." Who defame those who simply acknowledge the abundantly evident truth that Maj. Hassan had jihadist aspirations as "Islamophobes." Who despise traditional Christians for not being liberal enough but think Muslims can never be backward enough. Those are some my least favorite things - which I just might call unpatriotic.
I don't know enough about you to know if you agree with any of that Lefty tripe.
People (left or right) who question what "victory" looks like in Afghanistan, or who advocate for withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, or who advocate for surgical strikes on AQ as the model for the WOT, minus occupations of countries, can certainly do so "patriotically."
One could also be a yankee doodle while wondering aloud what should be done if were to withdraw from AfPak, and the Taliban were to take hold of Pakistan, and its nukes. It's an ugly world.
Posted by gangpapist at 11/16/2009 @ 1:54pm
Oh yes. Very thoughtful opinion. Brain in gear before posting please.
--ad hominem: the lowest of the low attacks. exclusive to you too, surely.
Why do you think I read the Nation and other Left and Right wing opinion, including a limited amount of yours? Never occur to you to ask that question? No intellectual curiosity?
--right, I never ask questions. I'm devoid of any curiosity. I'm a robot.
It's called eclectic reading. And one of the best ways, I would suggest, to form an opinion that is not overly captive to a restrictive ideological position. You ought to try it.
--yep, I never read anything else. Ever.
Then you may get brave enough to read some geopolitics from non Western sources which doesn't suffer from our specific Left or Right perspectives. The possibilities are only restricted by one's curiosity. Can be very liberating.
--and all your sources are surely objective and you have such a broad world view that only God outranks you in seeing things for how they "really are"
again, let me clue you in on something--you're feeding what you already believe. but please--prove me wrong. give me an example of a way you looked at a certain topic that was changed by something you read.
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/16/2009 @ 1:42pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 1:57pm
lrjones-You ought to follow your own advice rather than stroking your own ego.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/16/2009 @ 1:57pm
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/16/2009 @ 1:42pm | ignore this person | warn this person
well, croc...
i didn't go to the hippy masturbation and sundae party at the sex toy shop near the hippy university. was invited by an attractive young post modern hippy girl along with a few others...
but i had other commitments...must be getting old...
but how dare you read eclectively? lol...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/16/2009 @ 1:57pm
why did i put a question mark there?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/16/2009 @ 1:58pm
Posted by dont_know at 11/16/2009 @ 1:40pm
I do too! Do you take the E?
I'm a veteran too, I thought I mentioned that, most of the regulars around here know. (Iraq, 4ID) 11B baby!
My anti-special rights stand was meant to apply to both sides of the debate (as if there's only two side).
So I may have burdens to overcome, but not the one's you thought. And I agree, for the most part, with Peters, so we're on the same side, you and I, kind of.
Posted by gangpapist at 11/16/2009 @ 2:01pm
People who characterize every military action we take as motivated by hatred or "Islamophobia."
--who's characterized it to that extreme?
Who apologize for terrorists while claiming that our military are the "true terrorists."
--who's apologized for a terrorist?
Who defame those who simply acknowledge the abundantly evident truth that Maj. Hassan had jihadist aspirations as "Islamophobes."
--who's defamed?
Who despise traditional Christians for not being liberal enough but think Muslims can never be backward enough.
--so general a statement as to be without meaning. specify.
I don't know enough about you to know if you agree with any of that Lefty tripe.
--the "tripe" is your sterotypes of leftists.
People (left or right) who question what "victory" looks like in Afghanistan, or who advocate for withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, or who advocate for surgical strikes on AQ as the model for the WOT, minus occupations of countries, can certainly do so "patriotically."
--this is what's done here.
Posted by gangpapist at 11/16/2009 @ 1:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 2:01pm
t's an ugly world.
Posted by gangpapist at 11/16/2009 @ 1:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person
If that is all you look for, then you are probably right. I won't suggest that you ignore the ugliness, but if you look for the beauty, I know you will find that this is a beautiful world. And if you work towards enhancing the beauty rather than perpetuating the ugly, I think you will be a much happier person. FYI, one of the reasons that the Vietnamese beat us in Vietnam was due to their strategic principle of always turn a bad thing into a good thing. Just one example: After we bombed and defoliated much of the jungle along the Vietnam/Laotian border, the Vietnamese used these defoliated routes to build their new highways contributing to their post-war prosperity. They didn't just loose them selves in hatred and recrimination. What we all should be thinking about is how to turn the AfPac mess into something good for the region and good for ourselves. Otherwise ...
Posted by dont_know at 11/16/2009 @ 2:06pm
lrjones-If you were half as brilliant as you believe yourself to be then you would know that humans can read the same books,study the same subject, and still have vastly different views.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/16/2009 @ 2:11pm
"Love your enemies"
Jesus
Posted by jfair at 11/16/2009 @ 2:18pm
Posted by dont_know at 11/16/2009 @ 2:06pm
All through that long, hot mindfuck that was my 2006, I tried to grow, to become a better, kinder person, not to retreat into the coldness that I saw some my buddies embrace.
I know this sounds weird, but there was a whole clique of us that would come off mission, and gather in my pod to watch DVDs of the teenybopper show "The OC." Something about the self-made dramas of rich, beautiful kids. I tried to model myself after the "Seth Cohen" character, quintessential nice guy.
War is what it is, and I know that some American soldiers have committed atrocities, some are bad people to begin with. My unit was pretty fucking disciplined regarding ROE. I personally know that in at least one instance, I probably should have pulled the trigger but didn't.
Some guys in my unit were assholes and some mistreated civilians (no murder or rape), and I reported on them to my CO. I was harassed for that, over there, and even when we got back, but most of the guys came around to respecting what I did.
So you see, I do look for beauty in the world, and I try to do what's right, and I did so as an American soldier.
Posted by gangpapist at 11/16/2009 @ 2:25pm
gunslinger, I thought I might try again...
If we "leave things up to lilly-livered citizens, we'll would all be enslaved. " (Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/16/2009 @ 11:32am)....
obviously, you don't want them voting and controlling our public policy....do you?
Posted by Mask at 11/16/2009 @ 12:40pm
Posted by Mask at 11/16/2009 @ 2:29pm
So you see, I do look for beauty in the world, and I try to do what's right, and I did so as an American soldier.
Posted by gangpapist at 11/16/2009 @ 2:25pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Some here may not believe you but I will. Now you should try to understand why you were sent there in the first place. Not your ideas of why you were sent there, but what our leaders were really thinking when they sent you. I doubt that Dick Cheney had the same motivation as you or your buddies. And, as a guide, you might want to read Alfred Mccoy's The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia to learn why we were in Vietnam. It might lead you to a deeper understanding of why we are in AfPac.
http://www.amazon.com/politics-heroin-Southeast- Asia/dp/0060129018/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8& s=books&qid=1258403620&sr=8-1
Posted by dont_know at 11/16/2009 @ 2:36pm
I would also recommend that you read the Pentagon Papers to learn about the origins of the war and the phony Gulf of Tonkin incident staged by Skull & Bones. Not that I am suggesting that 9/11 was staged, but ...
Posted by dont_know at 11/16/2009 @ 2:39pm
"What a shock! The marxist CA Dem party is against defeating terrorism. What difference is there between these marxists and Code Pink or a Leslie Cagan?
They all hate this country _____________________________________
Nope, just hate that some scared, wimps think the military solution is the only solution to every problem. Boo!!!
Posted by TheAfterParty at 11/16/2009 @ 2:45pm
why did i put a question mark there?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/16/2009 @ 1:58pm
Your finger slipped on the keyboard?
My real complaint is that Ms D, to whom I was responding, did not acknowledge or more likely know just how economically powerful the US still is.
Living in this part of the world we are a little more in tune with America's role in this region. And one gets a different perspective on its importance economically and politically.
America's employment problems would not be solved if it withdrew from Iraq and Afghanistan right now, in fact they may well be exacerbated in the short to medium term.
Eclectic? Perhaps in the eye of the would be practitioner. But a narrow focus on issues and problems would seem to me about the best way to come up with inadequate solutions. Which in turn may lead one to feel broke, depressed and divided. BTW how are you feeling?
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/16/2009 @ 2:51pm
"When was FDR's New Deal repealed? I only wish it were so. We are more socialist than ever."
The country is run by corporate influence. How can you not know this? What is your education level? most of your comments seem like 3rd graders talking. Are you a child by any chance.
Posted by jobbo at 11/16/2009 @ 2:52pm
.....I am even a fiscal conservative.....
The war in Afghanistan cannot be "won"......
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/16/2009 @ 1:19pm
"even a fiscal conservative"......hmmmm......"even a fiscal conservative"......hmmmmm......"even a fiscal conservative"......
Sorry, don't buy it! No Magic supporter TODAY, can claim that with any credibility!
The Afghan War can be won, like ANY WAR we fight! NO country, or band of thugs, has ever defeated us......us withdrawing from the fights, is the only reason some of our wars aren't "won"!
Posted by Happy at 11/16/2009 @ 3:03pm
lrjones-Thank you for your kindly Australian advice,but we Americans have always brought ourselves out of a bad situation and back on top by fighting against one another within the limits of our narrow focus on issues..We don't feel depressed and divided.We love this fighting against one another.That's why we have done it since day one and why we keep flipping back and forth between the two sides in our govt..That's why we love blogs,politically slanted talking heads,the civil war,tea baggers,code pink,etc....If we ever did as you suggest we would fall apart and die.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/16/2009 @ 3:07pm
The Afghan War can be won, like ANY WAR we fight! NO country, or band of thugs, has ever defeated us......us withdrawing from the fights, is the only reason some of our wars aren't "won"!
Posted by Happy at 11/16/2009 @ 3:03pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Happy, I know you have been asked this many times. Perhaps this time you will give us a cogent answer. I am not asking for a cogent answer that is simply your opinion (we know you have one, everyone does) but one that really represents those who hold your viewpoints. What is victory in AfPac? What will we have won if we don't withdraw? How will we fight to achieve what you think we can win? Surely you must think that these questions should be asked before we escalate? Since no one, not even Dick Cheney, has answered these questions convincingly for the American public, perhaps you can do better?
Posted by dont_know at 11/16/2009 @ 3:11pm
What is victory in AfPac? What will we have won if we don't withdraw? How will we fight to achieve what you think we can win? Surely you must think that these questions should be asked before we escalate?
Posted by dont_know at 11/16/2009 @ 3:11pm
You need to ask those questions to President Magic, not me.
In case you don't know my full `profile'....about the only thing I support Magic on, is as CIC. I support whatever he decides to do....I know, I'm kinda old-fashioned....I believe we should be united on matters of war.
My only caveat is that the after effects of his decisions, are an improvement over what he inherited. So far, thinks aren't looking particularly Hopey, esp. in Afghanistan and what's worse, it's his Good War that he embraced even before the Election.
Hail to the Commander in Chief!
Posted by Happy at 11/16/2009 @ 3:26pm
again, let me clue you in on something--you're feeding what you already believe. but please--prove me wrong. give me an example of a way you looked at a certain topic that was changed by something you read.
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/16/2009 @ 1:42pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 1:57pm
Hmmm spoken like true ideologue raw material.
It doesn't work quite like that with the true eclectic gyro. They tend to be skeptics so they question all they read then the spice to the final brew is often some independent knowledge of the circumstance, event or analysis. It's not so much adopting either view but rather a synthesis of many sources. Dare I say it?... That implies the ability to think objectively. Have you got it?.
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/16/2009 @ 3:34pm
Happy, you didn't answer my questions but I now see that you can't. No problem. We all have our limitations. But your emotions are clear. You echo the often quoted misquote of Stephen Decatur in our first war against Moslem malefactors in 1816. What we hear most often is just "My country right or wrong". That seems to be your feelings. But you might look at the full quote: "Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong." There's that qualifying phrase -- 'may she always be in the right', that succeeds in taking any sting out of the concluding words. In truth, there's nothing at all of belligerence in this quotation. Nothing of war, or jingoism, or national superiority. It's a statement about ideals, about what our country should be, and what we have to do to make her so. BUT ONLY WHEN WE SAY OR READ THE FULL QUOTE. "May she always be in the right." Most Americans now believe we are not in the right in wars started by Bush and continued by Obama.
Posted by dont_know at 11/16/2009 @ 3:37pm
lrjones-How are we supposed to know if you are capable of thinking objectively?People who say they do that read the same thing and still have different views.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/16/2009 @ 3:38pm
Happy likes to "cover his bases" on such things as the war in Afghanistan-
"As long-time fans of mine know, I support whatever our magical CIC wants to do w/Afghanistan AS LONG AS he succeeds in leaving it better off than on the eve of 9/11/01. "----Posted by Happy at 08/26/2009 @ 09:42am
Feigns support for the President (CYA for charges of hypocrisy when it was Dubya), but inserts the caveat "better off than it was"....which he'd never grant, so he keeps getting to complain no matter what the outcome.
Posted by Mask at 11/16/2009 @ 3:42pm
True patriots don't invent phantom enemies to justify war. True patriots look for the deeper (economic) reasons for war rather than just knee-jerk chauvinism. You know, and most of the American people know according to the latest polls, that AfPac is not necessary nor prudent nor patriotic. True patriots know that war should be limited not permanent. True patriots care about our troops and veterans and don't leave them to languish in poverty and sickness. So take heart, urmygyro, you know who the true patriots are who blog here at The Nation. Posted by dont_know at 11/16/2009 @ 1:27pm
you got out of the military only to be brainwashed by the America hating left. What caused you to turn against your country?
Posted by antisocialist at 11/16/2009 @ 3:50pm
lrjones-You guys that portray yourselves as brilliant rarely say something that I would consider to be new information.I admit to being a poor student who fried half their brain cells on drugs and alcohol.You guys will have to try to sound smarter or use bigger words because you're not impressive.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/16/2009 @ 3:51pm
"When was FDR's New Deal repealed? I only wish it were so. We are more socialist than ever."
The country is run by corporate influence. How can you not know this? What is your education level? most of your comments seem like 3rd graders talking. Are you a child by any chance.
Posted by jobbo at 11/16/2009 @ 2:52pm
Try answering the question. What from FDR's New Deal has been repealed?
Corp run-leftist BS
And to your question, I have degrees in History and Theology and I'm 60 years old.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/16/2009 @ 3:55pm
Hey Gunny, Darla loves this country as much as you do, so STFU about whether Darla smokes or not, it not pertinent to the conversation, and you are a jerk!
Posted by Denise29 at 11/16/2009 @ 3:58pm
Hmmm spoken like true ideologue raw material.
--you like to use 5 words when you could use 1. you're one of those types.
It doesn't work quite like that with the true eclectic gyro.
--"eclectic" must mean you're better!
They tend to be skeptics so they question all they read then the spice to the final brew is often some independent knowledge of the circumstance, event or analysis.
--i'm accused by people who know me in real life of being too skeptical.
It's not so much adopting either view but rather a synthesis of many sources.
--"synthesis" is one of those fruity, wishy-washy words...
Dare I say it?... That implies the ability to think objectively.
--no such thing.
Have you got it?.
--you don't have it either. you've deluded yourself into thinking you do. but you're just an interweb diddler, like everyone else.
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/16/2009 @ 3:34pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 3:58pm
you got out of the military only to be brainwashed by the America hating left. What caused you to turn against your country? Posted by antisocialist at 11/16/2009 @ 3:50pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--larry, why do you hate freedom of opinion?
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 4:01pm
Feigns support for the President....but inserts the caveat "better off than it was"....which he'd never grant, so he keeps getting to complain no matter what the outcome.
Posted by Mask at 11/16/2009 @ 3:42pm
Taking the typical Lib stand where only your `support' for things Magic is genuine and not a conservative?
Isn't that just typical? i.e....ONLY a Lib or Demo or black can be `real' Magic supporters. Given the polls, there aren't that many `real' supporters left, huh? LOL!!
Posted by Happy at 11/16/2009 @ 4:03pm
Hey Gunny, Darla loves this country as much as you do, so STFU about whether Darla smokes or not, it not pertinent to the conversation, and you are a jerk!
Posted by Denise29 at 11/16/2009 @ 3:58pm
I've never seen Darla post one positive comment about the US
Posted by antisocialist at 11/16/2009 @ 4:05pm
you got out of the military only to be brainwashed by the America hating left. What caused you to turn against your country? Posted by antisocialist at 11/16/2009 @ 3:50pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--larry, why do you hate freedom of opinion?
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 4:01pm
You misunderstand the nature of my comment. I'm directing it towards what causes someone who served their country in the military to be so hateful towards it.
You may think my conclusion is wrong, but then you are coming against my own freedom of opinion
Posted by antisocialist at 11/16/2009 @ 4:06pm
Taking the typical Lib stand where only your `support' for things Magic is genuine and not a conservative? Isn't that just typical? i.e....ONLY a Lib or Demo or black can be `real' Magic supporters. Given the polls, there aren't that many `real' supporters left, huh? LOL!! Posted by Happy at 11/16/2009 @ 4:03pm | ignore this person |
--either way one interprets Mask's statement about your support of the President the truth remains that you haven't stated what you think "victory" means.
No timetables, no exit strategy--just endless war--you support that. It's sad you hide behind a cop out.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 4:08pm
Happy, you didn't answer my questions...
Posted by dont_know at 11/16/2009 @ 3:37pm
Your questions aren't worth my time. Besides, Magic has all the answers...that's what I meant, in case you don't get it.
Foreign policy is something the average Joe just don't have enough info. to weigh in on. There are lots of secret `arrangements' or `deals' or what have you....and besides, whatever decisions are made by the POTUS, tend not to affect Americans in a direct way anytime soon.
While you "don't_know" much, if anything, I have the benefit of age and I do know what happened after the VN War and Reagan's withdrawal from Lebanon.....and the aftereffects lingered for a long, long, long time...some of which, we are still impacted by (see MidEast mess).
Posted by Happy at 11/16/2009 @ 4:09pm
Ya, lrjones4 likes to stroke himself.
Posted by Denise29 at 11/16/2009 @ 4:10pm
It's sad you hide behind a cop out.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 4:08pm
If you say so.....guess I am hiding in plain sight, right behind Magic.
Posted by Happy at 11/16/2009 @ 4:10pm
Let's be HAPPY today!
Stocks hit a year high and also 13-month high....and gold sets another record....
Thanks to BHO....as long as he wants to inflate assets and depreciates the US Dollar, we're game!
Posted by Happy at 11/16/2009 @ 4:12pm
you got out of the military only to be brainwashed by the America hating left. What caused you to turn against your country?
Posted by antisocialist at 11/16/2009 @ 3:50pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--larry, why do you hate freedom of opinion?
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 4:01pm
You misunderstand the nature of my comment. I'm directing it towards what causes someone who served their country in the military to be so hateful towards it. You may think my conclusion is wrong, but then you are coming against my own freedom of opinion
Posted by antisocialist at 11/16/2009 @ 4:06pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--you're accusing him of being "brainwashed." he has a negative opinion about this war. it doesn't mean he hates the country or the military.
by your rationale you're brainwashed by your religion.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 4:14pm
It's sad you hide behind a cop out. Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 4:08pm If you say so.....guess I am hiding in plain sight, right behind Magic. Posted by Happy at 11/16/2009 @ 4:10pm | ignore this person |
--yes, I say so. You criticize endlessly when it comes to financial affairs. you have no shortage of opinions of what the goals should be and how to achieve them in that arena.
but when it comes to war--you defer, as if you can't formulate an opinion. por favor.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 4:16pm
Foreign policy is something the average Joe just don't have enough info. to weigh in on. There are lots of secret `arrangements' or `deals' or what have you....and besides, whatever decisions are made by the POTUS, tend not to affect Americans in a direct way anytime soon.
Posted by Happy at 11/16/2009 @ 4:09pm | ignore this person |
--the same can be said of government at home; and wall street, etc. COP OUT.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 4:17pm
Let's be HAPPY today! Stocks hit a year high and also 13-month high....and gold sets another record.... Thanks to BHO....as long as he wants to inflate assets and depreciates the US Dollar, we're game! Posted by Happy at 11/16/2009 @ 4:12pm | ignore this person |
--how many times you gonna post the same thing? truly, no one cares about your stock portfolio
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 4:18pm
The Afghan War can be won, like ANY WAR we fight! NO country, or band of thugs, has ever defeated us......us withdrawing from the fights, is the only reason some of our wars aren't "won"!
Posted by Happy at 11/16/2009 @ 3:03pm | ignore this person | warn this person
As long as there aren't TOO many guys like "Dick" Cheney who end up having "other priorities",...
... when things get a little too warm.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/16/2009 @ 4:24pm
....truly, no one cares about your stock portfolio
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 4:18pm
I don't much car for all of your opinions on WAR! So, we're even!
The Inconvenient Truth for you and Libs generally, is how my stock portfolio, and maybe even yours, affect the broader economy AND JOBS, far, far, more than what Magic does with his favorite war.
Posted by Happy at 11/16/2009 @ 4:50pm
--how many times you gonna post the same thing?
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 4:18pm
BTW, it's NOT the "same thing" when ones' investments hit new highs!
Speaking of "same thing", as an observer of lots of "same things" here on the MidShitEast....all of your arguments are repeats as well. Nothing new....and I'm sure, 20 years from now, will still be about the same. But, hopefully, my `stuff' will set more and more HIGHs......LOL!
Posted by Happy at 11/16/2009 @ 4:56pm
While you "don't_know" much, if anything, I have the benefit of age and I do know what happened after the VN War and Reagan's withdrawal from Lebanon.....and the aftereffects lingered for a long, long, long time...some of which, we are still impacted by (see MidEast mess).
Posted by Happy at 11/16/2009 @ 4:09pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Since I don't know much of anything and do not have the benefit of age (I am only 63) please tell me what happened after the VN War and Reagan's withdrawal from Lebanon, the lingering aftereffects that we are still impacted by. I enjoy reading your convolutions and conflicting opinions. You are more fun than Limbaugh or Beck or Bachmann. I just hope you don't burst a blood vessel in your brain. Please go easy.
Posted by dont_know at 11/16/2009 @ 4:56pm
As long as there aren't TOO many guys like "Dick" Cheney who end up having "other priorities",...
... when things get a little too warm.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/16/2009 @ 4:24pm
If Israel attacks Iran, you think our "priorities" need some changing? or How about Venezuela attacks Columbia? North Korea attacks SK?
With Cheney's blessing, of course!
Posted by Happy at 11/16/2009 @ 4:57pm
Please go easy.
Posted by dont_know at 11/16/2009 @ 4:56pm
I will.....by skipping your Qs altogether.
At 63 and yet, you "don't_know", guess you can stay that way or come back with a more worthy nic!
Posted by Happy at 11/16/2009 @ 4:59pm
At 63 and yet, you "don't_know", guess you can stay that way or come back with a more worthy nic!
Posted by Happy at 11/16/2009 @ 4:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Sorry my questions annoy you. I come to these blogs because I don't know everything and have much to learn even from those whose opinions annoy me. But there is always an exception to any rule, and I have yet to learn anything substantive from you. I doubt anyone else has either. I won't bother you, specifically, any more with "Qs". I could get more information from a rock. But I will keep reading your funny tirades. You are even more hilarious than Glen Beck.
Posted by dont_know at 11/16/2009 @ 5:07pm
....truly, no one cares about your stock portfolio
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 4:18pm
I don't much car for all of your opinions on WAR! So, we're even!
--this thread's about war. you use it as a pretext to brag about your passive earnings.
The Inconvenient Truth for you and Libs generally, is how my stock portfolio, and maybe even yours, affect the broader economy AND JOBS, far, far, more than what Magic does with his favorite war.
--your favorite war, you mean.
Posted by Happy at 11/16/2009 @ 4:50pm | ignore this person |
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 5:08pm
Let's be HAPPY today! Stocks hit a year high and also 13-month high....and gold sets another record....
Thanks to BHO....as long as he wants to inflate assets and depreciates the US Dollar, we're game!
Posted by Happy at 11/16/2009 @ 4:12pm
both the pimp and the prostitute ultimately must face their demise.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/16/2009 @ 5:09pm
--how many times you gonna post the same thing?
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 4:18pm
BTW, it's NOT the "same thing" when ones' investments hit new highs!
--sure it is--it's you bragging about your passive income. boring.
Speaking of "same thing", as an observer of lots of "same things" here on the MidShitEast....all of your arguments are repeats as well.
--no they're not. lame.
Nothing new....and I'm sure, 20 years from now, will still be about the same. But, hopefully, my `stuff' will set more and more HIGHs......LOL!
--i used "lame" too early--should have saved it for your "gem" of a joke.
Posted by Happy at 11/16/2009 @ 4:56pm | ignore this person |
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 5:11pm
The Afghan War can be won, like ANY WAR we fight! NO country, or band of thugs, has ever defeated us......us withdrawing from the fights, is the only reason some of our wars aren't "won"!
Posted by Happy at 11/16/2009 @ 3:03pm
OK, Happy - so tell me what victory in Afghanistan looks like? Pretty simply question, right?
Oh, and btw, we lost Vietnam...and Korea was never decided, either...that's just two wars in the past century we haven't "won."
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/16/2009 @ 5:18pm
--you're accusing him of being "brainwashed." he has a negative opinion about this war. it doesn't mean he hates the country or the military.
by your rationale you're brainwashed by your religion.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 4:14pm
When someone like Don't Know has served in the military and yet know takes a position that is contrary to that of most active and military veterans, something dramatic has happened to his thought processes. When I read his posts and they are straight out of the anti-war left talking points, that suggests either brainwashed or manipulated.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/16/2009 @ 5:27pm
When someone like Don't Know has served in the military and yet know takes a position that is contrary to that of most active and military veterans, something dramatic has happened to his thought processes. When I read his posts and they are straight out of the anti-war left talking points, that suggests either brainwashed or manipulated. Posted by antisocialist at 11/16/2009 @ 5:27pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--not everyone in the military is lockstep in thought process and belief. "most" does not equal everyone.
and it's amusing to hear a religious nut talk about others being "brainwashed." irony writ large.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 5:40pm
"Iraq, apart from the other good outcomes has stabilised the ME. "
What? Stabilized Israel-Palestine? No. Stabilized Afghanistan? No. Stabilized Pakistan? No.
In the case of Afghanistan, the key element is what is now the fundamental illegitimacy of the Karzai government. He never had much power, got cozy with other non-Pashtun warlords and just stole an election.
You can't win hearts-and-minds with a government that the people of that country don't regard as legitimate. I'm inclined to think that Biden is right, that we need a counterterrorist strategy rather than a COIN one. Nothing precludes us from striking at al-Qaida targets on the Af-Pak border.
Posted by brunowe at 11/16/2009 @ 5:52pm
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 5:40pm
You never served. I don't expect you to understand the sense of duty to G-d and country that one develops in the military. But a certain small percentage go in the direction of Don't Know. But they are a very tiny percentage compared to the 10s of millions who served and carry a far different attitude.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/16/2009 @ 5:52pm
Which in turn may lead one to feel broke, depressed and divided. BTW how are you feeling?
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/16/2009 @ 2:51pm | ignore this person | warn this person
thanks for asking. broke, anxious, depressed...putting everything on the line for this business and jumping off a cliff with no safety net, no strings attached. flapping my wings furiously...
strange, the anxiety is not so bad - when i was secure and relatively safe i had anxiety attacks all the time - bad ones too...
now that i'm in real peril and living on the edge...the anxiety is still there, i guess, but...not like it was when i was safe and sound...
what kind of a sociopath does that make me, eh? right now the biggest hurdle is keeping my boot firmly planted in my technically brilliant partner's posterior and keeping him from being distracted/pissing people off.
some men are best sent far afield and left alone amongst barbarians rocks and wind...
but i'm quite faithful all will work out and profit will result. the suffering gives it all so much meaning...
yeah though - LOTS AND LOTS of wealth here waiting to be invested. investors want some security, though, and i'm confident that the gubbamint's backing now is long term and real and that does help squeeze some $$$$ out of folks. like i say - they WANT to invest in something good - all the more now, in fact - but it must create real wealth, not just redistribute it or create ponzibubble crap.
wish my luck, croc...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/16/2009 @ 5:56pm
You never served. I don't expect you to understand the sense of duty to G-d and country that one develops in the military. But a certain small percentage go in the direction of Don't Know. But they are a very tiny percentage compared to the 10s of millions who served and carry a far different attitude.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/16/2009 @ 5:52pm
And yet a larger proportion of the active duty military voted for Obama than McCain, and while McCain won the overall military vote, Obama got more of it than any other Dem in recent memory.
Why is that Larry? Are there more soldiers in the active ranks who are not as devoted as you to god and country? Are they being brainwashed as we speak? Or perhaps they are just tired of fighting two stupid wars....
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/16/2009 @ 5:58pm
And yet a larger proportion of the active duty military voted for Obama than McCain, and while McCain won the overall military vote, Obama got more of it than any other Dem in recent memory.
Why is that Larry? Are there more soldiers in the active ranks who are not as devoted as you to god and country? Are they being brainwashed as we speak? Or perhaps they are just tired of fighting two stupid wars....
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/16/2009 @ 5:58pm
Your point is irrelevant. Obama campaigned on expanding the war in Afghanistan which Don't Know is railing against.
And has Obama pulled out of Iraq? Most of us vets and active duty military knew that once in office, the responsibilities of CIC would outweigh the pressure from the left when it comes to completing military actions.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/16/2009 @ 6:05pm
You never served. I don't expect you to understand the sense of duty to G-d and country that one develops in the military. But a certain small percentage go in the direction of Don't Know. But they are a very tiny percentage compared to the 10s of millions who served and carry a far different attitude. Posted by antisocialist at 11/16/2009 @ 5:52pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--if that's your rationale than anything you're not a part of you can't understand.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 6:08pm
Try answering the question. What from FDR's New Deal has been repealed?
Posted by antisocialist at 11/16/2009 @ 3:55pm
The WPA.
http://www.indiana.edu/~liblilly/wpa/wpa_info.html
Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/16/2009 @ 6:15pm
With Cheney's blessing, of course!
Posted by Happy at 11/16/2009 @ 4:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person
In which case, it would probably be doomed to failure.
Or, perhaps, an all-too-premature, and embarassing, "mission accomplished."
LOL
Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/16/2009 @ 6:22pm
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/16/2009 @ 5:58pm
Your point is irrelevant. Obama campaigned on expanding the war in Afghanistan which Don't Know is railing against.
And has Obama pulled out of Iraq? Most of us vets and active duty military knew that once in office, the responsibilities of CIC would outweigh the pressure from the left when it comes to completing military actions.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/16/2009 @ 6:05pm | ignore this person | warn this person
SC1: No point going back-n-forth with our friend Larry in this genre.
To Larry, ALL war is still a left and right thing, like in the good old days, when we had the "evil empire" and such.
Unless, of course, you accept the construct that, somehow, guys like Pat Buchanan and George "cleanest white dress shirt in town" Will are, well, on the "left".
No doubt, to some on this blog, they are now considered to be.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/16/2009 @ 6:27pm
And, as to the WPA, a thanks to Diego Rivera--your industrial mural at the Detroit Institute of Arts has been enjoyed by generations.
Thanks Diego.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/16/2009 @ 6:40pm
I just wonder why all the tough guys on this site aren't over in Afghanistan, slinging guns for democracy so us "lily livered" liberals don't have to. Really. Please go fight. You want this war.... go fight in it. You glorify killing? Go get busy. What are you waiting for? What are you doing typing comments on a Web forum? That's not going to kill any Taliban. And it sure won't make the country safer.
Come on, tough guys. Arm up. Show us pansies what you got. Send photos back from the front. We await your many victories.
Posted by Citizen54 at 11/16/2009 @ 6:46pm
I just wonder why all the tough guys on this site aren't over in Afghanistan, slinging guns for democracy so us "lily livered" liberals don't have to. Really. Please go fight. You want this war.... go fight in it. You glorify killing? Go get busy. What are you waiting for? What are you doing typing comments on a Web forum? That's not going to kill any Taliban. And it sure won't make the country safer. Come on, tough guys. Arm up. Show us pansies what you got. Send photos back from the front. We await your many victories. Posted by Citizen54 at 11/16/2009 @ 6:46pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--or, if you're too old to fight, donate all of your disposable income to the troops and the weapons makers. if "islamo-fascism" is truly a threat to our very existence, what's with the half-ass approach? put your money where your mouth is.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 6:56pm
if you want other people's taxes to pay for what you find important...you just might be a, gasp, SOCIALIST!
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 6:59pm
....this thread's about war. you use it as a pretext to brag about your passive earnings.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 5:08pm
And just how many Nation threads there have been about "war"?
Don't you see a pattern? We all have them you know.
TN's writers write about their gripes-and yes, it's the same old, same old-and you folks pipe up with YOUR same old, same old. My side then pipe in with our same old, same old.
Me? When the HAPPY mood hits me, rather often of late, I drop in some HAPPY financial goodies on the assumption many others share my HAPPINESS, even if not to the same extent.......HAHAHAHA!
Of course, I could be mistaken and all the Libs, you know, those who gripe for FUN or for a living writing about "overwhelmingly ordinary" woman like Palin, have got your money buried in the back yard....LOL!
Man, Let's Roll!
Posted by Happy at 11/16/2009 @ 7:10pm
.....i'm confident that the gubbamint's backing now is long term and real and that does help squeeze some $$$$ out of folks. like i say - they WANT to invest in something good - all the more now, in fact - but it must create real wealth, not just redistribute it or create ponzibubble crap.
wish my luck, croc...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/16/2009 @ 5:56pm
You can try to impart that confidence in "gubbamint's backing" to the investors. BUT, don't believe it and most certainly, don't bank on it.
Gubber backing is the worst of all backings, but it certainly is better than nothing. You will find a lot of strings and a lot of forms to complete!
When OPEC believes its resource base is under serious threat from alternative energies, likely near the point of maximum subsidies by various Gubbers, it will drop the price of oil down to something like $40~$50/bbl and keep it there for a few years or for decade+.
Imagine the consequences.......many economies will boom from the large drop in energy prices, but will the US continue dumping money into `green' energy at 5~10 times that of fossil-fuel?
Posted by Happy at 11/16/2009 @ 7:21pm
OK, Happy - so tell me what victory in Afghanistan looks like? Pretty simply question, right?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/16/2009 @ 5:18pm
For "victory" in Afghanistan, see Magic's March rationale for sending in 17,000 troops, or, some of his pre-election `How to Win' bromides. Sure sounded to me like he had "victory" in mind.
Posted by Happy at 11/16/2009 @ 7:25pm
And just how many Nation threads there have been about "war"? Don't you see a pattern? We all have them you know. TN's writers write about their gripes-and yes, it's the same old, same old-and you folks pipe up with YOUR same old, same old. My side then pipe in with our same old, same old. Me? When the HAPPY mood hits me, rather often of late, I drop in some HAPPY financial goodies on the assumption many others share my HAPPINESS, even if not to the same extent.......HAHAHAHA! Of course, I could be mistaken and all the Libs, you know, those who gripe for FUN or for a living writing about "overwhelmingly ordinary" woman like Palin, have got your money buried in the back yard....LOL! Man, Let's Roll! Posted by Happy at 11/16/2009 @ 7:10pm | ignore this person |
--see--more pretext to brag of your passive earnings.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 7:29pm
"There's no way you can spend five years of your life being deployed in Iraq and be a normal human being when you come back to the United States. You're pretty far gone by that time."
Seth Manzel, an Iraqi veteran
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/16/2009 @ 7:35pm
Posted by Citizen54 at 11/16/2009 @ 6:46pm
Well I'd like to agree but come to think of it I'm for robust 80-20 aide/ development: security, but not exactly walking the talk, far from the action myself. West coast of Panama has zero Taliban...
Posted by winyahn at 11/16/2009 @ 7:36pm
"Most of us vets and active duty military knew that once in office, the responsibilities of CIC would outweigh the pressure from the left when it comes to completing military actions"
and what about the pressure from george will? or, is he now on "the left"?
Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2009 @ 7:40pm
Try answering the question. What from FDR's New Deal has been repealed?
Posted by antisocialist at 11/16/2009 @ 3:55pm
The WPA.
http://www.indiana.edu/~liblilly/wpa/wpa_info.html
Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/16/2009 @ 6:15pm
Nice try, but no cigar.
The WPA was never repealed. It simply ran it's course and ended in the 1940's.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/16/2009 @ 7:41pm
"Most of us vets and active duty military knew that once in office, the responsibilities of CIC would outweigh the pressure from the left when it comes to completing military actions"
and what about the pressure from george will? or, is he now on "the left"?
Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2009 @ 7:40pm
Really? How much pressure do you think Obama feels from an isolated non supporter? Somewhere between zilch and nada.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/16/2009 @ 7:44pm
50 years of the good fight (475921943455 spewings), the one, only, the REV!
Posted by winyahn at 11/16/2009 @ 7:58pm
Obviously we want to continue exerting pressure on Iran.So we sit on their borders.I just wonder if all the old soldiers thought they were fighting to prop up crooks that would sell you out at the drop of a hat.If so,why the Afghans?To help out the Pakistani's who let Bin Laden slip away. I think veterans have more pride in what they did and their pals that died doing it.Santi it is just a matter of shifting sands that the war against a real enemy will start. I hope we are ready and not in a spot we can't maneuver out of . I think of Batista and what happened in Cuba.We are doing it now.If it is a military exercise than so be it.What I mean is, this is not Angola and not a mercenaries war. Why do I have the impression this is a war for profit. We have a great professional military so use them and not mercenaries for profit.
Posted by whatozz at 11/16/2009 @ 8:11pm
...brag of your passive earnings.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 7:29pm
You're a newbie.....I do more than "brag"...like Peter Lynch (ex-Magellan Fund ads of old), I also impart secrets of why I get to "brag"....here's something to read the Magic leaves by:
Let the Private Sector Create Jobs
By Peter Schiff 11/16/09 - 12:03 PM EST
.....for one person or company to choose to offer a job to another, there must be an incentive to do so, and they must have the necessary capital....employers must commit to paying wages and benefits, comply with government mandates and regulations, and subject themselves to potential lawsuits from disgruntled employees. All of these costs must be measured against the extra profits an employer hopes to earn by hiring an additional worker.
If profit opportunities exist, jobs will be created. Otherwise, they will not. Of course, anything the government does to raise the cost of employment, such as a higher minimum wage, mandated heath care, or greater regulatory burdens, not only prevents new jobs from being created but also causes many that already exist to be destroyed.
Anything that diminishes the profit potential of extra hiring will diminish the number of job opportunities that are created. Also, since it is after-tax profits against which employers measure risk, the higher the marginal rate of income tax, the less likely employers will be able to hire. Finally, in order to hire workers, employers must have access to capital to expand operations. Anything the government does to discourage capital formation automatically diminishes job creation. By running the largest federal deficits in history, Obama is diverting all available capital to the Treasury, and is in effect waging a war against private capital formation...
Posted by Happy at 11/16/2009 @ 8:26pm
http://www.answers.com/topic/works-progress-administration
Evolution and termination
During 1940, the WPA changed policy and began vocational educational training of the unemployed to make them available for factory jobs. Previously, labor unions had vetoed any proposal to provide new skills. Unemployment ended with the beginning of war production for World War II, so Congress terminated the WPA during late 1943.
I can find no evidence of a sunset provision where it went out of existence on its own.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/16/2009 @ 8:28pm
Really? How much pressure do you think Obama feels from an isolated non supporter? Somewhere between zilch and nada.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/16/2009 @ 7:44pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I'm relieved,then, to find that these isolated non-supporters are so irrelevant, given that they get weekly televised platforms coast-to-coast.
Can't imagine why the networks are spending so.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/16/2009 @ 8:32pm
I gotta agree with those who say that the warmongers ought to go fight these wars themselves. Go on...get over there and fight the Taliban. Good luck!
Why are we fighting the Taliban anyway?
Posted by notsleepy at 11/16/2009 @ 8:35pm
OPEN LETTER FROM THE PEACE MOVEMENT TO PRESIDENT OBAMA ON HIS UPCOMING DECISION REGARDING THE AFGHAN WAR Dear Mr. President: According to press reports, you intend to decide, sometime in November, whether or not to send tens of thousands of American soldiers to Afghanistan. We are writing in advance of that decision to add our voice to those of Sen. Feingold, many House Democrats, and of a clear majority of Americans in urging you not to escalate this war, but rather to announce an immediate cease-fire followed by a withdrawal of all US troops in the fastest way consistent with the safety of our forces. We urge you to end the policy of using Predator drones to assassinate Pakistani civilians on the territory of their own country, in defiance of all concepts of international law. We also call upon you to cease all covert CIA and Pentagon operations in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran.
No vital American interest is at stake in Afghanistan. Former Marine and State Department official Matthew Hoh is right: the US and NATO forces in Afghanistan have come to be viewed as invaders and occupiers, and the resistance they encounter has nothing to do with international terrorism. This war is futile, and now doomed to failure.
Posted by LaurieDobson at 11/16/2009 @ 8:54pm
There is no military solution to the problems that beset Afghanistan. Afghanistan and the rest of this tragically war-torn region need a Marshall Plan of peaceful economic development, through which some of the 15 million unemployed workers in our own country could find productive jobs. We have no confidence in the advice being given to you by military leaders like Gen. McChrystal, who has been implicated in torture in Iraq.
Many of us supported your candidacy because we viewed you as the best chance for ending the wars of the Bush era. We applauded your rejection of the rhetoric of fear and division that was the stock in trade of Bush and Cheney. We are alarmed by the way that rhetoric has crept into your public pronouncements since your August address in Phoenix. Your decision on Afghanistan will represent the decisive turning point of your presidency. If you turn away from war, you will provide a profile in courage that will solidify your support and open up a new perspective for progressive reforms in our country. You will honor the spirit of John F. Kennedy, who was searching for an exit strategy from the Vietnam war. If you opt for a wider war, the resulting heavy casualties will destroy confidence in your leadership among your own most devoted advocates. Hundreds of billions of dollars will be poured down a rat hole, and will no longer be available for any reform and renovation of American society, which will increasingly fall behind the economic strength of other countries. Your domestic agenda will be halted, in the same way your predecessor Lyndon B. Johnson was crippled by the Vietnam war. Escalation of the Afghan war, in short, would be an act of political suicide for you, and of national suicide for our country.
Posted by LaurieDobson at 11/16/2009 @ 8:57pm
The Federal Works Agency, which was the parent agency of the Work Projects Administration, was later abolished by act of June 30, 1949 (63 Stat. 380, 40 U.S.C. 753), and its functions were transferred to the General Services Administration.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification
Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/16/2009 @ 8:57pm
We are keenly aware of the difficulties and animosities you face, and we have long done everything possible to give your administration the benefit of the doubt, even in the face of repeated disappointments. But we now approach the moment of truth: will you be a great progressive president, or will you prove too weak to turn away from the bankrupt policies institutionalized and entrenched under Bush and Cheney. Therefore, we want you to know our attitude before you decide on the proposed Afghan escalation. If you choose to escalate, we will oppose this policy with all the energy we possess. We will act to mobilize the largest possible anti-war demonstration in Washington DC and other cities before the end of 2009, and continuously thereafter. We will support anti-war candidates of any party in the 2010 elections. If you are still waging the Afghan war in 2011, we will be forced to seriously consider backing an explicitly anti-war primary candidate to challenge you during the Democratic primaries.
We therefore respectfully urge you to act in the spirit of your 2008 campaign – the spirit of hope and change, neither of which can survive the continuation or expansion of the hopeless Afghan war.
Signed by the following anti-war organizations and peace activists:
Posted by LaurieDobson at 11/16/2009 @ 8:57pm
Laurie Dobson, Cynthia McKinney, Herb Hoffman, Bruce Marshall, Sue Serpa, Harold Trainer, Prof. William R. Woodward, Cynthia Papermaster, Carol Wolman, MD, Amy Harlib, Kevin Barrett, Pat Westwater-Jong, Barry Aleshnick, Denise Pentilla, Leslie Bell, Cpt. Ron Fisher US Navy (retired), Emily Peyton, Jerry Call, Helmut Becker, Ellen Brown, Michele Thomas, Marian Galbraith, Pamela Allee, Sean Mulligan, Lynne Williams, Jamilla El-Shafei, Mike Hammer, John Hazard, Bob Smith, Leslee Goodman, Charles Feldman, Alan McConnell, Lee Loe, Suzanne Hedrick, Chris Fried, Beverly Harris, Renay Davis, Wren Osborn, Dan Dewalt, Gail Mitchell, Nancy J M White, Duane C. Suess, Charlotte Dennett, Jon King, David Diamond, James Shaffer-Bauck, Gernot Schenk, Elaine Brower, Jon Olson, Lynn Chong, Kathy Cummings, Kurt Daims, Harold Burbank, Mathis Chiroux. [as of 11/16/2009]
This is a letter in four parts. Please contact lauriegdobson@ yahoo.com for more info and to be put on the mailing list and to endorse the letter. Please post it now to your lists. Thank you.
Posted by LaurieDobson at 11/16/2009 @ 8:59pm
The Federal Works Agency, which was the parent agency of the Work Projects Administration, was later abolished by act of June 30, 1949 (63 Stat. 380, 40 U.S.C. 753), and its functions were transferred to the General Services Administration.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification
Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/16/2009 @ 8:57pm
So, it wasn't repealed, it merely had it's functions transferred to another authority.
There was no Congression or Presidential repeal
Posted by antisocialist at 11/16/2009 @ 9:20pm
It's almost like an Ann Coulter parody:
"Surrender now great Satan!" say CA's Democrats.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/16/2009 @ 9:35pm
There was no Congression or Presidential repeal
Posted by antisocialist at 11/16/2009 @ 9:20pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Yes. Congress repealed the authority for the existence of the WPA by affirmatively doing away with its parent agency.
I am talking only about the existence of the WPA, as the WPA.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/16/2009 @ 9:47pm
"Really? How much pressure do you think Obama feels from an isolated non supporter? Somewhere between zilch and nada"
you claimed that obama was only feeling pressure from "the left", whereas in reality, there are those on the right who are opposed to escalation of troops, one of whom is george will. and there are others like him, and over 1/2 the country is opposed to escalation.
again, your views are not mainstream.
Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2009 @ 9:59pm
...brag of your passive earnings. Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 7:29pm
You're a newbie.....
--no i'm not. i've been reading/posting here just short of a decade.
I do more than "brag"...
--no you don't.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 10:06pm
I do more than "brag"...
--no you don't.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 10:06pm
Do I ever "brag" about my love of Magic? or of MASK? or of Nichols? or Pork Bill? or Scozzi?
You are losing credibility by skulking!
This is bragging: I'm up almost 30% for YTD and, that's with still 15% sitting in cash yielding 0.06% to 0.45% (in fact, I just got done staring at those sums and wondering & wondering)..... I started the year at 30%+ in cash! More: I am within a good week of retracing back to my all-time high achieved in mid-2007....now, that's an ECONOMIC RECOVERY the HAPPY way!
BTW, you are HAPPY for me, right?
LOL!
Posted by Happy at 11/16/2009 @ 10:30pm
Oh, urmy....something else you had said some hours ago...
You said I make "passive income"....by IRS rules, of course you're correct since I am not a SEC-licensed securities dealer. However, let me assure you one doesn't generate market-beating returns by being "passive"...and I am only now talking about the financials.
In real estate, it's equally ridiculous how the IRS rates my rental income as "passive".
Hehehehe....guess I am Passively HAPPY!
Posted by Happy at 11/16/2009 @ 10:37pm
I do more than "brag"... --no you don't. Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 10:06pm Do I ever "brag" about my love of Magic? or of MASK? or of Nichols? or Pork Bill? or Scozzi? You are losing credibility by skulking! This is bragging: I'm up almost 30% for YTD and, that's with still 15% sitting in cash yielding 0.06% to 0.45% (in fact, I just got done staring at those sums and wondering & wondering)..... I started the year at 30%+ in cash! More: I am within a good week of retracing back to my all-time high achieved in mid-2007....now, that's an ECONOMIC RECOVERY the HAPPY way! BTW, you are HAPPY for me, right? LOL! Posted by Happy at 11/16/2009 @ 10:30pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--right, you don't spend your time here bragging about your passive income. you don't ever do that.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 10:51pm
Oh, urmy....something else you had said some hours ago... You said I make "passive income"....by IRS rules, of course you're correct since I am not a SEC-licensed securities dealer. However, let me assure you one doesn't generate market-beating returns by being "passive"...and I am only now talking about the financials. In real estate, it's equally ridiculous how the IRS rates my rental income as "passive". Hehehehe....guess I am Passively HAPPY! Posted by Happy at 11/16/2009 @ 10:37pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--the income you brag about here is passive. you don't work for it. you invest in it.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 10:54pm
you don't work for it. you invest in it.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 10:54pm
What I do isn't much different than what most Wall St. does, no? They get paid as "work", no?
The key difference is I am `playing' with my own money....and believe me, it's a BIG difference.
Wall St. is like the Gubbers in one huge respect........overwhelmingly, they are playing with others' money...though there are real personal investments mixed in for the top guns, like a Buffet or Sorros.
Posted by Happy at 11/16/2009 @ 11:02pm
you don't work for it. you invest in it. Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 10:54pm What I do isn't much different than what most Wall St. does, no? They get paid as "work", no? The key difference is I am `playing' with my own money....and believe me, it's a BIG difference. Wall St. is like the Gubbers in one huge respect........overwhelmingly, they are playing with others' money...though there are real personal investments mixed in for the top guns, like a Buffet or Sorros. Posted by Happy at 11/16/2009 @ 11:02pm | ignore this person |
--they don't work for it either. it's passive. if everyone in the world's only "job" was what you do we'd starve. investing in gold is not "work"
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 11:06pm
Oh, urmyyyyyyyyy.....
I have never shied from my nic, HAPPY CAPITALIST, which got its start on David Corn's personal blog 5~6 years. I am, hahaha, a Capitalist first and foremost, and political warrior 8th....mixed in between are father of college kids, house husband of corp. wife, landlord, retired Asst. Scoutmaster, handyman extraordinaire,....
My niche here, is political economy....and drive a few of you batty........and, what harm does it do, FOR ME, to brag some...........LOL!
Wait.....I got it! My HAPPINESS is inversely related to Magic's SADNESS or WIMPINESS or BOWING DEGREE.......That's it!
Posted by Happy at 11/16/2009 @ 11:11pm
....if everyone in the world's only "job" was what you do we'd starve. investing in gold is not "work"
Posted by urmygyro at 11/16/2009 @ 11:06pm
You've got to be kidding me, right?
IF everybody does what YOU do, or Nichols, or HusseinO....do we NOT starve?
If you have any understanding of capitalism, then you would know what I do, is the very foundation of our economic system.
IT IS INVESTORS (LIKE ME) WHO RISK OUR MONEY ON GOOD IDEAS or come to the rescue of companies in need by supporting their badly sagging shares. Check out Revelon (REV).....one of my monster stock of this year!
Posted by Happy at 11/16/2009 @ 11:16pm
"My niche here, is political economy"
oh, please, my friend. only in your dreams.
dallas smythe, herb schiller, noam chomsky. those are political economists. not right wing capitalists such as yourself.
Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2009 @ 11:30pm
"If you have any understanding of capitalism, then you would know what I do, is the very foundation of our economic system"
political economists do not say such things.
Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2009 @ 11:35pm
The "War on Terror" in Afghanistan is a farce. There is no clear achievable mission. Al Qaeda left Afghanistan long ago. And chasing Al Qaeda around the globe wold be a never ending game of "whack a mole". What is left in Afghanistan is a totally corrupt government with absolutely no influence over the country, an enormous drug trade, and war lords with no interest outside their own. So, for what are we fighting? If we as a county are true to our core values, in particular freedom of religion, we have absolutely no right to dictate to the Afghan people the validity of the Taliban. If the majority of the Afghan people reject the draconian views of the Taliban, then the Taliban will cease to exist. America really has no viable alternative but to get out of Afghanistan, however, we have an excellent opportunity to aid the Afghan people to defeat the Taliban and, at the same time strike an important blow in the "war on drugs" by completely destroying the opium poppy fields, thereby denying the war lords of their power and cutting off the drug funds that finance the Taliban.
Posted by HammondEggs at 11/16/2009 @ 11:44pm
If you have any understanding of capitalism, then you would know what I do, is the very foundation of our economic system.
Posted by Happy at 11/16/2009 @ 11:16pm
yep, we've got a bullshit based economy.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/17/2009 @ 12:02am
Oh, urmyyyyyyyyy..... I have never shied from my nic, HAPPY CAPITALIST, which got its start on David Corn's personal blog 5~6 years. I am, hahaha, a Capitalist first and foremost, and political warrior 8th....mixed in between are father of college kids, house husband of corp. wife, landlord, retired Asst. Scoutmaster, handyman extraordinaire,.... My niche here, is political economy....and drive a few of you batty........and, what harm does it do, FOR ME, to brag some...........LOL! Wait.....I got it! My HAPPINESS is inversely related to Magic's SADNESS or WIMPINESS or BOWING DEGREE.......That's it! Posted by Happy at 11/16/2009 @ 11:11pm | ignore this person |
--you don't brag about passive investing at all...where could I have got that crazy idea?
Posted by urmygyro at 11/17/2009 @ 12:09am
urmygyro, love the way you "work" poor old hap. For every ten words you post, he posts a hundred. Your seemingly repetitive, yet suave & subtle hypnotic references have him gyrating like an electrified stage dummy.
It's like you've got a bag of tricks out of the old Johnson-Smith catalog & every time you hand him the exploding cigar he falls for it. He's been "joy buzzered" so many times he'll have to hide his collection of Palin pics. He might as well have a whoopee cushion laminated onto the seat of his pants.
Hope you're not prosecuted for cruelty to passive capitalists.
Posted by Sorelish at 11/17/2009 @ 01:05am
America really has no viable alternative but to get out of Afghanistan, however, we have an excellent opportunity to aid the Afghan people to defeat the Taliban and, at the same time strike an important blow in the "war on drugs" by completely destroying the opium poppy fields, thereby denying the war lords of their power and cutting off the drug funds that finance the Taliban.
Posted by HammondEggs at 11/16/2009 @ 11:44pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Would that we would do the logical and decent thing and destroy the poppy fields but we are only burning a few token fields belonging to villagers or war lords who are free lancing and not part of the Karzai family mafia dope operation. The Taliban, or what we are calling the Taliban, only got into the opium trade lately and they are minor players. Indeed troops from other Nato countries are actually protecting the Karzai opium fields. And, more significantl, not one American or western law enforcement agency is doing anything significant about the banks that profit from the Afghan heroin trade. We hear nothing about the financial structure behind the heroin traffic and now we hear that the Taliban are behind the growing of the poppies. During the Vietnam War, we heard virtually nothing about the Golden Triangle and CIA complicity in drugs there. In fact, all we were told is that drugs were trafficed by the "mafia" and "organized crime". Only later did we learn in the press that drugs were a significant factor in the wars in Southeast Asia and that forces higher on the social scale than the mafia were involved and in charge. Now, with AfPac, it is Vietnam all over again. I hope also that Obama takes the opportunity to do something good in Afghanistan and destroy the poppy fields, but will he?
Posted by dont_know at 11/17/2009 @ 01:58am
wish my luck, croc...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/16/2009 @ 5:56pm
I do, I do. Hope it is a goer for you and the bloke with the bruised back. You're all heart digger.
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/17/2009 @ 06:31am
As I've noted in the past...the "end-game" is likely predictable.
Obama will seek to get us out of Afghanistan before 2012, serious draw-down if not totally out. He's smart enough to know that he can't be saddled with a continueing pointless war that helped destroy Dubya.
Naturally, the Right and the GOP will call it "surrender" and spend endless days (and decades to come) explaining how "if we had just done this, we could have won it"....same crap we've heard about Vietnam since the 1980s.
IF on the other hand, Obama doesn't....the Right's manuever is also predictable. In 2012, Romney/whoever will say (not overtly of course) that they have a "secret plan to win the war in Afghanistan" Nixon-style and claim "If you just elect me, we'll have victory!"
Naturally, IF they win, they'll also pull a Nixon....aka 1973 and sign a deal with the Taliban and warlords within 6 months, declare "peace with honor", and pull out. No way they'd want to be saddled with a war that destroyed TWO Presidencies.
Oh and our neo-con friends will flip...and support it.
Posted by Mask at 11/17/2009 @ 07:45am
.....we've got a bullshit based economy.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/17/2009 @ 12:02am
Thanks , FZ.....for a hearty morning laugh and amazingly, you're on the mark for the present! I was up early today at 5 and have done the news already. The Feds are trying to do a slow bleed on housing and losing jobs based on bullshit money.
Check this one out:
Mortgage delinquencies hit another record in 3Q
Nov 17, 6:50 AM (ET)
By EILEEN AJ CONNELLY
For the three months ended Sept. 30, 6.25 percent of U.S. mortgage loans were 60 or more days past due, according to credit reporting agency TransUnion....up 58 percent from 3.96 percent a year ago.
Being two months behind is considered a first step toward foreclosure, because it's so hard to catch up with payments at that point....
.....The company doesn't expect the figure to start declining until the middle of 2010.
Two things must get better before mortgage delinquency rates start reversing themselves, he said: home values and unemployment....
The statistics, which are culled from TransUnion's database of 27 million consumer records, show that mortgage delinquencies remain highest in the four states where the crisis has hit the worst.
- In Nevada, the rate reached 14.5 percent, up from 7.7 percent a year ago.
- In Florida, the rate was 13.3 percent, up from 7.8 percent last year.
- In Arizona, the rate hit 10.4 percent, up from 5.5 percent in 2008.
- In California, the rate jumped to 10.2 percent, from 5.8 percent last year....
Posted by Happy at 11/17/2009 @ 08:25am
Hey, Mark Penn wonders if Magic's `smart' is a campaign ruse? After all, how can everything be falling apart when he's got the whole Gubber machine at his disposal......LOL!
Posted by Happy at 11/17/2009 @ 08:27am
"Really? How much pressure do you think Obama feels from an isolated non supporter? Somewhere between zilch and nada"
you claimed that obama was only feeling pressure from "the left", whereas in reality, there are those on the right who are opposed to escalation of troops, one of whom is george will. and there are others like him, and over 1/2 the country is opposed to escalation.
again, your views are not mainstream.
Posted by darladoon at 11/16/2009 @ 9:59pm
You completely missed the point. What possible political pressure would Obama feel from Will? He knows that he's never going to get Will's vote. He knows that Will doesn't influence the lefft which is Obama's base.
There is no political pressure from George Will on Obama
Posted by antisocialist at 11/17/2009 @ 09:30am
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/17/2009 @ 06:31am | ignore this person | warn this person
wanna invest, croc? LOL!!!
at least we ain't selling $52 yank pliers...har har!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/17/2009 @ 10:16am
at the same time strike an important blow in the "war on drugs" by completely destroying the opium poppy fields, thereby denying the war lords of their power and cutting off the drug funds that finance the Taliban. Posted by HammondEggs at 11/16/2009 @ 11:44pm | ignore this person | warn this person
sure, take away their livelihood, that'll work just fine.
no, we should buy the entire opium crop, put some money in their pockets, that's a much better start.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/17/2009 @ 10:33am
"Get Out of Afghanistan?" Hell, 'Get out of the Empire first'
Pressuring Democrats or Obama to "Get out of Afghanistan" is a 'fools mission' since neither will even mention, let alone "Get out of The Empire" that is the proximate cause of all our "Sorrows" in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Global Warming, Bank looting, domestic tyranny, economic oppression, torture, etc. etc. etc.
It's certainly abundantly clear today that when Obama told us, before the election, that Bill Ayers of SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) had absolutely no influence on him, that he was telling the truth ---- because Obama has 'sure as hell' not been doing anything to fight for a 'democratic society' (against economic oppression, racism, imperialist wars, etc. etc.).
Obama never mentioned anything, before we 'gave him' our votes, about the ruling-elite corporate/financial imperialist war-machine, racist tyranny, and working-class economic inequality that SDS fought against in the late 1960's --- and which, in the last 40 years, has gotten worse.
Obama was being truthful when he totally ignored the very existence of this ruling-elite Empire that controls our country by hiding behind the facade of its two-party 'Vichy' sham of democracy, and he was being totally truthful when he said nothing about this Empire that he himself was auditioning to become the next 'front-man' for.
It's just that we were too stupid, before the election, to ask him, "Hey, what about this Empire that is killing our country and the world? Will you represent this deceitful and hidden corporate/financial Empire or will you represent us?"
Alan MacDonald
Posted by amacd at 11/18/2009 @ 1:09pm
sure, take away their livelihood, that'll work just fine.
no, we should buy the entire opium crop, put some money in their pockets, that's a much better start.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/17/2009 @ 10:33am | ignore this person | warn this person
The people growing the poppies know full well what the opium is for. They are part of the drug traffic. They have access to seeds and agricultural help from many sources. They can easily grow other crops. We should have as little sympathy for the growers as we do for the dealers or the bankers in the drug trade. Burn the poppy crops! Your sympathy is misplaced.
Posted by smithy at 11/19/2009 @ 4:43pm