How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Afghan Blanket??   [ Page: 1  2  3  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Afghan Blanket??

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


25 posted 03-27-2011 03:45 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


“We (meaning the United States) once dropped a big ass bomb on Japan.”

Because Truman hated haiku?

“We fought our own revolution against Britain--with help from France, btw.”

The same France that had been fighting wars with England for centuries;
they did for themselves, not us.

“ Forgive me for stating the obvious, John, “

I stated the obvious from cited sources.

“I just don't think speculation is in anyone's best interest.”


If one read Mein Kampf and saw it being played out
it would be prudent to speculate especially where the lives of one’s
sons and daughters are involved.  Of course it's easier not to when someone else’s kids
risk coming home in a bag.


.
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


26 posted 03-27-2011 05:27 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

My kid is in the process of signing up for the Army Nurse Corp, John.

My nephew did three stints in Afghanistan.

YOU should get your finger out of my face.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


27 posted 03-27-2011 06:13 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



quote:

If one read Mein Kampf and saw it being played out
it would be prudent to speculate especially where the lives of one’s
sons and daughters are involved.  Of course it's easier not to when someone else’s kids
risk coming home in a bag.




     John, that's simply not the situation.

     I can understand you're a vet and have sympathy for folks who can end up in harm's way.  And you should.  I think you're also among friends here, and nobody's interested in seeing anybody hurt in combat or out of combat, even if our politics are not the same as your are.  Near as I can tell, the differences are in how to keep people safe. Let's all take a deep breath and reboot, hey.
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


28 posted 03-27-2011 08:29 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

I do not know John and John does not know me.

I'm perfectly content to keep it that way.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


29 posted 03-27-2011 10:31 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


Iraq made sense
Afghanistan makes sense
Libya is nonsense


.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


30 posted 03-27-2011 10:45 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


http://arabnews.com/economy/article331927.ece


.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


31 posted 03-28-2011 12:54 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     I appreciate the clear and to the point description of your point of view, John.  I'm not always so clear on what it is, and this is a breath of fresh air for me.

     I don't like Iraq because I think it was not necessary in the first place, and now we are struggling to get back to the point where it is something close to the level of stability it was at before we invaded in 2001.  We are essentially loosing a war with Iran we didn't need to start that it costs Iran close to nothing to fight.  We have arranged to not only pay our own war costs, but also to pay the costs for the other side as well, by subsidizing the oil market.  We are therefore losing not only the war, but our shirts and our economy at the same time.  I find this makes very little sense at all, and that doesn't even begin to grapple with the civil rights and human rights issues involved.

     Our war in Afghanistan threatens to become a war in Pakistan as well, which is potentially a nuclear war.  We are being urged to fight this pretty much on a propaganda basis, by raising religious issues and stirring up prejudices that are literally a thousand years old.  The descriptions we get of the issues involved here have not yet spoken about what the geopolitics involved are, which to my mind should revolve around oil, population, trade and water.

     A similar set of issues caused the war in the Pacific in World War II, and were concealed behind racist propaganda showing buck-toothed and be-speckled yellow skinned Japanese dwarves.  The issues were more seriously about trading spheres of influence in China and in Asia in General, and are still being worked out today.

     Just as the middle eastern issues have been playing themselves out around Turkey and Palestine and Egypt since at least the Roman Empire and quite possibly well before.

     The reckless Rebels in Libya who are supposedly allied with Jihadiis, were at one point thought of as the Kadafi supporters, who were  somehow simultaneously Islamic extremists and Socialists.  We develop narratives to fit.  I wish I could tell you which ones were accurate.

     I can say I am unhappy with an undeclared war with us involved in it going on in Libya.  I suspect we would agree on that much.  I can say I do not and never did trust Kadafi.  I can also say that simply because there are a lot of Libyans fighting in Iraq, that doesn't mean that they are all from the non-Kadafi side of the fence.  And that if there weren't a lot of Americans fighting in Iraq, where I do not believe we belong, there would probably not be very many Libyans there either.  Surprising as it may be, there can be people in the world who think we can be wrong sometimes in our declarations and policies.

     Simply because the Communists wanted to take over South VietNam does not mean that the whole world will fall to communism, and that Canada and Mexico would go Communist, no matter what LBJ and Richard Nixon told us.

     Sometimes there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  Sometimes Al Qaedda only shows up after we do.

     Sometimes, I'm wrong, too.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


32 posted 03-28-2011 07:53 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Simply because the Communists wanted to take over South VietNam does not mean that the whole world will fall to communism, and that Canada and Mexico would go Communist, no matter what LBJ and Richard Nixon told us.

Bob, with that statement you have re-invigorated my respect for you. Have a great day....
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


33 posted 03-28-2011 10:52 AM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

Some light reading:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1019



(I was trying to construct a policy timeline--heh!)
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


34 posted 03-28-2011 11:31 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Being faced with the ghosts of foolish tag lines past shouldn't eliminate you from the conversation, Mike.  Simply because the world didn't fall to the monolith of global communism because we didn't bomb the North into a puddle of radioactive glass and provoke the Soviets into doing the same to us doesn't mean anything more than the Republicans  continued a war that the Democrats got wrong in the first place.  Nobody knew how the Cold War was going to end.  It did seem clear that the domino theory was wrong at the time, if only on the basis of statistical analysis, which would have required a constant series of  showing of heads in a heads/tails toss up in a longish series of trials on what appeared to be a fairly even set of trials, but that wasn't clear to everybody, was it?

     If you have a piece of discussion about this, of course, I'd be interested in hearing it.

     And, of course, should you be interested in talking about the point of my post, which was to comment on Afghanistan, I would be thrilled.  It sounded as though you were more interested in making a comment on me than on Afghanistan for a moment there, which would be beside the point, wouldn't it?

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


35 posted 03-28-2011 11:45 AM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

Charlie Wilson's War.

I thought it was just a movie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Wilson_(Texas_politician)

Was the end of the Cold War actually when Afghani "rebels" successfully beat back the Soviet Union, with covert aid supplied to them through the Israeli's at the behest of this guy, Charlie Wilson?

Great movie, btw.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


36 posted 03-28-2011 02:19 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

And, of course, should you be interested in talking about the point of my post, which was to comment on Afghanistan, I would be thrilled.

I'm afraid you are going to have to put that thriil on hold, Bob, because I don't really understand the point of that comment with regards to Afghanistan. That may be my shortcoming because I can, at times. simply miss a point that may be obvious to others.

I do not see where we are being urged to fight in Afghanistan on a propaganda basis, by raising religious issues and stirring up prejudices that are literally a thousand years old.  We are there because it was the stronghold of Al-Qada, those folks who brought you 9/11. One could not go after Al-Qada withought going into Afghanistan...nothing about religious issues and prejudices there. Will it lead to a war in Pakistan? Possibly...but not a war WITH Pakistan and , therefore, not a nuclear war. With terrorists playing hop-scotch between the two countries, it is conceivable we will have to follow them into Pakistan.

A similar set of issues caused the war in the Pacific in World War II, and were concealed behind racist propaganda showing buck-toothed and be-speckled yellow skinned Japanese dwarves.

Really??? I thought perhaps Pearl Harbor had something to do with that. So we should have fought them but not been so disrespectful about their glasses and buck teeth? Or glasses and buck teeth are enough to incite a country to go to war? As you can see, I don't really know what points you are trying to make.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


37 posted 03-28-2011 04:43 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



quote:


I do not see where we are being urged to fight in Afghanistan on a propaganda basis, by raising religious issues and stirring up prejudices that are literally a thousand years old.  We are there because it was the stronghold of Al-Qaeda, those folks who brought you 9/11. One could not go after Al-Qada without going into Afghanistan...nothing about religious issues and prejudices there. Will it lead to a war in Pakistan? Possibly...but not a war WITH Pakistan and , therefore, not a nuclear war. With terrorists playing hop-scotch between the two countries, it is conceivable we will have to follow them into Pakistan.



     I think it may have made some sense originally.  The reason for that is that Al Qaeda apparently had training facilities there, and that some of the planning for 9/11 took place there.  That argues in favor.

     What argues against?

     Well, the Afghanis offered to turn Bin Laden over to some neutral third party for trial, and they said that they didn't approve of 9/11 themselves and that they hadn't know about it themselves.  That may possibly have been true.  Your notion of it being a stronghold for Al Qaeda was true in part, and may have been a distortion.

     If it was so true, how come President Bush pretty much completely abandoned his efforts there, where there was a fair amount of agreement, and put his efforts into Iraq, where there seems consensus that he was pretty much ginning up an unnecessary war?

     A creditable threat should have produced a creditable response, shouldn't it?

     No only does the Bush administration have the phony war in  Iraq to answer for, but it has the actual problem in Afghanistan going unaddressed to answer for as well.  It also needs to offer a realistic assessment of how large a threat it was.  Personally, I don't think it was that large a threat until we made it a large threat by failing to back a serious government instead of a government of thugs.

     This has essentially taken the Taliban and made them what they probably were not before, something of a moral alternative, sad to say, to terrible corruption sponsored by The United States.

     You are correct, I think, in saying that one couldn't go after Al Qaeda without going into Afghanistan.  You simply haven't asked why we dropped that responsibility to go into Iraq instead, where there was no Al Qaeda until we brought them in to help get us out of that country.  Even then, the Al Qaeda presence there is small.  Why did we abandon Afghanistan when we might have been able to wrap it up and when we actually had, at one point early on, some Afghani support?

  The distinction between a war with Pakistan and a war in Pakistan may make a lot of sense on paper in the United States.  I have lots of doubts about how much sense it would make to Pakistanis in Pakistan.  If you're building your speculation on Pakistani behavior and thought, I'd like to know what that might be, because it makes no sense to me at all.  As you've said from time to time, about not always understanding things obvious to other people, this would be one of those things for me.  It's not at all obvious for me, though I believe you when you suggest it's obvious to you.  I simply don't catch the logic to it.

     Nobody is explaining to us here in the states why the arabs and the muslims in general are so upset about the way they're being dealt with.  Not that I can hear.

     The closest I can hear to an explanation in the general press has to do with some sort of religious narrative.  From the far Right we get explanations like "Islam-o-Fascism."  Also Islamic Fundamentalism.  I hear Wahhabism from time to time.

     Are there such things?  Yeah, maybe, to some extent.  And yes, there are cultural differences as well, to some extent.  But that's not enough to frame the narrative the way it's been framed, as I've suggested in the paragraph directly above this one.

     So I'd like to ask, if you're Islamic and living in an Islamic country, how do you likely feel about the United States, and why do you you think you feel that way.  Not President Obama, not President Bush.  What do you think your story would be from the first person point of view?  Can you actually put yourself into those shoes without confusing them with your own Rock-ports or
Jimmy Chus?


    
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


38 posted 03-28-2011 04:46 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Comments on the references you asked for, Mike, especially the postings from Rachel Maddow?
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


39 posted 03-28-2011 09:13 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

Okay. Now I feel dismissed.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


40 posted 03-28-2011 10:56 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


    Not meaning to dismiss you, Serenity.  I'm very sorry if it felt that way to you.  I did have a look at the Wiki post, and enjoyed it, but I'm not so much for movies, I'm sorry to say.  I do read your posts, though, and I find them a bright spot.  
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


41 posted 03-28-2011 11:58 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


"The issues were more seriously about trading spheres of influence in China and in Asia in General, and are still being worked out today."


Nanking
.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


42 posted 03-29-2011 12:54 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Well, the Afghanis offered to turn Bin Laden over to some neutral third party for trial, and they said that they didn't approve of 9/11 themselves and that they hadn't know about it themselves.

I'm not aware of that, Bob. Certainly you can verify that or you wouldn't have made such a statement. Please do. I do know  that Bill Clinton was offered Obama before 9/11 and he refused to take him.

how come President Bush pretty much completely abandoned his efforts there,

..but it has the actual problem in Afghanistan going unaddressed to answer for as well.

You simply haven't asked why we dropped that responsibility to go into Iraq instead

Why did we abandon Afghanistan when we might have been able to wrap it up and when we actually had, at one point early on, some Afghani support?


Bob, you seem to be hung up on the notion that Bush abandoned Afghanistan. Certainly you must have the explanation of how we did that. I'd like to know what it is.

Nobody is explaining to us here in the states why the arabs and the muslims in general are so upset about the way they're being dealt with.

That causes me to wonder how YOU know.

So I'd like to ask, if you're Islamic and living in an Islamic country, how do you likely feel about the United States, and why do you you think you feel that way.

Beats me, Bob. I would say that those with minimal intelligence who are told by their religious leaders that the US is the great Satan, regard us in that manner. Those who know better don't.

I'm afrais I don't know what Rock-ports or Jimmy Chues are. Is that a California thing??

p.s.. I'll get to Rachel tomorrow...too late tonight.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


43 posted 03-29-2011 08:53 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Comments on the references you asked for, Mike, especially the postings from Rachel Maddow?

Well, Bob, I began this thread with this...and yet I can find nothing in the  mainstream media even commenting on it.

I asked for mainstream media - NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN......and I get The New American, Common Dreams, the Huffingtom Post, the Politico, Hot Air, etc. Ok, I'll take what I can get. Even in those I only found three where Maddow's name was mentioned..


Bill Clinton flashed irritation at MSNBC host Rachel Maddow and other liberals Monday for failing to appreciate the successes of his presidency.
Clinton didn’t mention Maddow by name, but she made that comment on her March 31 show.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42108.html#ixzz1HzUTSJBN


One link which promotes a "If I were a fake president" satire on Maddow's blog.

"Yet left-of-center cable TV commentators like MSNBC's Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, and contributors to the Huffington Post among others, have been scathingly critical on issues from Afghanistan and civil liberties to the economy." - from the Huffington Post (although it goes into no detail or gives no examples)

If you feel you deserve justifications for those presentations......not gonna happen.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


44 posted 03-30-2011 03:35 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Yes, John, Nanking.  There's racism even among asian countries, even back and forth between Japan and China and Japan and Korea and China and Vietnam.

     White on Yellow is only one kind of Racism.  There is also Yellow on White Racism.  

     Tom Lehrer is hysterical about the subject in his classic, "National Brotherhood Week, which you're too literate not to be familiar with.

     This doesn't explain, though, why you bring up Nanking.  

     If you are trying to suggest that the Japanese was with China was a-historical, you may have a point, but I'd need to see you take a shot at documenting it or arguing it.  To me, there seems to be an ongoing quarrel between China and Japan that seems to go back at least as far at the 12th Century or so and the waver of attempted invasions of Japan by Chinese fleets culminating the the Tai-fun that the Japanese Kaimikaze pilots were named after.  The Chinese were attempting to bring the Japanese into the Chinese sphere of influence, both as a trading partner and more directly as a feudal client nation.

     Trade items were tea and silk, if I remember correctly.  There was a lot of rage built up on both sides, but it was very much about trade and economics and race.  There is still, as I understand it, little love lost between the two countries, though they continue to do business.  I've had to do some brief family therapy one or twice with mixed marriages, and you can scarcely breathe when members of the extended families are in the same room.

     Hopefully, things have gotten somewhat better recently, but I seriously doubt that cultural change happens that quickly.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


45 posted 03-30-2011 04:16 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


     More requests for references, Mike?  Taliban offer to surrender Bin Ladin to Third Party:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jv5AKw6gwXg

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/mar/24/september11.usa2

http://www.infowars.com/released-state-department-documents-mention-‘failed-pipeline-negotiations’-with-the-taliban-right-before-911/


(excerpts below)

A Pakistani official told the U.S. that “Pakistan ‘will always support the Taliban’”. This “policy cannot change, he continued; it would prompt rebellion across the Northwest Frontier Provinces, the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, and indeed on both sides of the Pashtun-dominated Pak-Afghan border.” But the Taliban were “‘looking for a way out’ of the problem with bin Laden”. The U.S. was urged to “find a way to compromise with the Taliban”, and possible “ways that the U.S. and the Taliban might use to break the impasse” were suggested, including “the possibility of a trial in a third (Muslim) country”, “U.S. assurances that bin Laden would not face the death penalty”, and “a U.S. outline of what the Taliban would gain from extradition of bin Laden”.[2]
A D V E R T I S E M E N T

It is already known that the U.S. had demanded in secret discussions with the Taliban that bin Laden be handed over for more than three years prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The talks continued “until just days before” the attacks, according to a Washington Post report the month following the attacks. But a compromise solution such as the above that would offer the Taliban a face-saving way out of the impasse was never seriously considered. Instead, “State Department officials refused to soften their demand that bin Laden face trial in the U.S. justice system.”
Officials described the U.S. decision to reject Taliban offers as a missed opportunity. Former CIA station chief Milt Bearden told the Post, “We never heard what they were trying to say…. We had no common language. Ours was, ‘Give up bin Laden.’ They were saying, ‘Do something to help us give him up.’” Bearden added, “I have no doubts they wanted to get rid of him. He was a pain in the neck,” but this “never clicked” with U.S. officials.
Michael Malinowski, a State Department official involved in the talks, acknowledged, “I would say, ‘Hey, give up bin Laden,’ and they would say, ‘No…. Show us the evidence’”, a request U.S. officials deemed unreasonable.[3]
According to the BBC, the Taliban later even warned the U.S. that bin Laden was going to launch an attack on American soil. Former Taliban foreign minister Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil said his warnings, issued because of concerns that the U.S. would react by waging war against Afghanistan, had been ignored. A U.S. official did not deny that such warnings were issued, but told BBC rather that it was dismissed because “We were hearing a lot of that kind of stuff”.[4]
Indeed, underscoring Muttawakil’s stated reasons for having delivered the threat warning to the U.S., a State Department document from June 2001 obtained by INTELWIRE.com[5] showed that the U.S. had warned the Taliban “that they will be held directly responsible for any loss of life that occurs from terrorist actions related to terrorists who have trained in Afghanistan or use Afghanistan as a base of planning operations.”[6] The Taliban ambassador to Pakistan Abdul Salam Zaeef responded that “the Taliban do not see Americans as their enemies and that there are no threats to Americans coming from the Taliban. Nontheless, said Zaeef, ‘We will do our best to follow up and stop’ any threat.” With regard to bin Laden, “Zaeef emphasized that the Taliban’s relationship with UBL [Usama/Osama bin Laden] and others is based not on enmity against the United States, but on ‘culture.’”[7]
Know what’s important: Having a Healthy Food Supply like eFoodsDirect is Essential (AD)
Rejecting the Taliban offers to have bin Laden handed over, the U.S. instead pursued a policy of regime change well prior to the 9/11 attacks. Jane’s Information Group reported in March 2001 that “India is believed to have joined Russia, the USA and Iran in a concerted front against Afghanistan’s Taliban regime”, which included support for Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance, including “information and logistic support” from Washington.[8] Former Pakistani Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik told the BBC that he had been told by senior U.S. officials in July 2001 at a U.N.-sponsored summit in Berlin that military action would be taken against the Taliban by the middle of October. Preparations had already been coordinated with Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Russia. Naik also “said it was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan even if Bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taleban.”[9]
A newly released document dated August 30, 2001 shows that Pakistan was continuing to urge the U.S. “to maintain open channels to the Taliban.” Pakistani officials denied that their support for the Taliban included military assistance. When asked “why Pakistan supports the Taliban”, an official replied, “We don’t support but inter-act with the Taliban”. Pressed further on why Pakistan continued “to give the Taliban international diplomatic support and to press the USG [United States Government] to engage with the Taliban?” the Pakistanis “reiterated that the Taliban are the effective rulers of at least 90 percent of Afghanistan, that they enjoy significant popular support because they ended the banditry and anarchy that once bedeviled the country, and that the instant success of the opium poppy production ban underscored … the reality and effectiveness of Taliban authority.” If it wasn’t for “external support” for the Northern Alliance, it “would collapse in a matter of days.”[10]
Another newly disclosed document shows that two days after the 9/11 attacks Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf was told “bluntly” that “There was no inclination in Washington to engage in a dialog with the Taliban.” The U.S. was already prepared for military action and “believed strongly that the Taliban are harboring the terrorists responsible for the September 11 attacks.” The U.S. was “fairly sure” that bin Laden “and his Al Qida network of terrorists” were guilty.[11]
The following day, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage issued an ultimatum to Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) chief Lt. Gen. Mahmud Ahmed that Pakistan’s cooperation was expected “should the evidence strongly implicate Usama bin-Laden and the Al Qaida network in Afghanistan and should Afghanistan and the Taliban continue to harbor him and this network”.[12]


     Should you wish to look for more, you should check for more.  The New York Times Wants people to pay for older articles, and I don't have enough money to do so.  Should you wish to check the Main Stream Media Resources for this information, my memory tells me you will basically find the same information as I chose here, but in greater detail.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


46 posted 03-30-2011 04:33 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


quote:

Bob, you seem to be hung up on the notion that Bush abandoned Afghanistan. Certainly you must have the explanation of how we did that. I'd like to know what it is.



     Yes.  Taking the troops out of Afghanistan when the country wasn't secured.  Using those troops to invade a country that was not a threat to the United States.  Allowing several Hundred thousand of those Iraqis to be killed by starvation, sequelae to the invasion, damage to the country we inflicted and did not repair.

     While all this was happening in Iraq, conditions fell apart in Afghanistan.  The people we paid to do our fighting, the "Northern Alliance," re-established the feifdoms that the Taliban — nasty people themselves — had broken up.  The country was taken over by graft and corruption and essentially broken up into a series of small criminal enterprises.

     This time, Mike, why don't you give me references from nice main stream media about how marvelous everything was from the time we went into Iraq till the time that Obama recommitted troops to what remained of Afghanistan?  After all, you're the guy who seems to think that there's nothing that's been done wrong there.  And I've certainly been remiss about asking you to show me you references recently while you certainly have been forthright about being clearly dubious about whether I was trying to put one over on you.  

    

    
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


47 posted 03-30-2011 05:42 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

quote:


Nobody is explaining to us here in the states why the arabs and the muslims in general are so upset about the way they're being dealt with.

That causes me to wonder how YOU know.



     I don't want to give a snappy answer to this question, Mike.  I would suggest that rather than ask me, you simply ask the question of anybody who might want to try to answer it; or that you spend a little bit more time thinking about the possible answers available.  Some of them will no doubt be snappy and nasty.  If any of those come to mind, they will not be correct.  If any of the answers come back scoring points for either of us, they will not be correct.  Should any of the answers actually seem like they further the discussion, then you'll probably have gotten the right answer, and you won't need to ask me about it or continue that line of discussion any further.

quote:

So I'd like to ask, if you're Islamic and living in an Islamic country, how do you likely feel about the United States, and why do you you think you feel that way.

Beats me, Bob. I would say that those with minimal intelligence who are told by their religious leaders that the US is the great Satan, regard us in that manner. Those who know better don't.



     In order to get to the paragraph of mine you've quoted, and which I've highlighted in italics, you had, somehow, to get through these two paragraphs:

quote:

     The closest I can hear to an explanation in the general press has to do with some sort of religious narrative.  From the far Right we get explanations like "Islam-o-Fascism."  Also Islamic Fundamentalism.  I hear Wahhabism from time to time.

     Are there such things?  Yeah, maybe, to some extent.  And yes, there are cultural differences as well, to some extent.  But that's not enough to frame the narrative the way it's been framed, as I've suggested in the paragraph directly above this one.



     I don't mind that you disagree with me here; you often do.  But I think that regardless of what you think of me, there's something that needs to be considered in the argument.  

     The argument is this:  While we get from much of our press and from the far right wing that the feeling of rage directed at the West by muslims living in the middle east is religious and based on antipathy to westerners because so many of us are non-religious, or are Christian or are Jews, it is possible that this is either not the reason or that this is only a partial or a minority reason for amount of antipathy that exists.  I suggests that stupidity is not enough of an explanation for the amount of anger that much of the Muslim world feels toward us, or that we are told the Muslim world feels toward us.  The distribution of I.Q. among Muslims is not significantly different in the Muslim world than it is in the Western world.  Stupidity is on of the few true equal opportunity employers, and there are apparently people lining up at the recruiting offices all over the world.  Queues stretch around the block all on every continent.  Recruiters blare from every talk radio station.

     One of the things that is emphatically not stupid is an attempt to understand reasonable motivations for the actions of others.  Reasonable motivations are motivations are motivations that I figure are enough to push people I respect into doing something on a dependable basis.

     I never liked Jimmy Swaggart.  Even on my most growly bear burr-under-my-saddle day, if my spiritual advisor told me that Jimmy Swaggart was The Great Satan and I believed him, you wouldn't have caught me strapping on fifty pounds of dynamite, roofing nails and rat poison, connecting them up to a dead-man's switch, and trying to find out where Jimmy's next fund-raiser was going to go on.  Nor would anybody I admired.  And the profile of terrorists — at least when I was a kid — would have fit me.  Middle class or upper middle class, college educated or more, idealistic, pretty much down the line.

     I knew kids in the SDS.  They weren't stupid kids.

     If you want to learn what it is you're dealing with, you need to use your empathy.  You need to figure out what would make you want to act that way.  You want to study information about other people who have acted that way.  If you dismiss them as stupid, you've just refused to look at your best source of information.  If what you want to do is listen to people who say they're stupid, then you're listening to people who know even less than you do tell you stupid things in an authoritative way.  And then you're deciding to believe them without doing any critical thinking about what you're listening to.

     BNow you don't stop looking, once you try to figure out a reasonable explanation, and once you listen to what the actual people who do the stuff have to say.  People can't always explain themselves very well, and sometimes they can explain themselves very well indeed, but without much connection to what the actual explanation may be.  There are some interesting stories about split brain research.  But any of these things would be a decent place to start.

quote:

I'm afrais I don't know what Rock-ports or Jimmy Chues are. Is that a California thing??



Rockports are a brand of walking shoe that tend to be pretty comfortable, depending on your feet of course.  They come in a variety of style and they are often fairly attractive and often fairly light weight.  Think L.L. Bean Chinos, a Brooks Brothers sport shirt and a pair of Rockport loafers; or, if you want to go much more upscale, a pair of Brooks Brothers Loafers.  Kiss Me, Kate!

     This would not be so much California as Harvard Square.  You would probably be shocked to know that there are very very few parking spaces in Harvard Yard.  In fact, I don't know of anybody, really, who's parked there seriously.

     Jimmy Chu is a Shu designer.  Pardon the visual pun.  He designs womens shoes for women too rich and beautiful to look at.  I'd add," Just ask them," but you'd have a heart attack if you tried.  Think Sarah Jessica Parker's good looking sister.

     No, perhaps it's better if you don't.  A guy can only tolerate so much pain in one lifetime and you've already been married.  


Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


48 posted 03-30-2011 06:36 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



  

quote:


Well, Bob, I began this thread with this...and yet I can find nothing in the  mainstream media even commenting on it.

I asked for mainstream media - NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN......and I get The New American, Common Dreams, the Huffingtom Post, the Politico, Hot Air, etc. Ok, I'll take what I can get. Even in those I only found three where Maddow's name was mentioned..




     I gave you 20 sources.  All I felt obligated to offer was two.  You complained that what you got wasn't main stream enough.

     Here are some of the mainstream media I did include:

N.Y. Daily News, CBS News (x2), LA Times, Washington Post, Washington Times, N Y Times, and The Guardian.  The other media I included were perfectly respectable, as you are, hopefully, aware.  If you don't believe they are, simply imagine that I omitted them.  You still will have gotten a perfectly respectable list of Main Stream Media, with significant Right Wing weighting, which I try to offer anyway.

     There is certainly enough here to prove that there were not only significant amounts of material in the mainstream media critical of President Obama, but that there were, if anything, larger amounts of material in the Left wing media critical of President Obama than in the main stream media. I cannot explain why you did not see this material and I will not speculate why this might have happened.  That's not my business.

     I am surprised that you did not see the names of the mainstream media publications in the list of references I supplied you, and I think it only appropriate that I point out that your misreading of this detail tends to misrepresent the the list to those who haven't read it.  Otherwise I would stay silent about the matter.

     I think that Ms. Maddow's satire on The President is fairly funny, and that her humor, whether it's directed at right or left, doesn't seem cruel.  I like her humor as a whole.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


49 posted 03-30-2011 04:12 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


“On Tuesday, the Obama administration and British foreign secretary suggested the UN resolution authorising international action in Libya could also permit the supply of weapons.

This message was reinforced by Mr Cameron in parliament on Wednesday.
"UN [Security Council Resolution] 1973 allows all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas, and our view is this would not necessarily rule out the provision of assistance to those protecting civilians in certain circumstances," he said.
"We do not rule it out, but we have not taken the decision to do so."

But Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov disputed that UN resolution 1973 gave a mandate to arm the rebels.

"The Nato Secretary General Fogh Rasmussen declared that the operation in Libya was being staged to protect the population and not to arm it - and here, we completely agree with the Nato secretary general," he said.”


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12906562


The French are saying it would take another
resolution as the original includes an arms
embargo; others are talking loophole.
.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Afghan Blanket??   [ Page: 1  2  3  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors