navwin » Discussion » The Alley » Afghan Blanket??
The Alley
Post A Reply Post New Topic Afghan Blanket?? Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

0 posted 2011-03-23 10:23 AM



It's curious about leftists  commenting on how Obama's Afghanistan actions and policies are comparable to Abu Ghrab and torture....and yet I can find nothing in the  mainstream media even commenting on it. I don't really need to point out how much news Abu Ghrab or Iraq got, how Bush's head on a platter was called for, how members of this forum spoke incessantly about the horror of American soldiers under Bush committing such atrocities.......wo where is the outrage now? I still see mentions of republicans being "the party of torture"....so?

What is happening over there? I don't really know. Apparently, some in the know do....and these people are liberals, not republicans looking for some mud to smear.  Ralph Nader, for example, says...

"[Bush officials] were considered war criminals by many people. Now, Barack Obama is committing the same crimes," Nader said. "In fact, worse ones in Afghanistan. Innocents are being slaughtered, we are creating more enemies, he is violating international law."

Then there is David Swanson. Who is he? HE's an avowed leftist, on the board of  http://www.democrats.com/ ,  creator of "The 35 Articles of Impeachment and the Case For Prosecuting George W. Bush", constant basher of FAUX News, and acclaimed speaker with heavy credentials. Swanson is Co-Founder of AfterDowningStreet.org, creator of ProsecuteBushCheney.org and Washington Director of Democrats.com, a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, the Backbone Campaign, Voters for Peace, and the Liberty Tree Foundation for the Democratic Revolution, and chair of the Robert Jackson Steering Committee.

His latest report is http://davidswanson.org/content/obama-even-worse-bush. It is excellent reading for anyone with a  mind open enough to digest it. As far as Afghanistan is concerned, he includes this insert..

Obama has embraced the myth that a 2007 escalation in Iraq caused a reduction in violence there, and he has applied that myth to Afghanistan with escalations in each of the past two years leading predictably to increased violence. Obama has taken a low-scale war in Afghanistan and dramatically worsened it. He has ignored, covered-up, and passed the buck on endless war crimes. He has radically expanded the use of drones, including into Pakistan. He has sent troops into Pakistan and at one point, according to news reports, into 75 nations, 15 more than Bush. Whether you count small-scale death squads as "wars" or not, the drone bombing of Pakistan certainly looks warlike, and that has happened without even the pretense of congressional authorization, and in the face of United Nations condemnation of illegality. Obama has added more U.S. military bases in more foreign nations, boosted weapons sales to nations we may some day have the opportunity to fight wars against, and continued the privatization of the military and the employment of the most notorious corporations of the Bush era -- helping to establish their immunity.

"ignored, covered-up, and passed the buck on endless war crimes."??? So where is the outrage? Where is the vitriol that was slung in Bush's direction for supposedly the same charges?  The vitriol that gave so much ammunition to our enemies, the vitriol that caused Obama to apologize to the world for America's actions......a little ironic if Obama is now committing the same actions?

No, I'm not really expecting answers here. The Alley is for "flaming". I'm flaming. I will show the continual double standards of Bush's and Obama's  presidencies whenever they occur. I'll show the double standards in the media and the ones that were in threads here for eight years. Feel free to disregard......



© Copyright 2011 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved
Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

1 posted 2011-03-24 02:54 AM





     You have seen me express my dislike of some of the current administration's policies, Mike, including my anger at the failure to close Gitmo, the failure to roll back the PATRIOT Act, and the failure to get out of Iraq.  The continuation of torture an an instrument of national policy seems to have been pretty much phased out, though I remain suspicious of our detention centers in Afghanistan.  I am critical of anything that seems to even hint of continuation of those policies.  I am critical of the President backing off on bringing folks detained at Gitmo to trial in courts of law here in the United States.  Nor have I been shy about my criticism about these things.

     I believe you may be painting with far to broad a brush when you make generalizations such as you are making here.  I remain critical of the Department of Homeland security and the use to which it seems to being put, including the use of what seems to me to be roadblocks up to 50 miles away from the borders.  I believe that this continues the erosion of civil liberties that began so strikingly under the Bush administration, and that the Obama administration deserves strong criticism for allowing it.  As I've said before, I believe that President Obama is Republican Lite as far as these assaults on civil rights go.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
2 posted 2011-03-24 11:44 PM


Bob, I respectfully acknowledge that you have aimed criticism at the current administration in areas you don't agree with. I don't agree with` your term Republican Lite, but if presenting it that way makes you happy, go for it.

The continuation of torture an an instrument of national policy seems to have been pretty much phased out, though I remain suspicious of our detention centers in Afghanistan.

Well, not according to Nader, Swanson and others. That's my point. Why would you have to "seem"? Why do you need to have "suspicions"? Why don't you know? Why haven't you seen it reported by the media? The media had no problem beating the public over the head with Abu Ghrab incessantly. If these atrocities Nader, an avowed liberal, claims are happening, where's the coverage? I think you know the answer to that one as well as I.....and that's the sad part.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

3 posted 2011-03-25 07:32 PM




     Whiler I am fond of Ralph Nader, I don't consider him a Liberal, and I don't know that he considers himself a Liberal, either.  I believe that the right wing catagorizes people it doesn't like or feels thjreatened by as liberals because that's a convenient label.  Mr. Nader is a very inconvenient sort of guy to have in any political gathering.  He is guided, apparently, by his values and not by politics at all, and he seems quite inflexible about this.  While I admire many of his values, such as his stand against torture, his stand against pro-industrial policy even at the cost of increased morrtality rates in the public, and his anti-war values, I believe that he lacks the basic willingness to deal in an effective fashion that a governing politician needs to have.  He is willing to cut off his nose to spite his face, as he demonstrated for all in the 2000 election.  

     An actual liberal will have read, digested and taken to heart enough political science to know better.

     Mr. Nader is extremely effective as a leader of national movements.  I admire the work he had done on that level.  As a national candidate, he seems more like a religious leader than a secular leader, and I'm afraid that he would not be accepting of differences of opinion.  He has presented us with a fair number of major national services, including large steps forward in automobile safety, that have saved hundreds of thousands of lives over the years.  You can't say that about many people.  But I don't believe he is a liberal; I don't believe he has the capacity to see the other guy's point of view with sufficient sympathy to qualify.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
4 posted 2011-03-25 07:38 PM


Interesting...ok, Nader is under the bus. How about Swanson??

on the board of  http://www.democrats.com/

creator of "The 35 Articles of Impeachment and the Case For Prosecuting George W. Bush"

Co-Founder of AfterDowningStreet.org

creator of ProsecuteBushCheney.org

Washington Director of Democrats.com,
a board member of Progressive Democrats of America

the Backbone Campaign, Voters for Peace, and the Liberty Tree Foundation for the Democratic Revolution

chair of the Robert Jackson Steering Committee.

Do you suggest he is not liberal enough, either?

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

5 posted 2011-03-25 08:17 PM




     Mike, I have seen it presented in the media.  The presentation is more complex than generally gets a good hearing in these pages, and would involve a lot of research.  You would be less satisfied than I think you envision.  The President gets a fair drubbing in the media for several reasons, and his unwillingness to make a clear stand on civil rights and human rights has been right out front.

     The problem as I understand it, is that the left feels that what he offers is so much better than anything the right has to offer that they're willing to settle.  And a lot of the Independents seem to feel the same way.  So the issue for a lot of the folks from my end of the spectrum and from — my take, you understand, which I am not trying to convince you is the only point of view on it, and which I understand you disagree with — the middle, is that while we may find some of the policies distasteful, they are a lot better than the policies that come from the extreme right.

     And the policies that come from the extreme right at this point are extremely distasteful.  

     I don't expect you to see that or believe that.  It would be unfair of me to expect you to do so.  I won't waste your time trying to convince you of things that will seem absurd on the face of things to you.  

     The upset of a large segment of the population has given this administration a lot of cover to hide behind; and with the current elections of Republicans to so many offices, it's given the electorate a lot to think about in terms of what the Republicans deliver when they believe they've gotten a victory.  

     No, I don't consider Nader under the bus, I simply consider him a loose cannon, and I probably wouldn't give him my vote.  In fact, it appears that most democrats wouldn't, though most Republicans would encourage Democrats to do so, Nichts wahr?  Surely there is a reason for that?

     While the other guy may have impeccable Democratic credentials, I don't know him.  That doesn't mean anything of course, and his comments about President Obama reflect the Opinions of many of the more left wing Democrats, who feel very down on President Obama because President Obama's policies tend to fall more toward the right side of the Democratic party, where, as I've said before, a lot of Republicans at one time dwelled comfortably as Republicans.

     Until the post 1968 influx of Dixiecrats from the Democratic Right wing displaced them and caused the whole Republican party to start sliding precipitously to the right.  And, frankly, bringing a lot of Democrats with them.

     I am hoping that over the next five or ten years that this history will be modified, and that a new and more humane narrative constructed for our country; at a minimum, a less polarizing narrative.

     But yes, the criticism of the Obama administration is out there; you simply haven't looked for it.  A lot of it has been appearing in places where you wouldn't think to find it, in The Nation and on Rachel Maddow and on the pages of the CSM.  Your judgement of these places as Liberal outlets has perhaps blinded you to the fact that Liberals take pride in criticizing themselves as harshly as they criticize others.  And that this includes criticism of the President.

     The examples of Liberals Criticizing Liberals that you quote are quite common, and cover a much wider range of topics than you cover here.  A lot of Liberals consider this part of the Job Description.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
6 posted 2011-03-25 09:37 PM


But yes, the criticism of the Obama administration is out there; you simply haven't looked for it.

I should have to look for it, Bob? I didn't have to look for the criticism of Bush. The public was bombarded with it, daily, on network news and front page lead ins. There was no "having to look for it." It was inescapable. Now, with these reports of abuses in Afghanistan, so they get the coverage Abu Ghrab got? Does responsibility go to Obama the way it did to Bush? Of course not.

btw, I'm curious to see the attacks on Obama featured on Rachel's shows. Please share them with me..

Uncas
Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408

7 posted 2011-03-26 07:24 AM


quote:
Does responsibility go to Obama the way it did to Bush? Of course not.


Isn't that understandable though?

You claim a double standard yet the standards by which each case is judged clearly aren't the same.

If someone intentionally ploughs their car into a crowd of people are they judged by the same standard as someone who accidentally loses control of their vehicle and veers into a crowd?  The responsibility ultimately resides with the people driving the car but their intentions temper the amount of responsibility attributed to each.

It's the same in Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush is seen as intentionally driving the war, Obama is perceived as trying to wrestle the wheel away from war but occasionally losing control.

The overriding perception seems to be that atrocities that occurred under Bush were a direct consequence of Bush going to war and that the current atrocities have the same root cause but that they happened despite Obama's efforts to bring the war to an end.

If it's any consolation Mike Obama has to take full responsibility for Libya and he's likely to be mauled in the media just as soundly as Bush if that particular debacle escalates.

.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
8 posted 2011-03-26 08:53 AM


Interesting layout, Uncas, and I don't entirely disagree with it. It still leaves something to be desired, though.

If I send my son to the store for something and he gets hit by a car, is his injury or death my fault since I sent him? Well, yes, but how valid is that argument?

I agree that Abu Ghrab happened because Bush sent troops to Iraq, simply because troops wouldn't have been there, had he not. Are their actions to be laid directly on his doorstep, however? Unless he specifically told them to do the idiotic things they did, I have to say no...and yet that's where democrats and the press did their best to place the blame.

Now, in Afghanistan, Obama decided to use the same "surge" technique that worked in Iraq. Obviously these "atrocities" pointed out have occurred since. Does that make it Obama's fault for initiating the surge? Again, I would say no, unless Obama directly initiated the orders to allow such to happen. Interestingly enough, this time the democrats and press seem to agree with me since there has been almost no mention of it at all. Not even the republicans have been sleazy enough to go after Obama on it, as the democrats did on Bush. Indeed, the main accusers, like the two mentioned in this thread, are liberals.

If it's any consolation Mike Obama has to take full responsibility for Libya and he's likely to be mauled in the media just as soundly as Bush if that particular debacle escalates.

I wouldn't bet the royal jewels on that, sir. There will be plenty of Obama justifications in the air, beginning on Monday, and I can assure you some of them will find a way to get a "Bush's fault" scenario in there somehow....but I think those accusations will wind up in the "no-fly" zone, since not many will buy them.

One can almost sympathize with the mainstream press and talking heads. They want to keep up their support and hands-off approach for Obama but even democrats and staunch supporters like the democratically-revered Michael Moore, Farrackhan (sp), and others have turned on him. What's a liberal to do?

One thing is for sure.....Bush's name will get thrown in there somewhere.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

9 posted 2011-03-26 04:28 PM


I felt shame then, and I feel shame now. The difference, for me, was that the actions of our military to humiliate prisoners of war was in violation of the Geneva Convention. There was at that time, a question of whether or not the soldiers were ordered to do so.

The recent acts of barbarism my our soldiers in Afghanistan were considered an act of rogue soldiers as they desecrated the bodies of the "enemy". Such trophy gathering has been made nearly a cliche' since the Vietnam war.

I do not defend the recent atrocities, again, please read and note I find both situations deplorable. The soldiers are being punished.

The fact that you continually bring up the criticism against G.W. indicates that you felt, and continue to feel terribly hurt by all of the accusations of inadequacy during G.W.'s terms.

I can understand that. I still have psychological issues regarding G.W. too.

So why don't you help us both heal?

Start a new thread and list what G.W. did right. I promise I'll read it with an open mind.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
10 posted 2011-03-26 05:04 PM



I don't know that "hurt" would be the right word, Serenity gal. I simply bristle at the unfairness of it all. I think Bush handled everything with a huge degeee of class (something not that easy to associate with Bush!) You have the big political democratic machine, backed by the mainstream media, backed by idiots like Michael Moore, making movies filled with flaws, misconceptions and outright lies, backed by huge pockets like Soros...all pulling out all stops to go after Bush. Maybe I've always  had a soft spot for underdogs. They jumped on every opportunity to defame Bush, regardless of consequences to the US and our troops in battle zones. Look at the rallying cry Abu Ghrab became to militant Islam groups.

Look what you just pointed out.  As far as Abu Grab, it was "a question of whether or not the soldiers were ordered to do so." With Afghanistan, it was "rogue soldiers". How much would you like to bet that, if Bush were in command now, the Afghanistan incidents would also become "a question of whether or not the soldiers were ordered to do so."? Don't bet. You would lose.

You want one good point about Bush? He took everything the left and the mainstream media  threw at him without complaint or rebuttal. Compare that to Obama, who goes after people who criticize him like a Chicago hoodlum.

If you would like to discuss good and bad points about Bush with me, I'll be happy to do so in e-mails but I wouldn't waste my time opening a thread here. If there's anything I've learned over the past years, it's that partisanship is so overpowering in the Alley that any thread like that would be a complete waste of time. I sincerely believe  that you could participate with an open mind. I also believe you are the only one capable of doing so.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

11 posted 2011-03-26 09:20 PM




     The best way is for you to check it out yourself, Mike.  But you surely remember the election of 2000 and the various charges that Mr. Nader tossed at Vice-President Gore and at the Democrats in general?  Did you think that he was the only one to do so?  And the quotes that you've come up with recently from the left are only part of the criticism of President Obama from folks further left than the President about various aspects of his policy.  I'm further left than the president, and you've heard some of my criticisms.

     We don't all agree with each other.  I didn't agree with the SDS or the RYM I or RYM II folks when I was a kid; I wasn't a communist and I thought they were too darn rigid.  I also disagreed with HHH, because I thought he'd been too much of an apologist for the war in Vietnam.  Lots of us disagreed with each other, and disagreed with the Republicans.  The Republicans of the day would, mostly, have disagreed with the Republicans of today on health care and social security and tax rates.  You were around at the time:  You know that Nixon wanted a much more extensive health care plan, for example.

     None of what I said about Democrats is surprising, or at least it shouldn't be.  If you want to check through Rachel Maddow's blog, feel free.  I'd look for stuff on human rights, especially, and for stuff on some of his more liberal but more obviously broken campaign promises, for example on closing Gitmo, on the expansion of the war into Pakistan and possible war crimes.  There will be things that she will be predictably in favor of.

     You will find her clearly Liberal, which you will not like; but I suspect that you will find her surprising  critical of the administration.  I doubt that you will like her any more, but you should find her more puzzling.

     Should you wish to make the search, feel free.  If not, not.  You might find it amusing, because the woman is often authentically funny.  She took some interesting swipes at the DOE over the past few evenings, which they deserved.  Any attempt on my part to steer you more specifically, I suspect, would only ruin the process for you, should you even decide it worth your while to pursue it.  I hope, of course, that you do.

     She's a hot ticket.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

12 posted 2011-03-27 12:09 PM


Bob? I like Rachel too. Is she biased? Yep. But openly so. I think she's willing to listen, though.

And Mike, I wouldn't mind private discussion, but I don't see why it can't be discussed openly. I can see how G.W. can be considered charming. I really can.

I'm just not convinced that he was ever presidential material. I actually reserve more venom for Dick Cheney, truth be told.

I remain impressed with President Obama, as well, even though he is entirely unpredictable--from my point of view, as a registered Independent voter, he does seem to be taking a centralist approach. I suspect this annoys the hell out of both sides of the partisan fence, but just such an approach can be the antidote to the divisions of personal philosophies that threaten our own country's solidity and cohesion.

These are scary, frightening times, but what I see when I watch people fighting a battle that seems improbable, is an echo of the founding of our own country, as well as an omen of what could happen in our own country if the gap between the "haves" and "have-nots" isn't at the least addressed, if not bridged.

I'm not one of those out "to get" the wealthy--what frightens me is elitism.

I think about the French Revolution. A lot.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
13 posted 2011-03-27 12:55 PM


The best way is for you to check it out yourself, Mike.

Bob, with all due respect, I find that an incredible statement coming from you. Over the years you have asked for, commanded and/or cajoled us to back up our statements with facts. You have insisted that we provide documentation to prove our points. Now that I am asking you to do the same, you say check it out yourself????

You brought it up. You made the claim. The explanation or burden of proof falls on you when challenged. You don't have to, of course, but you are forfeiting your future right to demand the same of others.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
14 posted 2011-03-27 01:26 AM


.


Now they're talking gunships.

Sounds like more than no fly zone.


Anyone think the "rebels" aren't going
to kill a lot of people once we help them win? What then?


.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

15 posted 2011-03-27 01:35 AM


Why did you put the word rebels in quotes?


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
16 posted 2011-03-27 01:52 AM


.


“Now suddenly he’s got to go — in favor of “freedom-loving” “democrats” from Benghazi. That would be in eastern Libya — which, according to West Point’s Counter Terrorism Center, has sent per capita the highest number of foreign jihadists to Iraq. Perhaps now that so many Libyan jihadists are in Iraq, the Libyans left in Libya are all Swedes in waiting. But perhaps not. If we lack, as we do in Afghanistan, the cultural confidence to wean those we liberate from their less attractive pathologies, we might at least think twice before actively facilitating them.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/263110/art-inconclusive-war-mark-steyn


.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

17 posted 2011-03-27 01:56 AM


But why did you put the word rebels in quotes?
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
18 posted 2011-03-27 02:16 AM


.


“It has come to light in just the last few days that commanders of the “rebels” (you know, those secular freedom fighters who are supposedly better for us than Qaddafi) include one Abdul-Hakim al-Hasadi. And, I’ll be darned, it turns out that Hasadi is a jihadist who fought the United States in Afghanistan, and was detained for years until our forces turned him over to Libya. That was during the Bush years, when, through democracy-project alchemy, Qaddafi was transformed into a valuable U.S. ally against terrorism. Our new friend Qaddafi promptly . . . released him in 2008, in a deal designed to appease his Islamist opposition — a common practice in the Middle East, where, because Islam dominates life, even dictators must alternately court and repress jihadists in order to hang on.”

"Qaddafi’s opposition is not driven by al-Qaeda. It is driven by sharia. Various factions want Qaddafi out so that they can install sharia and build a real Islamic state — one that is virulently anti-Israeli, anti-Western, and anti-American, a mirror image of what the Muslim Brotherhood is now poised to sculpt in Egypt. For now, Islamists have encouraged military Western help because they lack the resources needed to oust Qaddafi themselves — just as Bosnian Muslims could not defeat the Serbs, Iraqi Muslims could not defeat Saddam Hussein, and Afghan Muslims could not defeat the Soviet Union without American help. But as we’ve seen time and again, the embrace of American support never translates into an embrace of Americans.

The Muslims of the Middle East will gladly use us, but they will turn on us the second our temporarily useful assistance becomes an intolerable transgression against sharia. That’s why the Islamists of the Arab League were all for a no-fly zone when it was pitched as a mere verbal warning to Qaddafi’s air force, but quickly condemned it when it turned out to require a bombing campaign that was sure to kill some Muslims.

We’ve seen this show before. The rebels are not rebels — they are the Libyan mujahideen. Like the Afghan mujahideen, including those that became al-Qaeda and the Taliban, the Libyan mujahideen comprise different groups. What overwhelmingly unites them, besides opposition to Qaddafi, is sharia. The Libyan mujahideen will exploit us but never befriend us. If they succeed, so be it. But we have no vital interest in orchestrating that success, even if it would mean a thug like Qaddafi finally gets his just deserts. If we empower them, we will eventually rue the day."

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/263138/decoding-libya-andrew-c-mccarthy?page=2
.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

19 posted 2011-03-27 02:24 AM


Thank you. I think.

Not a direct answer, though. Am I to assume that you disagree with the terminology? Or that you agree with someone else who disagrees with the terminology?

I'm not trying to be a pain, John, I'd just like to know what "you" think.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
20 posted 2011-03-27 02:32 AM


.

These are not Thomas Paine “rebels” as the articles cited illustrate.
The information is not secret.   I wonder if we’re just helping
those who want to kill us tomorrow against those who killed us yesterday.

.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

21 posted 2011-03-27 03:00 AM


There is always that chance.

We (meaning the United States) once dropped a big ass bomb on Japan. We fought our own revolution against Britain--with help from France, btw.  Forgive me for stating the obvious, John, I just don't think speculation is in anyone's best interest.

Especially alarmist reactionary speculation.

We have become involved in a police action as part of an agreed upon sanction by the United Nations. That's really all I know.  

I suppose we could have abstained.

The implications of that would have sent a truly bad diplomatic message to the rest of the world, particularly the Middle East.

We've been piddling around there (overtly and covertly) for a long, long time. I happen to think we painted ourselves into this corner. I also think that utilizing the United Nations (and the Arab League) was a deft act of diplomacy.

People will die. That much I know.

And I don't like that any more than you do.


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

22 posted 2011-03-27 08:24 AM


We should have abstained, Karen, in my opinion. There is nothing about this that serves the security interests of the U.S., and it wouldn't have had a prayrer of being authorized by Congress. If our own law had been followed, we wouldn't be there, and if we weren't there neither would France or Great Britain.

Was the Madman of Libya killing innocent civilians or were his forces attacking the Muslim Brotherhood and AlQaida linked rebels who were trying to overthrow the government?

I think it is no longer speculation in asserting that that is exactly what was happening in Libya, as it was in Egypt.

I don't know what is more alarming, that our armed forces have been ordered to do this, that we have a President who continually thumbs his nose at the Constitution, the rule of law, and the will of the people, or that we apparently have a Congress that lacks the will and backbone to reign in his abuses of power.

God help us all because we are going to need it.


Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

23 posted 2011-03-27 03:11 PM



     I'm trying to treat you in a respectful fashion here, Mike.  How about a little help?


http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/1150
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42108.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/03/22/2011-03-22_impeach_president_obama_over_libya_some_liberal_critics_ralph_nader_dennis_kucin.html
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/06/20-0
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/03/22/134763735/obama-gets-liberal-help-on-libya-against-progressive-critics
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/liberal-criticism-of-obam_b_681292.html
http://online.wsj.com/video/am-report-obama-faces-liberal-critics-of-tax-deal/1C67D0AA-58DA-44F1-839D-7E4B70A4DDAF.html?mod=WSJ_article_related
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20024891-503544.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/11/nation/la-na-gibbs-20100811
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/12/08/obama-on-liberal-tax-cuts-critics-some-of-these-people-are-confused/
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/faced-internal-division-liberal-website-clamps-down-obama-criticism
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/12/obama_adult-in-chief_in_a_town.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/7/obama-whacks-liberal-critics-tax-cut-compromise/
http://www.fff.org/comment/com1001b.asp
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/obamas-tough-words-for-liberals-truth-or-dare/
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6016220-503544.html

https://duanegraham.wordpress.com/tag/liberal-criticism-of-obama/
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/77596/liberal-disappointed-obama-explains-why
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/23/barackobama.uselections20081


Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

24 posted 2011-03-27 03:29 PM




quote:


Now suddenly he’s got to go — in favor of “freedom-loving” “democrats” from Benghazi. That would be in eastern Libya — which, according to West Point’s Counter Terrorism Center, has sent per capita the highest number of foreign jihadists to Iraq.




      
     I suspect that West Point's Counter Terrorism Center is probably got something there.  Exactly how accurate it is, I wouldn't know, simply because I can't imagine we've got very good figures for bus tickets sold in the various areas of the middle east; but I wouldn't really want to pick a quarrel with it.  I would want to say, so what, however.

     There weren't any terrorists there before we showed up; there was a government that was firmly in control.  It was, in fact, more firmly in control than the one there now; and the destabilization that is presently there is largely there because of us.  Blaming folks who rushed into the vacuum to try to repair the damage is sort of naive, isn't it.  Nature abhors a vacuum.  And we, my friends, are the idiots who created it for reasons that have never been satisfactorily explained to me.

     Surely, the folks at the National Review are not so cross eyed as not to realize that someplace there is a Crusader Research Center which must be coming to equally sinister and spurious conclusions about Alabama.  I, for one, would welcome an outbreak of civil rights and human rights in Alabama.  And I know what happens when the Republicans remain in charge down there.  Heaven help us if the Muslim fundamentalists ever figure it out, too, that's all I say.

    

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
25 posted 2011-03-27 03:45 PM


.


“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 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

26 posted 2011-03-27 05:27 PM


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 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

27 posted 2011-03-27 06:13 PM




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 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

28 posted 2011-03-27 08:29 PM


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 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
29 posted 2011-03-27 10:31 PM


.


Iraq made sense
Afghanistan makes sense
Libya is nonsense


.


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
30 posted 2011-03-27 10:45 PM


.


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


.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

31 posted 2011-03-28 12:54 PM




     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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
32 posted 2011-03-28 07:53 AM


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 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

33 posted 2011-03-28 10:52 AM


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 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

34 posted 2011-03-28 11:31 AM




     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 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

35 posted 2011-03-28 11:45 AM


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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
36 posted 2011-03-28 02:19 PM


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 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

37 posted 2011-03-28 04:43 PM




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 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

38 posted 2011-03-28 04:46 PM




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

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

39 posted 2011-03-28 09:13 PM


Okay. Now I feel dismissed.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

40 posted 2011-03-28 10:56 PM



    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 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
41 posted 2011-03-28 11:58 PM


.


"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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
42 posted 2011-03-29 12:54 PM


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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
43 posted 2011-03-29 08:53 AM


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 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

44 posted 2011-03-30 03:35 AM




     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 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

45 posted 2011-03-30 04:16 AM



     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 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

46 posted 2011-03-30 04:33 AM



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 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

47 posted 2011-03-30 05:42 AM


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 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

48 posted 2011-03-30 06:36 AM




  

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 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
49 posted 2011-03-30 04:12 PM


.


“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.
.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

50 posted 2011-03-30 05:06 PM




     The French are a study of their own.  I am never entirely certain whose side their on.  It would be intellectually comforting if I felt they were at least on their own side, but I've come to realize, over the years, that they are much too thorny even to take their own side in a dependable fashion.  There is something entertaining and deeply implausible about them, all at the same time, and I can't help but admire the whole sensibility that is so deeply and incomprehensibly French, that moves the grandure of the thing forward, toward goals that seem, somehow, beyond the conceptualization of many of the rest of us.

     Layfayette, we are here.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
51 posted 2011-03-30 07:43 PM


.

Does the current UN resolution
include an arms embargo?

.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
52 posted 2011-03-30 07:47 PM


  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.  

I'm afraid your wry wit is wasted there, Bob. I have never said that there was anything marvelous about anything over there. Nor have I ever said that nothing has been done wrong there. There were plenty of mistakes to go around...and there continue to be. I was simply calling you on YOUR points of Afghan abandonment, which I find to be introduced as more of a way to Bush bash than to rely on actual facts.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
53 posted 2011-03-30 07:56 PM


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

Not only that, Bob, I complained that they were immaterial. I asked to you to show examples of Maddow bashing Obama and I got three references to her...one of Clinton complaining about her actions towards HIM, one referring to her satire blog and one from the Huffington post mentioning her supposed comments against Obama, giving no examples or references. That's it. You gave 20? No, you gave three that even mentioned Maddow. I asked for milk and you delivered 20 lbs of butter, claiming, "Well, but there were TWENTY!" Gee, thanks

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
54 posted 2011-03-30 11:11 PM


Here, Bob. I'll give you one from the dark side. This is how a "fair and balanced" station does it...
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/11/15/maddow-recycles-absurd-claim-fnc-never-criticized-george-w-bush-anyt?quicktabs_1=2


Interesting that, in the article, Rhodes Scholar Rachel claims she does not have a television and never watches Fox new (except for 3 minutes once). No, I won't call her a liar, but doesn't it tax the imagine a little that any affluent person, especially a television personality, wouldn't own a tv? I  mean, if she's home and record-breaking news occurs, does she run to the neighbor's to see what's happening on their tv?

She certainly has a lot to say about a news channel she never watches, doesn't she? Anyway, as you can see by the link, FOX will call a republican on the carpet as easily as s democrat. I doubt Rachel and Keith can make the same claim, although Obama is the first one to push them in that direction.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

55 posted 2011-03-31 03:37 AM




Okay, Mike,  If you don't want to accept those, why not try these two reports critical of Obama policy and Obama himself.  The References are to the shows, the parentheticals are references to the stories refered to in the shows which you can click on.  They are regular news stories interspecreced with Ms. Maddow's comments.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
56 posted 2011-03-31 08:19 AM


.


"By bombing Libya, President Obama has accomplished some things once thought absolutely impossible in America:

(a) War-mongering liberals: Liberals are now chest-thumping about military “progress” in Libya. Even liberal television and radio commentators cite ingenious reasons why an optional, preemptive American intervention in an oil-producing Arab country, without prior congressional approval or majority public support — and at a time of soaring deficits — is well worth supporting, in a sort of “my president, right or wrong,” fashion. Apparently, liberal foreign policy is returning to the pre-Vietnam days of the hawkish “best and brightest.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/263449/obamas-amazing-achievements-victor-davis-hanson

Victor has a list worth reading.


.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
57 posted 2011-03-31 09:01 AM


If you don't want to accept those, why not try these two reports critical of Obama policy and Obama himself.

ok...where are they?

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

58 posted 2011-03-31 10:14 AM





http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#42350879

(Facts don’t Support Obama assurances on Drilling safety)


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#42350879

(Complacency overcoming safety on new drilling Permits?)

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

59 posted 2011-03-31 10:17 AM


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#42350879

(Complacency overcoming safety on new drilling Permits?)

Hopefully they will have appeared above, where they were sent.  And where I just re-posted them.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

60 posted 2011-03-31 11:12 AM




     You also got, in addition, references to articles from seven main stream media sources, Mike, including two right wing sources,. confirming the others, in addition to the others, which were smaller media, but many of which w4ere Liberal media carrying reports of left wing critiques of President Obama by other left wing sources.

     The New York Time, The Washington Post, The LA Times articles as well as the CBS videos might be condemned, but to pretend they were not there suggests that I responded with silence rather than with a significant number of citations.  You asked, I answered, as appropriate to a decent discussion.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
61 posted 2011-03-31 04:57 PM


.


“Should those developments come, I suspect it will be worse for Obama politically if he’s perceived to have misled the public about what America is getting into in North Africa. And on the evidence of the last 48 hours, that’s precisely what he did on Monday night.”


http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/the-presidents-credibility-gap/


Now I'm hearing the "rebels" number less than
a thousand in a country of millions.


"There are fewer than a thousand fighters in the entire rebel force going up against Moammar Gadhafi. We knew they were outgunned. We knew they were outmanned, but fewer than a thousand fighters? And the military skills, their readiness almost nonexistent.

When you see the interview I'm about to show you I think you'll come to the same conclusion I did. It is almost inconceivable that these rebels can beat Gadhafi's army.

We learned this at the same time that President Obama has signed an order giving CIA support to the Libyan rebels. CIA personnel are on the ground in Libya right now.

When the Obama administration decided to intervene in Libya, did they know how incredibly few resistance fighters there actually are?"

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/31/libyan-rebels-number-less-than-1000/


http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndU ser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100007219&docId=l:1389170140&isRss=true


.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
62 posted 2011-03-31 05:48 PM


Hopefully they will have appeared above, where they were sent.  And where I just re-posted them.

Interesting, Bob. I think we had this problem a couple of years ago where you stated links were given that did not appear on my computer screen. This is the same situation. I got the repost of the links but nothing (still) where you say you posted them in the first place. The computer gremlins must be at it again!

I was not implying that you did not care to post them. I actually just thought you got confused and forgot, which is easy to do with so many conversations going on at once.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
63 posted 2011-04-01 12:05 PM


.


"NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen told reporters in Stockholm that NATO's position is that "we are there to protect the Libyan people, not to arm the people."

Britain and the U.S. believe that existing U.N. Security Council resolutions on Libya could allow for foreign governments to arm the rebels, despite an arms embargo being in place.

The NATO secretary-general said he has "taken note of the ongoing discussions in a number of countries but as far as NATO is concerned ... we will focus on the enforcement of the arms embargo."


So what; we're going to take up sides
against ourselves?

Do lawyers get ribbons?

.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

64 posted 2011-04-01 02:04 AM




     Yes, lawyers get ribbons, but nobody but other lawyers can read or understand the citations.  And they like to get clients to pay for the arguments they have about the details and the remuneration, tax consequences and governing legislation.  They are the ones consulted about the legislation, to make sure it doesn't conflict with previous legislation governing other torts.

     What was the question?

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

65 posted 2011-04-01 08:44 PM




     I don't know if President Obama knew how many there were or not.  If the CIA et al. were doing their job, he probably did, wouldn't you think?

     However, if you look at your source, you'll notice that what they list is the number of "fighters" who are "on the front lines."

     I suspect, in your outrage at undeclared war going on and  in your outrage and discontent with Democrats in general, you may be overlooking the fact that Kadaffi's forces are being paid and that the insurgents are not being paid.  This is often the case with asymmetrical warfare.  The ranks of the insurgents rise and fall depending on any number of factors, not all of which have to do with the percent of the population that supports them.  George Washington wrote a number of dispatches, I'm told, complaining of this, to congress.  The forces with T.E. Lawrence waxed and waned as well; and both these commanders won.

     What was the conclusion you were suggesting that we should draw as a result of the evidence you were laying before us?

     If it was that the insurgents were and are not worthy of our support, you may well be correct; but not, insofar as I can tell, on the basis of the information you present.  If they are, in fact, the basis of some more Democratic form of government in Libya, supporting them would be in line with our Democratic ideals.  Simply because supporting them could be in line with our stated Democratic ideas does not mean that they will be, sadly, in line with what has become our "national interest."

     Should this last be the case, perhaps we should discuss  at what point our "national interest" and our stated Democratic ideals parted company. Hey.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

66 posted 2011-04-02 08:20 PM




     In which case, what did you think of the ones that you got from the Rachel Maddow Blog that were excerpts of some of critical news reports?

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

67 posted 2011-04-03 05:44 AM


Rachel Maddow?

If you guys are going to quibble over Rachel Maddow, then I'll add my own pet peeve.

Quotes.

If you put double quotes around a word, the affect, intended or not, is to obfuscate the word; the malpractice of this punctuation produces a bias that belittles your point of view.

It's annoying and unnecessary.

Not as annoying as jousting over the honor of Ms. Maddow, but still, annoying, nevertheless.

Here's a list of spin words:

rebel

insurgent

dissident

revolutionary

insurrectionist

freedom-fighter

antidisestablishmentarialist

?

If you think that the double quotation mark does not change the definition when used in context of a sentence, then ask yourself if you are a writer, or a "writer".

Do you have an "opinion", or an opinion? Is that opinion based on emotion or "fact"?

Good luck with that, either way.

It's 4:44 and I just had a wave of spasms the jolted my lower leg foreward, and my kneecap is now swelling.

I'll bet Rachel would care...




Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
68 posted 2011-04-03 06:49 AM


She would at least come up with a mad OW!!!!!
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

69 posted 2011-04-03 07:56 AM


I actually wish I were more like her.

She is never...mean. sigh.

I don't even know why I want to live through this sh..tuff.


Post A Reply Post New Topic ⇧ top of page ⇧ Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.
navwin » Discussion » The Alley » Afghan Blanket??

Passions in Poetry | pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums | 100 Best Poems

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