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  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
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 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


0 posted 03-23-2011 10:23 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer


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......


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


1 posted 03-24-2011 02:54 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K




     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 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


2 posted 03-24-2011 11:44 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

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 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


3 posted 03-25-2011 07:32 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     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 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


4 posted 03-25-2011 07:38 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

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 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


5 posted 03-25-2011 08:17 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     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 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


6 posted 03-25-2011 09:37 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

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 07-30-2010
Posts 348


7 posted 03-26-2011 07:24 AM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas

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 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


8 posted 03-26-2011 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

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 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


9 posted 03-26-2011 04:28 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

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 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


10 posted 03-26-2011 05:04 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer


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 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


11 posted 03-26-2011 09:20 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     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 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


12 posted 03-27-2011 12:09 AM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

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 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


13 posted 03-27-2011 12:55 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

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 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


14 posted 03-27-2011 01:26 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


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 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


15 posted 03-27-2011 01:35 AM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

Why did you put the word rebels in quotes?

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


16 posted 03-27-2011 01:52 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


“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 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


17 posted 03-27-2011 01:56 AM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

But why did you put the word rebels in quotes?
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


18 posted 03-27-2011 02:16 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


“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 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


19 posted 03-27-2011 02:24 AM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

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 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


20 posted 03-27-2011 02:32 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.

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 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


21 posted 03-27-2011 03:00 AM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

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 08-22-99
Posts 23002


22 posted 03-27-2011 08:24 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

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 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


23 posted 03-27-2011 03:11 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


     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 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


24 posted 03-27-2011 03:29 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



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.

    
 
 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