A Private little war by dreamtrove

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
I said Obama couldn't lose me before 18 months unless he did something dramatically awful or stupid.

God dammit, I said I was going to try to keep a lid on the snark, and then you go and post this...

Technically, you really don't HAVE TO hate Obama officially just yet. After all, you said "Something dramatically awful OR stupid." Since this is clearly something dramatically awful AND stupid, it doesn't technically meet your criteria.

That's the snark. Here's the real.

Fuck it. I'm done with this asshole. Granted, he's no WORSE than Bush, but for fuck's sake, he's no goddamned BETTER, either. And at the end of the day, "not any worse than Bush" isn't really a campaign slogan I can get behind.

Dear Mr. President. Please start packing your bags. We're going to need you to go ahead and move out of our house rather sooner than you'd hoped.

Deeply disappointed that we just signed up for another Vietnam.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 2:30 PM

CHRISISALL

Frak. I thought this was a Star Trek thread.

Later.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 2:36 PM

Saw this coming.

Obama is firmly in the pockets of the powers that be, and he tipped his hand six days into his term.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 3:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Saw this coming.

Obama is firmly in the pockets of the powers that be, and he tipped his hand six days into his term.

Give it a year, the Chinese will straighten it all out

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 3:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Saw this coming.

Obama is firmly in the pockets of the powers that be, and he tipped his hand six days into his term.

Ya know, I was *hoping* you were wrong. Now, I doubt it. :(

[Waves hand like a Jedi] This isn't the change you were looking for.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 3:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I said Obama couldn't lose me before 18 months unless he did something dramatically awful or stupid.

http://www.canada.com/news/Obama+unveil+Afghanistan+strategy/2261422/s
tory.html

35,000 additional troops will bring the "official" US total to 100,000. This war is just getting started. Add to that the forces standing by in Iraq, the total military contractors, allied militias, JSOC, NATO, and the Afghan govt. forces such as they are, and we just topped 1/2 a million. We're hoping for the full support of 1 million from the CIA junta in Pakistan, but assume they will keep 1/2 of that to defend their own sorry asses. The enemy has 3-6 million. Of course we have them out-teched... for now... until someone else backs the other side. Or is it sides?

Orwellian doublespeak award:

Obama himself says he doesn't understand this conflict, and that we are vastly outnumbered, and that only a fool would support a war that they didn't understand, and that he didn't know what the objective of this conflict was. Nonetheless, he's decided that "He supports this objective"

Barack Hussein Obama. With all due respect, Do you have a fucking clue what you are doing? Seriously. Now, if I recall correctly, that brings our total ground force to around one million, roughly the total number of ground forces we sent to defeat Nazi Germany. Against *what* exactly?!? Islam? "terrorism"? Mountains? Over there somewhere?

I'm sorry. The President's handling of the economy has been to pre-empt teh budgetary process to go freewheeling spendthrift, handing out cash to friends, funding outsource, snowballing the deficit, and where in hell does he expect to get the money to pay for this kind of a war? I mean, consider the theater of war he's carved out here: It seems to stretch straight across from Israel to borders of India and China, and possibly beyond, and may very soon include Iran, seeing as we have them surrounded and are employing militias to invade and attack civilian populations, hospitals, schools, etc, inside their borders. WTF? Me thinks he's bitten off an arena of war larger than the United States.

This isn't just an "Afghan" conflict now. Obama has extended it across all adjacent borders, and now has committed to another escalation. And this ain't Iraq. Iraq is a basically western style society that shares much of our social structure, political struction, technological infrastructure and overall system of values. By comparison, this president has done what the last one was perennially afraid to do: To go to war with a culture that might as well be an alien planet with not even a perceived or accepted goal.

Well, he's has a Bush-style run, and it's been pretty appalling. I suppose Bush did nothing for 9 months, so he was off to a slow start. A "hunt for bin laden" wasn't uncalled for, even if Bin Laden wasn't connected to 9-11, the Patriot Act seemed scary, as did dept. of Homeland Security, that, and all out War against Afghanistan made me throw in the towel. Then he went and invaded Iraq, and so forth.

Clinton was a similar degeneration, albeit faster, but when someone starts killing people, it's time to fire them. Any employer might, and If Mike is right, We the people are the employer of Barack Obama. I'm afraid it's pink slip time.

I'm throwing in the towel. Sorry to call it in early, but so far, no hope, no change, and sure, yes, you can, but I sure wish you hadn't.

Oh, as for the alternative strategy I would have recommended for Afghanistan: Just leave. The only recruitment for fringe militias is our presence. If you want to change the nature of the regime, wait for the dust to settle, and then give incentives to whomever ends up in power. There's not any real reason for us to care who that is, and much less for us to give ourselves the audacity to make that call for them. Right now, we're defending a govt. that polled at 24% or so, and just stole an election that no one in the world thinks was credible.

My only problem with that is I don't think the US should get to walk away free and clear...

American has made a hell of a mess, of Afghanistan and other places... do they deserve a pass and get to simply walk away and leave the mess ( again ) for other to try and fix.

If it were anyone else pulling this over and over again they would be international pariahs...

and six months later some asshole will go on about how your the " leaders of the free world "

makes me want to go blow up something of yours... imagine what someone who has lost family and friends as a result of your bullshit would think

there has to be some real consequences or are we doomed to repeat this again in twenty years

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 3:40 PM

Hell, Dream - I was so pissed, I didn't even get through your post before replying.

Quote:

I'm throwing in the towel. Sorry to call it in early, but so far, no hope, no change, and sure, yes, you can, but I sure wish you hadn't.

Oh, as for the alternative strategy I would have recommended for Afghanistan: Just leave. The only recruitment for fringe militias is our presence. If you want to change the nature of the regime, wait for the dust to settle, and then give incentives to whomever ends up in power. There's not any real reason for us to care who that is, and much less for us to give ourselves the audacity to make that call for them. Right now, we're defending a govt. that polled at 24% or so, and just stole an election that no one in the world thinks was credible.

Agree 1000%. The wife and I have been for that alternative strategy for quite a while now. Just declare victory and get the fuck out. Call it done. The only thing we're doing now is digging ourselves in deeper.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 3:42 PM

Quote:
Give it a year, the Chinese will straighten it all out

Heh. Horrifying, but I give you credit, that was pretty funny.

Just please not China, that's pretty much playing into the hands of TPTB.

Quote:

there has to be some real consequences or are we doomed to repeat this again in twenty years

Yeah, you know? Back when we went into Afghanistan, I was saying, this is like Vietnam, we're not committing enough troops here for overwhelming victory or stating clear objectives to achieve. Even more so, that was the very same year I first read 1984, and my dad was on a WWII history kick at the same time.

A lesson Americans seem to have foolishly taken out of WWII is that wartime production and military expenditure can pull the country out of recessions and depressions. I think there's a bunch of businessmen and government officials in America who salivate over the prospects of an eternal war with Russia and China, who historically have connection to the region.

The problem is, wartime production is only a boost if you're pretty much the only country with an intact economy afterward.

So there were hints back then about the bubble crashing, and hints about what direction American presence in the Middle East was going to take.

Of course, I was just a teenager. What did I know?

The problem about not seeming to learn our lessons is a big one.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 5:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

Yeah, you know? Back when we went into Afghanistan, I was saying, this is like Vietnam, we're not committing enough troops here for overwhelming victory or stating clear objectives to achieve. Even more so, that was the very same year I first read 1984, and my dad was on a WWII history kick at the same time.

I was stupid enough to believe that the clear objective was taking out Bin Laden. Of course, that opinion changed once we had him cornered and then let him go. I thought Iraq was our new 'Nam.

Quote:

A lesson Americans seem to have foolishly taken out of WWII is that wartime production and military expenditure can pull the country out of recessions and depressions. I think there's a bunch of businessmen and government officials in America who salivate over the prospects of an eternal war with Russia and China, who historically have connection to the region.

The problem is, wartime production is only a boost if you're pretty much the only country with an intact economy afterward.

Well, we screwed that up. Now we're the ones WITHOUT the intact economy! Maybe Afghanistan will use some of their narcowealth and give us a line of credit.

Quote:

So there were hints back then about the bubble crashing, and hints about what direction American presence in the Middle East was going to take.

Of course, I was just a teenager. What did I know?

You knew a lot back then; it scares me how much you know now, at such a young age. And you weren't the only one watching the economy and saying that it was unsustainable. 'Course, not that it did any of us any good to say it; who was willing to listen?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 5:45 PM

I'm in complete agreement with Sniper Kitty, again. It does show me something about the partisan divide, it's like there's this huge circle, and then there's this arbitrary line down the middle, but someone on the other side is sometimes only a few steps away from you, and someone on your side might be clear on the other side of the planet, which is not to say Auraptor or anything, but ya know what I mean.

Chris

lol. Glad someone got the ref. I know, sure, in this crowd it was likely.

Byte,

I was more disturbed by his appointments than the attack on Pakistan, in part because I thought this might be Gates and Co overstepping their authority (at the time) and in part because he missed this concept in the campaign, and it bugged me then, and helped him lose my vote.

Yes, I'm always the undecided voter. I know that no one wants to here this, but all four of the candidates and VPs were asked the same question here, and the correct answers were "The US can't invade its own ally", "No army can legally go anywhere without an invite", and "The president cannot decide to take the nation to war, that's the role of congress, all the president can do is lead the nation in the direction that congress decides." Joe Biden, Barack Obama and John McCain all blew it, and Sarah Palin nailed all three. Sure, maybe this is because she had no idea what she was doing, and had been cramming on "Constitution for Dummies" but perhaps the other three should have also.

Gino,

The problem with that argument is that the US is not a fixer, we're a fucker-upper. The longer we stay, the worse things will get. Consider Vietnam. If the US had left earlier, the VC could have taken the country much more easily, and they might have been more successful in Cambodia. A number of disasters could have been avoided by us just losing horribly.

We could have lost WWI horribly by not arming or aiding the entente, and if we hadn't, WWII would likely have been impossible. I've made the point a number of times in *gasp* academic circles, where the idea is very unpopular, that victory for the central powers would not have ended in a unified Europe under Germany, it would have been a carving up of Europe by the Central Powers and not by the Entente. While the effects of this are had to predict, one result would have been very easy to predict: No one would have suggested a partitioning of any of the victorious Central Powers. Now, sure, the obvious one that comes to a lot of people's minds is Germany, which used post war border concessions as an excuse for another war, but I think that's less important than the partitioning of the Austrian Empire. In an Entente Loss scenario, which would have been inevitable with no aid from the US or Russia, Austria would have remained the dominant central power of Europe. It would have been categorically impossible for Germany to instigate a second world war under any circumstances while being next door to the Austro-Hungarian Hapsburg Empire.

While this may seem like an abstruse historical reference, I think it's very pertinent to the situation at hand:

The balance of power in Central asia is very delicate, especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The dominant stablizing force is pretty clearly Iran, and India-Pakistan in turn keep Iran in check in turn, and together with Russia, they keep the former soviet possessions in check. This forces a relative stability to the region.

If the US were to categorically lose this war at this point, very little damage would have been done to that balance of power.

Okay, so we fucked up. So did the Russians. If you want to try to balance it out, there can be a war crimes tribunal or reparations. But having the US stick around to "fix it" gravely endangers a complex regional balance of power, which is IMHO what TPTB have in mind.

As for how the Afghans are going to react to the US? That's an easy prediction. Look how they reacted to Russia. I think it went like this: "So long suckers, and don't let the mountains hit you on the ass on your way out." Passed that, there's not much they *can* do. They're not a world power. Hell, half the "country" is still occupied by Pakistan, but that's a whole 'nother story.

Oh, and Gino, as for 20 years. Here's the kicker:
On the 20th anniversary of the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, there was no Soviet Union and the Afghans didn't give a flying fuck about the Russians, because the US and NATO were launching a joint assault on civilian militias in rural areas, killing scores of civilians as Obama initiated a new strategy which looked a lot like the old strategy, but covered three times as large an area of the country. On the same day, the US puppet govt. lead by Hamid Karzai lost control of more of its own capital.

As I said before, one of the traits I value in a leader is knowing when to walk away. Dwight Eisenhower knew when to walk away. Yeah, we have issues left over from that decision. But here's what else we have: This computer I'm using, my printer, mp3 player and most of my household electronics, which come from Samsung, a pretty top notch company. Imagine the potential alternate history in which we had pressed that war. Stevenson might very well have pressed the war on Truman's line. Unwilling to enter into a conflict on Chinese soil, victory would have been impossible. Not only would we have almost certainly lost South Korea, we could have quite likely spiraled the region into instability, locking Japan and China in a potential long term conflict. Sometimes you just have to walk away.

Byte,

I don't buy the myth of war ens recession. The arms trade makes a very few rich, but what the workers create, the armies destroy, so the net productivity grinds to a standstill.

Here's a question: adjusted for inflation, how long did it take the Stock Market to recover from the crash of 1929?

Select to view spoiler:

Actually, it depends on whose version of inflation you use. If you accept the CPI, which discounts food and energy, then 30 years. If you use the raw buying power of the dollar, the answer is: It never did. The depression never ended.

And here's another one: How long did it take the US to pay off the war bonds that it sold to pay for WWII?

Select to view spoiler:

The US govt. has still not paid a nickel down on the principle of those bonds, though we have been paying interest on them for 70 years. The total value of those bonds is now 2 Trillion dollars. Of course, the bonds themselves rollover every 30 years. The bonds are held at 5.5% interest. That means that 110 billion dollars a year is paid on interest on the war bonds of WWII. That means every american pays one dollar per day interest on debt from WWII. Even if you pay no income tax, you pay it, because income tax is inherent in the price of everything you buy, as the workers who deliver you the stuff you buy, even if it's made in china, or it's non-taxable goods, are the workers of the service industry, and they are supplying the tax.

Mike,

I'm perpetually impressed by how sharp Byte is for her age.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 5:52 PM

That's kind of what I'm saying, DT, the whole idea of war as an economic booster is flawed.

Though, you explained it better (as ever). :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 6:00 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Chris

lol. Glad someone got the ref. I know, sure, in this crowd it was likely.

So, is this a dirty game that preserves both sides? Or, is Michelle a Kahn-ut-tu woman?

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 6:04 PM

DT,

thanks for your WW1 analogy, it is something I keep wanting to read more about but never find the time...

I keep thinking the situation loosely resemble the Crimean mess, but scholar of history I am not...

On War crimes tribunal or reparations, hell some or any kind of accountability would be a start...

Look at the Torture discussions we have had here... Obama has effectively killed any hope of recourse there, despite the evidence..

I'd be happy if the US signed the ICC treaty, and let any prosecutions up to the judges at the Hague..

Be real nice if the US push to reform the UN security council to end the vetos, and turn that organization into something that could have a stabilizing effect... it has the capibility to do good, but needs to lose much of the politics

There needs to be a huge check on US foreign policy... or terrorism will become more and more the norm, as there is no other recourse against American power, and that power is too often used unwisely

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 6:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
That's kind of what I'm saying, DT, the whole idea of war as an economic booster is flawed.

Though, you explained it better (as ever). :)

Except the cold war and the Marshall plan...

but arms sales to the wars of others... even if you help start them

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 6:10 PM

Hmm, okay, also points, but those are only technically economic boosters to the military contractors, like Halliburton, NOT the entire US and/or global economy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 7:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Hmm, okay, also points, but those are only technically economic boosters to the military contractors, like Halliburton, NOT the entire US and/or global economy.

well...

unless you look at it this way

1946 - the US economy is tooled up and running full steam building weapons, and other military equipment

V-J day rolls along, a the soldiers who want to get out, get out and enter the labor force which is all ready running at full speed, and which just has lost the market which it has tooled up for...

This alone should have caused a pretty major crash, which at this time enter the Cold war and the Marshall Plan...

The US economy gets some leeway exporting weapons, while changing over to manufacture other products and services to change over to a peacetime economy...

Enter the lobbyists who like the money associated with these sales and want to continue...

The cold war was a sham, remember how surprised the intell community was when the Soviet Union came apart, the shock of the inability of Soviet forces in Afghanistan...

They had been padding the numbers for decades playing up the fear to build their own little empires

A large sector of the US economy was supported by this...

Initially with good intentions, but greed prevails...

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 7:59 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Hell, Gino - If I thought I could get away with it, I'd drag a couple of em down to the Hague myself, starting with that ratbastard Kissinger!

I saw alla this comin, and was vocal about it, much good that it did me, pffthhh.

And you're right "less of a shitheel than Bush" is a damned poor yardstick to go measuring shit by, although Obama can't "lose" me cause he never had me, although I did expect better of him than this.

That "state of emergency" shit followed by ACTA and Bidens attempt at constitutional end-runs is what really did it for me though, all the rest of this bullshit was about what I expected.

And their time will come, but I gotz *bizness* with the GOP first, as is well known.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 9:24 PM

Chris

Actually, that's not too far off, as her corporate powers not only enabled the Walmart to monopolize food, and destroy supermarkets, but connected Obama to the Clintons, OTOH, power is a tricky thing, because you can see where that got him, President yes, but also held in power by the mercy of a Mugato with no Mahko in site.

Of course, while stranding the lot of them on Ceti Alpha Five might seem like a good idea right now, in fifteen years it won't.

I mean... I don't know what you're talking about ;)

Gino,

It's tricky. The real important thing I've found is not which powers influence what, but where stable power lies. Germany was never a stable power, but Austria was. Forcibly disassembling it probably served Britain more than anyone else, but only short term.

As for the whole Ottoman collapse, sure there's some parallel there, but unfortunately the Ukraine is one of what I think of as "sandwich territories" that get caught up in every conflict that comes along, almost as much as Alsace-Lorraine.

The problem with accountability is that it's like any kind of justice: It's always going to be one-sided in the hands of the winners. Sure, we have evolved somewhat from the nature of war-crimes of the 20th c. (Sure, what Germany and Japan did was horrific, but numerically, it may pale in comparison to China and Russia, and if scale is less of a factor, then why'd the US, Britain and so many smaller powers get off scott-free? Oh yeah, we were on the winning side. That's why Saddam gets executed but Bush gets to kick back.)

The cold war was a sham on both sides. I wouldn't want to pit the US against Russia in a military conflict. The sham wasn't that they had nothing, it was that their resources were completely tied up holding down the hostile territory they already held.

Neither of us has proven that we can conquer much of anything. I suspect this is because both powers use a flawed methodology, they fail to get the conquered on their side. Cortez didn't defeat Montezuma because of superior weaponry, he defeated Montezuma because he had a larger base of support among the Aztecs, about 20:1 if I recall. Our current base of support among the Afghans is, hold on, I think I have that number, 0%?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 25, 2009 3:09 AM

Quote:
...or terrorism will become more and more the norm, as there is no other recourse against American power, and that power is too often used unwisely.

Which kind of makes me wonder if that isn't the intent. Keep terrorism alive by declaring war on it, and you get your handy-dandy "Forever War" that keeps the wheels of commerce rolling along. War is, as DT noted above, the ultimate consumer, since it keeps you constantly building things and sending in new "workers". And how sad is that, that we've now effectively shifted our economy from manufacturing goods to manufacturing wars?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 25, 2009 3:51 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

There needs to be a huge check on US foreign policy... or terrorism will become more and more the norm, as there is no other recourse against American power, and that power is too often used unwisely

Ironical eh? Why the F can't we spend the same money to improve that country? And set that example?

I'm not bailing yet though, I didn't bail on Der Dubya until just before the end of his first term. Some people are just late bloomers, it's too soon.

I am on the surface very, very disappointed and saddened by this decision. The thing is I don't know - none of us knows (not even DT with his incredible resources) KNOWS what's under the surface. Is there some real threat to the nukes in Pakistan that is the real motivation? There has to be something beyond business as usual just with more army. As DT and Byte suggest, TPTB (that's a thread starter, later) pulling strings - to what end? If they are powerful enough to pull those strings then why do they need to?

I'll at least give him until next Tuesday Night - "when all things will be made clear." If he scores a "C" or lower...

edited to punch up thread title

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 25, 2009 4:39 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Hussein Obama Soetoro has been a CIA agent for decades, and was illegally in Pakistan with Usama Bin Laden in 1981. "Obama" decides nothing, he vast only following ze odahs.

Quote:

Obama's jew controller Zbigniew Brezinski founded AllCIAduh, hanging out with USAma Bin Laden in Pakistan (Village Voice 1981 when CIA agent Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro was illegally in Pakistan)

"Regret what? That secret operation (the CIA backing of Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists) was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?"
-Zbigniew Brzezinski, Le Nouvel Observateur, Jan, 1998

"I've learned an immense amount from Dr. Brzezinski."
-Hussein Obama, 12 Sept 2007
youtube.com/watch?v=ASlETEx0T-I

"I endorsed Obama."
-Zbigniew Brzezinski, MSNBC
youtube.com/watch?v=NCO7Pr7RJ7s

"I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough. Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at. Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon.''
-Professor Bill Ayers, FBI/CIA employee and confessed bomber of NYPD HQ, US Capitol, NY Supreme Court, bombed and killed two female bombers in his house, busted CIA LSD mind-control agent Timothy Leary out of prison, confessed to 12 bombings but never prosecuted, author of Barack Hussien Obama Sotoro's authorized biography and grant recipient of Obama's Annenberg Foundation

Bill Ayers, Professor of Education, University of Illinois at Chicago
youtube.com/watch?v=DDyDtYy2I0M
www.deliberatedumbingdown.com

"Soldiers are dumb animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy. The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer. Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government."
-Sir Heinz "Henry" Kissinger Kosher Knight of the British Empire

"As the most recent National Security Advisor of the United States, I take my daily orders from Dr. Kissinger, filtered down through General Brent Scowcroft and Sandy Berger, who is also here. We have a chain of command in the National Security Council that exists today."
-Major General James Jones, Obama's National Security Advisor
www.examiner.com/x-4285-Salt-Lake-Nonpartisan-Examiner~y2009m3d23-Nati
onal-Security-Advisor-takes-orders-from-Henry-Kissinger

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 25, 2009 10:02 AM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 25, 2009 10:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

There needs to be a huge check on US foreign policy... or terrorism will become more and more the norm, as there is no other recourse against American power, and that power is too often used unwisely

Ironical eh? Why the F can't we spend the same money to improve that country? And set that example?

I'm not bailing yet though, I didn't bail on Der Dubya until just before the end of his first term. Some people are just late bloomers, it's too soon.

I am on the surface very, very disappointed and saddened by this decision. The thing is I don't know - none of us knows (not even DT with his incredible resources) KNOWS what's under the surface. Is there some real threat to the nukes in Pakistan that is the real motivation? There has to be something beyond business as usual just with more army. As DT and Byte suggest, TPTB (that's a thread starter, later) pulling strings - to what end? If they are powerful enough to pull those strings then why do they need to?

I'll at least give him until next Tuesday Night - "when all things will be made clear." If he scores a "C" or lower...

edited to punch up thread title

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

My problem with the policy on Pakistan, is why did they go out of their way to force the removal of President Musharraf if they wanted stability.

Musharraf had to walk a pretty fine line between supporting the west, and letting the extremists be, but he was doing a good job a it.

I used to have a co-worker who retired out of the Indian army as a major, he told me that relations between Pakistan and India were always a little more relaxed when the military was running the show there, and pointed out how corrupt Benazir Bhutto and her family have been for decades...

In addition have the drone attacks accomplished anything other than kicking the hornets nest?

or turning the Blackwater crowd loose in there

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/11/20091124173646886405.ht
ml

US firm 'runs covert Pakistan ops'

perhaps as I am sure Obama does want a second term, the best thing that could happen is if the Republicans field a new, real face to oppose him, then maybe he'll listen a little more to the electorate and less to the CFR and whomever else is whispering in his ear...

and that face ain't going to be Palin

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 25, 2009 10:10 AM

Quote:
(not even DT with his incredible resources)

Not sure if this was a snark or not. Actually, I know a great deal of what's underneath, and in part, I've played the game of "Obama's a nice guy" and while he *does* seem like a nice guy, he is not as naive as I've been giving him credit for, and I've known this the whole time I've been on the forum. Obama himself is very inner circle. This isn't just about him getting snowed by clintons, though there is an element of that. He's also a first class globalist.

As for what it's all about, there have been threads about that. Destabilizing the region is a goal, and a major end goal of that would be to create puppet govts. that would then in turn cede sovereignty to a supranational entity like MEFTA.

The thread title "Obama's Private little war" does derail the star trek reference, and okay, it's descriptive, but I think it deflects some liberal traffic. I might change it back.

ETA: Gino,

1. Thanks for the captain obvious report, I know you knew this already, and were sharing for those who didn't. Notice that the CIA sacrificed Benazir Bhutto to get it's coup for a puppet that would allow the dissolution of Pakistan.

2. I think you're missing something about the democratic process:

a) no one ever listens to the electorate
b) no candidates ever have appeal
c) all elections are decided by third party split.

Obama is the third democrat in US history to win a majority of the vote. Bush won by a nose with help from Nader, Clinton with help from Perot, Reagan got in with Anderson, but *did* win re-election, though not initial "election".

Of course, once TPTB are close enough, they adjust vote totals to show their guy won by a nose.

Oh, and careful with that "they." It's kinda on the vague side.

But overall, yeah, you're right on the money here.

I quibble with one point: I think a strong voice for the right would decidedly lose. A pathetic one stands a chance. What we need is a weak lefty splitter, and then to remove Dobbs, and win.

I don't think that Obama is salvageable.
I would have thought so up until now.
Hence the thread.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 25, 2009 10:36 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Gino:

Quote:
American has made a hell of a mess, of Afghanistan and other places... do they deserve a pass and get to simply walk away and leave the mess ( again ) for other to try and fix.

If it were anyone else pulling this over and over again they would be international pariahs...

I agree wholeheartedly. But I think we ARE international pariahs to many in the world...just not those in power!

Unfortunately I am on the fence as to what we do, given I lived in Afghanistan and know some of what has gone on there, and hate the idea of us just abandoning it...again...and leaving a mess behind.

On the other hand, I appreciate a President who, at the very least, took the time to look at the options--none of which are good--before deciding what to do. And yes, I think he did. It's an improvement over someone who dives in head first because of his OWN agenda, and if Dumbya had followed through in Afghanistan, it wouldn't be the mess it is now.

Whoever initially entitled this "Obama's little war" should be ashamed; whatever he is, the man is stuck between a rock and a hard place because Dumbya dumped a "little war" in his lap after having happily engaged in a "big PRIVATE war" in Iraq.

And no, I didn't change the title...only title changing I've done that I can recall was to put the title back to what it originally was.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 25, 2009 11:51 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Quote:
(not even DT with his incredible resources)

Not sure if this was a snark or not. Actually, I know a great deal of what's underneath, and in part, I've played the game of "Obama's a nice guy" and while he *does* seem like a nice guy, he is not as naive as I've been giving him credit for, and I've known this the whole time I've been on the forum. Obama himself is very inner circle. This isn't just about him getting snowed by clintons, though there is an element of that. He's also a first class globalist.

As for what it's all about, there have been threads about that. Destabilizing the region is a goal, and a major end goal of that would be to create puppet govts. that would then in turn cede sovereignty to a supranational entity like MEFTA.

The thread title "Obama's Private little war" does derail the star trek reference, and okay, it's descriptive, but I think it deflects some liberal traffic. I might change it back.

Not snark at all DT, you seem to have the inside goods on a lot of things - I don't always agree with your interpretations but that's natural. For instance, your penchant for "the puppet masters behind the puppet masters' theories for who is pulling the strings. I can't tell if it's just how you frame the world or if there's really something to it.

"To create puppet govs" - isn't that what Karzai already is?

@Niki - I changed the title (as I mentioned in an earlier post) as part of DT's other thread about Thread Titling effectiveness. DT suggested he was ok with title changes and I thought the thread was really saying that the war was now Obama's and not Bush's. I agree with you, just like with the bailouts, Bush gets to skate and lay the responsibility on someone else.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 25, 2009 1:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Gino:
Quote:
American has made a hell of a mess, of Afghanistan and other places... do they deserve a pass and get to simply walk away and leave the mess ( again ) for other to try and fix.

If it were anyone else pulling this over and over again they would be international pariahs...
I agree wholeheartedly. But I think we ARE international pariahs to many in the world...just not those in power!

Unfortunately I am on the fence as to what we do, given I lived in Afghanistan and know some of what has gone on there, and hate the idea of us just abandoning it...again...and leaving a mess behind.

On the other hand, I appreciate a President who, at the very least, took the time to look at the options--none of which are good--before deciding what to do. And yes, I think he did. It's an improvement over someone who dives in head first because of his OWN agenda, and if Dumbya had followed through in Afghanistan, it wouldn't be the mess it is now.

Whoever initially entitled this "Obama's little war" should be ashamed; whatever he is, the man is stuck between a rock and a hard place because Dumbya dumped a "little war" in his lap after having happily engaged in a "big PRIVATE war" in Iraq.

And no, I didn't change the title...only title changing I've done that I can recall was to put the title back to what it originally was.

Most of the solutions I think might have worked are all past the expiry date now...

As you have personal experience here, let me ask a few questions if you don't mind...

Do you think some kind of coalition government with clear power sharing could unite the factions in Afghanistan ?

I have read that the median age at the time of the Soviet withdrawal for the country was about 15, and the collapse of the country pretty much shut down the education system amongst other infrastructure, does this mean that most of the government requires expatriates in key positions in order to function ? and is that acceptable to the public at large ?

I have also read that many of those who laid down their arms ( Taliban and others ) in the amnesty deals that have been offered in the past, have been subsequently arrested, tortured, then turned loose again, at which point they headed back into the hills to fight again. Do you think these people would accept anything other than total victory to ground their arms again, or is a settlement still possible ? ( kinda a cultural question I guess )

How has the expansion of the war into Pakistan ( drone attacks included ) effected the public opinion inside Afghanistan ?

A matter of opinion here, the Taliban have been villianized by the Western media, now is painting that group with the same brush a bad thing? Could they contribute to a coalition government ? Also I have pointed out a few times the things some of the former Northern Alliance types have committed in the past, would you say they are just as bad as the Taliban, worse, or better ?

I have also read that the primary concerns of Afghans is 1. Unemployment and 2. Corruption

Any ideas on how that could be addressed ? What exports could Afghanistan offer other than opium ?

As I understand it, Afghanistan has been too volatile for much geological surveying to be done, but it seems they has oil and gas rich neighbors on three sides, in addition to being on a lucrative potential pipeline route, could this be what the west really wanted in the first place? ( Landsat surveys may have provided some info ) and could this be a way to fund the rebuilding of the country...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 25, 2009 5:04 PM

Pizmo

The whole thing is a yarn drawer attacked by 500 cats. Unravelling it takes a lot of doing, and hopefully, large pieces are unravelled by someone else, but then there's the question of who do you trust?

Karzai is a puppet, yes, unofficially he's CIA and his address was somewhere in New Mexico IIRC when he was named to be the next leader of Afgh. Officially, he was hiding out in Pakistan. That official story has way too many holes in it, the Pashtun resistance would have executed him as a traitor long ago.

But Karzai is a failed puppet. He has no popular support, and is just there because our govt. recognizes him, and got the UN to do the same. I was referring to the regime in Pakistan, which is a recent puppet govt. which has no support.

Shariff is by no means the opposition to Bhutto Zardari, they're both PPP which is a communist front for corporatist puppetry. When they failed to win a majority between the two of them by coalition of massive vote splitting and fraud, they held another election three months later so they could cheat a lot more. But then, the structure of the Islamic Republic is that they have a position of "National Chairman" which is based on that of Mao, and is held by Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, a hereditary post. This is the real leadership and structure, as it can dismiss govts, call elections, and rig them as it sees fit.

The Sindhi indo-aryan population of "pakistanis" live east of the Indus River, and are racially different from what we might objectively call the Afghan tribal populations west of the river. "Pakistan" claims the western territories because the british empire did, based on nothing, and that claim is supported by the US and Britain.

The reality is that the indo-aryan empire ends at the indus river, and the number of states it is divided into is subject to change, but not really relevant. There's really no popular support on either side of the river for what would technically be a civil war. There are about 120 million aryans and 50 million pashtun. Lest anyone be confused, aryans here means people with dark skin. (confusing place this earth) But there's really no animosity between these two groups, or wasn't, since they're geographically separated, speak different languages, have different cultures and a minor amount of interaction with one another, there's really no more reason for such a war than between the US and Canada, or between the states east of the mississippi and those west.

Support for the war comes from the US and Britain, and our puppet govt. in Islamobad. Pakistan has an army of a million some men, but it's unlikely that they will support the war as long as their puppeteers want them to, and so I predict this will end in another junta.

The US is under the mistaken impression that our new ally, India, is going to then opportunistically invade. What we fail to realize is that India is like a capitalist USSR. It holds down the fort on a large number of hostile territories that don't really have any strong sense of national unity with the govt. in New Delhi. If India invades anywhere, opportunitic rebels will shred the union, and they know it. This is why India perpetually does nothing as it loses state after state of its empire.

So sure, while he lasts, Karzai is a puppet who allows the US to attack his country, or what the UN recognizes as his country, even though he technically only controls eight city blocks in Kabul.

The real disaster here that makes it potentially worse than vietnam is that US forces have no friendly territory. This also makes it different from Iraq. We have no allies and nowhere we can retreat to in order not to be attacked.

To make matters worse, we don't even know who the enemy is. We're identified 3 million enemy combatants on the Afghan side of the border, and we're not sure how many on the "Pakistani" side, but with a similar population, figure a similar number. Add to that the possible intervention of any of a large number of military powers, almost certainly not on our side, but including but not limited to: Iran, Russia, China, Turkey and we're not sure yet about Pakistan. Any power entering the arena could be assumed to be blatantly opportunist. The Govt. of pakistan has far more interest in the muslim dominated areas of india than it has in western pakistan, Iran probably wouldn't mind picking up any former part of the persian empire, the Russians might try to recapture former soviet republics in the region, the Turks have designs on Iraq, as do the Iranians, and China is looking to establish a strong central asian alliance that can supply them with out, which they have quite publically announce is Iran. Since Beijing would like to see an Iran-China pipeline, they may decide to overthrow the govt. of Pakistan to create a corridor, which could also be used to funnel arms into Iran.

This is just the start of all hell that could break loose.

Now a US military, roaming around with drones, bombing villages, is a recruiting poster for any enemy. We may be thinking these are local militias, and have undoubtedly set up our own little pocket al qaeda to recruit against ourselves, but past the orwellian insanity of that strategy, the sheer stupidity of the notion that we can control afghanistan and not spark any other unwanted chaos in areas that are already friendly, and that we would just leave enough chaos to make military bases to surround Iran and perhaps destabilize Iran is overall worse than it seems, it's shortsighted, or possibly moronic.

The reality is that Russia is already in Afghanistan trying to use our presence as a recruiting power for its own militias, because there's a little matter of small separatist republics of the USSR that have oil, and oh yeah, also nuclear weapons. Iran is undoubtedly already there as well, and well, China, they're bogged down with the chaos that has already spilled into Xinjiang.

Another prediction: China, which outnumbers Xinjiang 100:1, and whose armed forces are far more technologically advanced, will lose this war, and have no idea that they are going to lose. Such a loss could be truly devastating for them, because it will crack the image of invulnerable that they have maintained for 60 years. (See the Battle of Leuctra)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 25, 2009 5:43 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Now a US military, roaming around with drones, bombing villages, is a recruiting poster for any enemy. We may be thinking these are local militias, and have undoubtedly set up our own little pocket al qaeda to recruit against ourselves, but past the orwellian insanity of that strategy, the sheer stupidity of the notion that we can control afghanistan and not spark any other unwanted chaos in areas that are already friendly, and that we would just leave enough chaos to make military bases to surround Iran and perhaps destabilize Iran is overall worse than it seems, it's shortsighted, or possibly moronic.

Thanks Dream - a rat's nest for sure. There's something about this last part. I totally agree with your description and your "moronic" "stupid" and "shortsighted" assessments.
It's just that if we can see that then how can our Gov not know that we see it that way, and how can they think they can continue to pretend it's not true? And therefore, I have to think the motives must be something other than what we see or guess at. I guess I'm still giving them the benefit of the doubt.

I've had several jobs where before, as a customer, I was so sure how they were run and what the businesses motives were, only to be completely wrong once I was on the other side as an employee, the things that seemed stupid to me as a customer had been given real consideration and were the best answers possible.

I'm looking forward to next Tuesday, he better bring his A speech.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 25, 2009 6:39 PM

Pizmo

The powers that be run on a 90% theory. If they hit 90% of the population with any story, propaganda, etc., they figure that's good enough. Lately, they've been slipping. Just over half believe the official story of 9/11, and less than that support the war.

I expect Obama to bring an Orwellian "War is Peace" speech. He'll probably carry it off well, much better than Bush did, but it will be the same doublespeak "We must escalate this conflict against an enemy as of yet undefined in order for there to be peace."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 25, 2009 7:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Pizmo

The powers that be run on a 90% theory. If they hit 90% of the population with any story, propaganda, etc., they figure that's good enough. Lately, they've been slipping. Just over half believe the official story of 9/11, and less than that support the war.

I expect Obama to bring an Orwellian "War is Peace" speech. He'll probably carry it off well, much better than Bush did, but it will be the same doublespeak "We must escalate this conflict against an enemy as of yet undefined in order for there to be peace."

I would rather hear this,

" I am sorry, people we have fucking up by invading Afghanistan in the first place. We have expanded on that mistake by installing a political system with fatal flaws, flaws which insure we will never succeed in our goals for a stable central Asia...

Over then past weeks, I have sought and received advice on how to approach this situation. I have consulted General McChrystal, our state department, our NATO allies and through Secretary Clinton leaders in this troubled region.

This consultation has left me to believe America has only one choice in this... in order to promote our security, establish regional stability and bring the long sought promise of peace to the Afghan people as well as maintain ... re-establish the honor of the United States

As of an hour ago, I have ordered that the present Government of Afghanistan be dissolved...

Hamid Karzai and many members of the national assembly have been taken into American custody... it is my wish that they will be handed over to the Hague and tried by the international criminal court for various warcrimes and drug trafficking. If this turns out to be impossible, they will be held at the Bagram Air Base until such time the next government of Afghanistan can bring them to trial on charges of corruption.

To the people of Afghanistan, please accept my apology, this extraordinary means is necessary to find the peace and stabilty you deserve.

To the American Forces, and the Forces of our NATO allies... we are found ourselves at a tipping point. I want to reassure you that we will succeed in our mission, to that end I am ordering the deployment of an additional thirty thousand troops, as well as ordering the halt of drone attacks and airstrikes in Pakistan.

In the coming weeks, I will lay out the framework for the new Afghan government. We will offer an amnesty to those who stood against the old government, and a place in the creation of a new government... but hear this... this is you opportunity for peace... continue to fight and we will bring forth ALL of our resources to destroy you. "

Well, something like that anyway...

and mid speech the rogue secret service guy lunges out

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 26, 2009 4:55 AM

Gino

That last part won't work. Being attack by america is a recruitment poster for random terrorist groups.

Just think of it like Star Wars. How many people would the rebels have gotten if instead of being all iron fist and out to crush Luke and co, they had been more like this:

Hey, yeah, it's Darth again, and this is Empire radio in the morning. Yeah, I know, you're probably out there busting it up on some small freighter and thinking, Mr. Vader it's not morning, or you're three light years out and you're getting this a little late, but I'm just keep people up to speed before I get back to the business of running a galactic empire.

We got a memo in that a group of people want to destroy our new Life Star. This plan will bring about, oh, they're not to clear on what happens next, but they intend to do it with a Y wing and magic. Yes, I'm not making this up. We have phone lines open, should we devote resources to keeping surveillance on this group of kooks? Or should we just ignore them?

Or, and about the renaming, I just thought Death Star sounding too cartoonishly evil, like it was Blackwater Security or something. It also led to rumors that we were destroying planets. Actually, the new medical facility is almost operational, and yeah, i know my critics say that this univeral healthcare program is very self serving, what with me being the last person in the universe to be in an iron lung, I think you'll find that even Luke and the kooks will come in for free treatments.

Okay, first caller, Bail, how's the force moving you today?

"Mr. Vader, first let me thank you for having me on..."

"Hey Bail, in spite of what it might look like in the movies, running an empire requires actual work, get to the point"

"Well, I was wondering why you have withdrawn all forces from Alderaan? What is Breha seizes power?"

"Bail, I'm sorry, but it's a galactic empire, I don't wanna sound callous, but it won't wreck my day if Breha replaces you in the Senate. Hell, if she declares indepenence it's not going to have any effect back at Coruscant. It's sort of like saying: What if there was a revolution on Tatooine?... "

But seriously, in this story, due to the emperor's failing health, Mace Windu has just taken over the empire from Cheney, I mean Vader, rather than dying in a pointless scene, and only then do we find out that he is going to devote the empire's entire resources to crushing a revolt of a handful of rebels on Yavin IV.

Isn't there a serious WTF reality check factor in our govt? I mean, if he really wanted to stabilize and win Afghanistan for less than he's paying now, just extend universal healthcare to *them*. But here's a better idea: let's do nothing, rather than escalate the situation until every other powerbase in the world is involved and someone gives someone enough weaponry to bomb the mothership? I mean any sane plan would start by recognizing the percent of world power held by Afghanistan, and some assessment over whether a large scale war was going to make the lives of the people there better than a random govt.

Remember, whoever comes to power in Afgh, is like whoever comes to power in Somalia. It's not like they're going to be able to be a tyrannical dictatorship that organizes their people under totalitarian rule and then starts invading neighbors. From what I understand, the place is like 100 northern irelands.

Not saying "who cares" but "is this really a good use of imperial resources?" and "is it going to help anyone?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 26, 2009 10:56 AM

We were looking of a fix weren't we

I should have gone on to say Blackwater and their ilk would be shut down, and laws written to ensure they could not spring up again...

If we go by your analogy, then the destruction of the United States needs to become the goal...

Bin Laden is right if that is the case

or a revolution that has the CFR, all the bankers, and anyone remotely governmental hanging from lamp posts...

but I can't see that happening ( well in the US anyway )

You gave good reasons not to go into Afghanistan in the first place...

but you are a little lite on your exit strategy

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 27, 2009 1:33 PM

Gino

1. Bin Laden wasn't an idiot, but he wasn't right. He's basically fascist. I've read his writings, and I'd say that he's just another tool who wants to push a way of life on million of people, and seems to have gotten most of his aid in doing so from us...

... back when we thought he was on our side. But who's to say that whomever we are backing today i not the next Osama Bin Laden?

2. Here's my exit strategy: "Listen Up. All US forces, you have 24 hours to withdraw. After that, you will still be required to withdraw, but you face mounting possibility of disciplinary action."

3. Destruction of the United States is a goal. These states should be allied in a loose confederation, not held under an iron fist. It was never meant to be this way.

Here's the easy three steps to achieving this

a) All states should adopt the bill of rights into their own state constitutions

b) Any politician, state or federal who violates those rules should be removed from office by the representatives of or within those states

c) states should being their own means of managing their own local currencies, etc., and file suit against the federal govt. for any redress of wrongs, such as the conscription of their citizens to fight in unjust wars, or the taxation of their citizens to pay debt incurred by an unchecked executive, etc.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 27, 2009 2:43 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Thanx, Gino--GREAT QUESTIONS!...ohboy, something to sink my teeth into:

Quote:
Do you think some kind of coalition government with clear power sharing could unite the factions in Afghanistan ?

That's essentially what they had when I lived there '58-'61): a shah. Anyone ruling Afghanistan throughout history knew they weren't "ruling" the whole country; the tribal leaders rule their own areas, as terrain and distance between villages makes central government illogical. At that time the shah didn't actually try to "rule", mostly just keep the country together and deal with the outside world. It's not GOOD, but it worked. When the shah and his family were killed, Doud became the "President", and it went to hell from there.

As to a "coalition", there is a scene in "Lawrence of Arabia" that depicts it exactly, where Lawrence is trying to get the tribal leaders to each take responsibility for one thing, like power, water, etc. I recommend anyone who wonders if a "coalition" would be possible see that. It represents Afghanistan perfectly. Perhaps that can change in time, but remember: they live in a strange world which is pretty much either the time of Christ or the 21st century, with nothing in between.

Quote:
I have read that the median age at the time of the Soviet withdrawal for the country was about 15, and the collapse of the country pretty much shut down the education system amongst other infrastructure, does this mean that most of the government requires expatriates in key positions in order to function ? and is that acceptable to the public at large ?

Oooo, someone who knows something about something! Congrats! Yes, the average lifespan when we were there was about 40--it's longer now, but not by much, and we American's just can't comprehend the harshness of life there. You wouldn't necessarily need expatriates; the Afghans are very, very distrustful of outsiders, but unless you could overcome the corruption, etc., and train people, you would need outsiders, and nowadays outsiders, as long as they weren't killing people and destroying things, would be much more easily accepted by the people.

The word "bakshish" was INVENTED in "Persia"--Afghanistan being part of same--everything works by payoffs and bribes, so changing that mindest is a huuuuge job. It's a way of life and a mindset.

Quote:
I have also read that many of those who laid down their arms ( Taliban and others ) in the amnesty deals that have been offered in the past, have been subsequently arrested, tortured, then turned loose again, at which point they headed back into the hills to fight again. Do you think these people would accept anything other than total victory to ground their arms again, or is a settlement still possible ? ( kinda a cultural question I guess )

OOo, this is exciting. I'm LOVING your asking real questions. I believe that those bribed (as it is such a mentality) to stop fighting would stay that way if, IF, they were treated decently. You'd have to get the Afghan government to treat them decently, not just the Americans. The Afghans are a suspicious people, but once you get past that suspicion, they are INCREDIBLY generous...again, the harsh life creates a culture where suspicion keeps you alive, but once trusted, working together helps survival.

IF you go into a valley with troops after the Taliban and wage a battle, Afghan men will take up arms with the Taliban--especially if you start bombing the hell out of it and kill civilians. A) Life is cheaper there than here, B) the poverty is incredible, and C) the Taliban are native. If we could go in peacefully, bribe those open to same, and go after only the Taliban (is that even possible??), they'd side with us.

The people actually HATE the Taliban...at least those in the urban areas (if you can call them that). When we were there, the shah was intent on removing the chadri ("purdah" elsewhere)--I know because my mom helped, getting patterns and sewing machines from Vogue, etc., and giving sewing lessons despite death threats from the mullahs. It worked; it was wonderful to see...but the Taliban (essentially the mullahs) reversed it. The Taliban strictures are pretty much like America being run by the most fire-and-brimstone Evangelical right wingers you can think of.

They hate Al Qaeda too, but they're less of a problem; the Taliban are right among them, making life even more difficult than it is. They've always been strongest in the South; there were bloody riots in Kandahar when the shah got the chadri removed. Chadri = control of the people. Religion = control of the people. They won't easily give up that control.

Quote:
How has the expansion of the war into Pakistan ( drone attacks included ) effected the public opinion inside Afghanistan ?

There's a long history between Pakistan and Afghanistan...and India. Pakistan and Afghanistan are much more interconnected, and telling the people of one from the other around border regions is all but impossible. BUT, Pakistan has long worked via its ISI to destabilize Afghanistan, so the anti-Pakistani feelings run high. From Wikipedia:

Quote:
Pakistan had a history of interference in Afghanistan using its ISI intelligence agency. Afghanistan had engaged in cross-border attacks into Bajaur, Pakistan in an unsuccessful attempt to manipulate events in that area as far back as 1960.

Since the creation of Pakistan, Afghanistan has tried relentlessly to press the Pushtunistan issue. Afghan President Mohammed Daoud Khan tried using a propaganda war as well as military force but the Afghan Army was eventually routed by the Pakistan military. This situation exacerbated demographic tensions over the Durand Line which divided Pushtun tribes between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Quote:
The Taliban initially enjoyed enormous good will from Afghans weary of the corruption, brutality, and the incessant fighting of Mujahideen warlords. Supposedly the Pakistan-based truck shipping mafia known as the "Afghanistan Transit Trade" and their allies in the Pakistan government, trained, armed, and financed the Taliban to clear the southern road across Afghanistan to the Central Asian Republics of extortionate bandit gangs.

What the relationship between the two countries is today I cannot say; during the Russian occupation, Afghan refugees in Pakistan made up the largest refugee camps the world had ever seen, so I imagine there's been a lot of intermingling. I don't expect our attacks on Pakistan matter much one way or the other to them; it's a land where what happens in your own area and your own life are what's most important.

Quote:
A matter of opinion here, the Taliban have been villianized by the Western media, now is painting that group with the same brush a bad thing? Could they contribute to a coalition government ? Also I have pointed out a few times the things some of the former Northern Alliance types have committed in the past, would you say they are just as bad as the Taliban, worse, or better ?

'Nother great one! I can't speak to it really well...I know being ruled by the Taliban is bad; I know the Northern Alliance has done terrible things; I don' know which is worse, except that the Taliban is run by RELIGION.

The mujahideen fighters who defeated the communist government and formed the Islamic State of Afghanistan (ISA) came under attack and in 1996 lost the capital to the Taliban. The United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan (UIF) ("Northern Alliance") was a military-political umbrella organization created by the ISA in 1996. It united various Afghan groups who were fighting one another to fight the Taliban. In late 2001, with Western help, they succeeded in retaking most of Afghanistan from the Taliban. Before 2001, Russia, Turkey, India and Iran supported them, Pakistan, the UAE and Arabia supported the Taliban.

Ahmed Shah Massoud served as the UIF's Minister of Defense and was by far its most visible and powerful figure. He was assassinated by al Qaeda on September 13, 2001. Massoud could have accomplished a lot of things, I firmly believe. But that's another story. Yes, the human rights abuses are well documented, and the Northern Alliance (which is now part of the United National Front (Afghanistan)) makes up the "loyal" opposition to Karzai...tho' former UIF elements might well like to use military action against the Karzai government.

I know Karzai government is a failure; the Afghans aren't stupid, they know it's a puppet regime. Personally, I'm for the Northern Alliance (if they should ever re-constitute); their human-rights violations are no worse than the Taliban's but they're not a religiously-based force, something far more dangerous and destructive, in my opinion.

Quote:
I have also read that the primary concerns of Afghans is 1. Unemployment and 2. Corruption

Well, I guess "unemployment" comes under "poverty", which is what I'd put at #1. I don't think corruption would be easy to eradicate; rather, it can be got around, dealth with, etc., and maybe eventually gotten away with.

I would put clean water first, health and poverty second, and education third. Those above may be the primary concerns of URBAN Afghans, but improving the infrastructure and the condition of ALL the people are what would help the country most.

Quote:
Any ideas on how that could be addressed ? What exports could Afghanistan offer other than opium ?

Oh, damn, good question; and I have no answers. Afghanistan used to do a good trade in lapus lazuli, prevalent in the country, and trade goods, but they were always poor. It was originally just a trade route between India and Russia; what farming there was, was pretty much subsistence. They made and sold great rugs and other commodities. It's not a country for growing things, has NO industry and starting any is hard to imagine, and they have no real natural resources.

It's an incredibly poor country, I can't say that enough...there are organizations trying to improve things with exports of goods, like the Afghan Women's Mission ( http://afghanwomensmission.org/index.php), but I'm not sure if there's any one "big" solution. It's much like Africa in that way, only poorer than most of Africa.

I don't know about your last question...didn't know about the pipeline thing. Given the volatility of the region, I'd have doubts about that being viable. What America and Russia wanted it for originally was a buffer country...while we were there it got to be a joke how the Afghans would play them off against one another. We gave them an airport, Russia gave them grain silohs; we gave them a hospital, Russia gave them a road (straight to Russia, and guess what it was used for a few years later?).

So I can't speak to nowadays; Russia learned she couldn't hold them, we're learning the same. One of the things the Afghans have always been proudest of is that NO conqueror has ever held the country, and they believe none ever will. I agree with them...unless the terrain were to change dramatically, travel between areas is extremely difficult, so how do you "rule" a country like that?

I haven't seen the other responses, I got so excited by your questions (and went on forever); so I'll respond to anything added after your post once I've read them.

THANK YOU, Gino--nobody usually asks about Afghanistan or its people; mostly it's a battleground and discussed in those terms, or political terms that mean something to US, but not to the Afghans.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 27, 2009 3:26 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I need to thank you, too, DT. Your knowledge of world politics has seemed so far beyond my own that I just took what you said verbatum.

This response has shown me that A) You make a lot of suppositions not necessarily based on facts, B) Your knowledge is not as extensive or factual as I've thought, and C) Your reasoning is sometime to me quite illogical. Afghans I know living here who moved here between 2 and 20 years ago would have a lot of arguments with what you wrote. Just to start with Karzai only controlling "eight city blocks" of Kabul! Not to mention stating unilaterally that we have "have undoubtedly set up our own little pocket al qaeda to recruit against ourselves". Reading this has helped me understand better how to read your posts, and I appreciate that.

Let's just say that from my point of view, Pizmo's concept of the difference between being a customer and an employee might apply to your view of Afghanistan.

Pulling out = chaos. They've had enough of that. I think there are more workable plans. I don't think a lot of your suppositions are accurate--yes, it's been 50 years since I've been there and I'm probably not as educated on politics as you, but I have to say, I think you're full of shit in some respects. When you mix your ideology with what you state as fact, it doesn't come out right, and I'm not sure which is which. I do know some of what you wrote is diametrically opposite to what the Afghans I know report.

Just your "solution" to disolving the US blows my mind. The potential for chaos HERE would be incredible--in a perfect world, maybe, but not in the real one. You'd have states going to war against one another in no time. Bad as it is, a united states is better than 50 small countries!

I will freely grant your acumen in

Quote:
Remember, whoever comes to power in Afgh, is like whoever comes to power in Somalia. It's not like they're going to be able to be a tyrannical dictatorship that organizes their people under totalitarian rule and then starts invading neighbors.

But I believe we can do better than invading a country, messing it up worse than it already was, and then pulling out and thumbing our nose at them because they're not geopolitically important enough for us.

Gino, I like your logic, and I love your "Presidential speech". Unfortunately, dissolving Karzai's government wouldn't work; power leaks into a vacuum. Don't I wish, tho'! But America can't "lay out a framework" for an Afghan government; they would consider that occupation, pure and simple (which it would be, to an extent, since anything WE set up would befirst and foremost for OUR best interest, not theirs). I don't know what the answer is...I wish I did!

And yes, private contractors should be in that speech, just as you wrote it!

I'm not savvy about geopolitics, nor do I have any specific ideology from which to speak. I care about the country and its people, and hate seeing them caught in this web. But I don't know how one would go about extricating them viably.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 27, 2009 3:28 PM

ASARIAN

Somehow "I told you so!" -- when I was questiong the wisdom of giving Obama the Nobel Prize so early on - doesn't quite cover it.

Now, a LOT of it can be attributed to a collective, angry, Republican mob-mentality, bent on thwarting any and everything Obama does. But, at the end of the day, a President's gotta be able to look back and say he accomplished at least something. And I ain't seein' it yet.

--
"Mei-mei, everything I have is right here." -- Simon Tam

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 27, 2009 4:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Gino

1. Bin Laden wasn't an idiot, but he wasn't right. He's basically fascist. I've read his writings, and I'd say that he's just another tool who wants to push a way of life on million of people, and seems to have gotten most of his aid in doing so from us...

... back when we thought he was on our side. But who's to say that whomever we are backing today i not the next Osama Bin Laden?

2. Here's my exit strategy: "Listen Up. All US forces, you have 24 hours to withdraw. After that, you will still be required to withdraw, but you face mounting possibility of disciplinary action."

3. Destruction of the United States is a goal. These states should be allied in a loose confederation, not held under an iron fist. It was never meant to be this way.

Here's the easy three steps to achieving this

a) All states should adopt the bill of rights into their own state constitutions

b) Any politician, state or federal who violates those rules should be removed from office by the representatives of or within those states

c) states should being their own means of managing their own local currencies, etc., and file suit against the federal govt. for any redress of wrongs, such as the conscription of their citizens to fight in unjust wars, or the taxation of their citizens to pay debt incurred by an unchecked executive, etc.

That does nothing to remedy the shit the United States has inflicted upon Afghanistan, must less the rest of the world.

As for Bin Laden,

You may have read more that I have, but going by his 1998 Fatwa he stated objectives were

1) The US military was to leave Saudi Arabia, and the military and intelligence assistance preventing the toppling of the Saudi royal family was to cease...

If they want to have a revolution, I think it is their country, their business

2) The punitive sanctions and genocide conducted towards Iraq needed to cease

A UN study estimated at least 250,000 children died as a direct result of the US invoked UN sanctions as of 1998, every member of the security council except the US and Britain wanted to reverse it, no WMD were ever found... so why did they die... have to agree there

3) Unconditional support of Israel had to stop... can't say that is wrong either

so we are back to methods,

if what you say is the solution was going to happen, why didn't it happen a decade ago, or two ?

or will it at all

and who has to die while we are waiting?

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 27, 2009 5:18 PM

Niki,

You misread me. Allow me to explain.

1. I'm no expert on Afghanistan, no one else here knows much about it, which is why I created a thread for you to post about it, to which there is so far no response.

2. Mostly our exchanges have been partisan, and the conservative mind works considerable different than the liberal mind. I suppose if I were to narrow it down, it would be a world view: Liberals are full of hope, and want to give, and have others give as well; conservatives are full of doubt, and want to preserve, because we don't trust others with the power inherent in giving.

I applaud to the Bob Geldoffs of the world who actually *go* to africa to distribute food themselves. I think the people who send money to some organization to do the same are fools: They help the power of those who *already* control distribution, and those would be the people who are *letting* some starve, while hoarding for others or themselves.

It's not that this is a less compassionate viewpoint, IMHO, but one that errs on the side of caution, even if it does err.

I do know something about the situation, my analysis is not as you presume "based on ignorance." I read a lot of reports, from the various sources in the middle east, and the more informed ones here. I never read the mainstream news. I sometimes post links to stories on FOX or NYT because people in general trust those sources. I never get information there to start with.

So, that said:

Quote:

This response has shown me that A) You make a lot of suppositions not necessarily based on facts, B) Your knowledge is not as extensive or factual as I've thought, and C) Your reasoning is sometime to me quite illogical.

I never claimed extensive factual knowledge, I claimed to be a tomato farmer with a 5th grade education, which is true if you don't count skipping 3rd.

Quote:

Afghans I know living here who moved here between 2 and 20 years ago would have a lot of arguments with what you wrote. Just to start with Karzai only controlling "eight city blocks" of Kabul!

This is what I have read. That was the terrirory considered "secure," according to several reports by our own military commanders. Due to the nature of the landscape, I don't expect it to improve. Iraq with its "green zone" isn't much better, but that will improve.

Of course, our nations aren't much better, NYC has liberty street, which controls wall street, and everything else is under martial law with a nearly 40,000 member police force (more than we've devoted to controlling any middle eastern city) but there's little unrest. Washington DC has "the mall" and London has downing street, buckingham palace, and most importantly "the square mile."

But no, I don't get the feeling that Karzai has control, that he could wander around the country. He's not in the position of the Iranian president, who could go anywhere in Tehran without fear, probably just about anywhere in the country, like our president.

Quote:

Not to mention stating unilaterally that we have "have undoubtedly set up our own little pocket al qaeda to recruit against ourselves". Reading this has helped me understand better how to read your posts, and I appreciate that.

That's not a supposition, nor did I think this was up to debate. The CIA leaked this information last year, but it was hardly news to anyone following international news sources.

Al Qaeda is such a misnomer, the way we use it. It's the name of a communication network founded by bin Laden, but there is no "Al Qaeda" as such, but in the words of the unnamed CIA leak "If you wanted to take a group of people that you could actually put together and call Al Qaeda, the people we have hired through JSOC would be about as close as you could get."

But I suspect everyone already knew this. We have hired Mujahideen before in various countries. Sure, they all use the Al Qaeda network, but it's not a command structure, and controls nothing. But we choose to call them "Al Qaeda" when it suits us. Actually, we'll call anyone "Al Qaeda" when it suits us. But when we hired the Mujahideen in Chad to invade Darfur, under then president bush, or the Mujahideen in Bosnia and Kosovo to attack Milosevic, or to capture a strip of land for Cheney, then head of halliburton to build a pipeline, contracted to him by then president clinton, no, we didn't call it "Al Qaeda." But sure, we hire these people now just like we did in 1989, and haven't stopped, just like we supported Saddam against Iran. We employ local militias to attack things, and sometimes just to cause chaos. I thought everyone knew and accepted it. If you don't believe, read people who disagree with you. I've found that this is generally the best way to learn stuff. If you read political commentary from people on your side, they're preaching to the choir, you're the choir, and you feel better. Sure, you'll get angry, but after a time, you'll get a feel for the other perspectives, how they came about, and that there is some truth in them, always.

Quote:

Let's just say that from my point of view, Pizmo's concept of the difference between being a customer and an employee might apply to your view of Afghanistan.

Quote:

Pulling out = chaos.

This is insane. Sorry. It's chaos now. US Forces cannot possibly keep a lid on things, all we are is a recruiting poster for any militia. As I said, I read that there are around 3 million combatants on the afghan side of the border, and we're not sure how many on the pakistani side, but a similar population of the pashtun et al, west of the indus river. So assume similar combatant levels. This is like Vietnam, but instead of having half the locals on your side, you have maybe a few percent.

Quote:
They've had enough of that. I think there are more workable plans. I don't think a lot of your suppositions are accurate--yes, it's been 50 years since I've been there and I'm probably not as educated on politics as you, but I have to say, I think you're full of shit in some respects.

You really think they are looking for *us* to deliver plans to "solve their problems." Forget how naive a concept I think that is, I need to address this next attack:

Quote:

When you mix your ideology with what you state as fact, it doesn't come out right, and I'm not sure which is which. I do know some of what you wrote is diametrically opposite to what the Afghans I know report.

My ideology didn't actually come into it anywhere. I don't know what you're refering to.

I'm looking at how to resolve chaos. Simplest starting point: Stop stirring it up. Okay, that may betray my Taoist ideology, and sure, I think the Lao view of the world is basically correct, throwing large rocks (or bombs) into the ond is not going to make the surface calm.

You apparently missed my post where I said "if Obama really wanted to win over the afghans he'd spend the war money extending universal healthcare to *them*"

Yes, I'm not ignorant to the situation.

Also, I have to conclude this, Niki:

You are not even responding to my post. You're making a knee jerk reaction to my being on the other side of the political spectrum, and therefore everything I say must be wrong, or I must be dumb, and failing that, resort to vulgarity. I'm sorry if this is not what you intend to do, but it is what comes across.

Now, skipping topics to the US:

Quote:

Just your "solution" to disolving the US blows my mind. The potential for chaos HERE would be incredible--in a perfect world, maybe, but not in the real one. You'd have states going to war against one another in no time. Bad as it is, a united states is better than 50 small countries!

Do you have any understanding of this country at all? Or geopolitics? No, that's not what would happen. First off:

1. I never said disband the US military. I said dissolve this union. We would still have a military, it just wouldn't fight foreign wars. (even if you did disband the military, this is not what would happen. The Risk/Benefit assessment would never make sense, and there would be no inclination of americans to fight.)

But no. This is like saying "Dissolving the EU? That would lead to WWIII!" Nonsense. Dissolving the EU would remove a powerhungry vampire from Brussels, and Europe would revert to NATO. NATO doesn't fight civil wars with itself. But under it, all european nations had rights. Under the EU, like under the US, they won't.

Americans pay taxes to the federal govt. for only one thing: to pay interest on the debt for foreign wars. Your federal income tax dollars go nowhere else, except for a small portion to run the govt. for doing the above task of fighting foreign wars.

Virtually all services provided by "govt" are provided by the states, though some "services" such as they are, are provided through FICA. Without Federal income tax, the states would have so much more money they would be able to do everything that the federal govt. does with double their budget to spare.

The tight militant union accomplishes nothing except for massive centralization of power and taxation, which principally allows one thing: to enable us to fight large scale wars in places like Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. (Korea? Japan? Austro-hungary? Ourselves? The Sioux? The Cherokee? Which one of these was "just"? Oh, and we didn't stop the holocaust or even get to germany, and I skipped a few dozen wars.)

The states by themselves would do what European countries did, having a united defense shelter, but no "empire" looming over them: They would look after their own affairs in peace.

But the above doomsday scenario would certainly never occur because today states are commercially interdependent of one another, this is not 1860. In 1860, the union was actually a lot more like afghanistan

Quote:

But I believe we can do better than invading a country, messing it up worse than it already was, and then pulling out and thumbing our nose at them because they're not geopolitically important enough for us.

More war is going to make it better?

Or is this more partisan "protecting." You were not here for the last four years when I handed Bush's head to him daily. I have no partisan loyalty. I have been giving Obama the benefit of the doubt. But central asian news I'm reading is putting the civilian casualty rate for this new war up at 20,000. I didn't abandon Obama until I saw that he either supported the idea, or was too weak to oppose it, and frankly, it doesn't matter which.

A couple years ago, I was talking to a fellow writer at a workshop, when the subject of the First term Clinton embargo came up. It turned out that she had worked for the Clinton campaign, and did not disagree with my facts, only my view that this was wrong. To my utter astonishment, this self-defined "Bleeding heart liberal" defended her president with the with the words "Sometimes genocide is justified."

There has to come a point when any person of reason has to be able to see when their own side is wrong.

I admit that I don't understand Afghanistan, but I know people, and here's what I know:

When someone comes into your land, and starts bombing your villages and killing your people, you fight. You do whatever it takes to get rid of them. Once the attacker has shown his true face, there is no "make it better" moment. The Nazis could not at any point have turned on a special PR campaign to make the Poles love them, nor could Imperial Japan have won popular support in Manchuria.

When people want to fight, it's recruiting time for any petty wannabe with a private army, as long as the enemy presence and its evils can be shown to the people.

Americans didn't go to war against George W. Bush not out of fear of retaliation, but because it was not our homes he was bombing. He was one of us, and while times were rough, the most we could muster was a few muted protests. But he got Americans to sign up to fight *for* him by creating the illusion of an enemy committing evils against us, and then sent them off to fight this imagined evil. That's why we're in Afghanistan.

But for the Afghans? We're right there, bombing every day, and have been, and they're not about to forget that.

Sure, the US didn't make Afghanistan a wreck, it was a wreck, we made it an angry wreck, or more of a wreck. But do you ask the guy who wrecked your car to fix it?

Do you trust, halfway through the war, or perhaps at the beginning, that Germany, having made a mess of Poland, that now "It's up to Germany to fix it?" Or Imperial Japan should fix Manchuria? No, of course not. No one would.

Our federal govt., I don't know if you've noticed, is not in the fixing business. We're in the wrecking business. But even if we were in the fixing business, the people we've been bombing for eight years are not exactly going to trust us, or ally with us.

As I said, we're a big recruiting poster for anyone with a private army, as long as we're there.

Oh, and for the record, I have no time for partisan bickering and personal attack, so if that's what this is about, and you're here to fill the Auraptor role of "Support the president no matter what", then I'm just going to come back with "Exactly which children do you think the US should bomb to make the situation "better?"

If that's the situation, then let's just call the whole thing off. I have no patience for the party loyalists on either side. (Oh, I had some choice arguments with rap until it became a waste of time)

But I'm busy, I have no time or interest in arguing. I only posted this because I thought you completely misread me, and I would offhandedly attribute this to "you probably don't spend a lot of time on the right side of the aisle."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 27, 2009 5:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

Gino, I like your logic, and I love your "Presidential speech". Unfortunately, dissolving Karzai's government wouldn't work; power leaks into a vacuum. Don't I wish, tho'! But America can't "lay out a framework" for an Afghan government; they would consider that occupation, pure and simple (which it would be, to an extent, since anything WE set up would befirst and foremost for OUR best interest, not theirs). I don't know what the answer is...I wish I did!

Unfortunately most of my ideas I think have been screwed up the past few years...

The idea, is similar to what Macarthur did in Japan.

Bring Mohammed Zahir Shah back as both a figure head king and a advisor / intermediary

When operating in the different areas, US troops ( pre NATO involvement ) went in searching in force, being disruptive...

If they had of just went in, made contact with who ever was in charge, tribal elder, who ever... and asked what aid the area needed... simple things, waterwells, a herd, medical support, but importantly... what they ask for, then they get it... establish yourself as a friend.. then leave.

Once most of the country is in such contact, and the people see your not there to push them around, and have concern to their welfare... you go in and get them to pick a representative to deal with you, for further aid, security ( theirs if they have these concerns, etc )

If this works, after a while ( 6 months ) you have these reps vote out regional governors amongst themselves...

Then you have a actual political body, which the Afghans formed, to determine a constitution, decide a legal mechanism, etc.

As they are running their own concerns, with aid from the west if requested... who is going to fight ? If elements are making trouble, they could request troops to assist ( but they are there to help, at their request )

If peace is at hand, it pull out everyone as quick as you can...

Secure the borders, prevent drug exports, prevent arms etc from coming in... but leave the rest for Afghans to do it...

Including schools for girls etc, not that I am against it, but

1. It is better if social change doesn't come from the barrel of a gun, if you want it to take anyway

2. Resources / Demand... Look at what it took in our own societys to recognize womans suffage, and the ammount of time it took...

Would women in the workplace be the same today if WW2 didn't happen? things like that...

These things take time, and need to happen in their proper order to last

As the insurgency didn't really start to grow at any fast rate until mid to late 2003, I think there was a period when the Afghans were waiting to see what whould happen, and that ball was dropped... folk where treated as enemys so they became enemys

Thanks for answering the questions Niki, I know some people from Afghanistan here, but not really well enough to get into some of these things with...

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 27, 2009 7:04 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I can't read your whole response; I just spent hours putting up a response to your "Afghanistan" thread and I"m totally wore out.

But I'll try to respond to as far down as I could get:

Not all organizations are as you say they are. The one I mentioned is not. There is another in Africa for women making goods, which I know is not. Just to say, not everything is black or white.

I shouldn't have said "based on ignorance". I should have said "incomplete because it contains nothing of how the Afghans themselves feel or what they would do under any of your proposed scenarios".

As to it being what you have read, may I respectfully suggest that what our military commanders and/or anyone else writes isn't necessarily complete or totally accurate.

The part I disagreed with is "to recruit against ourselves". With the rest, I agree, and yes, I think anyone who reads anything by now knows the facts of "Al Qaeda" and that it's "not".

I definitely do not read/listen to/view exclusively "political commentary from people on your side, they're preaching to the choir, you're the choir, and you feel better."

I disagree that it is chaos now, at least according to what I hear from my friends, who have family there still. It's not good, but it would be worse if we summarily pulled out.

Yes, they would like our help. Not our military might, and not by putting up a puppet government, but our REAL help. Rebuilding; and yes, you have to have the military to do that and I'm not wise enough to know how, but yes, they would like our help. That I can tell you for certain.

I mistook you; I thought the "universal health care" remark was a crack.

Quote:
You are not even responding to my post. You're making a knee jerk reaction to my being on the other side of the political spectrum, and therefore everything I say must be wrong, or I must be dumb, and failing that, resort to vulgarity. I'm sorry if this is not what you intend to do, but it is what comes across.

I felt I did respond to your post in stating that I didn't believe you got everything right, and that I think it's different looking at things through the views of others as opposed to talking to the people themselves. I didn't go into specifics, I'm afraid your posts are so long I don't always get all the way through them, and to debate each point individually would take forever.

I do believe your ideology came into your subjective beliefs of what would happen/will happen/should happen. I meant it that way.

That's as far as I can get; the stuff about the US is about two more posts, and I"m barely on my feet (in my seat?) at this point.

If you think I resort(ed) to vulgarity, might I suggest you re-think the word "vulgarity" in light of what others frequently post here? I didn't have a knee-jerk reaction, I disagreed from what I have learned as opposed to what you have learned. Some of it seemed foolish to me, I said so. But I believe I was at least more civil than many here, many times. I have personal feelings about Afghanistan, so yes, there was some personal anger that showed through and I didn't try to hide it. But "vulgar"?

Now I just HAVE to quit, my back's killing me and I'm beyond exhausted. Thank you for asking about Afghanistan, I really appreciate it. I believe if we Americans took the time to learn about/undewrstand other cultures, we might not do some of the things we do. And it would make us better people.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 27, 2009 7:10 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Ooops, I missed a couple of things.

Gino,

Quote:
As the insurgency didn't really start to grow at any fast rate until mid to late 2003, I think there was a period when the Afghans were waiting to see what whould happen, and that ball was dropped... folk where treated as enemys so they became enemys

Bingo. We had our chance; we lost their trust.

And I caught the end of your post when I did, DT:

Quote:
Oh, and for the record, I have no time for partisan bickering and personal attack, so if that's what this is about, and you're here to fill the Auraptor role of "Support the president no matter what", then I'm just going to come back with "Exactly which children do you think the US should bomb to make the situation "better?"

If that's the situation, then let's just call the whole thing off. I have no patience for the party loyalists on either side. (Oh, I had some choice arguments with rap until it became a waste of time)

But I'm busy, I have no time or interest in arguing. I only posted this because I thought you completely misread me, and I would offhandedly attribute this to "you probably don't spend a lot of time on the right side of the aisle."

I have said several times that I do not support Obama unilaterally and that I'm displeased with a lot of things he and his administration have done/are doing. I don't think you could have missed that by now. The rest I won't respond to. I'm an independent, not a party loyalist. I still have hope, ergo my remark to Mike that I'm also an "ardent supporter" of Obama, but that doesn't mean I'm blind OR a blind supporter.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 28, 2009 8:43 AM

Nik

Mostly it was that you disregarded my comments in a sort of typical partisan talking point way, to try to paint me as ignorant, and spouting lies, but with no proof, very Karl rove.. or whoever the democrat equiv is, Rahm?

Anyway, I was very sure of some of the facts I had posted, such as the use of JSOC to hire militias which had been a part of the al qaeda network, that's a known, not a supposition. It's also known that some of the people we have armed over the last 8 years are now fighting us with our own weapons. It's also known that Karzai has minimal support, and minimal control, and that we have very minimal support. Somewhere around 3% of afghan combantants are fighting on our side IIRC, which is worse than Iraq, and nothing like vietname or korea, where it was closer to half. I don't think the situations would be at all comparable.

Finally, given the civilian casualty estimates, and the tactics that was used to kill same, I would expect any Afghan to prefer the idea of a US withdrawal. After all, the Taliban is someone you can lose to, and then negotiate with or overthrow. A drone bomber squadron is going to continue attacking villages indefinitely. If they were flying over my country, I'd want them gone. No matter what. I'd rather have to deal with losing to humans I completely disagree with, than robots who were ostensibly on my side.

And yes, I'm non-violent, and as I've posted here before, I've several times talked my way out of combat situations, with loaded machine guns pointed at me, and me being unarmed. I also know, that with a robot attacker, I would not be able to do so, so my anti robowarfare slant may partially derive from that slant. If this were TSCC I would have no issues with Cameron, as she is capable of reason, but I wouldn't want to trust my luck to drone fighters bombing, even if they were remotely controlled by humans, because there would be no interface with which to reason.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 28, 2009 9:46 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I have absolutely no disagreement with almost every single word of that last post. Perhaps you misunderstood; what I was referring to more was your overview and generalizations about powers OUTSIDE Afghanistan, if I'm being clear...? I guess partly assumptions on what would happen if, and who WILL do what, etc.

I never intended, nor was it in my mind, to say that you were ignorant or lying; I'm having trouble explaining what I meant, it was more the above, lessee...that I feel you make assumptions, take facts and "go from there", when I don't think you NECESSARILY have all the facts, and that I think your way of thinking leads you down paths I don't think are necessarily accurate.

One of the things I can bring to mind immediately is saying Karzai had no power past eight city blocks. Probably just an exaggeration on your part, but so far off the mark in that he controls most of Kabul and some of other areas, that it struck a nerve. Does this help illustrate what I was reacting to?

Am I making any sense here? I hope so--I wasn't trying to disparage you as a person, and I know my personal feelings about Afghanistan made me respond with some anger...maybe what I'm trying to say is I don't think what you posted is all completely accurate, understood from the position of the Afghans themselves, and makes some assumptions with which I would disagree.

I'm just tying myself in knots trying to explain; either you understand what I'm trying to say or I can't say it clearly enough.

Since I see nobody has any interest in Afghanistan from the cultural point of view, I'm going to let that one slide down and disappear. Thanx for asking, tho'.

The only thing with which I disagree in your most recent post is that no, the Afghans would not prefer a US withdrawal--we have been their friends for decades, it is only recently they have come to fear (and hate) us. What they would like is HELP, and for us to stop bombing and killing civilians--which I realize is difficult because today's civilian might be tomorrow's Taliban. But that is what they'd like--the love of the USA is not dead in Afghanistan, but the way we've gone about it is killing it. It's stills alvageable, tho' I'm not certain of how, but we might find it worth keeping down the line.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 28, 2009 1:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I have absolutely no disagreement with almost every single word of that last post. Perhaps you misunderstood; what I was referring to more was your overview and generalizations about powers OUTSIDE Afghanistan, if I'm being clear...? I guess partly assumptions on what would happen if, and who WILL do what, etc.

I never intended, nor was it in my mind, to say that you were ignorant or lying; I'm having trouble explaining what I meant, it was more the above, lessee...that I feel you make assumptions, take facts and "go from there", when I don't think you NECESSARILY have all the facts, and that I think your way of thinking leads you down paths I don't think are necessarily accurate.

One of the things I can bring to mind immediately is saying Karzai had no power past eight city blocks. Probably just an exaggeration on your part, but so far off the mark in that he controls most of Kabul and some of other areas, that it struck a nerve. Does this help illustrate what I was reacting to?

Am I making any sense here? I hope so--I wasn't trying to disparage you as a person, and I know my personal feelings about Afghanistan made me respond with some anger...maybe what I'm trying to say is I don't think what you posted is all completely accurate, understood from the position of the Afghans themselves, and makes some assumptions with which I would disagree.

I'm just tying myself in knots trying to explain; either you understand what I'm trying to say or I can't say it clearly enough.

Since I see nobody has any interest in Afghanistan from the cultural point of view, I'm going to let that one slide down and disappear. Thanx for asking, tho'.

The only thing with which I disagree in your most recent post is that no, the Afghans would not prefer a US withdrawal--we have been their friends for decades, it is only recently they have come to fear (and hate) us. What they would like is HELP, and for us to stop bombing and killing civilians--which I realize is difficult because today's civilian might be tomorrow's Taliban. But that is what they'd like--the love of the USA is not dead in Afghanistan, but the way we've gone about it is killing it. It's stills alvageable, tho' I'm not certain of how, but we might find it worth keeping down the line.

This sadly is a very old story that doesn't change much

Iran was once friendly to the US... until they became bitter over having the Shah rammed down their throats...

Perhaps relations with Cuba would be good today if not for the propping up of Batista

Ho Chi Minh actually worked with US intelligence against the Japanese... until the US decided to back the French in turning Vietnam back into a colony, in contrast to Vietnamese independance...

Karzai has to go, and it would be better that he went in way that distances him from whatever follows. Some effort in regaining some goodwill has to be made, and to do that... the US has to admit they were very wrong in much of what they have done and who they have backed...

not likely to happen... hell putting Americans on trial for torture would help with some of the saving face too...

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 28, 2009 2:36 PM

Nik

Facts change. Karzai may control more than he used to. I know he lacks popular support or control. The CIA and JSOC hiring "al qaeda" militias isn't a conspiracy theory.

Overall, I find this quibbling time consuming and not as interesting as the nature of Afghanistan and the political consequences of a possible large scale conflict. I suspect Hamid Karzai is a footnote in the pages of history, like Alawi or Malenkov, who at least ruled an empire for a year or two.

I purposefully deleted the title edit "Obama's Private War" because I didn't want a partisan debate. I still don't. I'm interested in what will happen as of this war. Also, I'm interested in getting to know more about who it is we're fighting a war with.

Bear in mind that in another thread I said that this was like the whole Empire devoting its entire resources to fighting a small group of rebels on Tataouine. I think the comparison is still completely just, which is no slight to the people of Tataouine, but that it's less than ideal as a national policy, to say the least.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 29, 2009 7:35 AM