Putting Afghanistan in the driving seat
The president holds the first of five meetings with his national security team on Wednesday; separately, he meets the new Nato Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen on Tuesday.
Obama's new strategy is being reviewed in the light of the elections in Afghanistan to see whether it needs "adjustments" - the word used by Defence Secretary Robert Gates. Some want to get back to a strategy where the main aim is killing terrorists, not building a nation.
Although Rasmussen doesn't want to get pulled into the fight between generals and politicos (with the politicos urging the more aggressive strategy), it seems he's clearly on the side of General Stanley McChrystal and his report.
In a speech in Washington, he has said that "the reality is that this mission cannot continue forever". He says that things have to change because the public feels "we aren't getting anywhere".
His prescription is putting Afghanistan in the driving seat, by building up its military. He says that this should not be written up as "run for the exits" but that "as long as it takes... cannot mean forever". He says that this will cost money and can't be done on the cheap. "We have to do more now, if we want to be able to do less later."
I don't think the president is going to ignore advice like this, especially when it describes his own original strategy. But it is going to be a tough sell.
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~08~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
It's not a difficult concept to understand- one of the basic tenets of counterinsurgency is to remove the base of support of the insurgents, by winning the "hearts and minds"(I hate the cliche)of the people.
Maybe it has to do with our short electoral cycle, but the United States seems to have a fundamental difficulty sticking with this mission. It's not as glamorous as chasing the bad guys around (if you can find them,) or Predator strikes, but building infrastructure and schools, protecting the people and letting commerce grow- all are critical to delegitimizing the insurgency. This isn't a Western, and the posse isn't going to just go round 'em up.
But the Afghani government must play a part, and take up a larger and larger burden. But a legitimate government is also critical, which isn't happening.
I used to think that we had a moral obligation to tidy things up before we left, since we made the mess. However, if the Afghanis can't straighten up their own government and don't want us, and if we can't focus on the more difficult task of long-term reconstruction and protection, maybe we should consider finding the door, before the war bankrupts us.
Complain about this comment
Rasmussen also said (which I hope some of the most likely and most vociferous contributors here will note):
"I'm a little concerned about the doubts I hear these days in the United States about Nato. . . .Talking down the European and Canadian contributions - as some here in the US do, on occasion - can become a self-fulfilling prophecy."
As it is, the Dutch and Canadians have announced dates for withdrawal, the Italians are soon likely to, and there will soon no doubt be even more public pressure for Britain (an election only months away) to do the same unless there is an observable and clearer strategy. We in Britain have already had it made pretty clear to us that if we stay committed then we are looking at 20 to 30 moreyears of involvement one way and another even if Al Quaeda and Osama bin Laden (let alone the Taliban) vanish from Afghanistan.
Is the USA prepared (or can it be) to accept the same time frame? And what precisely is to be done within it? That is what Obama is going to have to decide. All McChrystal's plan really seems to me to amount to is a way of avoiding an ignominious retreat within the next twelve months, and a political breathing space.
(And no, making an unpopulated desert of Afghanistan and a part of Pakistan is notan acceptable strategy.)
Complain about this comment
Just how do you build up the police and the military when the country is drug-riddled and has no money? The military invasion has created an insugency that will not stop until foreign armies are repelled or leave.
This has always been a law and order matter and the military intervention on a large scale with many innocent civilians killed ( we are never told how many have died ) was never going to work.As Kipling wisely said , " East is East and West is West ".At last the American public seem to be getting tired of this " War on Terror " and are beginning to ask the right questions of just what the long term aims are.
Britain , as usual , is just there because the Americans asked us to be there, a tragedy really and one which will take some getting over.For NATO read America as they are the ones with ALL the power and what they say does in the so-called alliance.Obama is a sane man and I just hope he can sort this mess out sooner rather than later.
Complain about this comment
1. At 10:20am on 29 Sep 2009, Via-Media wrote:
"It's not a difficult concept to understand- one of the basic tenets of counterinsurgency is to remove the base of support of the insurgents, by winning the "hearts and minds" (I hate the cliche) of the people."
Unfortunately, the simple fact is that 'the people' are not simply 'Afghans' they are tribes, with historical territories and rivalries. And the people whose hearts and minds need to be won over (thanks to some egregious and simple-minded blunders) are now not only in the North West Territories of Pakistan but much of the rest of Pakistan, and potentially also now in Kashmir and even India.
Read Arundhati Royon some of the ramifications. (On Commonwealth countries, though that appears to be seen as irrelevant, even though potentially there may as a result be repercussions over the years in a great many countries.)
One of the most foolish errors, and one that is now home and roosting (un)happily, is ever imagining that Kharzai was ever going to be much more than 'Mayor of Kabul' without some pretty unsavoury and purely opportunistic alliances with no 'national' interest whatsoever. American bodyguards with big guns, even bigger SUV's and mirror shades do not an effectual president, or government, make.
Complain about this comment
As history has shown whatever a foreign power does in Afghanistan will fail because it is not a nation as we in the west understand it. It is a multi-ethnic collection of tribes with different agendas. All we do is change the balance of power, and eventually our pet government bites our hand .... see Taliban.
Much as I hate to say it, best solution is to get the army out and let them get on with things. Foreign troops are simply creating a "for or against" scenario which later wil lead to retribution when the scales tip once more to the other side.
Arming the Afghan army is a bad idea ... after all we armed Sadaam Husein and it didn't take him long to bite us.
This is not to say that we abandon the country totally. We need reverse-sanctions - incentives to farm non-opium crops, investment in infrastructure, help them develop higher living standards without forcing some tinpot tame government on them.
Cn it work? I've no idea, but what we're doing certainly isn't working, and throwing more troops at it won't solve the problem.
Complain about this comment
A massive military presence in a foreign country is necessary when the mission entails fighting a formidable force that threatens our security and interests. Chasing and killing dozens of terrorists hiding in caves is not a job for NATO or US military forces to undertake. Use spies to find Al Qaeda operatives and send rapid deployment special forces or drones to deal with them when we are absolutely certain they are, in fact, Al Qaeda terrorists.
Our decision to invade and occupy an Islamic country indefinitely, after achieving our original goals, is exacerbating the hatred that Islamic fundamentalists have towards the West, and only serves as a catalyst to perpetuate a state of instability in the region.
If the intent is to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people while ensuring Al Qaeda - our true enemies - do not re-establish their training camps in that country we must do it with deeds conducive to rapproachment and the rejection of radical elements by the indigenous population.
The best way to accomplish that goal is by helping the Afghans build an infrastructure, industry, and by educating the population. Such endeavor would take time, but imposing our will by force will take much longer and it is likely we will never succeed.
Complain about this comment
3. At 10:29am on 29 Sep 2009, billbeeby wrote:
"Obama is a sane man and I just hope he can sort this mess out sooner rather than later."
I would hope so too. But for a 'leader of the free world' when it comes to implementing thorough from-the-ground-up changes he seems to have a lot less power and influence over a very short-term-minded Congress than those of us outside the US assumed he would eight months ago on the basis of being popularly elected. (Viz. the healthcare and stimulus debacles and the near-total inaction on climate change.) So I for one am not very hopeful.
Complain about this comment
3. At 10:29am on 29 Sep 2009, billbeeby wrote:
"Just how do you build up the police and the military when the country is drug-riddled and has no money?"
Well, there was supposed to be money, wasn't there? But, like Iraq, it seems to have mostly disappeared; a lot of it, no doubt, straight back into the pockets of the Haliburtons and Blackwaters or whatever the equivalents are in Afghanistan. Not much of it seems to have gone into planting the fruit trees Afghanistan was once famous for. (Might not be as profitable as poppies to the drug dealers and the warlords, but just as profitable to the farmers, I'd have thought, who don't exactly get a huge share of the profits out of that business.)
Complain about this comment
What's NATO doing in Afghanistan anyway? I mean it's not exactly close to the North Atlantic is it! NATO members ensured that the African Union only has authority in Africa; and likewise, will ensure that the potential South Atlantic rival organisation will only have authority south of the equator in that region (if they let it exist at all).
Its a case of one rule for the rich and another for the poor.
Complain about this comment
The time has finally come for Europe to put up or shut up. For well over fifty years Americans fought and died to preserve what we call civilization, many of them defending Europe. Islamic terrorism has declared war on the entire civilized world including Europe but Americans are doing most of the fighting and dying. Europe has been given the means but it seems to lack any will to fight. Unprincipled, short sighted, hypocritical, mendacious, if European allies in NATO including Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, and all the other slackers don't start doing their fair share of the fighting and dying then America will pull out, not just from Afghanistan but from NATO becuse it will have proven worthless to America as I've been sayig for a very long time. NATO is a MUTUAL DEFENSE TREATY. America was attacked by al Qaeda given sanctuary by the Taleban on Afghan soil and now being given sanctuary in Pakistan as well. Americans will no longer go it alone. Europe has a direct and immediate stake in the outcome. It is a closer softer target for al Qaeda than the US is and will feel the consequences of failure sooner and with greater impact. There is no one to negotiate surrender with so Europe will fight with America now in Afghanistan and maybe in Pakistan, Somalia and who knows where else or it can fight alone later on its own soil. Personally I'd just as soon have America pull out of NATO as I've always felt it was a one way street. It's time for Americans to write Europe off as a hopelessly lost cause.
At least three terrorist plots have been uncovered and made public in recent days in the US, all thwarted. In one of the plots, an Afghan man trained in al Qaeda camps in Pakistan who was building bombs to be used in the NYC subway was tipped off by his friendly Imam in the NYC area and fled to Denver Colorado. He and the Imam were captured but at least two of his co-conspirators are still at large. If this were the Bush Administration, he might have been waterboarded and his fellow combatants identified, their whereabouts revealed and captured. If their escape allows them to execute the attack, the consequences for the Obama Adminsitration will be devastating. President Obama had better get on the stick and start using real force to protect Amerian security in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, and especially at home or he will be a one term President...or impeached. Time is running out for him too.
Complain about this comment
Obama's life at the moment must seem full of hard sells. The main issue is that even though Afghanistan is turning into a bigger mess day by day, its a mess that we helped create, and we should sort it out. The way I believe it should be done, is putting more troops in, improving their equipment, and making a huge effort to improve the Afghani army and government. Sadly I don't think this will happen and at some point soon I predict we will run away.
Complain about this comment
Interesting that the US politicians are the hawks, when it comes to Afgan policy, and the Military are taking a more reserved position.
No doubt the politicians treasure the American shoot-from-the-hip mentality, especially as it's not THEIR butts that are in the firing line.
The military point of view, and Pres O's standpoint of putting Afgan's military on its feet to police its own territory is surely the only way forward, if US troops are ever to be extracted, without all the benefits of US military effort going down the plug hole.
Complain about this comment
6. At 11:38am on 29 Sep 2009, saintDominick wrote:
"A massive military presence in a foreign country is necessary when the mission entails fighting a formidable force that threatens our security and interests. Chasing and killing dozens of terrorists hiding in caves is not a job for NATO or US military forces to undertake. Use spies to find Al Qaeda operatives and send rapid deployment special forces or drones to deal with them when we are absolutely certain they are, in fact, Al Qaeda terrorists."
That is the idea more than one US thinktank has been promoting the last few weeks. Forget it. The Taliban and Al Quaeda are not necessarily the same people; you can't even any longer separate either from some tribes. All you will do is kill hundreds, maybe thousands, of people who are only 'Taliban' or 'Al Quaeda' in both Afghanistan and Pakistan when they're dead and can't prove they were neither, as has happened numerous times in the last year.
You can only see who the 'enemy' is when either they shoot at you or as they blow you up. They don't wear fatigues and insignia and charge into battle waving regimental flags. No more now than in the 19th century when they were fighting the British, or last century when they were fighting the Russians. Remember when the CIA years ago said they'd killed bin Laden with a drone, and it turned out to be just a tall bearded guy dressed in white out hawking, I think?
Complain about this comment
10. MarcusAureliusII:
Go back and read the NATO Sec Gen's speech. I quoted a few lines. Here are a few more:
"Mr Rasmussen pointed out that 40% of the Nato troops involved in the operation were from non-US countries and that soldiers from more than 20 countries had been killed."
Click on the link and look at the numbers and the map before you repeat that spurious nonsense again.
Complain about this comment
Marcus, your continued support of waterboarding scares me. I honestly believe that if I was repeatedly made to think I was drowning I would agree and sign anything to make it stop. The problem with waterboarding is you have no way of knowing before whether the suspect has the information you require. So one of their co-conspiritors went on the run? Well obviously torturing someone who was probably not told where he was going is the best thing to do.
Complain about this comment
If troops are added,it's not the Presidents choice,it's Congresses whether or not to give funding.Congress was elected to end occupations and fix domestic problems.If Congress(House of Representatives hold the purse strings) denies funding than the President will have limited options.I think Speaker Pelosi is in a difficult position like other Rep.s because of their anti-war demographics.It will be a slim decision and a hard sell.
Complain about this comment
You write:
Obama's new strategy is being reviewed in the light of the elections in Afghanistan to see whether it needs "adjustments" - the word used by Defence Secretary Robert Gates. Some want to get back a strategy where the main aim is killing terrorists, not building a nation.
I would be interested to know how you define 'terrorists'.
Best regards
Complain about this comment
MAII – German ‘slackers’ technically Germany is not meant to have the ability to field an army on foreign shores, due a small disagreement Germany had with most of the world mid last century. If I recall correctly, the US was one of the countries that imposed that restriction, while it and Russia surreptitiously borrowed most of Germany’s surviving military scientists.
History is a wonderful subject, one of the key lessons is those that ignore it are bound to repeat the same mistakes. Mistake 1 – No foreign power since Alexander the Great has ever successfully held Afghanistan. Mistake 2 – Arming and/or training someone who is possibly going to turn into an enemy, probably is going to come back and bite you in the rump – Examples include: Ho Chi Minh, Sadam Hussain and Osama Bin Laden.
People like you can shout all they want, it’s not going to convince anyone or any nation with a view to history that standing by the US agenda in Afghanistan is a good thing. I supported, or at least understood, the initial call to attack Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, but knew from the outset that invading the country wholesale was going to end in a painful blood bath. It seems even invading the country has not stopped Islamic extremists from attempting to attack the US, which makes it seem rather pointless. It definitely helped fuel the attacks in Spain and Britain. After decades of terrorist attacks at least partially supported by misguided elements of the US population, what Britain really didn’t need was to be targeted by new ones for supporting the non-sensicle ‘War on Terror’. Oh and to be lambasted by citizens of our so-called ally, for simply having the sin of being European, really does take the biscuit!
Complain about this comment
It's occurred to me (spurred on by MAII) that the Sec Gen's lines I quoted in [2] may have been obliquely addressed to the administration as much as his audience, the American public, and the US media.
People may not be aware that the various US civilian representatives and the Ambassador to NATO (unlike other country's) are mostly appointed not because of their expertise in military areas, or even their knowledge of the alliance and its members, but because of their political affiliation. I believe that the views of the Neocons and Donald Rumsfeld (in some ways not so far from MAII's) were as a result, if not very often overtly expressed over the last eight years by them, certainly no secret. Some from that era and that political spectrum I think are still in place.
I do not know, but I doubt if that made many NATO countries as supportive as they might otherwise have been.
Complain about this comment
15. At 1:06pm on 29 Sep 2009, calmandhope wrote:
" Well obviously torturing someone who was probably not told where he was going is the best thing to do."
Of course. Under torture, you admit your guilt. Under more torture, you give a name and address. Doesn't matter whose. They (because you admitted your guilt) are, ipso facto, a co-conspirator. Repeat. Plot cleared up and sorted in no time.
And of course, the FBI tells the media they're all guilty of a bomb plot-before there's even a trial. As to the other two cases:
"Michael C. Finton, a 29-year-old man who idolized American-born Taliban soldier John Walker Lindh, was arrested after attempting to detonate what he thought was a bomb inside a van outside a federal courthouse in Springfield, Ill., officials said. FBI agents had infiltrated the alleged plot months ago.
_ A 19-year-old Jordanian was arrested after placing what he thought was a bomb at a downtown Dallas skyscraper, federal prosecutors said. The decoy device was provided by an undercover FBI agent. Federal officials said the case against Hosam Maher Husein Smadi, who is charged with attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction, is unrelated to the Illinois case."
Shouldn't the FBI agents be charged with "supplying a weapon of mass destruction"?
Complain about this comment
What I find fascinating is that despite being world leaders, these people come across as real everyday people. How frustrating it must be, despite being the worlds greatest military power, to be defeated by an enemy armed with little more than small-arms. And with so little learned from the lessons of history.
Complain about this comment
Ref 13, Squirrellist
"The Taliban and Al Quaeda are not necessarily the same people; you can't even any longer separate either from some tribes."
I don't consider the Taliban a terrorist organization and, quite frankly, I don't think we should have removed them from power and replaced them with a puppet government that does not represent the wishes of the majority of the population of Afghanistan.
The fact that the Taleban was incapable of destroying the Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan after 9/11 highlighted the limitation of their resources and capabilities, the fragile support they enjoyed and, perhaps, the fact that they may have been sympathetic to the Al Qaeda cause. However, no evidence has ever been provided to even suggest they were active participants in terrorist activities.
I believe we had good reason to destroy the Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, and that trying to find and punish the Al Qaeda leaders, planners and financiers that carried out the 9/11 attack was a legitimate goal, but I oppose invading other nations to achieve that goal, not only because I think it is immoral but because I believe it is ineffective and, if anything, allows our nemesis to hide, regroup, recruit new members, and become more dangerous and determined than ever.
Bombing suspected hideouts, particularly in densely populated areas, is particularly offensive to me and contributes to the hatred or suspicion that dominates our relationship with the Muslim world.
Complain about this comment
Ref #16
I think Pelosi is an easy position as far as her seat. She comes from a district that mirrors her views. The fact that mostof the country may have a low oppinion of her is irrelevant.
She will get the blame when the house dems look seats in the midterm (majority party usually does)but she is so concieted like her fellow California legislator Boxer that she would never leave. We would be lost without her great widsom.
Complain about this comment
If someone in United States, which I doubt, is really looking for peace and stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan and the rest of region, then the only recipe is
- withdrawal of Nato and U.S. forces from Afghanistan
- establishment of a peace-keeping force (consisting of Islamic country troops)
- establishment of a midterm govt. (involving Talibans and Northern alliance)
- fresh elections under new setup
- withdraw of peace-keeping forcing
Otherwise, if peace is not the objective but to establish hegemony over China, Russia and Iran while sitting in Aghanistan, then
- ask for more troops and dollars
- count dead bodies of Aghans and Westerners
- spread fear of dreadful creatures
- bla bla
Complain about this comment
"I would be interested to know how you define 'terrorists'"
A Muslim who does not behave like Karazai, Hussan-e-Mubarak, Zardari, Musharraf ....
Complain about this comment
@ 12 " Interesting that the US politicians are the hawks, when it comes to Afgan policy, and the Military are taking a more reserved position"
We saw that before Iraq too if I recall correctly. Politicos and bureaucrats (remember Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld) campaigned hard for war and had the authority, unfortunately, to sway the president into action against the advice of prominent generals.
I agree with civilian control of the armed forces in terms of the president's authority (commander-in-chief) but having academics, bureaucrats and a##holes running the DOD or other military agencies makes me nervous. The army should run the army and answer to the president. Otherwise, play video games if you want to kill things.
Re McChrystal's comment that we need to change tack because the public thinks we are treading water is an unfortunate statement as its a blantant political comment. We should change course only because it helps achieve our objective, not because the public are bored or cranky (and, hence, likely to punish congres/president). But I realize politics seeps into every decision every government ever makes.
Complain about this comment
Ref 13, squirrellist
"Remember when the CIA years ago said they'd killed bin Laden with a drone, and it turned out to be just a tall bearded guy dressed in white out hawking, I think?"
I remember it well, and I also remember the apartment buildings we destroyed in Baghdad because we thought Baathists or "terrorists" were living in those dwelling...ignoring the fact that dozens of innocent families were living in the same buildings.
I find excuses such as "collateral damage" disingenous, offensive and nothing more than an ill conceived excuses to justify unacceptable decisions and actions on our part. Civilian casualties do take place in a battlefield when two armies fight each other, deliberately chasing and shooting people in their homes is not warfare, it is the worst kind of police action imaginable.
My earlier post about isolating, arresting, or killing terrorists should be qualified by stating that evidence of guilt must be ascertained before action is taken. Planting a weapon on a dead civilian and calling him a terrorist to justify his murder is, in my opinion, a criminal act worthy of prosecution.
Complain about this comment
Ref 25, artistic
"A Muslim who does not behave like Karazai, Hussan-e-Mubarak, Zardari, Musharraf ...."
Does this mean that anyone who does not submit to our will and supports our interests is automatically a terrorist? Alas, we may have to expand the definition of terrorist and make it an all-encompassing term used to describe the majority of the population of the world.
Complain about this comment
Ref 26, disco
"Re McChrystal's comment that we need to change tack because the public thinks we are treading water is an unfortunate statement as its a blantant political comment."
I suspect Gen. McChrystal is reacting to the "sensitivity meeting" he had with Secretary Gates in Germany. One of the duties of a field commander is to request adequate troop levels, materiel, logistical support, and propose tactic conducive to winning a war or a battle.
It is up to the President and Congress to declare war, define policy, authorize the appropiations needed to support our military objectives, or order a withdrawal. Once war is declared, our military officers should be allowed to operate independently and focus strictly on achieving our military objectives, rather than engage them in political priorities or the latest political agenda.
Remember Vietnam...
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Ref #24 and 25
Which countries with a moslem majority would you suggest.
The only ones I can think of with armed forces that are not dealing with their own terrorist problems or have agoverment lead by one are: Rgypt and Indonesia and perhaps some democraciies in Africa.
I would define a terrorist who attacks other countries or planes without a defined military target or objective. that is why Hams and Hezbollah are terrorists and Israel is not.
Complain about this comment
26. At 2:47pm on 29 Sep 2009, DiscoStu_d wrote:
"Re McChrystal's comment. . ."
It was the NATO Sec Gen's, and the Secretary General is a civilian, and has to represent--or at least be aware, through their civilian ambassadors--the political 'feeling' of the member nations. NATO is not a military-run alliance, it is a civilian one. Its military forces as a whole are under the overall command of an American General ('SACEUR': Supreme Allied Commander, Europe); but the ISAF in southern Afghanistan is currently under the control of the Dutch, I think. The political decisions on whether or not to deploy NATO forces are made by the Council of Nations, in which each has an equal voice, not by the Pentagon, the President of the USA or a General.
I suspect that some people mistakenly think that NATO is just an adjunct division of the US Army. Or should be used that way because the US happens to be the most powerful member. It isn't, and, under the terms of the treaty, it can't be. Although the Bush administration appeared to want to treat it that way.
NATO only got involved in the first place because the Secretary General at the time of the attack on the Twin Towers invoked the section of the treaty that says "an attack on one member is treated as an attack on all." Mistakenly, and foolishly, in my view, and I believe some in NATO thought that at the time too, because that was only intended to apply to an attack by a nation state, not what was effectively a stateless organisation. It is that which has led to endless confusion about what the roles of various members' forces (especially the German) should be. That is why some members have restricted their contributed manpower to primarily reconstruction and its defence, not offensive operations like the British, Dutch and Canadians particularly. I don't believe that is fully understood either.
Complain about this comment
28. At 3:07pm on 29 Sep 2009, saintDominick wrote:
"Alas, we may have to expand the definition of terrorist and make it an all-encompassing term."
I thought General Musharraf and Mubarak, not to mention Kharzai, were American allies, but now they're 'terrorists' too? Just like the deputy head of Al Quaeda? Brilliant logic.
We're perilously close to the old "All Muslims are anti-American, anyone who is against America is a terrorist, therefore all Muslims are terrorists" syllogism, aren't we?
We'll just pick someone we've gone off a bit, shall we, just as long as they're Muslim this year, and Bang! Oh look! There goes another terrorist! And next year? Let's go off Chinese Buddhists or, who knows? French Catholics? Russians who are Orthodox? We'll never run out of terrorists to fight.
Why does this remind me of Orwell?
Complain about this comment
#10 MAII
He and the Imam were captured but at least two of his co-conspirators are still at large. If this were the Bush Administration, he might have been waterboarded and his fellow combatants identified, their whereabouts revealed and captured.
This BBC news item showed that torture does not get the truth anyway! But what do European scientists know eh? ;-)
Complain about this comment
MAII – So you support collective punishment on terrorist suspects, bully for you, but I have to point out that even the CIA does not trust information received in such conditions. When you break a man you do exactly that, any information received from a broken man is always regarded as suspect. To get credible intelligence from a suspect, you convince them that it is in their best interest, you don’t beat the hell out of them.
Waterboarding and other such punishments are used to create fear and keep prisoners under control, they are little to do with getting intelligence. In those limited cases it is, you don’t torture, sorry inflict coercion on the credible suspect. Instead you do it on some one you know has no information, while letting the suspect see or hear what happens. The threat of violence being more useful than the actual act.
Its lucky that you are just another armchair soldier, shouting orders from the safety of your living room.
Complain about this comment
dceilar (#9) "What's NATO doing in Afghanistan anyway? I mean it's not exactly close to the North Atlantic is it!"
The charter of NATO is not to defend the Atlantic, it is to defend member nations who have been attacked by outside forces. It doesn't matter where the threat originates.
Complain about this comment
Marcus, I'm far from a bleeding heart liberal but I fail to see how anyone can condone making someone effectivly face their death 200 times, in order to get information that could have been obtained by other means. The fact is the war on terror is a joke. There are always going to be people who disagree with what you stand for and who you are, do you seriously propose slaughtering everyone who opposes you? In doing so you are playing right into the "enemys" hand, and making your country more like their idea of utopia where everyone conforms to a certain idealogy.
I'm going to ignore any more posts of yours, because I've read many arguements on here with you and your mind is never changed, no matter what the subject is.
Complain about this comment
With all those caveats,Rasmussen does not seem to be making any significant contribution to the debate.He seems to be as confused as everybody else.Meanwhile,be prepred for another big speech by Obama to tide over the present stalemate till the next.They should not have let him out of the classroom at Yale or wherever the heck it is.
Complain about this comment
30. At 3:31pm on 29 Sep 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"As for other nations troops and deaths, most of them are few in number, their roles not related to direct combat."
Do you work at being needlessly offensive (as well as being mistaken and plain wrong about facts) or does it come naturally? Would you dare to say that to a Canadian, Dutch or British soldier in a bar in Newark NJ?
Are you sure the Republican Party is really your cup of tea? Wouldn't something a little further right be more amenable?
Complain about this comment
37. At 4:50pm on 29 Sep 2009, calmandhope wrote:
"I'm far from a bleeding heart liberal but I fail to see how anyone can condone making someone effectivly face their death 200 times, in order to get information that could have been obtained by other means."
Thanks.
I'm afraid one tends to forget that our friend is not exactly representative but in a coffin of his own. However, please don't let the all too likely outpouring of personal insults and sneers that are now likely to ensue put you off.
Complain about this comment
#36 GH
My point is that other such organisations like the AU, and the OAS have their ability to act restricted. NATO, its members decided, is free to act anywhere in the world and does!
NATO decided that its remit covered the Balkans, but not Turkey (a member State who also committed hideous crimes - this time against its Kurdish population).
Who decided that NATO's jurisdiction covered Afghanistan and beyond, but not its own member States?
Just food for thought.
Complain about this comment
38. At 4:51pm on 29 Sep 2009, lokabandhu wrote:
"With all those caveats,Rasmussen does not seem to be making any significant contribution to the debate.He seems to be as confused as everybody else."
Does this help?
". . .our populations, Afghan and international, want to see light at the end of the tunnel. They want to see the beginning of transition to Afghan lead. That means, from a security point of view, Afghans taking lead responsibility, province by province, with international forces in a supporting role. It means Afghans running their own schools, their own hospitals, their own government.
". . .General McChrystal’s top secret, close hold [my italics!] Strategic Assessment is being studied not only by anyone who reads the Washington Post, but also by the NATO nations and our Partners as well, on the military and political aspects. We will discuss it within the Alliance, and when the time is right we’ll discuss the resource aspects as well."
From the transcript of the full speech, which was actually fairly general, introducing himself more than specifically about Afghanistan.
Complain about this comment
I suppose I should have added that in that quote in 42 Rasmussen is probably expressing his own log-term goal as well as a concensus of the member nations' ambassadors.
How it is to be achieved (or if it can be) comes later. That's where McChrystal, or some other General(s) comes in, and how much, or whether the other NATO nations can be persuaded to help in implementing it. My own view is that after the recent election unless Kharzai and the current government structure (such as it is) can be replaced very soon, it is probably impossible in less than five years, and unlikely to be achievable in ten. And certainly not by similar 'private' initiatives that have been suggested by some and which have, by and large, been a disaster in Iraq.
It may be, of course, that Obama takes a different strategic view entirely, entirely dependent on what he thinks the composition of Congress may be next year, and his prospects for a second term for himself. I have doubts, frankly, that he will go for anything much more than a kind of military holding operation with some more troops for the next 12 months and hope things don't get worse.
But, from me, I think, that's it.
Complain about this comment
dceiler (#41) "Who decided that NATO's jurisdiction covered Afghanistan and beyond, but not its own member States?"
The member nations who entered into the treaty, of course. And the NATO organization that was created by the treaty. NATO does not deal with internal affairs of its members, whether hideous or not.
http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm
Complain about this comment
MAII:
'In one of the plots, an Afghan man trained in al Qaeda camps in Pakistan who was building bombs to be used in the NYC subway was tipped off by his friendly Imam in the NYC area and fled to Denver Colorado.'
This guy was actually in the USA legally. The reason they did not catch everyone was because of a disagreement between FBI and NYPD leading to the annoyed NYPD stopping the suspect's car before the FBI had finished following him. USA has more trouble with home grown terrorists these days than from Afghan trained operatives.
'Nearly two hundred waterboardings later and he'd sung like a jaybird. Whether it is illegal under the joke of international law is meaningless.'
Its just mind boggling you want to disregard the Geneva Convention!Torture (or insert your phrase of choice - enhanced interrogation techniques) is not a valid interrogation procedure. There is mounting evidence showing there is little reliable information obtained and recently BBC reported on a study showing torture affected memory retention.
Complain about this comment
Hello MARCUS, hello SQUIRRELL,
I'm from France and I have to admit,Squirrell, that, even if I find Marcus a bit extreme, he is not completely wrong. Marcus, you are obviously trying to be a "go get them" , a bit provocative, fair enough.
Most french people still today do not really know if former president Jacques Chirac was actually right or not, in refusing to follow Bush and Blair in their war in Irak....Some, who were against the invasion,after reading now that , actually, some good might finally come out of the US-Britain military operations in future Irak(partly thanks to a very bright officer nammed General Peatrus), those are now saying that it was a good thing to free the iraki people from horrible Saddam Hussein. Typical.
US allies often cry and complain that the US want to rule the planet and be the "gendarme" of the world. But then the world also constantly knocks on the White House's door to ask for US military help when needed.
Marcus, you are right,it is time the EU(and that means my country France)and the other powerful countries in this world to decide exactly what they want. President Obama did the right thing: he recently told his allies that, ok, right, the US had to stop wanting to act alone.Of course, what he meant was that from now on its allies will have to get involved more seriously, and he was pointing at Afghanistan without a doubt.There is no doubt in my mind that France, Germany, England and others could provide more troops and take more risks.Barak Obama just told them that if they really wanted to be heard and have a major part in decision making and in the future of Afghanistan,if the US were to increase the number of troops, its allies would have to do the same or shut up.
The EU countries once dreamt of a powerful european army, more powerful than any other army in the world, we all know that ain't gonna happen soon. The war in Yugoslavia was also a good example of the lack of effecient response from EU, NATO and UN: in the end, again, american GI'S were sent to the rescue in order to secure Kosovo where the war was spreading rapidly and threatning to get the whole balkan region out of control and in an endless war.
Complain about this comment
"Some want to get back to a strategy where the main aim is killing terrorists" - but then, what pray tell is a "terrorist"? Anyone the U.S. or NATO so designates? Summary executions with no trials, i.e. the Israeli method? Or maybe it's just a bit of black humor - since the U.S. has been so busy lately killing scores of innocent villagers including children, maybe it would help at least a little if Amerika confined its killing instincts to just the alleged so-called "terrorists" instead of cutting down so many other civilians in the process. But don't count on it. The U.S. has always shown a reckless disregard for innocent life in it's imperial wars and Afghanistan promises - in fact, already is - no different. So Obama's mercenaries will no doubt continue to kill and maim in the pursuit of power and plunder, all the while wrapping themselves in the flag and making up just as many lies to try and justify it all as Bush did in Iraq. At least until they can find a reliable quisling dictator among the natives able to effectively carry out orders from Washington.
Complain about this comment
Kharzai,a rather unfortunate name!.
Complain about this comment
Shouldn't the FBI agents be charged with "supplying a weapon of mass destruction"?
No... It's called a sting operation, and perfectly legal, as the FBI is the domestic agency working against terrorism.
It's easy to sit in another country and be flip about this isn't it? I work approx 5 blocks from that building. It's one of the tallest in Dallas, and composed almost entirely of glass. Can you imagine how many people would have been killed collaterally, in addition to those inside? I don't care even if it was entrapment. The kid is the one who dialed the cell phone, making his own decision to kill thousands of innocent people. I hope he gets life in prison.
Complain about this comment
Assignment: Everyone should read "The Kite Runner"
It's also a movie. I know people think immediately...PROPAGANDA....But it is not progaganda...its literature.
There is shown the ways of the Taliban....they are "not nice people" and would "very much dislike" ..anyone who Interfered with their goals.
Yes, they may not be affiliated with Al-Quada, but should not be discounted as "very much disliking" America or other powers who have "intervened" in their area of influence.
Reality does count for something. Opinions can be true or false.
And if 20 or 30 years are necessary, well...
Complain about this comment
jeanbambois (#46) "Some, who were against the invasion,after reading now that , actually, some good might finally come out of the US-Britain military operations in future Irak(partly thanks to a very bright officer nammed General Peatrus), those are now saying that it was a good thing to free the iraki people from horrible Saddam Hussein. Typical."
I don't get your point. Typical of what? Obama himself, who opposed intervention in Iraq, recently said that it was a good thing that we were rid of Saddam Hussein. What is wrong with acknowleging an obvious truth? It does not mean that his original judgment was wrong. Today, he must deal with the world as it is today.
There is some good and some bad in most things.
Complain about this comment
JeanBambois,
I consider myself center-left, but I often agree with MarcusII and I'm ..scared to say so...... ummm... here.
But good for you and your outrageous (courageous) audacity.:)
Complain about this comment
#44 GH
Thanks for the link. But it kinda doesn't really answer the question does it? As you are an expert perhaps you can explain what gave NATO the right to intervene in the Balkans and Afghanistan (neither the Balkans, Afghanistan or the Taliban attacked NATO members) in the first place?
Our elected leaders called NATO's indiscriminate bombing in the Balkans, without any sense of irony, 'humanitarian intervention'. You say NATO couldn't intervene in member state's internal affairs, how about other places in the world where its 'humanitarian intervention' could have been used? Like East Timor for example.
Complain about this comment
dceilar (#53), no, I am not an "expert." I am merely a US citizen with a stake in the policies of my government.
The Balkans conflict is a complicated subject, and I do not choose to offer an opinion on it one way or the other.
The reason for intervention in Afghanistan is not complicated. Both the US and the UK have been attacked by a terrorist organization (al Qaeda) which has a power base in Afghanistan and adjacent Pakistan. We went into Afghanistan and took down the Taliban government because it was seen as providing safe haven for al Qaeda. We remain there to attack this organization as long as it continues to be a threat to mount terrorist attacks against NATO members. Why is that difficult to understand?
Complain about this comment
squirrellist
No I've been reading these blogs for a number of months, I've seen the arguments that have gone on particular with two contributors on here. I just don't understand that level of paranoia in someone I guess is the easiest way to put it.
Complain about this comment
dceilar (#53), what does East Timor have to do with anything? The purpose of NATO is to provide for the "collective defence" of its members. East Timor has not attacked Europe or North America.
Where are you getting that "humanitarian intervention" quote? That is not the mission of NATO.
Complain about this comment
55. At 7:48pm on 29 Sep 2009, calmandhope wrote:
squirrellist
No I've been reading these blogs for a number of months, I've seen the arguments that have gone on particular with two contributors on here. I just don't understand that level of paranoia in someone
"Just because you're paranoid, that doesn't mean they're not out to get you."
:-D
Complain about this comment
The head of NATO is right.
He's Danish, though a small nation with a consequently small military, the Danes have been full contributors to this mission.
As have others, some have put in caveats, others certainly have not.
The irrational and ignorant bile spewed from reply 10 is even more offensive than normal, considering the heavy toll in lives and terrible injuries other NATO members, notably the UK and Canada have taken.
It is notable that those in the US who dribble on about 'Euros not doing their share' are (inevitably) ill informed, some of a certain age also seem usually to have managed NOT to be drafted for Vietnam.
Some have asked 'why is NATO in Afghanistan?'
Whilst on line the information is but a few keystrokes away.
NATO activated it's 'Article 5' on Sept 11th 2001, pledging all NATO members to offer what support they could to the NATO member being attacked, in this case the USA.
But the Bush administration chose not to accept most of it.
Hence the relatively small number of troops involved in going after Bin Laden and the Taliban in 2001.
We now hear how until recently, Afghanistan was in the US, the 'forgotten war'.
This is why we are in the situation there now.
Neglect,
And due to an irrelevant war of choice against an already enfeebled Iraq.
When in 2006, a NATO force, led by the UK, deployed to the Southern part of Afghanistan to help secure the long promised and not delivered aid, they entered into major hornets nest.
The Taliban had reformed, rearmed.
British forces reckoned it was the worst fighting they had seen since the Korean War.
Dying due to, being rather harsh, the neglect of the supposed superpower.
It is reckoned, taking 70 such conflicts since WW2, that the average counter insurgency effort lasts for some 14 years.
Certainly the British experience, who have probably been involved in more of these types of actions than anyone else, is varied.
Most of them ended up as successful as one can judge given you are not facing a conventional military.
And there is a problem, the public expect to see 'results' which are hard to quantify.
Usually the insurgency just fades away.
We will not take insults or lectures from blowhard keyboard warriors, not after the Reagan admin. sold arms to Iran to get hostages out of Lebanon.
Or withdrew under enemy pressure from Lebanon in 1984, or 9 years later from Somalia.
IED's? In 1979 two IRA IED's killed 18 British troops, didn't see the UK cut and run.
13 years later it was they, whatever terms they used, announced (admitted) 'their war' was over.
But no doubt, (we see enough coffins returning) Afghanistan is a mess right now.
But I have to wonder if some of those who backed the previous US administration's wars without question, and were shrill about anyone who doubted at all, who are now all of a sudden 'concerned' about Afghanistan, has any correlation with the statement by a bloated radio rabble rouser that he wants 'Obama to fail'
Including Afghanistan?
Didn't hear that sort of thing prior to last November from them did we?
Complain about this comment
decellar;
"This BBC news item showed that torture does not get the truth anyway! But what do European scientists know eh?"
They know enough to get to Mars but not how to avoid crashing into it. I'm far more trusting of American National Security experts than European scientists. We didn't have thalidomide, mad cow disease, or foot and mouth disease here. I think they have figured out how to design a large airplane that will fly...too bad they didn't consider the problem of how it would be built during the design process. BTW, when is that Swiss Cheese atom smasher going to start working? Are they close to getting it fixed yet?
Complain about this comment
To MarcusAureliusII (30):
But Marcus, the USA in its war against terror isn't doing everything that it could, actually it is doing everything that it shouldn't and nothing that it should.
Lets take some quick facts...
Osama Bin Laden is/was a Saudi millionaire.
Most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Sauri-Arabia.
Al-Queda is/was financed by wealthy Saudis.
Taleban, Iraq insurgency, terrorism in Algeria, Egypt.. financed by Saudi-Arabia.
What does the USA do? Invade and occupy Afghanistan! Totally wrong country!
The route of terror, the route of all problems is Saudi-Arabia! The thing however is that USA has an unholy alliance with the House of Saudis. As long as Saudis sell their oil nominated in US dollars and then invest huge part of those oil sales to US Treasury bonds, for this the USA sells advanced weaponry to Saudis and supports otherwise the regime and keeps an blind eye for Saudis financing religious activities in other countries, political groups that are fundamentalists and terrorists.
So again, why should the rest of the world support this unholy alliance. I can understand that for the USA it is deal worth it for getting in essence free oil, but for the rest of the globe the deal is raw. Why should we participate in war that is fought in all the wrong places?
And Afghanistan... Sight. It is not a war against Taleban or terrorists, it is a war against the Pakistan ISI that is funding and organizing the whole ordeal. However attacking Pakistan or dismantling ISI is out of question because Pakistan is an important old ally for the USA.
Maybe when the USA gets serious about waging wars then maybe then it could ask in all seriousness help from its other allies. For now no help should be given for wars fought in all the wrong places against all the wrong enemies.
Complain about this comment
Since this is supposed to be a NATO mission, and since 60% of the troops in Afghanistan now, are US troops, a build-up should be a NATO one, and not a US one.
NATO should choose to draw troops from its other members, rather than have the US provide more troops than it is already providing. Otherwise the "NATO Mission" is nothing but a sham.
Complain about this comment
Hopeless;
"I fail to see how anyone can condone making someone effectivly face their death 200 times, in order to get information that could have been obtained by other means."
There is no demonstrated proof it could have been extracted any other way especially within a time frame where it would have been useful. Anyway, waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed worked according to the CIA and Vice President Cheney. That's good enough for me. You want to defend Mohammed's civil rights? Small wonder you are hopeless.
"The fact is the war on terror is a joke."
Perhaps one day if you or someone close to you is injured or killed in it, the joke won't seem so funny to you anymore.
"There are always going to be people who disagree with what you stand for and who you are, do you seriously propose slaughtering everyone who opposes you?"
When the alternative is waiting for them to blow me up with a suicide bomb or by crashing a plane into a building or setting off a bomb in a subway, HELL YES, that is exactly what I propose be done with terrorists. Why do you have a problem with that?
"In doing so you are playing right into the "enemys" hand, and making your country more like their idea of utopia where everyone conforms to a certain idealogy."
Killing the enemy of civilization is playing into their hands? What kind of Bizarro world do you live in? Chamberlain negotiated with Hitler and look where it got him. Why don't you go try to negotiate with Bin Laden. You might become famous by getting your head sawed off live on the internet.
"I'm going to ignore any more posts of yours, because I've read many arguements on here with you and your mind is never changed, no matter what the subject is."
Good idea. You can't argue with someone who is principled, has the facts, and is right. Give it up. Pray your turn to become a victim of terrorism doesn't come up.
Complain about this comment
58. SONICBOOMER
I've pretty well said here everything I want to say, but I hope your post also explains a little more to some how it looks from our side of the Atlantic.
However, I regret that on past performance it will have no effect on the writer of post no 10, nor ameliorate one syllable as he repeats the same fallacies and falsehoods again and again.
Complain about this comment
Jean Bamboozle;
"Most french people still today do not really know if former president Jacques Chirac was actually right or not, in refusing to follow Bush and Blair in their war in Irak"
Of course they know even though they will never admit it. Do you think everyone was asleep and no one was watching what happened? Chirac played the anti-American card after he saw it work for Schroeder in Germany BEFORE the invasion. We know exactly why France didn't support the invasion. It had nothing to do with the credibility of the threat, the French Securite' believed Saddam Hussein had WMDs just like the CIA, M5, the KGB, and every other major security agency in the world did. Saddam Hussein's own generals thoght he had them. Maybe he didn't, maybe he did and they were hidden or sent to Syria, to this day we don't know. But that was not the reason. For the French government, many friends of people in high places were making enormous personal profits illegally circumventing the UN sanctions just as in Germany, Russia, and China. That would have ended with the invasion and it did. And both the French people and the French government wanted Iraq to attack the US with WMDs on its own soil whether directly or through some terrorist surrogate. Just look at Chirac's rhetoric during the election and afterwards. How best to get out of a unipolar world than to have its one "superpower" reduced in strength by an attack that would badly damage it? I lived in your country. I know how many of your fellow citizens think. But many Americans who did not live there have a very good guess. It's not a secret.
Complain about this comment
sonicboomer (#58) " ... some of a certain age also seem usually to have managed NOT to be drafted for Vietnam."
I don't know how you could have any information on that. In any case, I support anyone having avoided going to Vietnam to fight, irrespective of whatever their policies might be regarding later conflicts.
Complain about this comment
Ref 33, Squirrellist
"I thought General Musharraf and Mubarak, not to mention Kharzai, were American allies, but now they're 'terrorists' too? Just like the deputy head of Al Quaeda? Brilliant logic."
Looks like my sarcastic comments were misunderstood.
I oppose the invasion of Iraq and believe we should get out of that country as well as Afghanistan ASAP. I believe the justifications used to invade Iraq were deceitful and based strictly on geo-political and economic goals that had nothing to do with threats to our security or that of our allies. I believe the term terrorist is being used to punish anyone who opposes our interests or our presence in foreign countries. I think Gitmo should be closed immediately and the handful of prisoners against whom we have evidence of wrongdoing should face trial and, if found guilty, should serve their prison sentence in the USA. I believe the Patriot Act violates our Constitution. I believe spending a trillion dollars in our Persian Gulf adventures, sacrificing over 4,000 American lives, thousands maimed, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis slaughtered is a crime; and last but not least I do not understand why people who had no problem wasting billions in crusades have so mucho problem spending a fraction of that on domestic programs designed to improve our standard of living and our infrastructure.
Complain about this comment
Why is Nato in this endeavour? This war was mishandled from the beginning and western europe should have stood up to the Americans and said so. The thing is that by making this war so important and pivotal to European and American security, the west is getting closer to the Soviet failure than we wish to admit. And failure will only enhance the prestige and power of the Taliban. What is obvious to me is that Afghanistan will not be a winnable war and it will only end up costing more money, and soon we will be perceived as occupiers and the whole population will go against us. The US has a fundamental flaw in its policies, it's called elections and with every day that goes by and with no solution to this problem in sight; no amount of rhetoric or high sounding words will convince the population of the US and Europe to support a half baked scheme to win the "hearts and minds" of the people of Afghanistan. Seven years later the US generals now find that their strategy is not working; that does not sound good. What if their new strategy also does not work? What next?
Complain about this comment
64. At 8:23pm on 29 Sep 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
Jean Bamboozle;
"Most french people still today do not really know if former president Jacques Chirac was actually right or not, in refusing to follow Bush and Blair in their war in Irak"
Of course they know even though they will never admit it. Do you think everyone was asleep and no one was watching what happened? Chirac played the anti-American card after he saw it work for Schroeder in Germany BEFORE the invasion. We know exactly why France didn't support the invasion. It had nothing to do with the credibility of the threat, the French Securite' believed Saddam Hussein had WMDs just like the CIA, M5, the KGB, and every other major security agency in the world did."
No they didn't actually that is a US lie. Fr one the KGB was no longer in existence. And in France the civilians are in charge not the intelligence services.
In the US practically no one was in charge except some grim far right idealogues who lied to the country.
"Saddam Hussein's own generals thoght he had them. Maybe he didn't, maybe he did and they were hidden or sent to Syria, to this day we don't know."
You do not know, every other person knows he didn't have them, even President Bush.
And what sense would it have made to attack soemone who had them?
" But that was not the reason. For the French government, many friends of people in high places were making enormous personal profits illegally circumventing the UN sanctions just as in Germany, Russia, and China. That would have ended with the invasion and it did. And both the French people and the French government wanted Iraq to attack the US with WMDs on its own soil whether directly or through some terrorist surrogate."
No frantic defence of profits at any price is a US obsession, not a French one.
"Just look at Chirac's rhetoric during the election and afterwards. How best to get out of a unipolar world than to have its one "superpower" reduced in strength by an attack that would badly damage it? I lived in your country. I know how many of your fellow citizens think. But many Americans who did not live there have a very good guess. It's not a secret."
And we know not many Americans think like you. Go and tell anyone in a bar about Iraq's WMD, and you will laughed out of court.
The US, led by ideology and ignorance (fatal combination) made a tremendous blunder and its military has been humiliated.
Part of the reason was a deep level of anti-semetism, profound in the US that conquereing Iraq would be "easy" as they were only a bunch of "a-rabs".
Over 4000 dead later and over 20,000 wounded it has had to learn what it should have rememberred from Vietnam. A-rab, asian, black, etc anybody can fight effectively if they have a definite cause and good leader
Complain about this comment
62. At 8:13pm on 29 Sep 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
Hopeless;
"I fail to see how anyone can condone making someone effectivly face their death 200 times, in order to get information that could have been obtained by other means."
There is no demonstrated proof it could have been extracted any other way especially within a time frame where it would have been useful. Anyway, waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed worked according to the CIA and Vice President Cheney. That's good enough for me. You want to defend Mohammed's civil rights? Small wonder you are hopeless."
Oh dear, no evidence it could have been done any other way?
Hmmm I suppose that's what hamas, Iran etc will say when interrogating their US prisoners.
Opps.
"The fact is the war on terror is a joke."
Perhaps one day if you or someone close to you is injured or killed in it, the joke won't seem so funny to you anymore."
You seem to find it a bit of a laugh. Al;weays talking big talk from you armchair.
The War On Terror is a joke and the US has been losing.
"There are always going to be people who disagree with what you stand for and who you are, do you seriously propose slaughtering everyone who opposes you?"
When the alternative is waiting for them to blow me up with a suicide bomb or by crashing a plane into a building or setting off a bomb in a subway, HELL YES, that is exactly what I propose be done with terrorists. Why do you have a problem with that?"
Because you don't know who the terrorists are. Opps I forgot you can tell by "looking" at them. can't you?
Your policy means killing off a lot of US extreme rightwingers. Who bombed Omaha again.
Alright by me!
"In doing so you are playing right into the "enemys" hand, and making your country more like their idea of utopia where everyone conforms to a certain idealogy."
Killing the enemy of civilization is playing into their hands? What kind of Bizarro world do you live in? Chamberlain negotiated with Hitler and look where it got him. Why don't you go try to negotiate with Bin Laden. You might become famous by getting your head sawed off live on the internet."
And you might look good sitting in a cellar (cage?) with an "interogator" offering, shall we say to interrogate your mother or daughter, in front of you.
I wonder what expression you would wear when they say opps sorry wrong person.
Presumably you agree with torturing innocent people if someone refuses to crack? Get the family?
"I'm going to ignore any more posts of yours, because I've read many arguements on here with you and your mind is never changed, no matter what the subject is."
Good idea. You can't argue with someone who is principled, has the facts, and is right. Give it up. Pray your turn to become a victim of terrorism doesn't come up"
Principled and facts? Shall we discuss Marxism, your interest in bullfighting (very principled), your fascinating chats with a franch "bread baker" (as opposed to a Lemington baker?) which gave you such insights into the whole of Europe.
Or shall we discuss your "principled" views about people of colour, native Americans, 1 billion moslems, all arabs. Latino Americans.
I enjoy "debating" you since I win hands down every time.
Complain about this comment
59. At 8:06pm on 29 Sep 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
decellar;
"This BBC news item showed that torture does not get the truth anyway! But what do European scientists know eh?"
They know enough to get to Mars but not how to avoid crashing into it. I'm far more trusting of American National Security experts than European scientists. We didn't have thalidomide, mad cow disease, or foot and mouth disease here. I think they have figured out how to design a large airplane that will fly...too bad they didn't consider the problem of how it would be built during the design process. BTW, when is that Swiss Cheese atom smasher going to start working? Are they close to getting it fixed yet?"
Yes but you trust Dick Cheyney's views on something. Oh dear. Perhaops you are the only man in the world.
Complain about this comment
31. At 3:42pm on 29 Sep 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
Ref #24 and 25
"I would define a terrorist who attacks other countries or planes without a defined military target or objective. that is why Hams and Hezbollah are terrorists and Israel is not."
I see so you support the FARC, the IRA (look up what the A stands for) the Tamil Tigers. the Viet COng. Alll of these had clear miliatry objectives and miliatry ranks.
You do not consider them terorrists?
Hezbollah drove Israel; out of South Lebanan - a clear military objective.
Israel blockades 1 million people children and infirm all non combattants.
Fascinating to learn Olmert is going in the dock. Apparently this is fairly common for Israeli right wing politicians - Bibi and Avigdor soon hopefully.
If they are found guilty will their houses be demolished? I beleive that is the penalty.
Complain about this comment
62. At 8:13pm on 29 Sep 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
Killing the enemy of civilization is playing into their hands? What kind of Bizarro world do you live in"
How can I put this? Before one answers this question do you consider yourself part of this civilization?
if so....
Complain about this comment
60. At 8:12pm on 29 Sep 2009, Jukka_Rohila wrote:
To MarcusAureliusII (30):
But Marcus, the USA in its war against terror isn't doing everything that it could, actually it is doing everything that it shouldn't and nothing that it should."
There is no point talking to Marcus about these things. He is constantly embroiled trying to prove he speaks for the whole US, and gets fustrated when it is pointed out he is not the president.
He also has a distinct point of view on non-wasps.
There are simply two things one needs to know about Afghanistan.
1. If after 8 solid years of fighting you say you might lose, things are very bad.
2. No one joins a losing battle. There is no question of Nato seriously reinforcing the mission. What Government could justify having its citizens killed in a lost cause?
Germany didn't gain allies when it started losing WWII. SOuth Vietnam didn't have many friends when it started rolling up either.
However faces must be saved and this is possibly what underlines the latest report and the latest speeches.
It is a lost cause.
And fyi the reason the alleis are losing is precisely the same reason the Taliban lost support - turing against the opium industry.
As soon as that was part of nato policy the war was lost.
Complain about this comment
Well, looks like the Senate Finance Committee all but killed the healthcare public option today. The insurance companies, their Republican champions, and five scared Democrats voted down the proposal submitted by Sen. Rockefeller. The bill is still subject to a full Senate vote, but judging by the discipline shown by the Republicans and the cowardice of most Democratic senators the public option is dead.
At this point, the focus is going to be on saving face rather than meaningful reform. This may very well be the last attempt to correct one of the worst healthcare systems in the world.
Complain about this comment
74. At 11:08pm on 29 Sep 2009, saintDominick wrote:
Well, looks like the Senate Finance Committee all but killed the healthcare public option today. The insurance companies, their Republican champions, and five scared Democrats voted down the proposal submitted by Sen. Rockefeller. The bill is still subject to a full Senate vote, but judging by the discipline shown by the Republicans and the cowardice of most Democratic senators the public option is dead.
At this point, the focus is going to be on saving face rather than meaningful reform. This may very well be the last attempt to correct one of the worst healthcare systems in the world."
More Us citizens will die needlessly, and, since the wasp population is aging the death rate will probably rise.
It is important to realise how atrophied the US system of politics is. It is extremely hard to enact any serious change, no matter how meaningful. Slavery, civil rights, prohibition ec etc all took years to reform, long after every other civilised country.
The original founding fathers purposely drew up a system that was to preserve teh status quo as much as possible.
Complain about this comment
74, saintDominick
Sad, but true. Proof that the Senators are listening to their corporate campaign donors instead of to the majority of Americans who very much want a public plan, at a minimum. Makes a joke out of "representative democracy." Nobody really represents the people anymore.
Complain about this comment
I'm not sure that the American public is ready for a commitment to Afghanistan that could run into multiple decades of fighting. Afghanistan is on the other side of the world and few Americans have personal or business ties there so there is no natural constituency here to support it.
Beyond that I think a lot of Americans are unconvinced that we can have a lasting effect on a country with a long history of fighting among its various groups and where corruption and drug production are firmly entrenched facets of life.
Our overlying strategic interest is for Afghanistan not to become a base for future terrorist attacks on ourselves and our allies. If that can be accomplished without installing a democratic government the tendency here will be to think how Afghanistan is governed is their own business and none of ours. The only question in most minds will be if we have to cut a deal with the Taliban to achieve our goal can they be trusted to fulfill their side of the bargain? Personally, I think the answer is no but when the time comes I have no doubt our politicians will convince themselves that night is day and sign any agreement that lets them go to the polls as a peacemaker.
As for NATO, the level of support we have received from our NATO allies in Afghanistan has not gone unnoticed. Americans are starting to wonder why we should spend our wealth to maintain military forces to defend a Europe that is perfectly capable of maintaining sufficient military forces to defend itself but chooses to spend money on social welfare instead.
Complain about this comment
ref #76
What make you think that?
The latest Rasmunsen polls say the majority is not happy with the current public option. Also why are you discounting the tea party protesters?
Oh because Jimmy Carter claims they are racists.
Complain about this comment
77. At 11:20pm on 29 Sep 2009, Scott0962 wrote:
As for NATO, the level of support we have received from our NATO allies in Afghanistan has not gone unnoticed. Americans are starting to wonder why we should spend our wealth to maintain military forces to defend a Europe that is perfectly capable of maintaining sufficient military forces to defend itself but chooses to spend money on social welfare instead.
2
It is important to remember there is no need for terrorist bases and there hasn't been since the internet and mobile phones.
A suburban house, an empty office etc all work as well for bombing lessons as a dusty hillside in Afghanistan.
This is the problem, terrorism cannot be defeated by military strength, it rarely has been - Britain denied the IRA all bases up to 1922 and still couldn't end the fighting.
Complain about this comment
78. At 11:29pm on 29 Sep 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
ref #76
What make you think that?
. Also why are you discounting the tea party protesters?"
Why do you think genius? Is this meant as a serious comment.
"Oh because Jimmy Carter claims they are racists."
And Jimmy Carter, a brilliant and widely respected humanitarian, knows what he is talking about.
Complain about this comment
Question for regular posters. I only started adding comments as Justin Webb was on his way out but I didn't really enjoy his blogs. I have enjoyed most all of Mark Mardells' though. Maybe it is his new enthusiasm for the job, maybe I am just being unfair to Mr.Webb because of my perception that he was detatched from the reality of living in America and also his smug photo bothered me, while Mr.Mardell looks like a freindly shop-keeper. Anyway, my question is how is Mr.Mardell comparing to Mr.Webb so far?
Complain about this comment
Jumping into the deabate about defining "terrorism" , I believe it is using peoples fear (of anything- death, pain, uncertainty, "socialism") as a weapon to bend them to your will and force through an agenda.
Complain about this comment
From the moment President Bush declared a war on terror to the moment he left office, the United States of America was not successfully attacked by foreign terrorists on its own soil even once. That is the standard every other president will be judged against by the American people. If they do not meet that standard, they will be discredited, possibly impeached, but they will not get re-elected. A successful attack on the US will have dire consequences. At the very least, the party in power will be badly damaged, its security policies trashed. If it's a WMD attack Constitutional law in the US may come to an end for the forseeable future, possibly indefinitely. Every nation or group that aroused the wrath of the American People in the past has been destroyed. There is no reason to think it won't happen if someone else wants to try it too.
Complain about this comment
Ref 76, SL
I can't say I am surprised. Ideology, the way we have been brought up, our conviction that ours is the best system in the world and any changes, no matter how benign, would destroy our system and society, effective campaigning by insurance companies with deep pocket, and the pervasive influence of special interests in Washington derailed what may be the last attempt to make healthcare accessible to all Americans and end the abusive behavior of the insurance industry.
I doubt the latest "alternative", which suggests using the Swiss and German systems as models, will come to fruition. The insurance companies and their supporters are not going to go along with a system that would limit the ability of insurance companies to raise premiums at random, force them to provide coverage to all citizens, and put an end to caps, pre-existing conditions and other inhumane practices.
Complain about this comment
Ref 75, Simon
"It is important to realise how atrophied the US system of politics is."
Any guesses on who the GOP will blame in a few years when corporations stop providing healthcare coverage to employees because rising costs are affecting their bottom line?
Hopefully there will be plenty of warm tea to drink because that may be the only placebo available in a world where the wishes of a shrinking middle class are as irrelevant as those of our perceived Muslim foes...
Complain about this comment
83. At 11:57pm on 29 Sep 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
From the moment President Bush declared a war on terror to the moment he left office, the United States of America was not successfully attacked by foreign terrorists on its own soil even once."
Didn't need to genius.
They got the US to come to them. Haven't you worked that out? Not up on this terrorism thing are you. They and thier supporters killed over 4000 US citizens and wounded 20,000 more. With 9/11 that's 6000 people.
They also humiliated the US military and made a US president look like a gibbering gibbon - even having to apologise for his language!
As for money spent and wasted- I won't even go into the sums.
"
" That is the standard every other president will be judged against by the American people. If they do not meet that standard, they will be discredited, possibly impeached, but they will not get re-elected."
Decrees Marcus! Henceforth any US president who does not let his country be attacked, then does not launch two unsuccessful wars, does not claim they are over, then admits they are not and does not lose 6000 US citizens, will lose the Presidency!
A Crimson decree by Marcus the Mighty swaying the wide world"
I hope you don't mind the Imperial Chinese dressing, but you are hilarious, constantly laying down the law.
Do you think in the remotest corner of your mind the average US citizen is as preoccupied with "terrirsss" as you are? DO you think they actually give two raspberries for Afghanistan?
As much as say keeping a job, getting a decent mortgage.
"A successful attack on the US will have dire consequences. At the very least, the party in power will be badly damaged, its security policies trashed. If it's a WMD attack Constitutional law in the US may come to an end for the forseeable future, possibly indefinitely."
More Decrees from Marcus the Mighty "Henceforth the US Consitution is suspended"
Course that was not done in the Civil War and WWII, slightly bigger conflicts than this one. But we are not dealing with reality here.
"Every nation or group that aroused the wrath of the American People in the past has been destroyed. There is no reason to think it won't happen if someone else wants to try it too."
Wrath eh! "he is tramping out his vengeance where the grapes of wrath are stored"
Please tell us when was Russia destroyed? Must have missed that one. When was Vietnam destroyed?
You must tell the Vietnamese they are destroyed. They think they won.
Oh and better tell the North Koreans and the Chinese too, they also think they exist.
The Roumanians definitely exist
As I say hilarious
Complain about this comment
82. At 11:57pm on 29 Sep 2009, when you are the moon... wrote:
Jumping into the deabate about defining "terrorism" , I believe it is using peoples fear (of anything- death, pain, uncertainty, "socialism") as a weapon to bend them to your will and force through an agenda."
It is a meaningless term. In the US you could use the term heretic, commie, catholic, black politician etc. The rght is always on the look out for new bogey men
Complain about this comment
Simon21 wrote:
78. At 11:29pm on 29 Sep 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
ref #76
What make you think that?
. Also why are you discounting the tea party protesters?"
Why do you think genius? Is this meant as a serious comment.
(Yes because they represent a wide range of oppinions if you watch anything besides MSNBC you would know that)
"Oh because Jimmy Carter claims they are racists."
And Jimmy Carter, a brilliant and widely respected humanitarian, knows what he is talking about.
(The peanut famer and appeaser gave cover to Human Right's violators like Hugo, Hamas and Hezbollah. He will be remebered with cowards like Chamberlen.)
Complain about this comment
81, when you are the moon ...
I think Mr. Mardell is much better at this than Mr. Webb was, though I didn't dislike him as much as some other people seem to have. Mr. Mardell's blog posts are much more than sound bites, and well written to boot.
And you're right about his photo! He's not off-putting. Looks (and writes) like someone you wouldn't mind having a pint with. The only other total stranger I've thought that about is Bill Bryson. Not that this is really relevant; it's just icing on the cake.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8274945.stm
Intel is supporting the "EU"-Dictatorship in its attempt to force the Lisbon Treaty down the throats of the people of Ireland and the so-called "Citizens of Europe."
The US government and US companies should not be supporting a despicable dictatorship which is also anti-USA.
Boycott Intel!!
Don't eat any more Intel chips!!
Complain about this comment
Simpleton;
"Please tell us when was Russia destroyed? Must have missed that one. When was Vietnam destroyed?"
Russia was so smashed to pieces in 1991 that about 80% of its population was below the poverty line even by its own miserable standards. So destroyed the US actually had to bail it out of a financial crisis around 10 or 12 years ago. So destroyed many of its people worked for months even years without getting paid. Pensioners often didn't get paid either. Were it not for the oil boom, it would still be just as broken. It has some spare change in its pockets but as an economic power it is still a basket case. Remember any of this or have you forgotten it all so soon? Why did the US bail Russia out? About 15,000 nuclear weapons it might have sold otherwise it would have been allowed to die...the way Vietnam was allowed to. Vietnam was so broken that it gave up on Communism. It's still a military dictatorship but socialism failed so badly, it had to become a capitalist state or starve the way North Korea is. Had it had the same policies in 1959 it has in 2009, there wouldn't have been a war there at all. I'd ask you if you know what a Pyrrhic victory is but I don't think a British elementary education covers that.
Complain about this comment
Mr. Kirin, you are wrong ..please just admit it.
Jimmy Carter knew exactly what he was talking about. He is not insane, insentiant, senile, or whatever you wish to believe.
Those people, led by Joe Wilson, are "prejudiced to the max."
Proof comes from just a little research into Joe Wilson's past activities--i.e., supporting segregation, supporting "prejudiced to the max" politicians, etc. (trying to be nice and trying not to be "referred to the moderators")
Complain about this comment
stellarBeloved, although Kirin is a little far to the right, in this
case I believe he is correct.
Mr. Carter somehow implied that the large number of independents who
voted for Obama last year have suddenly become racists because they
disagree with him.
What would us conservatives do without people like Carter? He's winning
2010 for us.
Complain about this comment
#81. when you are the moon...: "my question is how is Mr.Mardell comparing to Mr.Webb so far?"
Just as detached from American life as was Justin Webb. He appears very keen to make his mark as a political commentator but his topics, for example, the present one, could be covered just as well from the UK as they can from Washington. So far - and it is early days - he hasn't written anything unique to America or American life. I suggest that the average American cares not a jot about Afghanistan and, when one does, only peripherally since the subject covers Al Qaeda and the Taliban. The parents of those killed there would have more interesting views and it is a pity that Mark has not made an attempt to balance his political reporting with those who are most affected by the actions of the president, past and present. Lyndon Johnson lost his party's presidency because of a failed war and the possibility remains that Mr Obama could suffer the same fate without having achieved half as much as LBJ. A presidency full of promise could well be shattered by the sight of more body-bags arriving. It's not for nothing that the previous administration banned photographs of flag-draped coffins. Immediately post 9/11 Mr Bush's rating were at their zentih, but by the time his term was ending, they were at their nadir. Not solely because of the economy.
Complain about this comment
And, in the meatime, in California , the state's government which could not balance its budget or reduce 'welfare' perks....
Complain about this comment
And in American Samoa...
Complain about this comment
89. At 01:03am on 30 Sep 2009, socialistlibertarian wrote:
"it's just icing on the cake."
Sure that shouldn't be "the yeast in the gateau" or "the icing on the baguette"?
Cuddliness and a somewhat satirical smile doesn't cut it with DC, however, I see. (Not Washington DC, though don't you have to have a deep fake tan, lots of fluorescent teeth, a botox brow and a wig with a parting to be taken seriously as a meedja person there? And repeat the news anchor's first name at the beginning and end of every sentence of your report just in case they've forgotten it since the news bulletin started?)
Complain about this comment
#74 St Dom
RE: the healthcare debate. That's very sad and depressing for all those millions of uninsured Americans. The political elite in Europe all agree with this maxim: it's better for change to come from above than from below.
The American people IMO should tell their elected representatives that if they don't bring in the public option they will!
The State should be scared of the people, not the other way round!
Complain about this comment
Marcus – A couple of points, I have indirectly known two people killed by terrorists, one a soldier killed by the IRA and one (not a soldiers) died in 7/7 bombings. So one died before the Americans decided that terrorist organisations and states need to be dealt with and one after, I really don’t see what the ‘War on Terror’ has achieved.
Two, countries invaded by the US that have not been destroyed:
Canada – Still going strong and with British soldiers destroyed the White House.
Cuba – Despite the Bay of Pigs and a number of assassination attempts Castro survived. Despite numerous predictions of popular uprising none have occurred.
Libya – Again despite assassination attempts including a British backed aerial bombing Gaddafi is not only still going strong, he is one of the most influential leaders in North Africa.
Panama – Invaded but still there
Vietnam – Its decline had more to do with China and Thailand than the US, sorry old chap.
Rose tinted glasses, or in your case star spangled red, white and blue ones, are lovely things, but they do tend to get in the way of the facts rather.
Complain about this comment
98. At 08:10am on 30 Sep 2009, powermeerkat wrote:
"And in American Samoa..."
Geography lesson:
1) it is not only American Samoa that's been affected (why 'American'? I thought you claimed not to have colonies?) but Samoa and Tonga too.
2) the islands are much closer to Australia than North America.
Fact lesson: Three times as many are reported dead in Samoa as American Samoa.
Geopolitical lesson: Both Australia and New Zealand, being the nearest developed countries, are sending aid. None of these countries, by the way, are anywhere near Afghanistan, nor in NATO, which is, I think. the current topic.
Mark is the 'BBC North America Editor', not the 'South Pacific Editor' nor even 'American Colonies Correspondent'.
Some of the sniping that's begun here is really very childish. But one is also as a rule better informed if one reads a news reportfrom beginning to end, rather than just a single headline on HuffPo.
Complain about this comment
62 MA
I said I was going to ignore your posts but I'm afraid I cant. One of my longest friends who I've known for the majority of my life, his sister was killed in the 7/7 attacks and since then their family has done a number of interviews on the beeb, you may have read them but I'm presuming not. I still stand by what I said that waterboarding is not the way forward and that is after personal experience of terrorism.
Complain about this comment
#101 David
It's also interesting to see the USA government back to its usual tricks of supporting undemocratic coups in Latin America - this time Honduras. When it comes to foreign policy the American political elite only like democracy when the vote goes their way - a bit hypocritical IMO. You either believe in democracy or you don't.
Complain about this comment
Ref 100, dcellar
"The American people IMO should tell their elected representatives that if they don't bring in the public option they will!"
Bear in mind that most of the "tea party" protesters have never been exposed to public healthcare and have formed an opinion on the subject based on what they hear on FOX News, the Rush Limbaugh radio show, and the heavy infusions of propaganda from the insurance industry. They are convinced that our system is not only the best, but that the slightest change would bring untold misery to our society.
Expecting those that accepted the justifications advanced by the Bush Administration to invade Iraq, those who are still convinced that Iraq, Grenada and Nicaragua were major threats to our national security is an unrealistic expectation. They will never engage in constructive debate on issues of critical importance to our future, much less protest because our government is not changing what they regard as a utopian reality.
Complain about this comment
103. calmandhope:
Long experience has shown me it is pointless to make any appeal to the conscience of someone who never demonstrates either empathy nor compassion. The word for such a condition is sociopathy.
I am terribly weary myself, now, of the handful of people who post so often here whose only motivating passion appears to be indiscriminate, unthinking vengeance. Even when, were one to assume that could or should be an ethical motivation, they can show none for it but a vicious desire for destruction.
Perhaps Messrs Colt, Winchester and Ford (Henry, that is) between them warped some American consciences so that weapons and automobiles inspire more affection and emotional attachment than human beings.
Complain about this comment
Re#102
So how the court geoograher explains lack of any reports from CALIFORNIA?
Complain about this comment
squirrellist
I know what you mean and I've only recently started commenting on here, I pity those who have tried for longer.
Complain about this comment
#104
How pathetic.
Obama's administration re developments in Honduras is and has been very clear for quite some time.
Time to update talking points I guess.
Complain about this comment
#83 "From the moment President Bush declared a war on terror to the moment he left office, the United States of America was not successfully attacked by foreign terrorists on its own soil even once."
But the poor confused citizens of the USA (United Saps of America) were constantly reminded that there was a STRONG POSSIBILITY of another attack - just to keep them scared and obedient. Do you see how it works? Hmm? Of course you don't, how could you.
Complain about this comment
#109
As clear as mud! So far the Obama administration has criticised the ousted democratically elected President for having the nerve to come back and to try to restore democracy. The US is their largest economic partner and if they demanded the President's reinstatement he will be reinstated. Simple.
In foreign relations it is what officials don't say that is important. Pathetic indeed!
Complain about this comment
Powermeerkat – To be fair the US foreign policy in this regard has not changed since last century, it has a habit of supporting whatever political group in South America that will ensure socialist/communist elements do not hold power, no matter how those elements gained power. Nothing unusual there Britain and European powers have done similar things. It is nothing to do with promoting democracy, rather it’s protecting more powerful countries interests at the expense of weaker ones.
There is however a rank hypocrisy in being a vocal champion of democracy when you are willing to undermine democracy whenever you feel like it. It would be hoped that Chile and Argentina would have been lessons on the potential results from such intervention, realistically though it a false hope.
While as Westerner I believe that democracy, or the limited versions used in the US and UK, is the best form of government, I am unconvinced that it works in all areas of the world, such as Afghanistan. Democracy grew out of specific social conditions, those social conditions did not and do not exist in countries like Afghanistan. A better option should have been looked at, such as a tribal council where the national leader was chosen from the most powerful tribes. However, the US governments obsession with democratising the world, despite the actions of parts of its foreign policy could not allow that to happen.
Complain about this comment
"The Taliban in Pakistan have released a video confirming that their former leader Baitullah Mehsud is dead.
A video received by the BBC shows the body of the former head of Pakistan's largest Taliban group lying in a room. It is not clear where it was taken.
Mr Mehsud was killed on 6 August in the tribal region of South Waziristan in a missile attack by a suspected US drone. " [BBC World]
Predator-2, the sequel, soon on the screens (and in Taliban leaders' rear view mirrors) of all major movie theaters in Waziristan.
Complain about this comment
107. powermeerkat:
Just type 'California' into the search box. Claire Bolderson's been there; Rajesh Mirchandani's been there. Or you can read the LA Times, like the Beeb's North America Editor probably does every day.
California also isn't connected with Afghanistan or NATO, so stop trying to change the subject.
Complain about this comment
#111
Obama's Admistration staunch support of OAS's official position notwithstanding it doesn't look like Hundurans are ready for another perennial leader modelled after Castro Bros.
Nor that they'd like Honduras to become another diabetic dying Cuba.
Hoping to become another Chile, rather. ;-)
NO PASARAN!
Complain about this comment
An interesting and on this occasion informative piece of analysis. It even had verified quotes instead of hyperbolic assumptions.
My singular thought on the issue: I doubt this or any USA President is ever likely to have enough backing of the American Public not to stay long enough in Afghanistan to get 9/11 perpetrator, Osama bin Laden.
Of course OBL may not be anywhere near the country, but that's another story!
Complain about this comment
ref #105
saintDominick wrote:
Ref 100, dcellar
"The American people IMO should tell their elected representatives that if they don't bring in the public option they will!"
Bear in mind that most of the "tea party" protesters have never been exposed to public healthcare and have formed an opinion on the subject based on what they hear on FOX News, the Rush Limbaugh radio show, and the heavy infusions of propaganda from the insurance industry. They are convinced that our system is not only the best, but that the slightest change would bring untold misery to our society.
Expecting those that accepted the justifications advanced by the Bush Administration to invade Iraq, those who are still convinced that Iraq, Grenada and Nicaragua were major threats to our national security is an unrealistic expectation. They will never engage in constructive debate on issues of critical importance to our future, much less protest because our government is not changing what they regard as a utopian reality.
First how do you answer the Rasmunsen poll which says 56% don't want the public option. The tea party was not a monolith anymore than the G 20 protesters were.
As someone who is not happy with his healthcare, my concern was echoed by many of the protesters.
What is the plan?
Can we trust the goverment to implement reform?
Complain about this comment
ref #104
dceilar wrote:
#101 David
It's also interesting to see the USA government back to its usual tricks of supporting undemocratic coups in Latin America - this time Honduras. When it comes to foreign policy the American political elite only like democracy when the vote goes their way - a bit hypocritical IMO. You either believe in democracy or you don't.
First this was not a traditional coup. The courts and legislators said Zeylia broke the law and was trying to become President for life. He important documents printed by another President for life Hugo.
Second Obama is not supporting the new President (he should) but he is not.
Complain about this comment
My previous post was aimed at the writer, Mark Merdell and I would greatly appreciate his answer.
I find it difficult to believe that those who support the US and NATO in Afghanistan have failed to see through the propaganda spread by those countries' governments and the mainstream media, yes, including the BBC which is a strong ally of the British government. This is a military occupation aimed at establishing another military foothold close to Russia and China and of course Iran and the rest of the Middle East. The 'War on Terror' is a myth and an excuse for the US, UK and their 'allies' to commit to endless wars at taxpayer expense. The media should report it as it is. This is not about fighting terrorists. It seems in Afghanistan, like Iraq, anyone fighting the occupation forces is a terrorist. Why is it the media never describes these people as the Afghan resistance or Afghan freedom fighters? They are always described as militants, fundamentalists and terrorists.
Complain about this comment
Ref 115, PMK
:...it doesn't look like Hundurans are ready for another perennial leader modelled after Castro Bros."
Judging by the popular demonstrations that have taken place in Honduras, the imposition of a curfew to prevent them, the ongoing arrests and disappearances of civilians, and the presence of troops and police in the streets of Tegucigalpa, it seems to me that the preference of the people of Honduras - and those of the elite - are crystal clear.
President Zelaya won a democratic election, was serving his term, and proposed a plebiscite to determine whether or not there was popular support for a constitutional ammendment to presidential second terms consistent with Article 5 of the Constitution of Honduras. His proposal, which was not only legal but subjected to popular vote and, therefore, could have been rejected, was used as an excuse to remove a socialist-leaning politician whose policies had benefited the poor and lower middle class at the expense of the elite.
The duplicity of those who condemn the totalitarianism and deceit of the Iranian regime, and later endorse military coup d'etats and totalitarianism when the person ousted is a left-leaning politician is inescapable.
There is absolutely no evidence President Zelaya had any intention of emulating Fidel Castro, who did not use referendums or plebiscites to consolidate and stay in power. The UN, OAS, the Obama Administration and all the people who have voiced their disgust at what is taking place in Honduras are correct. Unfortunately, unarmed civilians are no match for a military and police force determined to impose their will on the people so, in that context, you are right "no pasara" (it will not happen).
Complain about this comment
Ref 104, dcellar
"You either believe in democracy or you don't."
Couldn't agree with you more.
Complain about this comment
Ref 119, Mchl4237
"Why is it the media never describes these people as the Afghan resistance or Afghan freedom fighters?"
I realize the question was directed at Mr. Mardell, but I'll give you my opinion anyway. We only consider freedom fighters, patriots, partisans, or the resistance those who fight or oppose regimes we don't like. Anyone who opposes our interests,policies or our presence in distant lands automatically becomes an enemy combatant (only Alberto knows exactly what that means), an insurgent (with special connotations implying evil behavior), or more often than not a terrorist.
Variances in the useage of these terms, as well as our interpretation of what is democratic and what is not, depend on who the winners and losers are rather than true definitions of the terms or principle.
Complain about this comment
DRuM
Old Chap? What are you, something out of a 1930s Basil Rathbone Nigel Bruce movie? Do they still actually talk that way in Britain? Bloody good this? Bloody good that. Here Here. Jolly good show old bean. Sometimes it seems Europeans live on a different planet than the rest of us. You are invited to take tea with her Royal Highness the Queen. Sorry, Haloween is next month. Don't know if my costume as the Duke of Wishbone will need some alterations, no time for that on such short notice, my tailor is booked...olde bean.
Oh how I wish you Brits could learn to read. You seem to know most of the words but comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong point. Now here is what I actually said (cut and pasted so that there isn't even a subtle change in meaning due to paraphrasing);
"Every nation or group that aroused the wrath of the American People in the past has been destroyed."
Canada did not arouse the wrath of the American People. During the War of 1812 which is what I assume you are referring to, the United States invaded Canada with the intention of capturing it and incorporating it into the United States as memeber of the Union. As we know that effort failed. How ironic that approximately 170 years later when it appeared Canada might break up due to secession of Quebec Provence and movements in two other provinces for independence I think due to extreme aboriginal dissatisfaction (corresponding to the people we call Native Americans in the US) with the Canadian government because of its failure to address their needs and complaints, there was widespread talk in more than a few Provinces to draw up petitions for statehood to become part of the US. How lucky both of us were that it never came to that.
I assumed Canada was one of the two countries you were referring to but I don't know which of the other 4 you intended as the second. (I expect neither logic nor consistency from Europeans so it doesn't come as a surprise to me that you statement becomes incoherent between the beginning and the end.) Cuba? Have you studied Cuba? Since their Soviet benefactors stopped giving them 10 million dollars a day, their standard of living has reduced from impovrishment to living among the most meager existances in the Western Hemisphere. I understand at one point gasoline was so scarce, many farmers had to resort to plowing their fields with draught animals the way it was done before the industrial revolution. Only relief from oil rich Venezuela has brought them back slightly from the brink.
The others like Libya and Panama did not arouse the wrath of America and were not in fact smashed. I already explained Vietnam. Britain which you did not mention was devastated twice in the 20th century. As with Japan, in rebuilding it, we let you keep your rediculous anarchic monarchy. It's the closest thing you'll probably ever get to Disneyland.
Complain about this comment
65, well start with one Dick '5 deferments' Cheney, add a sprinkling of various Bush admin staffers, outriders and a whole host of commentators of a certain age.
77, ever thought of using a search and a few keystrokes to actually find out who is supporting the US in Afghanistan, clue; don't bother with a FOX news site.
Who is deploying what, the death tolls etc?
Warning; This might cause a rupture in some established beliefs.
And why do you think the US is 'defending Europe'.
Since the Cold War ended (and most European nations maintained, for their size, large militaries during this period usually meaning having conscription to do so), the US has massively slashed it's forces in Europe.
What is left supports the US generally, the major US military hospital in Germany is rather nearer to the frontline than the US, important in cases of badly wounded troops, naval bases, staging bases, intelligence gathering facilities, (without the use of British facilities, in the UK and around the world, your NSA would be half blind).
We often hear some in the US saying Europe is 'ungrateful' for WW2. Pretty desperate considering just how 'ungrateful' even if just through ignorance, some in the US are now for the help they've been getting.
There IS an issue with the deployability of some NATO forces, here, despite the overstretch, the financial and human pressures, this is one area where the UK scores heavily.
But then considering that since the end of WW2, only 1968 has NOT seen British forces engaged in action somewhere, to use a Football (Soccer) term, they tend to be 'match fit'.
We've more than paid any dues imagined by some in the US thankyou very much, Korea was never a part of British influence, still sent 1000's to fight there in support of the US.
'End of Empire' coinciding as it did with the Cold War, meant the British/Commonwealth forces had to fight insurgents to prevent nations about to become independent, 'going red'.
In Malaya, Radafan (Saudi), Borneo, Oman, Cyprus, Aden (that one did not work out admittedly), arguably Northern Ireland too (considering the Provisional IRA were Marxists who also wanted to otherthrow the Eire government-something they neglected to tell their friends, funders and armers in the US.
No doubt the situation in Afghanistan is critical, however it just won't do to say say 'pull out now'.
That's nice, then what?
Imagine one Bin Laden being received as a hero in a Kabul back under Taliban control.
Whose afraid of the 'big bad (American) wolf'?
I cannot think of anything that would spur on and encourage terrorists more.
Have the lessons of Lebanon, Iran/Contra, Somalia not been learned?
I know it must be galling that much of the (bloated and unsustainable) spending on the vast US military seems of not a great deal of use against this kind of enemy, the bald fact is that the sort of 'war' much of the US public is happiest with, blasting some 3rd world nation from 30,000 feet, on CNN, FOX etc, between 'Sports Bloopers' or 'American Idol' is not the answer here.
War is bloody, messy, nasty, when you have to get down and dirty with an enemy.
Complain about this comment
#120 St Dom
An excellent post and well timed with Magic's rant preceding it.
Complain about this comment
Ref 124, Sonic
"Imagine one Bin Laden being received as a hero in a Kabul back under Taliban control."
I would not be a bit surprised if we learn that OBL was killed or died years ago, and that his image was kept alive to support our indefinite presence in the Persian Gulf.
There is no need to have 200,000 US and NATO troops in Afghanistan to ensure Al Qaeda does not have a physical foothold in Afghanistan, we have plenty of effective and relatively inexpensive "tools" to guarantee that doesn't happen. Based on the determination they have shown in maintaining their sovereignty and preserving their traditions, I doubt the Afghan people and their leaders would allow people from other Muslim nations to meddle in their internal affairs.
Complain about this comment
Ref 117, Magic
"First how do you answer the Rasmunsen poll which says 56% don't want the public option. The tea party was not a monolith anymore than the G 20 protesters were.
As someone who is not happy with his healthcare, my concern was echoed by many of the protesters.
What is the plan?
Can we trust the goverment to implement reform?"
The answer to the first question is simple: the American public has been "conditioned" to believe we have the best system in the world and that any changes, no matter how small they may be or how badly we need them, are counter productive to our well being and the work of evil socialists determined to destroy America.
There is no plan, there are several proposals on the table. Unfortunately, the insurance industry and its supporters are determined to maintain the status quo, even if it is detrimental to our lives and our ability to compete, and inconsistent with the Judeo-Christian values that we purportedly embrace. Alas, if Jesus stepped anywhere near Wall Street or Washington today he would either be labeled a socialist and an appeaser...or a pseudo terrorist. Compassion, respect for the opinions and freedom of others, caring for our fellow man, and responding to violence and intransigence with love and understanding are concepts so alien to our psyche that adopting them would be tantamount to unconditional surrender.
We trust the government to run our military, security agencies, the Treasury, port authorities, Social Security, MEDICARE, MEDICAID, unemployment benefits, the Veterans Administration, the Park and Weather services, NASA, NOAA and dozens of other programs. The bureaucracy that run these agencies and departments do so efficiently and cost effectively. The problems that some of them are experiencing are caused by politicians moreinterested in the advancement of their party and personal goals than the welfare of their constituents.
Are you suggesting the US government - and by default the American people - are incapable of running an efficient healthcare system? Don't forget that in a country such as ours we are the government.
Complain about this comment
Marcus (note that while this is not your real name, and while I actually have the gumption to use mine I have the common courtesy not mockingly change its spelling for mediocre comedic effect), while I cannot speak for all British, I to tend to use slightly anachronistic speech yes. Shocking I know to have some kind of individuality in these days of overpowering conformability, but hey that’s just the way that I roll.
By the way I believe old bean that you meant to state that the British Monarchy is also anachronistic, not as you incorrectly stated anarchic. I suspect with your privileged background and expensive private education that you do know the difference. Heavens save us if you don’t, all that money wasted. Does rather go to show a lack of comprehension on your part, ah the irony.
So old love, being invaded is not a sign of aggression, or wrath? Well I suppose that does rather go towards showing the slight colouring of your viewpoint. I believe I can assure you the then Dominion of Canada and the British Empire held a different view, hence our decision to return the favour and march down upon you capital.
Regarding the matter of points, yes it was remiss of me not to make crystal clear that point one did not relate to the countries which the US destroyed, but rather your slightly insulting insinuation that anyone who did not agree with you had not experienced a loss through terrorist action. I see that I was being far too obtuse for you old chap (never olde, I mean really) by covering one point, which you failed to address, then only numbering my second point. My abject apologies, I guess it still rather early in the US, possibly explaining the poor spelling (it’s Halloween, not Haloween, impoverishment not impoverishment and Provence is in France, though the Quebec Province is in Canada).
To quote you “every nation that has aroused the wrath of the American People in the past has been destroyed”, no matter how impoverished Cuba maybe these days, neither it nor the rule of Castro has been destroyed. Again I note that according to you the invasion of Panama and bombardment of Libya were not acts of anger, wrath coming from the Old English for angry in case your expensive education did not cover such things. I suspect the relatives of those killed will be delighted to know that these were not acts of aggression (or rather acts of anger/wrath), though I would be interested to know how you would classify them.
Finally the closest I have got to Disneyland is London, as the last time I went to France it was clear of that horrible corporation’s ‘amusement’ park. You did realise that there is a Disneyland Paris didn’t you?
Over all I give you response (dig) a 3 out 10, as I am feeling generous. A must try harder effort on the whole, about par for you really!
Complain about this comment
Ref 118, Magic
"First this was not a traditional coup. The courts and legislators said Zeylia broke the law and was trying to become President for life."
There is no such a thing as an "untraditional" military coup d'etat. When a democratically elected President is deposed by the military and police before the end of his term it is a coup d'etat. Period.
Proposing a referendum to determine whether or not the citizens of a country support an ammendment to the Constitution that would allow incumbents to run for re-election (the way they do in the USA) is consistent with the tenets of the Honduran Constitution and, therefore, legal.
Bear in mind that most of the leadership in countries like Honduras are members of the elite. They fill most of the important posts in the Courts, legislature, the military and the police. They control all facets of life and when a popularly elected President is elected his ability to remain in power depends on his willingness to support the interests of the elite. Citing the preferences of those whose values are based on feudal principles as justification for totalitarianism is inconsistent with our most cherished values...or at least those we love to highlight when we the goal is to claim righteousness.
Do you support democracy implicitly, or do you only support democracy when it serves our interests? I answered your questions, please answer mine.
Complain about this comment
ref #120
Zelayia proposed the referendum extending his presidency and it was rejected by the congress. He than ask his patron hugo to print ballots in violation of a court order.
I don't take him at his word that he was not going to try to rig elections.
BTW that is something both right and left wing dictators do.
Complain about this comment
ref #122
Dominick the term used by most news orginization icluding Fox is millitants.
This term can be interperted in ways both satisfactory and unsatisfactory
Complain about this comment
Ref 130, Magic
"Zelayia proposed the referendum extending his presidency and it was rejected by the congress."
If your interpretation of "Congress" is synonymous to "elite" your statement is correct. Don't confuse what passes for a Congress, Court or legislature in countries like Honduras or Guatemala with similar institutions in countries like ours.
Latin America has been ruled by an oligarchy since the days of the conquest, and during the last century or so by dictators supported and/or subservient to the USA. The excesses carried out by the ruling class, and by us, have produced hatred, distrust, and a shift to the left that may not have occurred had it not been for our policies, greed, and the despotism of our stooges in that part of the world.
Are you going to answer the question about what kind of democracy you support?
Complain about this comment
DR Mur;
You blokes can't take even the slightest ribbing...which makes it all the more irresistable. Bloke, now what kind of word sir I ask you is that? A cross between blowhard and slowpoke? Wretched! Now if you want to say that I can's spell for beans olde bean, I'd be the first to agree with you. So with that set aside, I'd like to know why you stopped your anachronistic voyage into the linguistic past at the early 20th or late 19th century. Why not go back to Elizabethan times and speaketh the way Shakespeare spoketh? Thee thy tho thum, I smell the bloody blood of an Englishman. Or go back even further and speak Latin. Surely with your superior private education you speak Latin. We speak it here sometimes. E pluribus unum to you. Unfortunately I never learned to speak real Latin. Only Pig Latin. Ixnay, ixnay! Or go right back to the stone age and post your thoughts in grunts. UH! UG! Eh! HOOO! HOOO! Me go to London to visit the queen. That's about as much as I get from reading most postings by Brits anyway. Must dash off now. Tally-HOOOOOOOO! (Do Brits still dash off...besides at track meets?)
Complain about this comment
Do you support democracy implicitly, or do you only support democracy when it serves our interests? I answered your questions, please answer mine.
I support true democracy implicity, meaning valid voting results.
Which means as much as I hated the terrorist group Hamas was elected legitimatly. it does not mean Israel or the U.S has to deal with them as a reputable partner.
Yes Zelayia was elected fairly but so were the legislators who voted him out for violating the counstittion.
However I do not support democracy claims when the election is rigged or is favored so that one part controlls the media and voting results.
So I don't recongized the Iranain, Venezuela, Zimbawbe as legitimate
Complain about this comment
St dom
"and a shift to the left that may not have occurred had it not been for our policies, greed, and the despotism of our stooges in that part of the world."
Too bloody right.;)
Complain about this comment
"Are you going to answer the question about what kind of democracy you support?"
st dom. I would have thought you would know the answer to that one.
A "democracy" in Gherky is a country that does whatever Gherky says is OK.
Anything else is a "socialist dictatorship"
Complain about this comment
I'm actually lost for words at 133...
If thats supposed to be satire from the greatest nation on earth, I despair for the rest of us.
Complain about this comment
saintDominick (#129) "When a democratically elected President is deposed by the military and police before the end of his term it is a coup d'etat."
There are persons with credentials in Latin American studies who take the position that this was not a coup. Here is a link to an article on the question by a scholar at the Hoover Institution:
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/18/opinion/oe-ratliff18
Complain about this comment
calmandhope (#137) "If thats supposed to be satire from the greatest nation on earth, I despair for the rest of us."
Relax. It's merely satire from one person.
Complain about this comment
"Unfortunately I never learned to speak real Latin. Only Pig Latin."
MA I doubt you surprise anyone with this revelation.
Appropriate tough
Complain about this comment
Majik
How come the only bits of your posts that make sense are the bits where you forget the quotation marks?
Complain about this comment
Here's the opinion piece from The Christian Science Monitor by Octavio Sanchez, a Honduran attorney:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0702/p09s03-coop.html
Complain about this comment
MAII – For you obvious lacking education, the origin of the term bloke dates only from 19th Century and is possibly either Celtic or Gypsy. I understand that your source of history is probably only limited to Hollywood films, but I don’t believe that anyone ever said spoketh, also it is Fee-fi-fo-fum I smell the smell the blood of an Englishman, not the drivel you wrote. Regardless of what English I use, it is at least spelt correctly and cannot be used to excuse your dross.
My private education, I never went to a private school, old love, I am a Comprehensive boy from Essex, the State paid for my education not ma and pa. I note once again other than failing to see the tongue shoved well and truly within my cheek, thus believing that you were in anyway important enough to be of the slightest irritant, you failed admirably to actually answer any of my points. By points I mean of course your blatant errors and corrections of spin, of which only you are a believer. You are a vague amusement granted, something to raise the morale during the working day, but little else. Oh you may mock my choice of words and language, but surely you don’t actually believe that I really talk thus? Oh dear the vaunted superior American intellect seems to have taken a hit there. I am taking the mick old bean, taking the mick! I am a middle class boy who has worked hard, and been admittedly lucky, enough to earn a reasonable wage. I don’t need the pretensions of naming my online alter ego after a dead Italian, I have earned everything I own, now ducky can you claim the same?
Complain about this comment
ref #136
no Fluffy I don't think Myramar can be considered a socialist country a consider them a right wing dictatorship
But since I answered Domincik question, answer mine do you disapprove of countries where oposition media and opponents are shutdown or beat up/arrested?
Complain about this comment
Ref 138, GH1618
The Hoover Institution is a conservative think tank at Stanford University that had among its most prominent fellows people such as Ed Meese, Condoleezza Rice, George Shultz and others. They were one of the most loyal supporters of President Bush's policies.
The fact that ultra conservative Latin American scholars support the ousting of a democratically elected President by a military coup d'etat, support curfews and the presence of troops and tanks in the streets of Tegucigalpa, and selected an interim President until the next "election" takes place does not mean democratic principles are being upheld. It simply means "the end justifies the means".
Complain about this comment
#138 GH
When is a coup not a coup? Oh I forgot, when they are 'on our side'!
A 'scholar' at the Hoover Institute is a contradiction, moreover, a lie! A load of pseudo-intellectual non-sense!
Complain about this comment
144. At 4:44pm on 30 Sep 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
ref #136
no Fluffy I don't think Myramar can be considered a socialist country a consider them a right wing dictatorship
But since I answered Domincik question, answer mine do you disapprove of countries where oposition media and opponents are shutdown or beat up/arrested?"
Not half as much as one disapproves of right wing death squads.
I note President Uribe's cousin was arrested as being associated with these neo-nazi psycopaths.
Their latest victims were Awa indians - so I suppose that's alright?
Complain about this comment
146. At 4:50pm on 30 Sep 2009, dceilar wrote:
#138 GH
When is a coup not a coup? Oh I forgot, when they are 'on our side'!
A 'scholar' at the Hoover Institute is a contradiction, moreover, a lie! A load of pseudo-intellectual non-sense!"
No one takes the Hoover Institute seriously. Anymore than they do the "Free Enterprise" institute, John Birch Society etc.
Although President Hoover himself did act to save the Australian Koala, so credit where credit is due.
Complain about this comment
Here's an article from The Examiner on a report from the Congressional Research Service which concluded that the removal of Zelaya was constitutional:
Washinton Examiner
It contains a link to the CRS report.
Complain about this comment
134. At 4:05pm on 30 Sep 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
Do you support democracy implicitly, or do you only support democracy when it serves our interests? I answered your questions, please answer mine.
I support true democracy implicity, meaning valid voting results.
Which means as much as I hated the terrorist group Hamas was elected legitimatly. it does not mean Israel or the U.S has to deal with them as a reputable partner."
Sorry that is a contradiction.
Kindly make sense. Hamas was elected legitimately whihc means they represent their consituents.
I hate Avigdor Lieberman and his right-wing gang. That does not mean they should not be treated with. Or that Lieberman should be murdered with impunity (despite his views on this happening to others).
Of course in a truly civilised society he would be under arrest, but that is another matter.
"Yes Zelayia was elected fairly but so were the legislators who voted him out for violating the counstittion."
He was not "voted out", there was a coup.
"However I do not support democracy claims when the election is rigged or is favored so that one part controlls the media and voting results.
So I don't recongized the Iranain, Venezuela, Zimbawbe as legitimate"
Sorry this is very confused. You don't support Hamas when the el;ection is fair, and you don't support Chavez because you consider the election "rigged".
In other words you only support the result when it suits your views.
Complain about this comment
@139
I was thinking that I've heard much better comedy from americans before.
Complain about this comment
133. At 4:01pm on 30 Sep 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
DR Mur;
You blokes can't take even the slightest ribbing...which makes it all the more irresistable. Bloke, now what kind of word sir I ask you is that? A cross between blowhard and slowpoke? Wretched! Now if you want to say that I can's spell for beans olde bean,"-
Try saying this gibberish in an ozzie pub mate and the answer might be a little robust. Your beak might need a bit of redecorating.
Ozzies of all persuasions do not appreciate half-educated yanks having a go at the local lingo.
"I'd like to know why you stopped your anachronistic voyage into the linguistic past at the early 20th or late 19th century. Why not go back to Elizabethan times and speaketh the way Shakespeare spoketh? Thee thy tho thum, I smell the bloody blood of an Englishman."
They also do not appreciate being told they cannot speak English properely.
" Or go back even further and speak Latin. Surely with your superior private education you speak Latin. We speak it here sometimes. E pluribus unum to you. Unfortunately I never learned to speak real Latin."
No! what a surprise.
"Only Pig Latin. Ixnay, ixnay!"
Hmmm why does this sound appropriate? Pig-ignorant perhaps?
"Or go right back to the stone age and post your thoughts in grunts. UH! UG! Eh! HOOO! HOOO! Me go to London to visit the queen. That's about as much as I get from reading most postings by Brits anyway. Must dash off now. Tally-HOOOOOOOO! (Do Brits still dash off...besides at track meets?)"
DOn't quite know why you think bloke is an english word particularly apart from the fact that your Roumanian education was a little lacking. Songs of a Sentimental Bloke by CJ Dennis (one of Australia's most popular books), was published in Melbourne.
But hey find an ozzie and tell him he can't speak english. He will probably introduce you to another good Ozzie word - stoush.
Complain about this comment
DR Mu
There are some words which simply don't translate or exist in my language that you use. Spelt. Is that supposed to mean spelled?
"My private education, I never went to a private school..."
Incorrect gramatical construction. Pure colloquialism. Not "proper"... learn it right or you'll surely come a cropper.
"but I don’t believe that anyone ever said spoketh..."
Probably from the King James Bible. Why don't you read it cover to cover in your spare time and tell me if you find it or not. I'll bet it's in there somewhere.
"I am a Comprehensive boy..."
With all the old English movies I've seen, all the Britcoms I've suffered through, I don't have a clue as to what that is supposed to mean. I'm sure someone can explain it and translate it into standard American English. Wouldn't even care to "guesstimate" (guesstimate probably coined in American Corporatespeak.)
"you failed admirably to actually answer any of my points"
Clearly a non sequitur. Probably an oxymoron as well.
"I am taking the mick old bean, taking the mick!"
Another untranslated phrase that is meaningless to most Americans. In American English, "The Mick" was a colloquialism for Mickey Mantle. Are you taking Mickey Mantle somewhere? I hate to break it to you but he died some years ago.
Now here's a word that was once widely used in British English but is very rarely used by Brits now except when talking about history or certain other nations. And that word is "empire."
Was it GBS who said America and Britain are two nations separated by the same language? Well they do not speak the same language by a long shot and they are separated by far more than words.
Complain about this comment
Finally someone talks about Gypsy...oh you didn't mean the musical, DavidRMurell? Darn, here I'm thinking yea lets talk about musicals,
Oh well...never mind..
Also, democracy does exist, ...it just may not be what we were told it was..
There is no "either/or"..there are only gray areas. Anddd, Europe is not ungrateful...it is just no longer less than the U.S.A.
We are "in decline" and Europe is ascendant. Therefore, there will be at least 2 superpowers in the future--China and Europe.
I, myself, am happy that Europe will be one of the Superpowers "ruling" America and other nations. Lets see how that "works out for them."
Evil laughter...from me
Complain about this comment
ref #150
Simple Simon you don't listen.
I said the Palestinian people elected Hamas but as I have also stated that is one indication they are not interested in peaceful coexistance.
But Chavez could not win a fair election or he would not be arresting the mayor of the 2nd largest city in Venezuela or shutting down opposition media.
The equvilent would be in the U.S, if Bush a year before the election shut down CNN MSNBC and the NYT, blocked any democratic party rallies and put Michelle Obama and David Axelrod in jail.
Complain about this comment
3. At 5:34pm on 30 Sep 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
DR Mu
There are some words which simply don't translate or exist in my language that you use. Spelt. Is that supposed to mean spelled?
"My private education, I never went to a private school..."
Incorrect gramatical construction. Pure colloquialism. Not "proper"... learn it right or you'll surely come a cropper. "
Better learn meaning first. Colloquial English is "proper"
Colloquial is not a synonym for incorrect.
Oh dear!
""but I don’t believe that anyone ever said spoketh..."
Probably from the King James Bible. Why don't you read it cover to cover in your spare time and tell me if you find it or not. I'll bet it's in there somewhere."
But that doesn't mean people spoke it clown. Written and spoken English have always been two different things.
In this case, before spelling was regulated, printers would often add to words, or contract them, to keep the lines on the page regular (hence ye or the).
Again Marcus as with history/Politics/Geography we are finding your Roumanian education not up to scratch.
Sorry.
"I am a Comprehensive boy..."
With all the old English movies I've seen, all the Britcoms I've suffered through, I don't have a clue as to what that is supposed to mean. I'm sure someone can explain it and translate it into standard American English. Wouldn't even care to "guesstimate" (guesstimate probably coined in American Corporatespeak.)"
At last some honesty. And it is a pleasure to agree with you, Hickleberry (is that right? Hockelberry perhaps?)
""you failed admirably to actually answer any of my points"
Clearly a non sequitur. Probably an oxymoron as well."
Er no. It is not wise to use English words you do not understand.
"You failed admirably" is not an oxymoron, it contains no inherent contradiction. "A good/bad book" (as quoted by Orwell) is. You can admire someone's failure. All art ultimately is a "magnificent failure".
I hope that is clear.
"Now here's a word that was once widely used in British English but is very rarely used by Brits now except when talking about history or certain other nations. And that word is "empire."
Why should the British use the word "Empire" unduly?
This is a non-sequitur. No logical sense.
The US attempts at building an Empire are not going well are they?
The "New American Century" has gone the way of most imperial fantasies.
Complain about this comment
144. At 4:44pm on 30 Sep 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
ref #136
no Fluffy I don't think Myramar can be considered a socialist country a consider them a right wing dictatorship
But since I answered Domincik question, answer mine do you disapprove of countries where oposition media and opponents are shutdown or beat up/arrested?
-------------
Yep I do.
But no more than ones that just lie and pretend they didn't shut anyone down.
Or that drop bombs on others heads instead .
I consider External violence towards other nations that have no way of contributing to the debate on their fate . repressed or not, to be any better and in many ways worse.
America has never cared too much about others civil wars apart from arming both sides if possible.
one side if necessary.
PS you still have many un answered questions you were asked , but I will do you the courtesy you do not deserve.
Complain about this comment
Marcus – Oh dear sweet did I touch a nerve there, judging my grammar (oh not an oxymoron by the by, try getting a dictionary), well I never. How ever will I cope? Oh the shame, the shame!!
To add to your limited education on matters British: Comprehensive a type of State run secondary school. Taking the mick, a polite way of saying taking the p!ss (unlike some I prefer not to use offensive language).
The reason why we British don’t talk about our Empire any more is that it is a thing of the past, we no longer have the necessary imperial holding, India. We gained an empire when Queen Victoria became the empress of India, though we held colonies and dominions before hand.
As for the differences in language, the biggest difference is that English is our language, we just are just kind enough to let you guys use it, badly apparently!
***For reference that last line was something we British like to call a joke, a bit like a European hating American naming himself after a dead Italian, because of a film he once watched***
Complain about this comment
calmandhope.
many of those that tried for too long were culled off by the moderation teams. they were removed from the playing field and given life time suspensions .
Many others will defend his right to spew.
I personally think he should go pay for his own web site instead of wasting the tax payers money.
Good luck.
Complain about this comment
Gherkin you supported the communist system then.
they voted often . loads of valid votes were recorded.
Complain about this comment
#149 GH
If Honduras voters don't like their elected President they can vote him out.
The small powerful elite that exist in Congress, media, and the judiciary &c know that the majority of voters will vote for him hence the coup. All else is folly!
Complain about this comment
Maybe democracy means dictatorship, democracy, dictatorship, democracy...and juntas also ..in between.
Perhaps its true we should "judge not, lest..."
Complain about this comment
#143. DavidRMurrell: "MAII – For you obvious lacking education . . ."
Don't rise to his bait; the nicknames and other childish insults are all part of his persona. Sometimes he is very knowledgeable and sometimes not, so much so that I've occasionally thought that the pseudonym covers more than one individual. As the Duchess remarked in Alice in Wonderland "He only does it to annoy, Because he knows it teases."
Complain about this comment
"Why is it the media never describes these people as the Afghan resistance or Afghan freedom fighters?"
2 reasons, I think.
1. Those people hardly fight for freedom as any Afghan woman and any terrorized village elder would testify.
2. In Afganistan (and Pakistan's Northwestern Frontier Province] we're dealing with a veritable Terrorist International:
Algierians, Egyptians, Jordanians, Saudis, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Yemenis...
Fighting for national liberation of what? Yemen? Saudi Arabia? Egypt?
BTW. I've never heard of a national resistance movement which would destroy its own country and its infrastructure (this being the case not only in Afghanistan, but also in Iraq) including newly build schools.
No bona fide national resistance movement would do that, if for no other reason than because its fighters would hope to rule their country themselves one day.
And wouldn't want to preside over a veritable desert.
Unless the only thing they really after are those 72 virgins each in an Islamic paradise.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
ref #160
fluffytale wrote:
Gherkin you supported the communist system then.
they voted often . loads of valid votes were recorded.
There is a difference between support and accepting a vote.
I accept that Zapatero is the PM of Spain, I don't think it is a good thing; but he is the PM. You and Simon don't want to accept the fact that George Bush was legally elected twice for President.
Complain about this comment
The US had something like 300,000 troops in Viet Nam and could not win there with a war. Afghanistan has a long history of invaders who were unsuccessful. What historical evidence is there that the US would now be successful in Afghanistan?
The same people who want these endless wars also want to deny Americans universal health care...something which other western nations have had for decades. I believe the money that would go to help Americans here in America is being diverted to a very aggressive world wide military presence. Is that in the interest of ordinary Americans?
Imo Americans are being used militarily while being denied the same rights as people in other western nations.
The stated mission for Afghanistan was to find bin Laden. That mission can be done with undercover agents and a small military presence. There has been mission creep.
The real problem is Pakistan and how to keep it from using its nuclear weapons.
If the west wants to change the hearts and minds of other nations...then use some other tools besides war.
How long will we have to watch this war also destroy lives and create havoc before it is realized it is not a successful strategy?
Complain about this comment
"The small powerful elite that exist in [Honduran] Congress, media, and the judiciary &c know that the majority of voters will vote for him hence the coup."
Congress, media, judiciary...Quite a few people, I'd say.
And how have they all got to their respective positions?
Through the coup?
Complain about this comment
143, I would not bother if I were you, you've probably guessed anyway that the rants you respond to are based on fear, self loathing, sense of failure, the sorts of things that often encourage such spittle inflected hubris.
And to think a help for this might just be, perhaps, in the spam section of a typical e-mail inbox.
As for those defending the coup in Honduras, ever wondered why, since the old military or military backed governments have faded from that region, now given a choice not at the point of a gun, many of the nations in the region have started to elect governments that will not say 'how high' when the US says 'jump'?
Most in the US have managed to realise that the policies of backing any thug as long as the likes of the United Fruit Corp and other economic interests are kept happy, has backfired.
This policy well predated the cold war.
You have to laugh when some rant away at Cuban Human rights abuses, which is true, yet long turned a very blind eye to often far worse from governments in the region if not just accepted, but often supported or even installed by previous US governments.
A symbol of this was the government approved use of the Mafia against Cuba.
Nice. OK to help out a bunch of thugs that corrupted, stole, murdered in the US, just because a superpower felt humiliated by some two bit cigar chomper on a tiny island.
To cap it all, alongside the political prisons in Castro's Cuba was from 2002, a US run gulag was installed on an effective US imperial possession on part of this island.
Sense of irony anyone?
US policy in Latin America,which reached it's baleful peak in the 1980's, caused not only misery in that region, but also in the US itself, since many of the right wing thugs also were into large scale narco smuggling, much of which hit the streets of the US.
Including the very worst of all, the death squad/terror group called the 'Contras'.
What is happening in Honduras though is probably the last gasp, a death twitch, of a previous era.
Which wise heads in the US know too.
Complain about this comment
The value that should be pushed is not democracy
The west should be supporting human rights for all people around the world...that is the goal...human rights
Democracy is one tool towards human rights but it is possible to have good human rights under a monarchy...and to have very poor human rights under a democracy
(which is why its important to have a Bill of Rights to stop the majority from denying human rights to a minority in a democracy)
By changing the goal does that change the strategy? Will war and killing people provide in the long run human rights? Or are human rights built up with laws and social order?
Complain about this comment
Afghanistan is a mess and I truly hope some sense comes to the table during the White House's review of matters this week.
Thus far, most of the talking heads I've seen on military policy/strategy were screw-ball 'specialists' with irrelevant experience blathering bad advice. kinda scary.
Meanwhile: StDominick -
You're my hero. Preach it, brother. Agreed on all fronts, especially
#22 Afghan-Analysis -- could we send YOU to Capitol Hill?
#27 Collateral Damage -- Agreed. All is NOT fair in Love & War and military efforts to achieve goals 'at any cost' are disgusting.
#66 Wow -- This reads like the Nicene Creed, but I think I like it better.
Complain about this comment
165. At 6:41pm on 30 Sep 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
Simple Simian
Poor Mad Marcus. When youget upset you lose cohorence:
"But that doesn't mean people spoke it clown"
Sorry, should have been "Thus spake Zarathrustra." Spake only when spaken to. How does that translate into monkey talk? See no evil, hear no evil, spaketh no evil."
Does that actually make any sense? Zarathustra was an Iranian incidently, sure you want to refer to an Iranian?
"You are a failure but you are neither magnificent nor admirable. "
But I can write coherent English which seems, as with so many things, to defeat you.
"You are right, Brits should not use the term "empire" when speaking of their own nation."
Who says they do? Coherence not strong today!
Some US people shouldn't use the word knowledge in connection with their education system.
" Their history at gaining and losing theirs is also a failure that is neither magnificent nor admirable."
Who cares? Do you think history is meant to be "admirable"?
Is US or Roumanian history admirable? hardly.
"Do you think America is an empire?"
No, I know it is.
" BBC had a series some years ago "America Age of Empire."
No it didn't. The title does not make sense, (get mom to read it to you). The Age of Empire does and that was the title.
English not a strong suit Marcus is it
Opps!
It recently had another series; America, Empire of Liberty (it was meant to be ironic).
"Do you think it's time for the Empire to Strike Back? But at who...er whom...whoeth as in whoeth ever shall object, spaketh now or forever hold his piece :-)"
Yeh well it has tried to strke back, but before you can do that you have to find out who did the striking.
Your English is worrying, are you well?
Complain about this comment
166. At 6:43pm on 30 Sep 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
ref #160
fluffytale wrote:
Gherkin you supported the communist system then.
they voted often . loads of valid votes were recorded.
There is a difference between support and accepting a vote.
I accept that Zapatero is the PM of Spain, I don't think it is a good thing; but he is the PM. You and Simon don't want to accept the fact that George Bush was legally elected twice for President."
You mustn't fantasise to justify your paranoia.
George Bush was not elected to be President of the US in the first election he was in the second.
That is fact, whatever you might think of it.
Only accepting votes that suit your extreme political views show little respect for democracy.
I accept Uribe is sadly president of Colombia. I also accept that psycopathic, right-wing Colombian death squads are a far greater horror then anything Chavez has done.
And I also aaccept that Uribe's cousin was arrested in connection with them.
Your view seems a bit equivocal
Complain about this comment
Dear Moonbeam #81:
I'm a working mom who's been following TPM & BBC for over a year because the US Network News is annoying and uninformative.
IMHO - Both Justin and Mark are wonderful and I've appreciated their blogs. It's nice to read an "outsider's" perspective of the "Washingtonian Inside." I feel that Justin provided report and editorial commentary, while Mark throws out some delightful tid-bits for postal feeding frenzy. It's been fun to watch subsequent conversation threads. But, that's just a difference in writing style. No big deal. Of course, one of Justin's head shots had a distinctively Elvis hair-cut. Most unfortunate. Poor fellow. Perhaps too much time was spent reporting from the South?
Complain about this comment
El Presidente! El Presidente!
What is it flunky?
I have just heard from he who speaks for all of the American people...
Not...(hushed tone)...Marcus?
The same.
Oh dear, what did he have to say?
It appears we have have aroused the wrath of the American people and are to be destroyed!
Heavens! But wait, did he say how this was to be accomplished?
Well apparantly we can expect to be bombed and invaded any minute.
Oh is that all. No problem, we have jungles, we have mountains, we can fight a guerilla war for years. We all know that the American people do not have the stomach for a long war. Does not history teaches us so?
Indeed El Presidente, indeed, but...
What flunky, what is it?
He did say that they had a "Plan B".
Really? Did he give you an clue as to what that might be?
Oh yes El Presidente. Apparently, if they cannot defeat us militarily, they will...
Yes...
They will...
Yes!
Do nothing for thirty years until changing socio-economic factors force us to change our society of our own accord!
...oh the horror!
Complain about this comment
164. At 6:34pm on 30 Sep 2009, powermeerkat wrote:
"Why is it the media never describes these people as the Afghan resistance or Afghan freedom fighters?"
2 reasons, I think.
1. Those people hardly fight for freedom as any Afghan woman and any terrorized village elder would testify."
Freedom from foreign invaders. Do keep up!!!!
Care to name any "freedom fighters" who did not kill civilians? US patriots, Russian partisans, nope can't think of any.
"2. In Afganistan (and Pakistan's Northwestern Frontier Province] we're dealing with a veritable Terrorist International:
Algierians, Egyptians, Jordanians, Saudis, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Yemenis..."
And Egytian is someone from Egypt. Egyptian is not another word for terrorist. USAF pilot is not another phrase for child killer.
"BTW. I've never heard of a national resistance movement which would destroy its own country and its infrastructure (this being the case not only in Afghanistan, but also in Iraq) including newly build schools."
Really well that might be because you know nothing about the subject? Care to read what the VC did to villagers who collaborated with the US (innoculate children etc)or to villages who were said to collaborate with the US.
Its quite simple. Collaborate (deal with the enemy) and you die. That has been the way of freedom fighters since the Jewish sicarii. Maybe you should read a book?
People who collaborate with an invader in wartime are usually considered traitors. The fate of traitors in wartime is an agreed convention.
"No bona fide national resistance movement would do that, if for no other reason than because its fighters would hope to rule their country themselves one day."
Ah so the French, Chinese, Russian, Polish, Italian, Yugoslav, jewish, Irish resistance movements were not resistance movements, according to you, because they blew up infrastructure?
I would not attend a meeting of Russian etc partisans and express this ludicrous point of view.
"And wouldn't want to preside over a veritable desert."
They want to deny the country to the enemy.
Unless the only thing they really after are those 72 virgins each in an Islamic paradise."
Since you seem to have no understanding of what a resistance movement actually involves (you seem to think it is somethinig like a baseball match) you will pardon us if we do not give much creedence to your views on motivation.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#161 (dceiler) "If Honduras voters don't like their elected President they can vote him out."
Actually, an election is scheduled for November. Unfortunately, the US administration is taking the position, a priori, that they will not recognize the results. Panama, to its credit, has recognized the legitimacy of this election, as long as it's an honest one.
http://www.panama-guide.com/article.php/20090921145620579
In my opinion, the Obama administration has put itself in an embarassing spot by shooting from the hip, then being contradicted by the Congressional Research Service. I am a supporter of President Obama, but he sure botched this one.
Complain about this comment
Broke the house rules, eh? Please don't tell my mom! :)
Perhaps my reference to the funny bumpersticker I saw? The swear word was disguised, but perhaps not enough? But, hey Mod, at least I hope you thought it was funny, and accurate! I still laugh when I think about it! Like right now!
Anyway, perhaps I was a tad off topic (doesn't seem to be a sin around here...)
to ensure I am on topic, I am deeply concerned about NATO, Afghanistan, and the US commitment to our allies in the alliance and world peace. Amen.
To seque from world peace, it'd be nice if we had a little more peace on this board! I find many posts informative as I appreciate the european perspective. As a Yank with very deep ties to Europe there is much about europe I like and admire and its rather fun to be communicating with folks 5000 miles away.
Keep. Disco. Alive.
Complain about this comment
Post 163 David Cunard.
Sir,I definatly think you are right,MA2 is more than one.The writing style does vary,as does its quality of content.For a long time I have put MA as an anti US organisation,by whom I can only guess?.You can not fool all of the people all of the time...
Complain about this comment
Mark, one cannot expect miracles from a country which for a century and half has been permanently presenting proofs as to its belonging to another world, I mean to that of the most traditional and radical Islam. No matter how we shall motivate the real reasons for our military presence there, the Afghan people as a whole, would need another century maybe to come closer to our values and eventually to accept them as standards and rules of their internal political life. For the crushing majority of the Afghans, we are nothing else than intruders, infidel people. Hence the evident lack of good intended cooperation between the locals (I exclude the government and the public institutions) and our forces there. They just do not see any substantial difference between us and the Soviets who invaded the country in 1979.
That is why, I do not think that the “building” the Afghan military will solve the problem. It can just prepare the proper conditions for the relatively safe withdrawal of all foreign forces. This will be the right decision.
Somebody will argue maybe that if we are not present in the “terrorist nest” there will be soon another 9/11 either in the US or in Europe. My answer is that of president Obama, namely: “the reality is that this mission cannot continue forever".
Complain about this comment
Dear DiscoStu_d #179:
Please keep your shirt on, Honey. And, how many times do I have to tell you that those chains do NOT go with those hot-pants?
On the matter of world peace, we appreciate your concern and I sympathize with your interests. As for the web scrapping... well, bloggers will be bloggers. Jus' watch yo language and try not to get yo satin tighties in a wad, Honey.
Love,
Mom
Complain about this comment
175
Beautifully said if I may say so.
Complain about this comment
ref #173
Simon feel free to associates with Alex Jones and Maxine Waters that Bush stole 2000.
Uribe is not guilty because of his cousin. Anymore than George or Jeb Bush are responsible for Neil Bush or that Jimmy Cater is responsbible for Billy's.
Complain about this comment
The basic truth is that no one has ever won a war in Aghansistan. Our being there in any capacity at all is a waste of money, time, and prestige. Yet I understand the reluctance to leave.
Four countries in the Middle East were not under the American umbrella - Afthanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Three of these had nationalistic rulers and one was in choas. It has been the policy of the West, led by America at this point in time, to subject the Middle East to its influence. Afghanistan seemed the easiest to pick off (or so it appeared to those who are weak in history), because no other country was likely to come to its defense. Iraq was the natural second. So we invaded. That left Iran and Syria. Which would the United States choose? Iran, of course. With its Arab enemy Iraq to the west under occupation, and American forces in Afghanistan to the east, she was effectively cut off. As with Afghanistan, victory there through invasion is impossible. So work from within, maybe levy sanctions, etc. Should that prove successful, Syria is the last obstacle. Surrounded by Arab neighbors, that may be tougher than it looks.
We talk about the war on terrorism. This terrorism is the response to our policy of bringing the Middle East to heel. We cannot eliminate terrorism if we do not eliminate the hatred that produces it. As It is extremely unlikely that the West will change its policy, and allow the nations of the Middle East to determine their own destinies, terrorism is here to stay. We hoped that Obama would have a more enlightened approach, but
Complain about this comment
184. At 10:15pm on 30 Sep 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
ref #173
Simon feel free to associates with Alex Jones and Maxine Waters that Bush stole 2000."
Don't know who these people are .
I do know the Supreme Court (stacked by Bush's father) decided the elction.
Do you deny this fact.
"Uribe is not guilty because of his cousin."
No but it opens questions does it not? And Mr Uribe is the president. He is supposed to have the safety of his country at heart - even if the victims were unarmed native Americans. After all if Chavez's cousin was involved you would be the first to condemn him would you not?
Particularly hilarious was Mr Uribes promise to investigate the latest atrocity. Then it emerged that the Awas had been attacked earlier in the year.
Perhaps Mr Uribe should be more concerned with preventing a ghastly genocide rather than Mr Chavez's attitude to newspapers?
You do know the death squads do not restrict themselves to firearms. Their aim is to inflict as much pain on their victims as possible.
"Anymore than George or Jeb Bush are responsible for Neil Bush or that Jimmy Cater is responsbible for Billy's."
Still not getting a clear view of whether you think these murderous psychopaths are worth stopping?
And still waiting for your proof that Nelson Mandela is a rascist terrorist.
Complain about this comment
178. At 7:41pm on 30 Sep 2009, GH1618 wrote:
#161 (dceiler) "If Honduras voters don't like their elected President they can vote him out."
Actually, an election is scheduled for November. Unfortunately, the US administration is taking the position, a priori, that they will not recognize the results. Panama, to its credit, has recognized the legitimacy of this election, as long as it's an honest one.
http://www.panama-guide.com/article.php/20090921145620579
In my opinion, the Obama administration has put itself in an embarassing spot by shooting from the hip, then being contradicted by the Congressional Research Service. I am a supporter of President Obama, but he sure botched this one."
It is hardly likely to be honest is it if one of the chief protagonists a cannot campaign, his papers are closed down and his supporters intimidated,
Complain about this comment
The horribly ironic thing here is most (many) of us are 50 plus and we will not know what happens in the future.
But, some have children and they WILL be there or THEIR children will be there during climate change, changes in economies, changes in power, death in Afghanistan (either being killed or having killed someone)
So, these are important questions. My point is (and I DO have one) is that maybe that (our deaths) is why we are all so upset about all this.
Also, DiscoStu, do you like Mamma Mia, the movie or album--its similar to disco (ABBA)?.
Long Live Disco (Viva -La?- Disco) I get my French and my Spanish mixed up..these days.
Complain about this comment
188. At 11:51pm on 30 Sep 2009, stellarBeloved wrote:
The horribly ironic thing here is most (many) of us are 50 plus and we will not know what happens in the future.
We are not dead yet and teh future may be closer than imagined
Complain about this comment
ref #186
Regarding Mandela I never said he was a terrorist I said he supports terrorist because he supported Yassar Arafat when he was strictly a terrorist and has never apologized for it. He also was very silent untill there was major public pressure on Robert Mugabe because he seems to not care about white or jewish victims.
Uribe has not tried to intefere in the elections of enighboring countries the way Hugo has. And except for the whining of labor unions he allows criticsm without sending his thugs.
Hugo is a coward and knows a free elction would send him out on his ear.
If not why does he shut down all those who oppose his fraud of Bolivarism.
Some brave general overthrow him. I really don't care if it is a coup, the world would be a better place with him in jail.
Complain about this comment
Thanks Philly-Mom! My dad is from Easton by the way. PA is a great state!
StellarBeloved: I do like Abba and, really, anything groovy or funky! I have 6 sisters and as they one by one got married I was slowly 'indoctrinated' into good dance music at their receptions and broke out of my wall flower mode and have never looked back!
May the groooooove be with you! All of you! Even the grumpy ones!
Complain about this comment
If we didn't care how many innocent people we killed, the fact is the US could wipe out the Taleban and al Qaeda in a matter of weeks (without WMDs) just as it could have wiped out the North Vietnamese Communist government and the Viet Cong. The fact is that the preoccupation with so called international law, pubic opinion, morality etc. has handcuffed America which is why it hasn't won a single war with the possible exception of Kosovo since WWII. If it had fought WWII under the same self imposed restrictions, it would have lost that too. If you want to win a war, there is only one way to do it, fight with only that one thought in mind and no others.
Complain about this comment
#186. Simon21: "I do know the Supreme Court (stacked by Bush's father) decided the elction."
Unlike the House of Lords, the Supreme Court of the United States cannot be "stacked". Only when a vacancy occurs can a president nominate a new member and who usually reflects the views of the nominator. A rigourous hearing then takes place concerning the nominee's suitability. Would you expect President Obama to have nominated a WASP with extreme right-wing opinions? So it was with Bush the Elder, he nominated those that he thought would continue his and the Reagan view of America. In that he succeeded. The tide may now turn.
Complain about this comment
188, Stella.
"The horribly ironic thing here is most (many) of us are 50 plus and we will not know what happens in the future."
That sounds good. We won't get to see the fifth ice age which is bound to come eventually. I hate the cold..
Complain about this comment
I stand corrected.
Osama ibn Laden isn't a terrorist.
He is a Saudi millioner of Yemeni descent.
Ayman Zawahiri isn't a terrorist. He's an Egyptian..ophthalmologist.
Abu MusaZarkawi wasn't a terrorist. He was z Jordanian...criminal.
Baitullah Meshud wasn't a terrorist. Merely Pakistani...assassin.
I apologise to all bona fide Islamic terrorists for this factual mistake.
P.S A new Iranian minister of defense IS a terrorist.
Wanted by Interpol for organizing and excuting a bombing attack in Argentina.
Complain about this comment
Re: 105. saint
Did you read either healthcare proposal? I think NOT.
Fox news gave observations and page numbers.
Pelosi, Reid, and Obama said, "It is not in there.".
Following the Fox references, it is very obvious Pelosi, Reid, and B.O. were lying.
At least Fox was honest enough to cite references to the documents in question.
I commend the tea party for not following the flock.
Don't feel bad, saint, my senators did not read it either.
(Hey Mark, you are doing good.)
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Re 158 David - That was delightful. I concur.
Philly-Mom, may I quote you on the "chains and hot pants"?
This blog takes interesting twists. Some are mindless ventures. Yet, some others are very clever.
Complain about this comment
Interesting to see the ruminations on the singularity or otherwise of MA2. Over the last few weeks, I have become increasingly distressed, distraught and incomprehensual at the amount of server space creaking under the weight of his postings, and those of one or two others.
The mods have e-mailed me with a list of House Rules I may have infringed, then offered to allow me to "rewrite your contribution to remove the problem". I may well be embarking on a process of slow elimination here.
Anyway, may I just express my admiration of the côterie of habitués on the blog who seriously appear to enjoy reading what MA2 and the others have to say, even enjoy engaging in the Sisyphean task of correcting their mistooks and explaining to them the error of their ways, not least among them the otherwise much-respected squirrellist, Simon21, StDom and fluffy. Only the thought that maybe it would be selfish of me to deny them their pleasure prevents me from clicking the "Object" link repeatedly.
But maybe they can explain to me where the pleasure is in it?
Complain about this comment
Incidentally, my comment was accepted without question on Gavin Hewitt's blog, with essentially the same wording!
Complain about this comment
193. At 00:56am on 01 Oct 2009, David_Cunard wrote:
#186. Simon21: "I do know the Supreme Court (stacked by Bush's father) decided the elction."
Unlike the House of Lords, the Supreme Court of the United States cannot be "stacked". Only when a vacancy occurs can a president nominate a new member and who usually reflects the views of the nominator. A rigourous hearing then takes place concerning the nominee's suitability. Would you expect President Obama to have nominated a WASP with extreme right-wing opinions? So it was with Bush the Elder, he nominated those that he thought would continue his and the Reagan view of America. In that he succeeded. The tide may now turn.
--------------------------------------------------------
This could be the same reasons why Obama id doing all he can to remedy that situation.
While this has minimal transparency, so has it been in our past. The constitution was written by white men.
No Women,Gays,Disabled,Black,Hispanic,... just white men.
Although brave,smart,thoughtful and educated for the most part.
Nonetheless our constitution is still great, it needs a bit of a tweak to reflect the generation of our times.
This is perhaps the direction this president is headed.
This is going to rub many the wrong wrong way and for some it will last longer. While making a sound decision in Afghanistan (and should his unusual approach in the g20 favor him) will bring him to hero status. He may not go beyond 2012 as there is still the big issue of health care. Some of the people who believe they are helping him by having classroom kids sing about him in class may be hurting his chances, just by the amount of negative publicity he has been getting about it. Most should know, if not some, that Mr. Obama, is not just the leader of a community, as he is of all the communities in the US.
Afghanistan is a matter of importance to the Afghan people.
It is important to the US because we are involved and because we want to continue to demonstrate to the world that we can and we will remain engaged in the world conflict. If the radical factions see Obama as a mediator, they may relent on their agenda and make it easier for Afghanistan to be brought back into reasonable order. If not then the matter will be resolved by the international communities. OBL may not be in Afghanistan, just like the US presidents are not in Washington when the merde hits the fan. This president is using Islamic principals as a base for progress and is putting his political future on the line, while negotiating for a peaceful outcome.
Complain about this comment
Dictact...
Different forums can have different atmospheres..try the Australian forum or the Euro forum ...the Chinese one is Very different..this USA blog might be a more contentious forum:)
But, the Euro forum (blog) was the place to go last year..I've forgotten to go there, myself, with M. Mardell here.
Complain about this comment
#201. ranter22: "The constitution was written by white men. No Women, Gays, Disabled, Black, Hispanic,... just white men."
No women, it's true, but no Gays? There have always been rumours about some of the Founding Fathers, but in the 18th Century, one's sexuality was not something to be broadcast. I'm not so sure that there were any "Hispanics" in colonial politics back then. The writers did the best they could - a document which has endured for more than two centuries. Not as earth-shaking as Magna Carta or the English Bill of Rights, which led the way, but remarkable all the same.
Complain about this comment
Democracy seems to be difficult to synthesize. Its natural course of development takes centuries, with very few exceptions e.g. Japan, India, and Turkey. Everyone except some American adventurers agree that it cannot be imposed from outside.
So what are we trying to do in places like Afghanistan and Iraq? Iraq is used to centralized government, of the brutal dictatorial sort. Afghanistan is still a region, not a nation, used to tribal organization and war lords of the more primitive kind that Europe escaped only a few hundred years ago. The geography of Afghanistan enables this sort of political organization, and the people are accustomed to it.
Western democracy is built up of a network of public institutions - rule of law, peaceful regular transition of power, private property, civic administration by civilian professionals, and the like. More important, it is a habit of thought that the small citizen has inalienable rights, including the sovereign right to freely determine who will rule.
This habit of thought (or political theory) resists the concentration of power in a few hands and the exercise of government outside of the normal course of the law, as legislated by representatives accountable to the general population. Respect for one's political and social enemies predominates over violence and abuse, most of the time.
I would say that Hamas is not a democratic movement, because although they know how to win an election, like the National Socialists in Germany they have little intention of repeating the exercise.
Russia appears to be no more ready to practice democracy than she was in the days of the liberals of 150 years ago - the oligarchs are still there, power is still readily gathered into a very few hands, and the people will continue to say it is the only way to survive. Russians are very good at survival, I am told: it is what they really expect from life. Anyone is welcome to correct me if they have substantive reasons to hope otherwise.
Al Gore could have fought on in 2000 - he had ample justification. But he respected the constitutional form and honored our tradition of a smooth transition of power too much to damage our institutions. some on the far left claimed that the Bush administration was positioning itself to remain in power indefinitely, but in fact it passed away with a audible sigh of relief, despite Vice President Cheney's imprecations. I have searched my memory for any example of a British prime minister being assassinated in, or out of office.
So what are we trying to do in places like Afghanistan and Iraq? Some things take time, on an evolutionary scale.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
204. At 06:38am on 01 Oct 2009, KScurmudgeon wrote:
"I have searched my memory for any example of a British prime minister being assassinated in, or out of office."
Spencer Perceval in 1812. A PM none of us can ever really remember for achieving anything else. Shot by one John Bellingham, who had a grievance against the government of the time.
(Sounds vaguely familiar. . .But since then, assassinations have mostly been attempted using varieties of rotten fruit, vegetables and eggs rather than firearms. Exceptions were a mortar attack on 10 Downing Street, and a bomb in the Grand Hotel Brighton, both by the IRA.)
Complain about this comment
199. At 03:03am on 01 Oct 2009, Didactylid wrote:
"Only the thought that maybe it would be selfish of me to deny them their pleasure prevents me from clicking the "Object" link repeatedly."
Deny me the 'pleasure' by all means. If it actually ever worked for more than one in thirty, I for one would never interest myself in one of those posters again. For myself, I just hate the idea of half-truths and distortions gaining currency, and producing the impression to casual inquirers through Google searches they are commonplace just because of the sheer volume and repetition.
Complain about this comment
192. MarcusAureliusII:
I can see why you left the Universite de Bordeaux II after two years. You must have found the Hippocratic Oath sticking in your throat.
Complain about this comment
MAII – Now I know that really you are just a green skinned fellow who likes to live under a bridge, possible a hive mind of such beings but really you become less convincing as a real man each time you post. Very few real people actually think that killing innocents is a good way to win wars, as luckily the number of sociopaths in the military is quite small (despite what your apparent guide to life, the universe & everything, Hollywood might suggest), for one thing they are pretty rubbish at following orders.
There have been a few regimes that have come close to doing what you suggest, the Khmer Rouge comes close, the one thing that also links these regimes, other than the particularly stupid blood thirstiness, is that they are universally reviled. I am not sure which history books you have been reading, but the US has never ever followed a line of legitimised wholesale slaughter or genocide (other than perhaps against their own native populations). Yes there have been those soldiers who took things too far and have committed war crimes, all armies suffer this it is an unfortunate fact of war. Indeed the US were instrumental in putting together many of the rules of acceptable warfare together. So by you apparent reckoning the US military has in part hampered itself.
Now I realise that your views are as about as fake as your pseudonym, but please lets try and play the game here. Once or twice you might get a little bit of moral outrage, but this continuous barrage of meaningless dross stretches the credibility just too far. One thing is clear, sir, you have never served in the military much less seen active service. Your supposed persona is meant to show the worst armchair general possible, which is just too trite for words.
Complain about this comment
ref #193
It can be argued though it will be rejected by Simon that the Supreme Court overuled the Florida supreme Court who was stacked by a Democratic govenor overeached their authority.
However in several newspapr researches and investigation by papers including NYT and Miami Herald Bush still won.
Complain about this comment
Ref 209, Magic
It could also be argued that Jeb Bush, the Republican Governor of Florida at the time, who happens to be George W. Bush's baby brother, his Secretary of State, and the Florida legislature which enjoys a 2/3 majority, played a critical role in devicing the hanging chads strategy, missing ballot boxes, and the recount delaying tactics that led to the eventual decision made by the Supreme Court to select W a President of the United States. The 2000 election ranks among the most comical examples of "democracy" in the Western world, not far behind those of the banana republics we love to hate.
Complain about this comment
209. At 09:35am on 01 Oct 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
ref #193
It can be argued though it will be rejected by Simon that the Supreme Court overuled the Florida supreme Court who was stacked by a Democratic govenor overeached their authority.
However in several newspapr researches and investigation by papers including NYT and Miami Herald Bush still won"
I simply use facts you have trouble in grasping. President Bush was not awarded the Presidency by the NYT, Miami Herald, Cleveland Observer or Fox TV.
He won the Presidency by decision of a stacked supreme court.
That is fact
Complain about this comment
Ref 201, ranter
"This could be the same reasons why Obama id doing all he can to remedy that situation."
The most President Obama will be able to achieve insofar as changing the makeup of the Supreme Court is to nominate two Justices during his first term. I expect Justice Ginsburg to announce her decision to retire in the not too distant future. Both nominations replace "liberal" Justices and would not change the conservative rulings made by the SC or the 5-4 votes we have seen in recent years.
Things would change if Obama is re-elected, but that is a big if at the moment and may prove to be a challenge if the GOP nominates the right person. Hopefully, it will be Palin or Huckabee, but don't bet any money on that, they are lousy at governance but brilliant when it comes to campaigning.
Complain about this comment
195. At 02:25am on 01 Oct 2009, powermeerkat wrote:
I stand corrected."
You often are.
Osama ibn Laden isn't a terrorist.
He is a Saudi millioner of Yemeni descent."
"Milliner"? He made hats? What is his "descent" to do with anything? Would it be nicer if he was of Moldavian descent?
"Ayman Zawahiri isn't a terrorist. He's an Egyptian..ophthalmologist.
Abu MusaZarkawi wasn't a terrorist. He was z Jordanian...criminal.
Baitullah Meshud wasn't a terrorist. Merely Pakistani...assassin."
Not sure what point is being made.
Lee Harvey Oswald was a marine,
David Koreishi was a bible salesman,
Seung-Hui Cho was a student
All however were American terrorists.
"P.S A new Iranian minister of defense IS a terrorist.
Wanted by Interpol for organizing and excuting a bombing attack in Argentina."
And that makes him a "terrerisss" does it? Fascinating. When Interpol was used to hunt jews in WWII did that make them "terrisss" as well?
Factually corrected - again.
Complain about this comment
192. At 00:54am on 01 Oct 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
If we didn't care how many innocent people we killed, the fact is the US could wipe out the Taleban and al Qaeda in a matter of weeks (without WMDs) just as it could have wiped out the North Vietnamese Communist government and the Viet Cong. The fact is that the preoccupation with so called international law, pubic opinion, morality etc. has handcuffed America which is why it hasn't won a single war with the possible exception of Kosovo since WWII"
That's odd it directly contradicts what you said before.
Are you different people?
"If it had fought WWII under the same self imposed restrictions, it would have lost that too. If you want to win a war, there is only one way to do it, fight with only that one thought in mind and no others."
Can't think of a US general who fights to lose. Maybe you can name some?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
95. At 03:56am on 30 Sep 2009, gunsandreligion wrote:
stellarBeloved, although Kirin is a little far to the right, in this
case I believe he is correct."
Well he doesn't seem to have a problem with Colombias extreme right-wing murder gangs so yes he is pretty extreme.
"Mr. Carter somehow implied that the large number of independents who
voted for Obama last year have suddenly become racists because they
disagree with him."
Not sure about that. The level of abuse aimed at Obama has been pretty remarkable from his wife, to a school speech etc. One of his vocal opponents apparently once referred to US blacks in the context of having a bone through their noses.
Not prejudice of course.
What would us conservatives do without people like Carter? He's winning
2010 for us.
Complain about this comment
Ref 196, Neil
"Did you read either healthcare proposal? I think NOT."
Of course I have not read the healthcare reform proposals under consideration. I am a citizen, like most of the people that offer opinions without the benefit of aides or teams of reporters devoted to analyzing bills before votes are cast.
What begs questioning is why are GOP senators with substantial resources at their disposal proudly announcing they didn't read the proposals and vote against them? Are their ideological leanings and the "donations" they get from the insurance industry more important than the welfare of their constituents? Claiming they haven't had time to read the proposals or participate in a debate that has been ongoing to 6 months is a bit disingenous.
Incidentally, CNN also cited pages and paragraphs confirming or denying claims in favor or against the proposals that are on the table.
Complain about this comment
Posting:
190. At 00:27am on 01 Oct 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
ref #186
Regarding Mandela I never said he was a terrorist I said he supports terrorist because he supported Yassar Arafat when he was strictly a terrorist and has never apologized for it. He also was very silent untill there was major public pressure on Robert Mugabe because he seems to not care about white or jewish victims."
The Israeli PM supported Arafat as well, does that make him terrorist?
You do not say where Mandela spoke in support of Mugabe.
Please answer the question. When did Mandela support terrorism? When did he say he approved of terroris as you say he did. What speech?
Ari Sharon did not condemn Mugabe openly - does that mean he supported rascism?
"Uribe has not tried to intefere in the elections of enighboring countries the way Hugo has. And except for the whining of labor unions he allows criticsm without sending his thugs."
Uribe has authorised invasions - breaching internatonal law. He has attacked the Colombian unions
And the Colombian death squads - are they not thugs and terrorists? WHat are they? His own cousin was accused of being connected with them.
Simple point do you or do you not approve of the death squad terrorists?
"Hugo is a coward and knows a free elction would send him out on his ear.
If not why does he shut down all those who oppose his fraud of Bolivarism."
He doesn't use psychopathic death squads to terrorise unarmed harmless American natives.
Again you seem to be equivocal?
"Some brave general overthrow him. I really don't care if it is a coup, the world would be a better place with him in jail."
The world would be a better place without the Colombian death squads and with Mr Uribe and his family before an international tribunal.
Compared to Uribe CHavez is a saint. Vicious death squads don't roam Venezuela killing native americans with impunity.
Complain about this comment
Squirrellist thought they missed the big target.
Brighton Bomb.
Supplied and financed by americans no doubt
Complain about this comment
Gherkin 166 You say I say What.
I didn't mention that fraud of a president yet. but seeing as you do . Yes he was put in by a system. not the people.
the votes were rigged.
and "electronic Manufacturing of votes by Diabold and telling all the blacks to get away from the polls in florida were pretty dodgy.
Infact several international monitors said the 2000 vote was a bit iffy.
admittedly by the second term most of the mentally unable to grasp a lie people voted for him again.
which in america gave him the majority.
you guys really are desperate.
As for the one who thinks ee's didactyc.
If you had had multiple names removed and banned for saying such dangerously offensive comments such as
"Israel is a jewish state" to someone saying it is not And at the same time are called an anti semite(err).
or if you had participated for long enough you would know more than you do now obviously about the players on this stage.
There are posts where several hundered of the posts are taken up on long anti euro screwed up what used to be called Legion, posts.
Whole threads destroyed because some who should have been banned a long time ago are not.
Then as always and like many you see attacking MA here now and say " oh poor marcy mark" well sorry we have all contributed enough posts and had enough removed some of which are posted on other boards to keep track of just how the moderation works.
I'd go on to say that over the last year there has been somewhat of a campaign to sort it out and make sure those that would comment comment on the topics, but see that to the gherky marCykat crew (gary A hill,truetoo etc would say all topics are about America's brilliance and how the muslims are destroying the world and Jewish Israel is not jewish when they want to claim it is multi cultural.
So really Diadactyc go to the commissioners of the BBC and ask them how some one that does nothing but try to offend people is allowed on this blog.
The "rules" (which change day to day and back again) say "Are considered likely to disrupt, provoke, attack or offend others"
Some say he balances our left leanings but a thumb on the scales is a thumb on the scales. someone gets screwed.
Complain about this comment
216, Simon21, my point is that many Democrats seem to be a little tone
deaf when it comes to recognizing that many points of view will need to
be accommodated in complex issues such as health care reform.
I happen to like Diane Feinstein's approach of coops, and she is a
Democrat, but the liberal wing of their party is going to sink them by
refusing to compromise.
And, Carter's comment (which he repeated) is really a form of liberal
McCarthyism. (i.e., "if you don't agree with me, then something must
be wrong with you.")
It's too bad that at a time when the Democrats could have really positively
affected things, they have allowed themselves to be taken over by their
most left-wing component. The American people do not want to be told what
to think. This is all going to come to a head in 2010, and the only thing
that can possibly save the Democrats is a lingering memory of the Bush
years, which is rapidly fading.
Complain about this comment
#211. Simon21: "(Bush) won the Presidency by decision of a stacked supreme court. That is fact"
Read (or re-read) #193, learn and inwardly digest. The Supreme Court of the United States cannot be "stacked". The British equivalent of the Court is the House of Lords, in which the Law Lords are not elected but appointed by the government of the day and may be changed on a whim. That would be stacking. In the days when the Upper House was purely a hereditary body there was one occasion when the prime minister (Asquith) wished to stack the chamber in order to pass legislation, an action which became unnecessary. Neither the President nor the Congress can "stack" the court at will. Should he be elected for a second term, President Obama may have the opportunity to nominate several Justices who would reflect his views and aspirations for America. Would that be stacking as well? Wherever you live and whatever your citizenship, you need to read more about about how the Supreme Court is appointed.
Complain about this comment
164. powermeerkat wrote:
"Unless the only thing they really after are those 72 virgins each in an Islamic paradise."
If it is true as you say that some Muslim suicide bombers are motivated by their belief that they will end up with 72 virgins in "paradise", perhaps a dose of reality could keep them from needlessly sacrificing their lives. Those beautiful maidens will soon become 72 quarreling, scheming, wives. I suspect that most men would soon be in an insane asylum if they had to live with 72 women (and that isn't a sexist comment. I'm a woman myself!).
I suspect, though, that many Muslim suicide bombers are fighting not out of some loyalty to a vague dream but rather out of a desperate desire to end the injustices that come with living in oppressed (aka developing) nations. Afghanistan is but one example from many where people might be led to such acts.
(Note: Please don't misquote me and say I condone suicide bombings in any way. I don't. I just have a realistic view of why they happen.)
Complain about this comment
221, gunsandreligion
That's funny. To you it looks like the Democrats have been taken over by their most left-wing component. To me it appears they have been taken over by their right-wing component. The left-wing component would not have allowed not only single-payer but now the public option to be dumped, but it clearly has been. The right-wing Republicans and the right-wing Democrats have destroyed any chance at actual health care reform. What they're considering now is a gift-wrapped package for the insurance industry. Seems the only ones happy with the way things are headed are the insurance industry execs. Isn't that a wee bit suspicious?
Complain about this comment
This is a very angry and opinionated nation.
There is very little debate going on in the US now between the different sides.
Most people are only listening to their own groups and it might be that people are actually physically moving to areas where there are others with similar opinions.
And if you think I am unique in thinking that...read this
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/opinion/30friedman.html?
September 30, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
Where Did ‘We’ Go?
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
"Our leaders, even the president, can no longer utter the word “we” with a straight face. There is no more “we” in American politics at a time when “we” have these huge problems — the deficit, the recession, health care, climate change and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — that “we” can only manage, let alone fix, if there is a collective “we” at work."
................
The other day while waiting for blood work in a lab I encountered a patient spreading lies about the public option and we went at it in the waiting room. I have no idea how I could possibly ever be a patient in a US hospital because I would be arguing incessantly.
I am ready to march...and to protest. I just need a leader to start the protest. Where is Michael Moore?
This is an example of one of the lies being spred by the right wing on Fox news in this nation and it is so obviously false it is laughable
RHETORIC: BECK SAID VANCOUVER LOST $1 BILLION WHEN IT "HAD THE OLYMPICS."
Glenn Beck said, "Vancouver lost, how much was it? they lost a billion dollars when they had the Olympics."
[Transcript, Glenn Beck Show, 9/29/09]
REALITY: VANCOUVER'S OLYMPICS WILL NOT TAKE PLACE UNTIL 2010.
Vancouver will host the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games from February 12 - 28, 2010 and March 12-21, 2010, respectively. [Vancouver2010.com, accessed 9/29/09]
...............
I just wonder what will happen when the people who believe all these lies begin to realize how they have been deceived. Or can they admit to their own gullibility?
Complain about this comment
Apropos #222, before anyone corrects me, I am aware that as of this morning (GMT) the new British Supreme Court was sworn in - but in reality this is simply a re-branding of the former Law Lords. Oddly enough, the British judiciary already had Supreme Court, as can be seen by reading the heading of any judgement from the High Court.
Complain about this comment
It's funny that MarcusAureliusII complains about the inability of Brit's to read in a post full of spelling errors. I also wonder why he is so keen on the war in Afghanistan when the 9/11 attacks were carried out by Saudis. Maybe it is because those Saudis (and of course, specifically, the Bin Ladens) are good friends of Mr Bush and his cronies.
Complain about this comment
#222 David
You may need to update yourself with the English Law Lords with the introduction of the Supreme Court of England and Wales.
RE: the issue of the House of Lords though you are correct. For example, the Left have always advocated appointing a thousand peers to pass legislation calling for its own abolition!
Complain about this comment
222. At 3:56pm on 01 Oct 2009, David_Cunard wrote:
#211. Simon21: "(Bush) won the Presidency by decision of a stacked supreme court. That is fact"
Read (or re-read) #193, learn and inwardly digest. The Supreme Court of the United States cannot be "stacked". The British equivalent of the Court is the House of Lords, in which the Law Lords are not elected but appointed by the government of the day and may be changed on a whim. That would be stacking. In the days when the Upper House was purely a hereditary body there was one occasion when the prime minister (Asquith) wished to stack the chamber in order to pass legislation, an action which became unnecessary. Neither the President nor the Congress can "stack" the court at will. Should he be elected for a second term, President Obama may have the opportunity to nominate several Justices who would reflect his views and aspirations for America. Would that be stacking as well? Wherever you live and whatever your citizenship, you need to read more about about how the Supreme Court is appointed."
I know how the Supreme COurt is established and
I know clearly a little bit more about the old House of Lords, whihc in this context is more like the Senate, rather than the US Supreme COurt.
US Supreme Court Justices are appointed on political rather than judicial terms. This is openly admitted how can you dispute this? Pres Obama's first appointment was said not to "unbalance" the court as she replaced a "liberal". Not whether she was a good judge with a better grasp of justice.
Pres Bush even tried to get his Texas solicitor a seat, he wasn't nominating her on account of her vast judicial experience. As it happened she couldn't even fill in the application form properely, but the attempt was made.
No British justice is appointed on these terms. The Government's role is very restricted.
If Brown even tried to suggest that a justice was appointed because of their political views the howling would never cease.
Complain about this comment
ref #225
The other day while waiting for blood work in a lab I encountered a patient spreading lies about the public option and we went at it in the waiting room. I have no idea how I could possibly ever be a patient in a US hospital because I would be arguing incessantly.
I am ready to march...and to protest. I just need a leader to start the protest. Where is Michael Moore?
This is an example of one of the lies being spred by the right wing on Fox news in this nation and it is so obviously false it is laughable
Between softball interviews Moore is stuffing his face and not paying for his employees healthcare.
Complain about this comment
211. At 11:47am on 01 Oct 2009, Simon21 wrote:
209. At 09:35am on 01 Oct 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
ref #193
It can be argued though it will be rejected by Simon that the Supreme Court overuled the Florida supreme Court who was stacked by a Democratic govenor overeached their authority.
However in several newspapr researches and investigation by papers including NYT and Miami Herald Bush still won"
I simply use facts you have trouble in grasping. President Bush was not awarded the Presidency by the NYT, Miami Herald, Cleveland Observer or Fox TV.
He won the Presidency by decision of a stacked supreme court.
That is fact
No simple Simon Bush won because he had more votes in FL. that is the fact.
Complain about this comment
socialistlibertarian (#224) "To you it looks like the Democrats have been taken over by their most left-wing component. To me it appears they have been taken over by their right-wing component."
Neither is true. The Democrats are a "big-tent" party. No faction controls the party. That is why they were able to get majorities in both houses of Congress, but is also the reason why majorities do not enable them to grease through legislation.
Complain about this comment
s221. At 3:24pm on 01 Oct 2009, gunsandreligion wrote:
216, Simon21, my point is that many Democrats seem to be a little tone
deaf when it comes to recognizing that many points of view will need to
be accommodated in complex issues such as health care reform. "
You may be correct but the visceral nature of the opposition goes beyond a mere debate on healthcare plans.
The hatred the right stirred up would have been more appropriate had the President prorogued COngress or declared a state of Emergency.
Carter was correct to highlight this. And of course he is very likely to know what he is talking about since I beleive he was governor of Tennessee and saw this sort of thing first hand.
I happen to like Diane Feinstein's approach of coops, and she is a
Democrat, but the liberal wing of their party is going to sink them by
refusing to compromise."
Compromise has to come from both sides. Making false claims about the NHS to the extent of claiming it would have killed Professor Hawking do not seem to indicate any desire for compromise on the part of Republicans.
"And, Carter's comment (which he repeated) is really a form of liberal
McCarthyism. (i.e., "if you don't agree with me, then something must
be wrong with you.")"
And rascism exists. One has only to read and listen to know he was simply talking the truth. Apparently one powerful comentator much feted by the Republicans once claimed US blacks had bones through their noses and mimics supposed black accents on his radio show. Fox apparently had to sack a producer who made salacious claims about Michelle Obama on National TV.
This isn't fair comment by any stretch of the imagination.
Gordon Brown is very unpopular in the UK (we are told) and is criticised vigorously, but no one would think to mock his wife or his personal disabilities.
"It's too bad that at a time when the Democrats could have really positively
affected things, they have allowed themselves to be taken over by their
most left-wing component."
Well it also seems the Republicans have given in to their loony wing.
" The American people do not want to be told what to think. This is all going to come to a head in 2010, and the only thing
that can possibly save the Democrats is a lingering memory of the Bush
years, which is rapidly fading."
No they don't I agree. And they also don't like being lectured on their personal morality, the relevance of pseudo science and religion (which is in terminal decline in the US as it is elsewhere).
The Republicans ought to be careful. Prior to 9/11 the worst terrorist outrage in the US was carried out a fanatical, right-wing, ex-marine who thought it amusing to blow up a government building. Those people, as we have seen, are still around.
Complain about this comment
209. At 09:35am on 01 Oct 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
ref #193
It can be argued though it will be rejected by Simon that the Supreme Court overuled the Florida supreme Court who was stacked by a Democratic govenor overeached their authority.
However in several newspapr researches and investigation by papers including NYT and Miami Herald Bush still won"
I simply use facts you have trouble in grasping. President Bush was not awarded the Presidency by the NYT, Miami Herald, Cleveland Observer or Fox TV.
He won the Presidency by decision of a stacked supreme court.
That is fact
No simple Simon Bush won because he had more votes in FL. that is the fact."
Oh name calling by the Self proclaimed Spokesperson of the World's jews.
No decision of the Supreme COurt suggest you look it up.
Oh and still waiting to read where Nelson Mandela said he supported terrorism and racial supremacy.
What's the problem, can't find the reference?
Complain about this comment
#227 (RJTysoe) "I also wonder why he is so keen on the war in Afghanistan when the 9/11 attacks were carried out by Saudis. Maybe it is because those Saudis (and of course, specifically, the Bin Ladens) are good friends of Mr Bush and his cronies."
The Saudi government is not in league with al Qaeda. Why would they be? Terrorism is bad for business.
Here is an article from the Washington Times on the relationship between al Qaeda and the Saudi royal family.
Complain about this comment
MagicKirin (#230), why do you not learn how to quote and italicize so as to make the distinction between your remarks and those of others more clear?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Michael Moore is guided by religious principles and offers good benefits for his workers. He also does not invest in the stock market.
Moore's view is that capitalism and religion (Christianity certainly imo) are incompatible.
This is a quest for human rights...which is far more important than democracy.
If democracy and capitalism lead to the loss of human rights than they have failed...
Complain about this comment
#236 GH1618
Maybe he wishes he had written that : )
Maybe in his heart he understands how wrong his position is...
Complain about this comment
#228. dceilar: "#222 David. You may need to update yourself with the English Law Lords"
See my note at #226!
#229. Simon21: "I know how the Supreme COurt is established and I know clearly a little bit more about the old House of Lords, whihc in this context is more like the Senate, rather than the US Supreme COurt."
The US Senate is not, was not and has never been a judicial body - that's part of the separation of powers that the United States espouses. The British government was able to appoint Law Lords with no other vetting, something which cannot be done in the USA. And to repeat, so that you do understand, the Supreme Court cannot be stacked. From time-to-time we may not like its composition but that does change and is likely to do so over the next seven years.
Complain about this comment
USA fully supports her soldiers 100%, but the majority of USA does not support the Afghan/ Iraqi Wars anymore. We are ready to leave. There is enough happening at home. We want our soldiers back. They mean nothing to the Taliban (who do not understand the value of human life) and everything to us.
USA has given these two wars seven years. As Bob Dylan says, "How many men will it take till we know that too many people have died?"
Enough is enough. USA has tried her best and she has not failed, not has she won. USA has merely done what she has done, helping the ones that she can. USA wanted to send a message, "We do not tolerate terrorists and we will come after you." We have. Now, it is time to let our soldiers return home. They have done what our country has asked for and done it well. There is only honor, pride, bravery and courage from our soldiers. They are true patriots.
But these two wars have run long enough. Bring our brave troops home. Give them the care that they deserve. Let us help the ones who have protected us. They deserve only the best.
It is not about winning or losing. No matter what USA does, the Taliban have integrated with the civilians. You cannot trust anyone there. When you can't tell apart the civilians and Taliban, there is nothing anyone can do.
When the USA brings her soldiers home, we will celebrate. For when we have our heroic soldiers home again, then, we shall have won this war. That is all the USA wants is her soldiers home again. God Bless the USA and God Bless our Soldiers and our Allies' Soldiers.
Complain about this comment
Why is it that merely semantic arguments seem to go on interminably? We (Americans) generally use the word "packed" in connection with court appointments. President Franklin Roosevelt attempted to "pack" the Supreme Court by adding seats, but this brazen proposal failed. "Stacked" has an entirely different meaning in American slang.
Complain about this comment
240. At 5:35pm on 01 Oct 2009, David_Cunard wrote:
#228. dceilar: "#222 David. You may need to update yourself with the English Law Lords"
See my note at #226!
#229. Simon21: "I know how the Supreme COurt is established and I know clearly a little bit more about the old House of Lords, whihc in this context is more like the Senate, rather than the US Supreme COurt."
The US Senate is not, was not and has never been a judicial body - that's part of the separation of powers that the United States espouses."
That is simply incorrect. You must go beyond he cliches. The US senate sits as a court to try the President for High Crimes and Misdemenours. Presidents Johnson, Nixon and Clinton were (or at least were threatened) hauled before it (Nixon resigned).
It therefore has a very powerful judicial function.
"The British government was able to appoint Law Lords with no other vetting, something which cannot be done in the USA."
The British government does not appoint justices, the Sovereign does. And in point of fact appointments are made after consultations with others on the judiciary.
Their political views are not considered a reason to appoint or not appoint them.
Certainly "liberal" judges are not appointed to blance "non liberal" judges.
"And to repeat, so that you do understand, the Supreme Court cannot be stacked. From time-to-time we may not like its composition but that does change and is likely to do so over the next seven years."
You may repeat it as often as you like. It is patently untrue and jsutices are appointed on 240. At 5:35pm on 01 Oct 2009, David_Cunard wrote:
#228. dceilar: "#222 David. You may need to update yourself with the English Law Lords"
See my note at #226!
#229. Simon21: "I know how the Supreme COurt is established and I know clearly a little bit more about the old House of Lords, whihc in this context is more like the Senate, rather than the US Supreme COurt."
The US Senate is not, was not and has never been a judicial body - that's part of the separation of powers that the United States espouses. 2
Sorry but slogans are not proof. The Senate tries the President for high crimes and misdemenours. It has done so on two occasions and threatened to do so with a third (Nixon).
It does therefore have a judicial function.
The British government was able to appoint Law Lords with no other vetting, something which cannot be done in the USA."
The vetting is extensive, but political considerations play no part.
British judges are not appointed to "balance" each other.
Incidently the government does not appoint justices, the Sovereign does.
"And to repeat, so that you do understand, the Supreme Court cannot be stacked. From time-to-time we may not like its composition but that does change and is likely to do so over the next seven years."
Plainly you do not either understand the word stacked or the way the Supreme court is appointed. Supreme Court appointments are made for political reasons to suit the ruling clique.
It is therefore regularly stacked to suit one side or the other.
This is widely known and admitted.
Complain about this comment
The collective opinion of the American people on the subject of the war in Afghanistan is not as clear-cut as Illinoisan (#241) would have us believe. We are a diverse country, and opinions vary widely. Furthermore, there are many polls on the subject, and they do not agree. Polls vary because they differ in how they pose questions and how they select samples. Here is a link to a number of polls on Afghanistan: http://www.pollingreport.com/afghan.htm
Draw your own conclusions.
Complain about this comment
This is what Michael Moore said on the Larry King show on tv...
and imo Moore is a man who is guided by religious principles.
(Another lie commonly from the right was that people on the political left did not believe in God)
.....................................................................
MOORE: So, you know, I don't believe in a system where the richest one percent should own or have as much financial wealth as the bottom 95 percent combined. I think that not only is that anti-democracy, it's also against my own personal values and the values of most people. We say we live in a Judeo-Christian nation, but I don't think if Jesus were around today -- I just don't think he'd be approving of this or participating in a hedge fund or playing the stock market.
KING: He's even in your movie.
MOORE: Yes, he has a role in my movie, because I imagined what if he were here, would he act and sound like a capitalist?
Complain about this comment
#240 David
Our posts virtually crossed.
I still can't see though what the fuss is all about re: this all new and dancing UK Supreme Court. It looks the same as it was. It's not even the 'supreme court'. The European Courts of Justice are UK's supreme court.
#238 Bethpa
Christian Socialism has a long history (especially in the UK). The Diggers in the seventeenth century believed that God's Earth cannot be brought and sold for private gain - it is for all to share. The owners of property control the clergy who in turn condemned the Diggers to Hell.
I think we all know that Jesus would've been on Michael Moore's side. That's why the Right hate Moore so much! Anyway, we know where they are going . . .
Complain about this comment
People who wish to know how political power is exercized through appointments to the US Supreme Court should not have to choose between the opinions of two pettifogging pedants. I recommend reading a good book on the subject, such as The Nine by Jeffrey Toobin. (link to review)
Complain about this comment
220. fluffytale:
I've followed this blog since long before MM got hold of it and enjoyed your input, with which I've generally been entirely in sympathy. I even contributed a couple of weeks ago, and got an approving note from StDom or someone, which I've framed and hung in the loo (notionally).
But this time I seem to have struck a nerve, because your anger has sent your English all to pot and I can't figure out what you're trying to say.
And all because you misread what I was saying! At least, what you seem to be doing is accusing me of baiting the "côterie" I identified for attacking MA2. No, this is NOT what I was doing: I was asking myself why they spend their time rising to his bait - if everyone could manage to just ignore him he might (just might) eventually go away.
On Gavin Hewitt's blog, squirrellist has answered my question, and I can see his point. I can't follow what you're getting at, though, when you write:
"There are posts where several hundered of the posts are taken up on long anti euro screwed up what used to be called Legion, posts."
Some of the rest of it is a little confusing, as well.
In GH's blog, as I hinted, I used the plain language about MA2 which the mods here objected to. It felt good to say it, and I'm pleased at least some of the mods accept it as nothing more than the truth!
Complain about this comment
Polls are often taken in only certain parts of the country. Depending on what part of the country it is taken in, that is the result. I know that I have not been contacted for any "polls." So pretty much, polls are only relative to the part of the country that they are taken in. If every single person in the USA is not polled and only samples are taken, then that means the poll is not accurate.
It is true, USA is diverse, but from most Americans I have talked to, in person or online, they all want to leave the two wars. No one wants to fight anymore. We will fight if we have to, there is no shortage of bravery here, but we do not want to fight. The only way USA fights, is if she is provoked.
Some people from other countries claim the USA is a war country, but they would be surprised to find out how many people here believe in love and peace. Yes, we believe in protecting our allies and self-defense of us and our allies, but we also believe in hope and helping others, being optimistic, trying to make things better. To spin USA as a dictator is false. If USA had wanted to rule the world, she would have tried long ago. But she never did. People in the USA do not want to rule the world. We merely want to live and be free. Let us be.
You can point out the negative about USA, but there are more postive things about USA than negative. You can start with freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and so on. Helping others in wars and delivering aid to countries, coming up with cures and new medicines, as well as techonology. Other countries have also contributed many great and wonderful inventions and such, too. USA is not alone in this. But USA is also not alone in the fact that no country is perfect. We just have to do the best we can.
USA is tired of these wars. She wants to leave and bring her soldiers home. USA wants to make love and peace, not war.
The times, they are a changin' and hopefully, with the grace of God, we will be able to leave these wars soon. All we want is for these wars to be over and the land left to the native people there. It is time to bring our brave and courageous soldiers home and give them the care and proper respect they deserve.
I think very highly of the soldiers from our country and the soldiers from our allies' countries. These soldiers are brave and courageous. We need to bring them home and give them the care and proper respect they deserve. Every valiant soldier that has taken part in these wars are not and will not be forgotten by the people of the USA. God Bless the USA, God Bless our Allies, and God Bless all of our Soldiers. Help us bring them home safely.
The USA has more love than hate.
Complain about this comment
#248 Dida
So all you're saying is DNFTT!
Complain about this comment
#246 dceilar
Part of what has been going on in the US is that this strange breed of conservatism claims it is American and all others are anti American and that they are Christian and believe in God while people who oppose them on the left are Godless.
They almost never refer to Europe except in a sneering comment.
Christ was very clear about some things..and he said to love your enemies.
I can't do that (too imperfect)..but I can understand how all this hatred and wanting to kill is creating more problems and not bringing us to any kind of solution. And I can say that we have to find alternatives to war to change the way people think.
The Taliban is a part of the culture of Afghanistan in a way that the US and the west are not. The only solution is to change the culture by introducing some of the better aspects of the west's culture imo...and by that I mean introduce ideas about human rights...and I doubt that can be achieved with a gun.
I think you do need stability in order to have human rights and soldiers can create some stability..but the goal is human rights ..The goal is not some crazy bastardized form of democracy.
Complain about this comment
The problem with the approach of the polls and with how many people view these wars is that they think the winner is the group that kills the most people.
These wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq are about changing cultures. This is not about killing people in an army on a traditional battlefield. This is now an insurgency in Afghanistan imo
Gen McChrystal seems to understand that.
The stated objective must be clearly to provide greater human rights and part of that would be to protect the innocent people who are caught in a war zone.
..............................................................
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8284996.stm
"We are going to have to do things dramatically differently, even uncomfortably differently in the way we operate."
But the commander said that he thought success was possible.
He reasserted his belief that the focus of military action in Afghanistan must shift towards protecting civilians.
"We must protect the Afghan people from all threats - from the enemy, from our own actions," he said.
Gen McChrystal stressed the importance of the Afghan population's support when tackling the insurgency.
"We don't win by destroying the Taliban, by body count, by the number of successful of military raids. We win when the people decide we win," he said.
Complain about this comment
#242. GH1618: "We (Americans) generally use the word "packed" in connection with court appointments. President Franklin Roosevelt attempted to "pack" the Supreme Court by adding seats, but this brazen proposal failed. "Stacked" has an entirely different meaning in American slang."
In British English, "stacked" means the same thing: packed. However, being "stacked" does not always refer to the feminine form but is also used in bodybuilding circles when referring to (anabolic) steroid cycles - stacks and stacking mean the use of several different 'roids to get a particular result: he stacked Deca with Anadrol and Equipoise. (Been there, done that, got the T-shirt - in a larger size)
#243. Simon21: that's part of the separation of powers that the United States espouses.
"Sorry but slogans are not proof."
It's not a slogan, it's a fact. You'd never pass your citizenship test if you said that the Judiciary was the same as the Legislative branch of the United States. For a President to be tried for High Crimes and Demeanors there have to be Articles of Impeachment first, which is nothing like an appeal to the Supreme Court.
"The British government does not appoint justices, the Sovereign does."
Only on the advice of her ministers. The Queen does not go out and choose one person over another. The government of the day chooses the new Justice who is not answerable to any questions from Parliament. And if you think political views do not play a part, then you're more dense than most of your posts indicate.
"Plainly you do not either understand the word stacked or the way the Supreme court is appointed."
I understand very well what stacked means in British use and know precisely how the Supreme Court is appointed. A pity that you don't (or won't) understand the subtleties of the American system.
"(The US Supreme Court) is therefore regularly stacked to suit one side or the other."
There's nothing "regular" about it; only when a Justice retires or dies does there become a vacancy. Understandably, a president will try to ensure that his views are reflected by his Nominee.
Sorry old cock, but you're wrong on this one.
Complain about this comment
America IS a war country.
Almost 150 military interventions since 1890
Complain about this comment
when you are the moon...
We can change...we've changed before
The nations that will "win" in the future will avoid the expenses of war and win with their economies and with negotiations imo. They will need smart and healthy people to compete.
The US had an economic advantage after WWII..because the war had devastated Europe. That advantage is gone now and Europe is in the process of unifying and will have an economic gain from that unification
The wars are pulling the US down economically.
Complain about this comment
#248. Didactylid: "220. fluffytale: . . .your anger has sent your English all to pot and I can't figure out what you're trying to say.
You may not realise just how true those words may be, ain't that so Smokin' Jack?
Complain about this comment
246 dceilar
"I think we all know that Jesus would've been on Michael Moore's side. That's why the Right hate Moore so much! Anyway, we know where they are going . . ."
Couldn't agree more (Moore?) about Jesus' political leanings, it's jsut that I wish there was a hot place for them to go when they die. Unfortunately it'll simply be the worms eating them just like everyone else.
Complain about this comment
253 david cunard
"being "stacked" does not always refer to the feminine form but is also used in bodybuilding circles when referring to (anabolic) steroid cycles - stacks and stacking mean the use of several different 'roids to get a particular result: he stacked Deca with Anadrol and Equipoise. (Been there, done that, got the T-shirt - in a larger size)"
Could we possibly have seen you working out at muscle beach????
I think you may have shared too much!
And you undermine your constant digs at FluffyJacks slow-burning habit.
Complain about this comment
#257 RomeStu
I became an atheist in my late teens but my political education stemmed from Christian Socialism and the New Testament. It's a shame there's no Hell for these people to go to. Perhaps we should ensure that the Right-wing hate mob feel the red hot poker of justice in their own lifetime! It's sore botty time!
Complain about this comment
259 dceilar
"It's a shame there's no Hell for these people to go to. Perhaps we should ensure that the Right-wing hate mob feel the red hot poker of justice in their own lifetime! It's sore botty time!"
Couldn't agree more. Bring on the baby-eating Bishop of Bath and Wells!
"It's poker time, Blackadder!"
Complain about this comment
258. At 10:37am on 02 Oct 2009, RomeStu wrote:
"I think you may have shared too much! And you undermine your constant digs at FluffyJacks slow-burning habit"
Umm, yes; I shall try to put this delicately: doesn't the one habit have certain rather more deleterious side effects than the other?
As to red-hot pokers, I take it we are thinking of the Edward II variety, rather than the flora? Nasty. Give 'em all a Hieronymous Bosch, I say, show 'em what it's really going to be like.
(From another who was also brought up as a Christian socialist on the New Testament. Or, more to the point, the Sermon on the Mount. A part of the Bible that seems to have fallen among the Apocrypha in some US theology to all intents and purposes.)
Complain about this comment
261 squirrel
Let's not go into Edward II .... as Piers Gaveston said to the ... oh never mind.
I was more thinking of the Blackadder poker time.
Oh, and the New Testament is so namby pamby peacenik love and whatnot. Most red-blooded Christians would prefer to be Old Testament Jews ... all that smiting gets me going!
Complain about this comment
Diadactyc
well sorry to accuse you of encouraging the foulright.
legion is the name given to the faceless group that is behind the posts from the right. not just MA but a few others (some of whom have been sent to Coventry it seems or decided to go elsewhere)
many people are banned from replying to you that did Ignore MA.
legion does not like MA to be ignored.
who knows if legion is one with many minds or many with one mind.
Ignore and the whole page fills up with work the moderators should have removed.
PS if you think my comments make no sense try reading MA comments
Complain about this comment
but to answer your question more clearly didactyc.
it manages to get them to slip and admit they know Global warming IS happening but they chose to ignore it.
or that Gherky is a total racist.
And quite frankly because as our red friend might have pointed out.
I have been posting for what seems like a VERY long time. Only becsue of the constant scrolling past the random junk from MA.
Hell I came to the euro blog to warn you guys.
'skippy the cane toad killer"
I said if we can't just ignore him and he go away why can't the BBC ban him.
as a result I got banned.
so there you go. and if I get banned it is because you can't read between lines;)
Complain about this comment
262. At 2:05pm on 02 Oct 2009, RomeStu wrote:
"Most red-blooded Christians would prefer to be Old Testament Jews ... all that smiting gets me going!"
Far too violent for me. What they think they're doing letting impressionable people, not to say children, read that stuff, I don't know. And some of the sexual goings on are very questionable if you ask me. Those Elders and Susannah, for example. We won't mention campfire singsongs, or how exactly somebody got hung up by his hair in a tree. Full of fine moral examples.
Complain about this comment
264. fluffytale:
What you need is a nice cup of tea and a hobnob :-D
Complain about this comment
'
Fluffytale: I can see what you're doing now. Thanx for the explanation!
But if you'd taken out the comma and thrown in quotation marks and a fair handful of hyphens, I'd've understood it in the first place!
Complain about this comment
#258. RomeStu: "253 david cunard: . . . you undermine your constant digs at FluffyJacks slow-burning habit."
I wasn't aware that I made "constant digs" - I'm all for legalising the noxious weed. As it is, there is a move to do so in California, to regulate and to tax, which seems fair enough. If those in favour make enough noise, perhaps it will be done; even Big Ben goes bong.
Complain about this comment
262. At 2:05pm on 02 Oct 2009, RomeStu wrote:
"261 squirrel
Let's not go into Edward II .... as Piers Gaveston said to the ... oh never mind."
Yes, fruitful backwater though this diversion might become, I can see we might end up with the moderators getting the wrong end of the stick, as it were. Fortunate they don't appear to have read Marlowe, really.
There is (to sort of return to the topic) an Afghan (I think Pashtu, but I'm not sure) folksong concerned with peaches. Though not about either growing them or eating them. Only about a, um, er, resemblance the fruit bears to . . .
Yes, well, better not go there either, perhaps.
Complain about this comment
lol didactylid
Sorry I didn't write more clearly. I have been living in the USA long enough now, to have personalised the English language enough for it to mean what I the empowered individual thinks and I do forget that others may not see the world in the same light;)A fault common to many posters. But the conversation here had got all trollish and at that time I do like to make things as hard as possible to give the trolls something real to chew on as opposed to a light salad starter.
DC I always laughed when the spitting image big ben went "Bong"
Complain about this comment
"The best way to accomplish that goal is by helping the Afghans build an infrastructure, industry, and by educating the population. Such endeavor would take time, but imposing our will by force will take much longer and it is likely we will never succeed." saintDominick
Pretty much what the US needs to do in its own house first. Crumbling infrastructure, crumbling industry, educational standards placed just above Mexico at like number 17 in nations, or there about. Iran developing plutonium. While we bought all the plutonium 238 from Russia, and haven't made any since the 1980's. So deep space is fading now. Bring the boys home, from Afghanistan, and Iraq. Deal with it a better way where it doesn't cost a fortune in lives and money. Don't leave them as soldiers worth twenty minutes or so of our leaders time. Yeah I guess healthcare, clunkers, stimulus, an the rest are more important than the lives of those in Afghanistan, and Iraq. But the Democrats will impose their force by politics as usual.
Complain about this comment
Hopefully time will one day kill ben laden and americans will finally leave the area. The goal of occupation was to get ben laden. When or if american or Nato soldiers die it is because of that, not because of afghan people. They are fighting over there for their own cause.No one asked afghans if they wanted democracy or any other rights..those things were dumped on them, the way bombs and before that sanctions were dumped on them.
Complain about this comment
272 colonialartist
Bin Laden may well be already dead, but he is more use to both sides alive.
The US need him as the bogeyman who justifies the war, and the fundamentalists need him because he is the "face" of their recruitment.
You are however correct about the reasons the Afghans are fighting - same as for 1000s of years - foreigners of their turf telling them what to do. Difference is this time it's the US & UK and we still arrogantly think they should listen to us.
Complain about this comment
1. Those people hardly fight for freedom as any Afghan woman and any terrorized village elder would testify.
2. In Afganistan (and Pakistan's Northwestern Frontier Province] we're dealing with a veritable Terrorist International:
Algierians, Egyptians, Jordanians, Saudis, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Yemenis...
Fighting for national liberation of what? Yemen? Saudi Arabia? Egypt?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
And the terrorized women and village elders would first tesity how they were terrorized by the Northern alliance before and after taliban. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, you are dealing with the incompetencies of your political and military leaders. The Algeirians, Egyptians, Jordanians,Saudis, tajiks, Uzbeks and Yemenis are all fighting for their liberation from the dictators who work more for the america and not all for their own people. I am sure you would also do the same, should your leaders decide to work more for those countries and less for you.
Complain about this comment
colonelartist (#272) "The goal of occupation was to get ben laden."
That's incorrect. The mission in Afghanistan is to attack al Qaeda (and their protectors), to deny them safe haven, and to destroy their ability to operate against the United States and other NATO countries.
We don't hear much from Osama bin Laden these days, and he may be dead already for all we know.
Complain about this comment
Bin Laden may well be already dead, but he is more use to both sides alive.
The US need him as the bogeyman who justifies the war, and the fundamentalists need him because he is the "face" of their recruitment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rumsfeld declared before iraq war that ben laden was no longer a threat.If usa once again wants to make him a threat, then its up to it. Fundamentalists dont need him, they never needed him, they can generously point out to karzai and his northern and western alliance.
Complain about this comment
That's incorrect. The mission in Afghanistan is to attack al Qaeda (and their protectors), to deny them safe haven, and to destroy their ability to operate against the United States and other NATO countries.
We don't hear much from Osama bin Laden these days, and he may be dead already for all we know.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those lofty goals were just added so that americans and the allies would be able to despose the government of Afghanistan, which at that time was taliban. If they hadnt added those few nonsenical, unachievable Don Quixote, look alike, goals, the whole occupation adventure would not have been passed by the UN..Because not matter what, its against the rules of UN to just attack a country and change its government..Thats why up until then, usa used to rely on covert operations..You should hear about ben laden, and you should demand your government to tell you about his wearabouts, or one fine day, you will get up to hear that your america now have started droning on a prominent city of Pakistan. Leaving the locals to die either from unmanned or from manned bombs.
Complain about this comment
This (#277) must be from a Taliban troll. UN rules or not, any nation or group that attacks the United States can expect to get something in return.
Complain about this comment
This (#277) must be from a Taliban troll. UN rules or not, any nation or group that attacks the United States can expect to get something in return.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, what america is doing in afghanistan is just repaying them for what they did to america? Allow me to explain something important..The difference between america and its allies and those taliban, whose troll I must be according to your generous conclusion, is the UN. The fact that taliban didnt have backing from UN when they, in your mind attacked america, is what makes them terrorist and america the legitimate revenger.Getting ben laden was one thing, but to topple the government of another country is something else, to do that one has to be creative, unfortunately americans werent all that creative otherwise they would not have added the lofty unachieable goals to the whole adventure..Now they are stuck with it..Blaming save haven in pakistan and then droning those areas isnt all that creativity...Those people who live on those areas have always been blamed for this, from the times of british empire, to russian occupation and now during western occupation.
Complain about this comment
The post of the day: When you dont know about horses, dont watch the horse races and never place a bet on any horses, chances are you end up betting on the wrong one. The worst mistake either willingly or unwillingly that americans made was to place their bets on karzai and his northern alliance. They were rejected by the afghans, as they did nothing but brought misery to the people of afghanistan. They were so much dispised by the afghans that people were ready to tolarate taliban. And now with the world on their side, they still cannot manage to fight against taliban..Now, imagine how easy it would have been for the west to pull out if they had taliban on their side?
Complain about this comment
We can show the Afghani people that we will liberate their hearts and minds by trying creative original solutions.
Here is such a solution: 1) Legalize the farming of marijuana for 10 or 100 or 1,000 farmers (whatever is manageable, then expand). 2) Ship that marijuana to California, which is in the middle of its own very important marijuana debate, which specifically focuses on who can and cannot grow the medicinal herb.
There are clearly a hundred problems between steps 1 and 2, and perhaps a thousand problems before we even get to 1.
It still has a chance to work because Afghanistan grows so much opium that funds criminal activities, that the diversion of those funds could be enough to 1) create infrastructure (to transport the marijuana) 2) provide the defense required to protect the grower, the product, and the newly created infrastructure 3) put disposable income in the hands of farmers and their families, which are the exact people you want to benefit from foreign support 4) most importantly, it would create a brand new legal economy capable of lifting millions out of poverty -- if we can put into place proper incorruptible oversight, which would require transparency.
What I don't understand is how we are losing the ideological war to an opponent who puts bombs in schools because they don't want 10 year old girls going to school.
Complain about this comment
We can show the Afghani people that we will liberate their hearts and minds by trying creative original solutions
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
and they will show you back how liberated their hearts and minds are..Noone can liberate a liberated person or nation..and Afghans hearts and minds are born liberated..they are free people by nature..thats why they cannot even become good soldiers even though they are good fighters..If they want to, they will fight, if they dont want, they wont..noone can make them do anything..unless ofcourse they are overpowered, thats when their freedom ends..and they dont like it at all.
Complain about this comment
It still has a chance to work because Afghanistan grows so much opium that funds criminal activities, that the diversion of those funds could be enough to 1) create infrastructure (to transport the marijuana) 2) provide the defense required to protect the grower, the product, and the newly created infrastructure 3) put disposable income in the hands of farmers and their families, which are the exact people you want to benefit from foreign support 4) most importantly, it would create a brand new legal economy capable of lifting millions out of poverty -- if we can put into place proper incorruptible oversight, which would require transparency.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am sure karzai , his brother, and a few of his northern alliance allies will really appreciate your suggestion.
Complain about this comment
32. At 3:44pm on 29 Sep 2009, squirrellist wrote:
26. At 2:47pm on 29 Sep 2009, DiscoStu_d wrote:
"Re McChrystal's comment. . ."
NATO only got involved in the first place because the Secretary General at the time of the attack on the Twin Towers invoked the section of the treaty that says "an attack on one member is treated as an attack on all." Mistakenly, and foolishly, in my view…”
I can understand your view, but I rather think the attacks on London and Madrid also qualify as "an attack on one member is treated as an attack on all." A united front rather than a piecemeal every country for itself free-for-all would seem to be the best way forward. Perhaps, now that there is a rational POTUS, we could try that.
Complain about this comment
I suspect that no consensus will be achieved here because the left and right only pay attention to each other solely to mock, and have corrupted the language besides [probably deliberately] to obfuscate and impede communication.
Take any “people’s republic” so beloved of the Bolshy crowd, and, as the people don’t rule, and as it resembles nothing in North America or Western Europe called a democracy, it is a semantic trick [lie].
The dust up over Honduras is another case in point. The left demands the reinstatement of Zelaya, by force if necessary, [aren’t these the people who criticize the US for interfering in other countries-and especially by force?]. They call his election “legitimate” while all other elected officials in the country [the congress] are illegitimate because of the corrupt politics of Honduras. How did Zelaya become the only legitimately and non-corruptly elected politician in the country, Marxist magic ballots?
Obama has been accused of more vile US imperialism because he won’t support Zelaya, when he has, in fact, stated that Zelaya is the legally elected president. The utter hypocrisy and illogic really leaves me dizzy.
Complain about this comment
hardly concious.
peple will ddride your comment for being a pot heads dream. but you are right.
the world wide ban on the shipment of pot should be lifted.
countries should be free to try legalisation without fear of economic restrictions imposed by the USA.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS