A president for clangorous times?
Favourite read of the weekend: a real rock star comes to the defence of the rock star president, revealing a conversation with the national security boss and explaining to Americans why the president appeals to the rest of the world.
Second favourite: an interesting article in Newsweek on Biden prompts a splenetic retort from the Telegraph's blogger in Washington.
But those who purport to worry that Biden is carrying the day shouldn't fret too much. Obama's chief of staff has confirmed that what is foremost in the minds of those undertaking the lengthy policy review is the political turmoil in Afghanistan. Rahm Emanuel told CNN it would be "reckless to make a decision on US troop levels if, in fact, you haven't done a thorough analysis of whether, in fact, there's an Afghan partner ready to fill that space that the US troops would create".
But it seems pretty obvious that while any announcement of troop numbers and so on has to come the other side of a decision about a second round - or not - in Afghanistan's presidential elections, its outcome cannot in reality hang on this thread.
Instead, it seems to me, the threat of following the alleged Biden strategy of muddling along with current troop levels is being used to pressure Karzai. This could be either to accept that a second round would give him great legitimacy or, more likely, to include his rivals in his government, broadening its appeal, so that it can "fill that space" Emanuel clearly regards as currently vacant. A policy for clangorous times, indeed.
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 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~10~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
It seems your friend Mr Hamden has a problem with old and white people.
Biden was chosen the way most VP are chosen to balance the ticket. He had foriegn policy experience which Obama did not. Of course Obama had no economic experience either.
Complain about this comment
At #2 - Hardly a balance if Obama has no expertise as you appear to be implying. I think he was chosen because it was certain he would not be threatening to both Obama and the administration.
Could not have chosen the following so as to not be undermined : Clinton - no (too independent and relevant), Kucinich - no (can come across as strange), McCain - NO (bom, bom, bom - sounds like a crazy person).
Biden - yaps about too much that is irrelevant and willing enough to make himself even more irrelevant.
I think BBC needs a twitter board - some of these postings are too short to be blogs.
Complain about this comment
Whatever you might think of Osama, Obama or Karzai, one thing is clear.
The latter has been absolutely correct when he forcefully stated couple of years ago that problem of terrorism and guerilla warfare in Afghanistan would not be solved without denying al-Qaida and Taliban safe havens, training camps and R&R facilities in Pakistan.
Washington demurred and Islamabad vehemently protested.
However, subsequent developments have proven Karzai right.
And no future leader of Afghanistan, whether it's Karzai, Abudullah or mullah Omar will be able to change that.
Although current (and perhaps future) Pakistani Army 's offensive in Waziristan might, to a degree.
[wihtouth closing madrassas, also in the U.K., nothing will change much]
Complain about this comment
Mark, Biden's opinion is of little interest to most Americans. He is a nice guy with a blue collar background that was cleverly used to offset President Obama's polished image during the presidential campaign. Unfortunately he suffers from a chronic case of diarrhea of the mouth and, unwittingly, keeps getting the administration in trouble. I would not be surprised if he is dumped or forced to resign before 2012.
Bear in mind that President Obama's greatest worries are not Karzai or any of our foreign puppets, but the economic woes that remain unsolved, rising unemployment, a massive amount of debt, limited resources to make the improvements needed for sustainable growth and prosperity, substandard education and healthcare systems, and trying to figure out how to inspire confidence to promote investment and spending.
Complain about this comment
Ref 4, Powermeerkat
"Washington demurred and Islamabad vehemently protested.
However, subsequent developments have proven Karzai right."
Of course he was right. Unfortunately, pragmatism was not a foreign policy requirement for the Bush Administration. Creating the illusion that something was being done to avenge 9/11, helping corporate friends, transforming a pathetic President into a war hero to guarantee his re-election, and providing a distraction to shift attention from an economy that was rapidly sinking to a "heroic" crusade were far more important considerations than dealing with the gang of thugs that attacked us.
The successes of Al Qaeda and the Taliban during the past several years indicate they enjoy the support of large segments of the population of Afghanistan and Pakistan; and it is obvious that our attempts to gain popular support have not produced the desired results.
Our choices in Afghanistan and Pakistan are clear: either increase troop levels to somewhere between half and a million soldiers to subdue the population of those countries, and keep them there indefinitely, or get out.
President Bush's neglect in Afghanistan was compounded by President Obama trying to win a war with unclear objectives or a definition of what constitutes victory by adding 30,000 troops a few months ago. PM Brown's decision to send an additional 500 troops is not only strictly symbolic, it actually highlights the reluctance of our allies to support our crusade or nebulous goals.
IMO, we should get out and focus on our domestic problems, which are far more important to us than whatever happens to those intent in living the way their medieval ancestors did.
Complain about this comment
The problem with this war is that When BUSH decided to send in troops he made no attempt to understand the culture or how they would respond before he sent in troops. He was simply acting out of anger and was seeking revenge. And as it happened, Bush nearly managed to pull defeat out of the Jaws of Victory when he allowed Bin Laden to escape. Then instead of trying to bring Bin Laden to justice, Bush decided to go to war in Iraq; claiming that the Iraqi Government had "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and were harboring "terrorists" when the fact of the matter was Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and became a haven for terrorists after the US invaded.
REpublicans are trying to portray what is going on in Iraq as Obama's fault. They want the public to believe that all EIGHT YEARS of mismanagement of this war is Obama's fault. They never want to take responsiblity for thier own failures.
Complain about this comment
ref 3
Could not have chosen the following so as to not be undermined : Clinton - no (too independent and relevant), Kucinich - no (can come across as strange), McCain - NO (bom, bom, bom - sounds like a crazy person).
(Are you at all familiar with the election? Obama ran against McCain. In regard to Kucinich, if Obama had chosen him he may have lost. I don't think America wanted a commited pacificst next in line for the Presidency)
Biden - yaps about too much that is irrelevant and willing enough to make himself even more irrelevant.
(I enjoy the Biden gaffes but unlike many of Obama apoointees he is not a tax cheat or an extremist)
Complain about this comment
"splenic" ? Do you mean 'splenetic' ??
Complain about this comment
For those who are dismissive about Biden's role in the administration as being there only to balance an election ticket are victims of sound-bite politics. Biden does have significant foreign policy experience and his word is carrying its due weight. This is a refreshing change from the previous administration, which had never really understood democracy. It is natural to have differing opinions when you put a bunch of strong characters (and you hope that any country's leaders are strong characters) together. This will hopefully lead to the appropriate level of analysis and the best possible course of action.
Complain about this comment
#7: AmericanSportsFan is onto something. After all, back in aught-1, when we were all reeling from the shock of the 9/11 attacks and were more or less united behind President Bush's invasion of the most difficult terrain on earth to root out the perpetrators, America had the full support of the United Nations and most of the civilized people on earth to do so. Eight years of Neoconservative missioncreep later, we find ourselves without any such mandate, without any justification at all, in a completely different country, having deposed a completely different leader and fighting a completely different insurgency -- to say nothing of the 800 lb gorilla in the room, whom we STILL haven't managed to locate and destroy and who is still doing damage in those damnable mountains. President Obama's task is to unwind the Iraq war as quickly as possible and to get back on track with the tasks of finding and neutralizing the radical, stateless, terrorists who are still laughing up their sleeves at all of us.
Complain about this comment
Complain about this comment
A CIA operative stated on BBC World Service a couple of weeks ago, that the Afghan war cannot be won without first analysing why al Quaida attacked the US in the first place. His opinion was that it was the result of the unqualified partisanship of the US for Israel and ensuing belligerant stance toward the Arab world. Oddly nobody seems to be discussing this linkage. Is it taboo?
Complain about this comment
Unfortunately, this VP is the same as the last VP, a dangerously partisan hack whose mindset is frozen in a past era. Everyone can tell that the president simply is trying to prepare the public and military for a pull-out. It may or may not work out in the long run (hey, even Iraq looks like it won't be a complete disaster over the long haul). The problem is that Biden has been a superdove since Vietnam, whether it made sense or not. Just as Cheney's rigid hawkishness ultimately led to neglect of Afghanistan, Biden's rigid dovishness may lead to a premature withdrawal.
The sad part is that the Obama presidency already looks more profligate than the Bush years, and its foreign policy is questionably no more misdirected than the last. It is simply not enough to swerve left, where the last fool swerved right. The world is changing fast, and potholes lie all over the road, no matter what Norwegians would like to think.
Complain about this comment
Bush had two attempts to mess it up, why dis Obama yet?
From this side of the atlantic he is talking to the rest of the world, and goes out into it.
Seems unlike most of his countrymen he has a passport
Complain about this comment
ref #13
kunjani wrote:
A CIA operative stated on BBC World Service a couple of weeks ago, that the Afghan war cannot be won without first analysing why al Quaida attacked the US in the first place. His opinion was that it was the result of the unqualified partisanship of the US for Israel and ensuing belligerant stance toward the Arab world. Oddly nobody seems to be discussing this linkage. Is it taboo?
____________________________________________---
That is the chief talking point for apologists who don't pressure on the Arab world on combating terrorism.
Complain about this comment
ref #14
jmagrud wrote:
Unfortunately, this VP is the same as the last VP, a dangerously partisan hack whose mindset is frozen in a past era.
___________________________________________________-
You don't know either man. I disagree with Biden on many issues and same with cheney but neither are hacks.
Pelosi, Rangel, Foley, Delay are hacks. (Note to Simon and Dublin, two Dems 2 repub)
Complain about this comment
Two points if I may.
1. It was not just "W" neglecting Pakistan problem. Quite a few U.S. presidents had been duped by ISI into believing that
a) Islamabad was fully committed to war on terrorism
b) ISI could be trusted with evalutation and arms delivery to U.S. allies
It turned out that it was not and that ISI wanted weapons (including Stingers) delivered -and had succceded as its sole distributor - not to Afghan progressives, like Ahmed Shah Massoud, but to Muslim fundamentalists like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. With all negative consequences of such a switch.
Which leads me to a second point.
2.When people talk about Great Game they usually refer to countries such as UK and Russia as players.
They do not realsie that for quite some time (long before Soviet invasion of Afghanistan) Pakistan has been a player too, and not an insignificant one.
Taliban (born in Pakistani madrassas) has been created and propped by ISI for a purpose: funadamentalist, Sharia-based and therefore backward and weak Afghanistan could be easily controlled by Islamabad, even if nominally A. would be and independent state, with its own president, premier, parliament and even armed forces.
[Central Asian Parador, so to speak].
Mush[arraf] and ISI played the game so well, that many in Washington (and London), not too well versed intricacies of Afpac politics "bought" their 'spiel'.
And have supported it, both: militarily and financially.
Whereas in reality, a strong, secular, democratic and modern Afghanistan would not be an assest but actually a threat to Pakistan.
Just like modern, secular, democratic Iraq would be a threat to quite a few Arab countries, including those who officially are U.S. allies.
No wonder that in both cases the've been acting accordingly behind the scene, while simultanously making all the right noises to please fools at Foggy Bottom and 1600 Pensylvania Ave.
Complain about this comment
4. At 11:26am on 19 Oct 2009, powermeerkat wrote:
Whatever you might think of Osama, Obama or Karzai, one thing is clear.
The latter has been absolutely correct when he forcefully stated couple of years ago that problem of terrorism and guerilla warfare in Afghanistan would not be solved without denying al-Qaida and Taliban safe havens, training camps and R&R facilities in Pakistan."
Absolutely correct except he is entirely wrong. Rest and recreation facilities in Afghanistan!
Do you even know how ridiculous this is?
"Washington demurred and Islamabad vehemently protested.
However, subsequent developments have proven Karzai right."
Sorry what events? As in the complete breqakdown of the internet and mobile phone?
This is 2009, not 1989.
"And no future leader of Afghanistan, whether it's Karzai, Abudullah or mullah Omar will be able to change that."
Change what, close down the lavish r & r facilities? In Afghanistan?
"Although current (and perhaps future) Pakistani Army 's offensive in Waziristan might, to a degree."
The PR will certainlly benefit, nothing else.
"[wihtouth closing madrassas, also in the U.K., nothing will change much]"
SOrry but over a billion people are not going to become white christians to please you.
Sad - but true
Complain about this comment
Check this out...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6374275/Barack-Obama-must-attend-climate-change-talks-to-avoid-catastrophe-for-the-planet.html
No pressure then..
Complain about this comment
Obama hands out ropes and lets others decide if they are stupid enough to hang themselves.
That's not really so bad.
18 Dude again you come with the excuse wagon hitched on your cart.
It drags you down. it is why you can't see over the mud.
It IS a age thing.
the age thing maybe.
Those in the past that didn't think war an issue.They are the same guys that led the planet to the brink and still try.
You are one of them.
When they are on your side they are OK and then if they change they become terrorists.
Go back and I bet you wrote how Pakistan was our ally in the war against terror.
you guys are such flip floppers.
Complain about this comment
13 YES
Complain about this comment
I'm slightly bemused that anyone is still interested in Washington's so-called "Afghan strategy."
I doubt anyone in Washington still believes the war can be "won" in any meaningful sense. If anything, "winning" would be counterproductive - after all, the whole purpose of the war is to legitimize an American military presence whose objective is to project power in Central Asia. In that context, Afghanistan has become a mere sideshow.
The fact that successive administrations have been unwilling to commit the resources necessary to "win" the war is therefore hardly surprising.
Complain about this comment
ASF well said
"
REpublicans are trying to portray what is going on in Iraq as Obama's fault. They want the public to believe that all EIGHT YEARS of mismanagement of this war is Obama's fault. They never want to take responsibility for their own failures"
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Mush[arraf] and ISI played the game so well, that many in Washington (and London), not too well versed intricacies of Afpac politics "bought" their 'spiel'.
And have supported it, both: militarily and financially.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a guy like musharraff can fool the politicians and military leaders of usa, then you too can...Ask musharraff and he will tell you he did whatever he was asked to do, including taking part in war against terrorr, including filling up that gitmo prisoner..including taking army to those areas where the army never went in pakistan's 60 or so history of independence..including whisking of citizen's of pakistan..missing even now..Its american's who played the game so well to destablize the country..because thats what their intentions were all along, thats why they put an halt to their mission in afghanistan, declaring alqaida as no threat and went after iraq..to come back to afghanistan after pakistan has been destablized...now they will use afghanistan's situation to have a free floating hand against pakistan..They have to destablize pakistan even more, to create destablization in iran..which has has already begun..
Complain about this comment
17. At 2:47pm on 19 Oct 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
ref #14
You don't know either man. I disagree with Biden on many issues and same with cheney but neither are hacks.
Pelosi, Rangel, Foley, Delay are hacks. (Note to Simon and Dublin, two Dems 2 repub)"
Hack is a journalist. Pelosi is a very successfull female politician, that does not make her a "hack".
Meaningless abuse as usual.
Complain about this comment
18 "Two points if I may."
would it do any good to say No.
17 Cheney was not a hack?
No he was a blood thirsty lying to congress lying to everyone. mudering (war was not legal if the given reasons were lies ( colin powels comments and history have shown the lies to be just that)
He was a vengeful mean petty dictator who did as he pleased and fired those that complained.
He was an abomination in politics and still is.
He should be on trial for saying that america is not accountable to war crimes because they privatised the war so his old buddies at haliburton could get away with what they liked.
No he was no hack.
Complain about this comment
Instead, it seems to me, the threat of following the alleged Biden strategy of muddling along with current troop levels is being used to pressure Karzai. This could be either to accept that a second round would give him great legitimacy or, more likely, to include his rivals in his government, broadening its appeal, so that it can "fill that space" Emanuel clearly regards as currently vacant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At 10:05pm on 16 Oct 2009, you wrote:
"In afghnistan, they instead of listening to afghans who dont want a fraud candidate to go in the second round of elections, because of his fradulent elections, but no, the west will make him afghans president by letting him take part in the second round of elections"
And the experts, the politicians of civilized and democratic world, conviently overlook, forget, if karzai goes for second round, he will be seen by the afghans, as someone who got his position through fraud..And so, karzai is a in a good position now, he knows americans need him....He is in a same postion where musharaaff was in 2001 and onwards..Like I said earlier, the americans need him, and he knows they need him, so he is not going anywhere..fraud or no fraud.
Complain about this comment
Toby Harnden (Telegraph) does not appear to know much about US politics. He doesn't even know the name of the Senate Foreign Relations committee.
What basis does he have for saying that the administration is "dithering" instead of deliberating? Was he there? No, but such language suits his purpose, even if totally unfounded.
Biden is extremely well informed on international issues, and his counsel is valuable, even when his policy proposals do not prevail. I have confidence in the President to evaluate the advice of all of his counselers and to take a responsible course of action.
Complain about this comment
A CIA operative stated on BBC World Service a couple of weeks ago, that the Afghan war cannot be won without first analysing why al Quaida attacked the US in the first place. His opinion was that it was the result of the unqualified partisanship of the US for Israel and ensuing belligerant stance toward the Arab world. Oddly nobody seems to be discussing this linkage. Is it taboo?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The chief's opinions are not all that correct, americans unconditional support to israel was one of the factor, but not THE main reason for 9/11..Israel occupation didnt start after the gulf war 1..Ben laden's U-turn against america started a few yrs after that war.. Now, Guess the real reason.
Complain about this comment
When you compare Vice President Biden to some past Republican Vice Presidents -- Spiro Agnew, Dan Quayle -- or Vice Presidential candidates -- Sarah Palin --, he looks pretty good.
Complain about this comment
#18 Meerkat
You hold the mistaken belief that the US (and Israel) are opposed to Islamic extremism. Their biggest threat has always been the Islamic moderate secular movements which undermined their control of the middle east. Now it seems that the US and its client states have bitten more than they can chew. They thought they could control them with puppet states and fear of atheist Soviet communism.
These extremists now want nothing more than to take over Pakistan's nuclear arsenal to nuke the US, Israel, and then Pakistan!! The clock of humanity is nearly pointing to midnight.
History has its own sense of irony has it not?
Complain about this comment
Whereas in reality, a strong, secular, democratic and modern Afghanistan would not be an assest but actually a threat to Pakistan.
Just like modern, secular, democratic Iraq would be a threat to quite a few Arab countries, including those who officially are U.S. allies.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This shows that you have no knowldge of pre-liberation afghanistan, or iraq, and pakistan..Iraq was a secular state before it got turned into a religious state by the american religious fanatics in 2003, afghanistan was never and will never be a secular state, its population is all muslim..Pakistan although not secular but whenever elections took place, the religous parties fail to get more than a few seats...There was just one time that religous parties got the majority and that was when musharaff was the president. and they fully cooperated with him..If it wasnt for them, he wouldnt have made the first five year term as the president..usa overlooked it, as they wanted him to be there..It was due to pressure, do or die pressure, from pakistani society that they finally got rid of him and the religious parties..
And now, tell me, why did the american soldiers vacated 8 posts a few days ago at the border of pakistan afghanistan, one or two from afghan side of south wazirsitan? Were they running for their lives, or do they now what those "taliban" to waltz their way into afghanistan?
Complain about this comment
Ref 14, jmagrud
"Just as Cheney's rigid hawkishness ultimately led to neglect of Afghanistan, Biden's rigid dovishness may lead to a premature withdrawal."
Dick Cheney was, clearly, one of the most influential VPs in our history, but in the end the decision to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, escalate those "wars", remain after regime change had taken place and our initial objectives had been made, and setting a withdrawal schedule for Iraq was made by the self-prescribed Decider and approved by Congress, not Cheney, although there is no doubt in my mind that he was pulling the strings behind the scenes.
Trying to elevate Biden to Cheney's privileged stature is ridiculous. Joe is being used to send trial balloons to determine the extent of opposition.
On the issue of Musharraf, he played the Bush and Clinton Administrations like a master of ceremonies.
Complain about this comment
The mistake was to wage a war without preparation..3 weeks was not enough to prepare for a war. not only usa, but the world decided to go on a war on 7th october 2001, three weeks after 11/sept,2001. Not one NATO general or politician of the NATO countries objected to such an hasty war..it became more of an adventure rather than a war.. And instead of acknowlding that mistake, the same countries are making one mistake afther another, blaming not themselves for the mistakes, but others..One mistake can be overlooked especially when the mistaker corrects it..A pathalogical mistaker should not be allowed to continue..Such a behavour overlaps a criminal behaviour. Its time that americans lift up the burka of their own government and they will see not the face of an naive people who make one or two mistakes, but the face of a criminal who uses this pattern to commit crimes against ordinary people and their countries.
Complain about this comment
Ref 18, powermeerkat
"Just like modern, secular, democratic Iraq would be a threat to quite a few Arab countries, including those who officially are U.S. allies."
Iraq was a modern and secular country before we decided to invade and replace the Baathists with Shiite fanatics. Before the invasion, Iraq was, indeed, considered a threat by many of its neighbors and Al Qaeda. That is one of many reasons why our decision to attack Iraq and replace Saddam with a regime aligned spiritually to Iran was so flawed.
Complain about this comment
30. At 4:18pm on 19 Oct 2009, GH1618 wrote:
Toby Harnden (Telegraph) does not appear to know much about US politics. He doesn't even know the name of the Senate Foreign Relations committee.
What basis does he have for saying that the administration is "dithering" instead of deliberating? Was he there? No, but such language suits his purpose, even if totally unfounded.
Biden is extremely well informed on international issues, and his counsel is valuable, even when his policy proposals do not prevail. I have confidence in the President to evaluate the advice of all of his counselers and to take a responsible course of action.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This man's opinions are not worth having. It is a good rule of thumb that when criticism goes into the physical appearance of the subject of the blog, it is not worth reading.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
33. At 4:31pm on 19 Oct 2009, dceilar wrote:
#18 Meerkat
You hold the mistaken belief that the US (and Israel) are opposed to Islamic extremism. Their biggest threat has always been the Islamic moderate secular movements which undermined their control of the middle east. Now it seems that the US and its client states have bitten more than they can chew. They thought they could control them with puppet states and fear of atheist Soviet communism.
These extremists now want nothing more than to take over Pakistan's nuclear arsenal to nuke the US, Israel, and then Pakistan!! The clock of humanity is nearly pointing to midnight.
History has its own sense of irony has it not?"
##-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely the US has been a good friend of religious extremism. Who gave Zia and Musharaf their weapons? Where do the Saudi's get their guns, bank accounts etc?
And when there was the farical Egyptian election Rice waved her finger and then shook hands with the dictator.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
All the US has ever done in this area, like the ME is play power politics in total disregard of the local people. Bush even called Musharaff an ally - despite the fact he was responsible for a prolonged terror war on India - even including an attack on the Indian Parliament.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You give too much credit to musharraff. He wasnt reponsible for anything that happened inside india..whatever happens inside india happens because of indians, they have enough enemies inside the state..every other state every second or third year rebel against the center. From kashmir to the maost rebeles in nagaland etc etc etc..
Complain about this comment
GH1618 wrote:
When you compare Vice President Biden to some past Republican Vice Presidents -- Spiro Agnew, Dan Quayle -- or Vice Presidential candidates -- Sarah Palin --, he looks pretty good.
_____________________________________
He also looks good compared to Former Democratic President Jimmy Carter, and former VP Al gore.
Complain about this comment
ref #24
fluffytale wrote:
ASF well said
"
REpublicans are trying to portray what is going on in Iraq as Obama's fault. They want the public to believe that all EIGHT YEARS of mismanagement of this war is Obama's fault. They never want to take responsibility for their own failures"
______________________________
I think your BDS is showing. Iraq is in good sahpe thanks to not listening to the cut and run stratedgy of Sen Obama. But when will your messiah make an actual decision?
Complain about this comment
37. At 4:54pm on 19 Oct 2009, saintDominick wrote:
Ref 18, powermeerkat
"Just like modern, secular, democratic Iraq would be a threat to quite a few Arab countries, including those who officially are U.S. allies."
Iraq was a modern and secular country before we decided to invade and replace the Baathists with Shiite fanatics. Before the invasion, Iraq was, indeed, considered a threat by many of its neighbors and Al Qaeda. That is one of many reasons why our decision to attack Iraq and replace Saddam with a regime aligned spiritually to Iran was so flawed."
Ever so slightly. That is why the insurgency lost some of its potency. Iran was handed its enemy on a plate.
Now Iran and Iraq share a waterway and a long border.
And Iran is supposed to be facing sanctions - Just wonder if?
Complain about this comment
On the issue of Musharraf, he played the Bush and Clinton Administrations like a master of ceremonies.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where were you on march 25 2000? and when clinton's government was discussing if clinton should actually visit pakistan because musharraf had taken power a year before. If you had known that clinton half day visit to pakistan didnt include his meeting with musharraff, because clinton refused to meet him, you would not have written such careless sentence..Bush became chumps with musharraff after the general did a u-turn and decided to participate in war against terror despite the fact that not one single pakistani citizen wanted to do it..But he was the dictator and usa thrieves on dictators..
Complain about this comment
I think your BDS is showing. Iraq is in good sahpe thanks to not listening to the cut and run stratedgy of Sen Obama. But when will your messiah make an actual decision?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good shape? its in a worse, terrible shape than what it was before 2003. The only problem for some of the iraqis was saddam, those who are in power now, those religous people...the rest of iraqis have civil, social, health, housing, roads, water, food , employment problems..do a little experiment, go to the people who had lost everything because of hurricane katrina, and tell them if they are in a good shape now or before the hurricane..And dont forget to post their answers.
Complain about this comment
41. At 5:04pm on 19 Oct 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
reAs usual Simple Simon you are wrong.
"A political hack is someone who enrichers themselves at the public expenses and usually does not pay attention to conflict of interest and tax laws.
Actually it refers to a journalist and has meant that for at least 100 years.
"
But are you seriously suggesting this definition does not include Cheyney????
I think we are having one of your "Nelson Mandela is a terrorist for oposing aparthied" comments
Complain about this comment
[At 5:03pm on 19 Oct 2009, Simon21 wrote:]
"Absolutely the US has been a good friend of religious extremism. Who gave Zia and Musharaf their weapons? Where do the Saudi's get their guns, bank accounts etc?
And when there was the farical Egyptian election Rice waved her finger and then shook hands with the dictator."
... and let's not forget the US' role in bringing the ayatollahs to power in Iran!
But seriously, I don't see much point in engaging in debate about whether US foreign policy is morally founded or not. It is a law of the international system that 1) great powers interfere in the affairs of weaker states; and 2) do so strictly on the basis of their own interests.
Complain about this comment
" Rahm Emanuel told CNN it would be "reckless to make a decision on U.S. troop levels if, in fact, you haven't done a thorough analysis of whether, in fact, there's an Afghan partner ready to fill that space that the US troops would create.""
Utter lunacy. The US military presence in Afghanistan has nothing to do with the current government there, it is strictly to do with preventing the Taleban from re-establishing control over the country to create a sanctuary for al Qaeda to plot against America again. And what if the Karzai government is thoroughly corrupt, will the US pull out or continue to put its own troops at greater risk by not sending what the generals say is in the interest of the US military effort? It is said people get the government they deserve and stupid people deserve a government as stupid as we have.
Complain about this comment
44. At 5:07pm on 19 Oct 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
ref #24
"I think your BDS is showing. Iraq is in good sahpe thanks to not listening to the cut and run stratedgy of Sen Obama. But when will your messiah make an actual decision"
Iraq is in good shape? Good shape?.
You do live in Wonderland don't you?
And Ted Bundy was simply an over-affectionate softy I suppose?
Complain about this comment
43. At 5:05pm on 19 Oct 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
GH1618 wrote:
When you compare Vice President Biden to some past Republican Vice Presidents -- Spiro Agnew, Dan Quayle -- or Vice Presidential candidates -- Sarah Palin --, he looks pretty good.
_____________________________________
He also looks good compared to Former Democratic President Jimmy Carter, and former VP Al gore."
And everyone with a brain looks better that Agnew (no contest), Ford (where am I), Quayle (of course I joined the army, I did, I did) and (kill em all, it will make them love us)- the latter being one of the most hated politicians in the US.
Obama should try and get the latter to condemn him again.
What a crew.
Complain about this comment
It's always nice to wake up to coffee, bagels and Bono of a Sunday morning. And I'll admit I was a bit surprised by some of the conclusions he drew in his editorial. If, as he says, the rest of the world is out of ideas on solving the issues of climate change, poverty and extreme ideologies when they come together in a perfect storm of disaster - and are now looking to America to join the fray as a leading partner, then I am not sure he won't be disappointed.
America isn't, as he implies, about taking responsibility for one's fellow man. Unless one is talking in a post-JFK/Peace Corps sort of way. It's more about taking responsibility for one's self and becoming financially and, therefore, socially successful through hard work and after a great deal of personal struggle. All that talk of rugged American individualism had to come from somewhere. Most Americans look at the rest of the world and wonder why it can't just take care of itself and leave them to get on about the business of making a living and improving their own lives. Those of us who wish to get involved in foreign affairs do. The rest are perfectly within their rights to ignore the whole darn planet with the exception of their street, town or city - though they may not be pleased with what happens after their heads are abruptly pulled from the sand.
Now, if he's talking about just Obama coming up with a plan the world can fall in love with and implement without average Americans being required to jump on board, then I've no objection to our President taking on some extra-curricular activities on behalf of the world. But he was hired to do a job in America, a very complex and difficult one, and is paid by the American people to do that job full time. He isn't the World President, no matter how much he inspires everyone.
The assumption is that if the world likes America, America ought to like it back. And while Americans may want to be liked, just a little, by the rest of the planet, we also know that we aren't loved for ourselves, but for what the world thinks we can do for it. We are, in fact, quite well aware that individual Americans, on a very personal level and for no good reason, across the board are hated, feared, despised, derided, mocked, ridiculed, envied and pretty much told we aren't really entitled to anything we've earned by our own sweat, blood and tears. We're told all our men are musclebound ignoramuses and our women are easy, uneducated trash - the ones who don't fit this stereotype are considered exceptions to the rule. We're bad, evil, awful, degenerate, selfish, stupid, backward, ignorant, arrogant, shameless and rich.
That last one seems to irk the world the most apparently. By good fortune America and Americans made something wonderful of the place they live and made money doing it, too. So because we succeeded, we now owe the planet something. This is about the most insulting bit of self-serving rhetoric I've ever heard. And it's repeated time and again in various forms and with varying degrees of flattery, avarice and scorn by almost every non-American who wants America to do something for them - including Bono.
And I will state again, for what must be the umpteenth time in a blog post on a foreign site: Americans are not some monolithic entity to be used and abused, then told we ought not to complain about such treatment because we both deserved it and should somehow be above the normal Human emotion of being insulted by it. Americans are people. No better or worse individually than anyone else. If Bono expects Americans to embrace the world, then he needs to counsel his fellow Europeans, not Americans, on how to behave in polite society. Good manners cost you nothing. Bad manners, in America, are punished by ostracism.
Complain about this comment
Karzai is going to stay, and america will send a few thousand troops to afghanistan..Right now, all the americans are waiting for is for pakistani army to take down as much as taliban in the ground offensive, so that american troops would not have to face the full brunt of the war..Pakistani army has given 8 weeks time line..so for 8 weeks, minus pluss one week or two, the american media, people and their leaders will engage in nonsenscial debate..its called, time-passing technique. We saw it just a few months ago,prior to afghan elections, when pakistani army made a major offensive in Swat, after that, americans landed their few thousand troops, and afghanistan held its elections..This is how america is running the country and the war..Meanwhile at home, they get fooled by a six year old "balloon boy" and his family..
Complain about this comment
49. At 5:29pm on 19 Oct 2009, gigacheetah wrote:
"But seriously, I don't see much point in engaging in debate about whether US foreign policy is morally founded or not. It is a law of the international system that 1) great powers interfere in the affairs of weaker states; and 2) do so strictly on the basis of their own interests."
True and it has to be admitted that the US is no worse in this regard then any other Great Power. However it is the puerile whining and the hypocrisy which gets so irritating.
The British tyranised over Ireland, but they did not expect the Irish to love them for it. The US seems to expect people to thank it for bombing their children or in the case of Lebanon giving old cluster bombs so children can be killed after hostilities cease.
Complain about this comment
Obama is a very good leader today he freed millions of Americans from prosecution for medical cannabis.
A very brave and Noble leader.
http://www.encod.org/info/US-GOVERNMENT-ISSUES-NEW-POLICY-ON.html
Complain about this comment
Utter lunacy. The US military presence in Afghanistan has nothing to do with the current government there, it is strictly to do with preventing the Taleban from re-establishing control over the country to create a sanctuary for al Qaeda to plot against America again. And what if the Karzai government is thoroughly corrupt, will the US pull out or continue to put its own troops at greater risk by not sending what the generals say is in the interest of the US military effort? It is said people get the government they deserve and stupid people deserve a government as stupid as we have.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it hasnt been for karzai, the military presence in afghanistan, would become american occupation...And americans dont occupy a country, do they?..the problem is americans cannot talk about occupation, so they have to talk as if its not an occupation, but help which they are giving to karzai..No body in america can say what you said in the first two lines. the last lines are not correct, because it was americans who wipped the dust off karzai and put him as the president...the afghans dont want him, thats why he went to dostum to get 2 million votes..thats why he used usa to go on a killing spree against those who opposse him prior to the elections..
Complain about this comment
Simon21 (#52), I suspect that your choice of Gore as a Democratic example of a poor Vice President is motivated more by his subsequent activities. I would say his performance as Vice President was respectable.
My choice for a poor Democratic Vice President would be Hubert Humphrey. Despite his solid reputation as a Senator, he was always Lyndon Johnson's toady, and as Vice President, he was unable to oppose Johnson's Vietnam policies. Even as a presidential candidate with Johnson a lame duck, he was unable to break with Johnson and unable to defeat Richard Nixon as a consequence.
Biden is nobody's toady, and that's a good thing.
Complain about this comment
Gee, if that's your favorite read, it must have been a pretty pisspoor weekend of reading. Mr. Bono's ghostwriter must share an office with Obama's speechwriter. After you wade through all the purple praise, you quickly see it all boils down to one word - "IF". Even that doesn't go all that far - certainly not very far left, except in the rigidly right-wing political spectrum of Amerika. "Like the Nobel" and the UN Brands index, Mr. Bono's gushy mushy "can be written off as meaningless." Not only is it unfounded, but Obama Copacabana's alleged celebrity is rapidly fading, since it too is all based on the same sort of mirages as Mr. Bono conjures up. Typical imperial apologetics about "an America that’s tired of being the world’s policeman, and is too pinched to be the world’s philanthropist" give the fraud away. Amerika has never been anything but the world's gestapo, robbing the rest of the world of it's resources at bayonet point, slaughtering millions of innocents, and maintaining a sharply class-divided hierarchy at home and abroad. Something all the members of Obama's nightmare team are committed to preserving. That's the meaning of "Stability = security + development.Enter Barack Obama." It's not just "that last line that still seems like a joke"...it's the whole ridiculous editorial!
Complain about this comment
Simon21, I should have referenced #43 (MagicKirin) instead. Your failure to reference it misled me.
Complain about this comment
And I will state again, for what must be the umpteenth time in a blog post on a foreign site: Americans are not some monolithic entity to be used and abused, then told we ought not to complain about such treatment because we both deserved it and should somehow be above the normal Human emotion of being insulted by it. Americans are people. No better or worse individually than anyone else.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For yrs, the depatment of insulting was run by the americans, I would like to go all the way back to the native americans, to slaves ,but i wont..So I will start from the germans, the koreans, the vietnamise, the soviets and the muslims from all over the globe..Just imagine how they put up with insults and all that dehumanizing...you are lucky that none of your enemies or those who do not like you, dehumanize you the way americans tend to do..Here is your country, who wants to kill and destroy and doesnt want anyone to react to it, and here you are, already complaining about not being able to show universal human emotions..A slight cut to the tip of your little fingure and you want to use your right to express human emotions, and you dont want to palestinians to react in a way they to 3 generations of occupation.
Complain about this comment
55. At 5:48pm on 19 Oct 2009, Simon21 wrote:
"True and it has to be admitted that the US is no worse in this regard then any other Great Power. However it is the puerile whining and the hypocrisy which gets so irritating."
Agreed. I think it has something to do with the fact that democracy and empire sit uneasily together. In my experience, the Americans are by and large a very decent people who expect their government to behave morally on the international stage. The politicians need to persuade them that it is - hence the rhetoric that so annoys many outside the US. Personally, I've learned to ignore it.
Complain about this comment
colonoscopy;
"the military presence in afghanistan, would become american occupation...And americans dont occupy a country, do they?.."
I suggest that you read an American history text written by an American. American troops occupied Japan and Germany after WWII and made no bones about it. There are many other instances such as in Iraq. We don't want to be there forever the way European imperial empires tried to but until stable civil government that can defend itself from military attack is established, America will occupy foreign anarchical states trying to transition to local civilian rule. The frustration with Karzai is that it appears it will take longer than it was hoped. Had the Europeans played their proper role in Iraq, America would have been able to devote more of its attention and resources to the problem of Afghanistan sooner. But I'm not surprised at Europe at all. Hypocritical, sneering at America when it feels rich and safe, groveling before it when it doesn't, I have nothing but contempt for it and make no apology for that.
Complain about this comment
And there is usa in afghanistan.Who vacated 7 or 8 key check posts at the afghan side of the pak-afghan border a few days before, so that the taliban from afghanistan can enter pakistan to fight pakistani army...While the pakistani army is wondering on whose side usa is, others are sure that, by letting taliban cross over to pakistan, american troops are making pakistani troops to fight..This is the war strategy of the world's greatest super power.
Complain about this comment
In my experience, the Americans are by and large a very decent people who expect their government to behave morally on the international stage.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
and we have a very good saying..."He is a decent man and a murderer". Its a sarcastic saying.
Complain about this comment
colonoscopy;
This is exibit number one..
I am not going to read any history books especcially written by americans, as they get the mirror image of the reality. the right becomes wrong and the eight becomes the left...Whatever happened in japan happened 60 yrs ago, this is 2009, in this time period, countries dont occupy, so now they make a presence instead..You want a stable afghanistan, good for you, but atleast support the stable people, not fraud and cheats like karzai..unless ofcourxe you want to use them to have your presence there...
Complain about this comment
63. At 6:20pm on 19 Oct 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
colonoscopy;
"the military presence in afghanistan, would become american occupation...And americans dont occupy a country, do they?.."
I suggest that you read an American history text written by an American. American troops occupied Japan and Germany after WWII and made no bones about it."
Except those bones occupied by Russians. The Berlin wall ring a bell?
" There are many other instances such as in Iraq. We don't want to be there forever the way European imperial empires tried to but until stable civil government that can defend itself from military attack is established,"
Yes a herd of flying pigs has just taken off.
"America will occupy foreign anarchical states trying to transition to local civilian rule. The frustration with Karzai is that it appears it will take longer than it was hoped. Had the Europeans played their proper role in Iraq, America would have been able to devote more of its attention and resources to the problem of Afghanistan sooner. But I'm not surprised at Europe at all. Hypocritical, sneering at America when it feels rich and safe, groveling before it when it doesn't, I have nothing but contempt for it and make no apology for that."
And teh rest of us don't care. American was humiliated in Iraq and is on the way to humiliation in Afghanistan.
Complain about this comment
Colonoscopy;
"You want a stable afghanistan..."
America's only vital interest in Afghanistan is that it will not be a threat to America's security. We hope that can be achieved without completely depopulating it but that is the goal the government is fixed on.
Complain about this comment
ref #53 and 59
Unlike most entertainer, Bono actually is educated on subjects he speaks. Unlike the entertainers supporting the fugitive Roiman Polanski, Sean Penn and Annie Lenox.
Complain about this comment
America's only vital interest in Afghanistan is that it will not be a threat to America's security. We hope that can be achieved without completely depopulating it but that is the goal the government is fixed on.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If usa realy wanted security from afghanistan, it would never have invaded it..Always remember this.and I mean Always as in always, not tomorrow or day after tomorrow.
Complain about this comment
Americans are humilitated by taliban and karzai in afghanistan, and inside usa, by a six year old boy and his family..
Complain about this comment
US playing double game on Taliban
US-led NATO forces vacated more than half a dozen security check posts on the Afghan side of the border just ahead of the major ground offensive launched by the Pakistani military against the Taliban in the volatile South Waziristan region, a media report said Monday.
'It is feared that the American decision will facilitate Afghan Taliban in crossing over to Pakistan and support militants in striking back at the Pakistani security forces in the troubled tribal area,' The News said in a report headlined 'On whose side is US anyway?'
Sources close to the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) government and military strategists told the newspaper that US forces vacated eight security check posts on the Afghan side of the border just five days before the anti-Taliban operation began in South Waziristan on Saturday.
http://www.india-forums.com/news/article.asp?id=205044
I will say no more, and neither should anyone who blames or intends to blame pakistan or its ISI. This is how america destabelsize a country..while its experts and leaders talk engage in non sensical debates..I wonder when washingron post or newyork times or independet or gaurdian or CNN or BBC will enlighten this to their viewer or will they ever do it..
Complain about this comment
ref #71 colonelartist wrote:
Americans are humilitated by taliban and karzai in afghanistan, and inside usa, by a six year old boy and his family..
___________________________---
How are they humiliated by cowardly terrorists like the Tailban. Like al Quada Hamas and Hezbollah they intentionally target innocents. they also share an intolerance of others.
Complain about this comment
How are they humiliated by cowardly terrorists like the Tailban. Like al Quada Hamas and Hezbollah they intentionally target innocents. they also share an intolerance of others.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can call them cowardly or whatever you want to..but it wont take away the humiliation..the more humiliated, the more name calling..This how people of usa are..Now, I dont know if you play chess or not, but, a good chess player is always able to predict the next move of an opponent, especially when he has regularly played chess with the same person..Consider your self, if you are a citizen of usa if not consider them as, the often played chess opponent..Any recipient of american forgein policy will tell you that he can pridict americans next move before the americans have even thought about it..
Complain about this comment
69. At 7:14pm on 19 Oct 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
ref #53 and 59
Unlike most entertainer, Bono actually is educated on subjects he speaks. Unlike the entertainers supporting the fugitive Roiman Polanski, Sean Penn and Annie Lenox.
I never implied Bono was uneducated on any subject.
Complain about this comment
ref 61
Thank you for the nearly incoherent rant, thus proving my point.
Complain about this comment
Thank you for the nearly incoherent rant, thus proving my point.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Perfect time for a story...which will prove my point.. The legend is that once a journalist, Lets assume he was from west, decided to learn more about the lives of the monkeys. So he decided to go and interview the king of the monkeys..As if the king didnt have more better things to do than to give interview to a journalist,and as if he didnt know that the kings of humans dont just give interview to journalists especially on matter like, "how their subjects live in their daily life". But the king gave him the time and the date for an interview..The journalist being from west, did a pre-interwiew research where he learnt that monkey's eat bananas, and they hang to the branches of the trees...So he went to the king and his first question was, why do monkey's eat bananas, the king replied because we like it, the next question was why do monkeys jump from one tree to another, the king replied because we like it, after two more such questions, the journalists ended the interview, his research confirmed. the king's minister asked him what the journalist asked, and the king replied and I quote, " oh, the usual questions" and the minister asked the king and what he replied and the king replied, and again I quote, " oh the usual answers"
Complain about this comment
The Op-Ed by Bono was very interesting indeed. I agree with his overall case, however I do have some qualms with the last few paragraphs.
He argues that the need to combat the "axis of extremeism," if you will, is "why America shouldn’t turn up its national nose at popularity contests. In the same week that Mr. Obama won the Nobel, the United States was ranked as the most admired country in the world, leapfrogging from seventh to the top of the Nation Brands Index survey — the biggest jump any country has ever made."
I have to ask here, what had we done that made us still be so liked as to be in the top ten, much less the top fifty of the Nation Brands Index survey during any part of the Bush administration (save, of ccourse, after 9/11?) I presume people were surveyed all over the world and not just the developing world, right? And as Bono so vividly recalled, his conversation with general Jones took place at a time when "America couldn't get it's cigarette lit in polite European countries such as Norway." So how on earth did we remain so high on the list?
"But an America that’s tired of being the world’s policeman, and is too pinched to be the world’s philanthropist, could still be the world’s partner. And you can’t do that without being, well, loved."
Excellently put!! A fact which the Republicans would do well to remember and build their foreign policy (should they ever get back into power) around!!! Bush never really understood the concept of multilateralism. I think its totally unfair, but its true and it has to be said. We, unlike Britain and France before us, can't aford to do whatever we please without regard for the rest of the world's feelings. The advent of modern technology, international institutions, and increasing global interdependence by the day has made this so. And in many ways that makes our empire days much, much harder than those of Britain and France. They weren't forced to grow up under the harsh microscope of world opinion. We are. Unfortunately the Republicans seem to cling to a world view of the 19th, rather than the 21st century. And as long as they do so, the chances of us being hated, rather than loved by the rest of the world will be exponentially higher.
"Here come the letters to the editor, but let me just say it: Americans are like singers — we just a little bit, kind of like to be loved."
I doubt very much whether your average Republican politician "wants to be loved." But you're right on about the Democrats!! Unfortunately, since the Republican party is one half of our political make-up, it kind of throws a massive spanner in the effort toward making this world one of "mutual respect," based on "mutual interests," and this nation "a place where all things are possible" and "a more perfect union" where all people should be able to "pursue their full measure of happyness" as Obama likes to rale on and on about all the time doesn't it? In its current form, the Republican party is an albatross around the United States' neck. However to add to your singer annalogy, also like singers, the US is all too often "loved" conditionally, that is based on what we can give the world, not what we stand for and the causes we champion (at our best.) Just as someone may befriend a celebrity for the fact that they're rich and famous and not because they're a nice, caring individual, so too much of the world alines themselves with the US. When the celebrity dies out or stops producing chart topping smashes, much of their so-called "friends" misteriously disappear. Just as when the US makes a mistake (as with the Iraq war,) much of the world turns their collective backs on it and curses its name behind its back...until, that is, they need something else from it. So Bono is correct in the sense that we all do want to be loved, but he intriguingly leaves out a very important word; "unconditionally." The feeling of being used is what has lead many Americans to feel jaded by the world, and to adopt the atitude of "my way or the highway," which has in turn ascribed us the very corrosive stereotype of arrogance, ignorance etc. So perhaps Bono aught keep that in mind when pursuing his foreign policy endeavors in the future.
"The British want to be admired; the Russians, feared; the French, envied. (The Irish, we just want to be listened to.) But the idea of America, from the very start, was supposed to be contagious enough to sweep up and enthrall the world."
Now hang on just a minute!! Surely Americans can desire more than one thing, can they not? As an American I know I want to be admired and envyed!! I rather thought love and admaration kind of went hand in hand. The people in my life whom I love, that love grew out of an admaration for them. So why does he think that we only want to be loved? And the British only admired? And the French only envyed? Yes those virbs most aptly apply to the nationalities which he has ascribed them, but to say that Americans only want to be loved and nothing else is like saying that one can only have one favorit type of food.
"And it is. The world wants to believe in America again because the world needs to believe in America again. We need your ideas — your idea at a time when the rest of the world is running out of them."
Well that's very flattering, but I don't think "the world wants" to believe in America. I rather think the "world just so happens" to believe in America, because it just so happens to have a charismatic, unprecedented leader, who's occupying the office of the presidency would have been unthinkable a mere ten years ago. The world doesn't "need" anything from us. It can do anything it puts its collective mind to. It can draw inspiration from Winston Churchill instead of just Marton Luther King. And speaking of Winston Churchill, a famous saying of his regarding America springs to mind that is most befitting to Bono's plea for ideas; and it is that "America can always be relyed upon to do the right thing...after it has tryed every other conceivable alternative." Undoubtedly a nod to our tenacity, it also inadvertently points out that we have a rather difficult time learning from our past mistakes. So perhaps the world look elsewhere for its ideas so as not to grow impatient with us, because our ideas may be a long time coming.
Complain about this comment
what had we done that made us still be so liked as to be in the top ten, much less the top fifty of the Nation Brands Index survey during any part of the Bush administration (save, of ccourse, after 9/11?)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ask not what you had done, ask what other's why they generously ranked usa as high as they have done...
And once you have asked them, you will find out that they are basically kind hearted people..
Complain about this comment
I rather think the "world just so happens" to believe in America, because it just so happens to have a charismatic, unprecedented leader, who's occupying the office of the presidency would have been unthinkable a mere ten years ago.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before sept 11 2001, the world was busy singing in chorus, praise songs to bush, after sept 11 2001, the world stood behind bush..and the world did whatever bush asked the world to do...The world has its own charismatic and unprecedent leaders, it doesnt put your leader before its own..If he is charismatic and unpredecendented leaders, he is yours, not ours..Do not one way globalize your leader..after the one way globalization of economy,and war..
Complain about this comment
I believe that entertainers should remain entertainers..Remember Bono is an entertainer..he knows how to entertain and get the attention..If he wants to help the people, he should do it quietly..
Complain about this comment
73. At 7:58pm on 19 Oct 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
ref #71 colonelartist wrote:
Americans are humilitated by taliban and karzai in afghanistan, and inside usa, by a six year old boy and his family..
___________________________---
How are they humiliated by cowardly terrorists like the Tailban. Like al Quada Hamas and Hezbollah they intentionally target innocents. they also share an intolerance of others."
They are humilialted because they are losing.
But if it comes to it Hezbollah took on the IDF, not exactly cowardly.
The Iraqi insurgents took on the US and humiliated it, not cowardly either.
And as for cowardice you have to go a long way to beat the IDF dropping US supplied aged cluster bombs in civilian areas for children to play with or shooting schoolgirls in the back.
It would be nice to beleive one's opponents are frightened cowards, but unfortunately that is either irrelevant or wrong. It is far better to beleive one's military opponents are brave, resourceful and determined.
As for tolerance what about Avigdor Lieberman's party - not exactly known for its tolerance of non whites is it? Wants certain non-european citizens to sign an oath.
Complain about this comment
ref 77
And yet again, you illustrate my point.
Complain about this comment
After reading the Teligraph piece, all I can say is that that Toby Harnden has got a lot of nerve!!
He actually thinks that the job of anyone on the Senate Foreign Relations committee, much less the chairmen of it, simply requires "knowing the names of lots of world leaders, and being able to josh around amiably with them during congressional junkets across the globe." In other words, that the most important, most influencial committee in the Senate, the part of the Legislative branch of our government which (as is explicitly dictated by our constitution) is supposed to share (along with the Executive branch) the responsibility of conducting our foreign policy on the world stage, is more or less saramonial, and in fact holds no real power, much like the queen is to today's UK? And this guy is tasked with reporting the news from Washington to nearly half the British public? Personally, if I were his boss, after reading this trash heap of a news story, I'd present him with an ultimatum; read up on the United States constitution and educate yourself in order to more fairly and accurately report Washington's happenings in the future, or be fired. This in and of itself is unacceptable!! But oh no, it gets worse!!
We gain a better insight into his twisted and biased mind when he incorrectly states that "Mr Biden, who served as a senator for tiny Delaware for 36 years (doesn't think too highly of piss ant Delaware, then) had never run anything in his life, or taken decisions rather than talking about things, at legendary length."
Because again, his bountyful knoledge has tought him that one who heads the Senate Foreign Relations committee may as well lead the opposition party in Berma; its that worthless.
But the part that really gets me is the following: "Even in the United States Senate, that august body which each week produces enough hot air to transport 1,000 six-year-olds across America (thinks that the Senate is a mere talking shop which gets next to nothing done. Oh well. At least we actually elect its members unlike the British do the house of Lords, and at least its members aren't using their tax-payer funded salaries to feather their own personal nests like a certain house of Commons I could mention. And I get his point loud and clear that Great Britain would never allow a family to mistreat their child the way the "balloon boy's" family has been allowed to treat him. For that I have nothing to offer except my most abject and humblest apologies.) Mr Biden – who sports hair plugs and a set of porcelain-enhanced gnashers that would blind a polar bear – is renowned
for his wordiness." I don't suppose MR. Harnden and MR. Biden knew each other at some point in the past and had a massive bitter falling out, does anyone else? What does Toby Harnden have against him? Did he ever stop to think that if he would just examine Biden's proposals, that may be, just may be, they might have some validity to the Afghan mission? They might just perhaps be decent? Perhaps Harnden aught to read the William Astore article linked to by Mark a couple of days ago.
Complain about this comment
Biden carried the day? Were the teleprompters out of service?
Is Biden protecting Obama's flanks by rallying the generals to thwart a rogue news channel?
The inaction strategy is working ... looks like Afghanistan is winding down. Obama will get our troops out by February ... in boxes.
Complain about this comment
PursuitOfLove, relax, this is a blog post, not a news article. It's also tinged with a far bit of something called sarcasm, which unfortunately often seems lost on our friends on the other side of the Atlantic.
I found the piece rather funny, actually, and Mr. Harnden is entirely entitled to his opinion on the true substance of Biden's foreign policy experience and the usefulness of much of the Senate's work. Whether that work is substantive or useful doesn't really have much to do with what the Constitution says about the conduct of US foreign relations.
Having followed a fair number of Congressional hearings, I rather sympathize with his point on the latter. While I express no opinion on Biden, my impression is that both Representatives and Senators are often woefully ill-prepared and ignorant of the subjects they are supposed to be deliberating on and there definitely tends to be more talk than action.
Complain about this comment
Read carefully, all and sundry.
1.I have specifically mentioned terrorist training camps, madrassas and Taliban R&R facilities in PAKISTAN, not Afghanistan.
Pakistan, you know, the country never invaded/occupied by US/NATO forces?
2. I have specifically mentioned a threat which would be posed to Middle Eastern regimes by a modern, secular, DEMOCRATIC country in the region.
Iraq could hardly be described as democratic before U.S. invasion, although it was officially ruled by a socialist party (Baath).
Unless we have here not only Taliban, Quds and al-Qaida apologists but also Saddam Hussein's aficionados.
And now to Sistan@Beluchistan, and an issue od Shia slaughtering Sunni and vice versa since times immemorial; way before there were United States or even British colonies in the New World...
Complain about this comment
gigacheeta #86: '"Having followed a fair number of Congressional hearings, I rather sympathize with his point on the latter. While I express no opinion on Biden, my impression is that both Representatives and Senators are often woefully ill-prepared and ignorant of the subjects they are supposed to be deliberating on and there definitely tends to be more talk than action."
I don't dispute for a second that there tends to be more talk than action, and I don't dispute the fact that certainly some in both houses are ignorant of the subject matters of which they are tasked with handling in our name, some even so downright irational it makes me wonder with great fear how on earth they were elected in the first place (I.E. Senater's Michelle Bocman and Chuck Grassly and, of course, the imphimous Congressman Joe Wilson!!) But that is not to say that even the majority of those tasked with in part carying out our foreign policy aren't very educated and equipt for the job (I.E. John Kerry and Senater Whitehouse.)
But I'd love to know, what Congressional hearings had you followed? Who in your view seemed ignorant of the subject matter at hand? I have to tell you, when it comes to conducting these things, even one person uneducated on the subject matter that they are entrusted with delivering on in a position of power is disturbing, because it means that a major part of our affairs is being handled unintelligently. And that is not how our founders envisioned our nation opporating!!
Complain about this comment
1.I have specifically mentioned terrorist training camps, madrassas and Taliban R&R facilities in PAKISTAN, not Afghanistan.
Pakistan, you know, the country never invaded/occupied by US/NATO forces?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You read carefully.
8 yrs ago, the same reasons were used against afghanistan..Americans wanted to destablize pakistan, and they have done a good job..extremely good job.By vacating the posts five days before pakistani offensive in south waziristan, they have helped taliban from afghanistan to move into pakistan to fight the war on pakistan's soil..I hope that their startegy is to give ben laden a safe passage to cross over afghanistan..and then get him there..Otherwise their cowardly act to vacate posts is just to provide taliban safe haven in afghanistan..
Complain about this comment
87. At 09:07am on 20 Oct 2009, powermeerkat wrote:
Read carefully, all and sundry.
1.I have specifically mentioned terrorist training camps, madrassas and Taliban R&R facilities in PAKISTAN, not Afghanistan."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must forgive us for you rarely say anything of much vlaue.
Your knowledge of Madrassas or indeed anything about Islam seems shall we say not to be er profound? You seem to see it as just another substitute for the commies, anarchists, abolitionists etc in the American bogeyman tradition.
"Pakistan, you know, the country never invaded/occupied by US/NATO forces?"
Really but it was set up, armed, its commanders trained, its secret forces trained and its army commanders largely paid by the US.
I beleive most of Pakistan's generals have large dollar fortunes.
Perhaps you should not comment on this region before reading, what are they called, that's right a book.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"2. I have specifically mentioned a threat which would be posed to Middle Eastern regimes by a modern, secular, DEMOCRATIC country in the region.
Iraq could hardly be described as democratic before U.S. invasion, although it was officially ruled by a socialist party (Baath).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather depends on your odd view of democracy, I would barely describe Israel as democractic due to its refusal to ever accept a non jewish PM.
In any case you did not explain your statement.
As for secularism, again depends on what you mean. Under Bush I would not have described the US regime as secular, (bizarre yes, secular no) especially when compared to some truly secular state like the PRC France or Australia.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless we have here not only Taliban, Quds and al-Qaida apologists but also Saddam Hussein's aficionados.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately we have a gang of old-time rascist Islamophobic anti-semites, but anti-semetism has always been strong in the US so what can you do?
It would be nice to think it is due to ignorance only but it probably stems from a need to fear that sprang from the colonial period - as set out brilliantly in the Preface to Miller's The Crucible.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And now to Sistan@Beluchistan, and an issue od Shia slaughtering Sunni and vice versa since times immemorial; way before there were United States or even British colonies in the New World...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that so. Well it might suprise you to learn that Shias and Sunnis are far closer together and have a long history of tolerance.
The inquisition, heretic burnings, thirty years war, magdeburg, progroms and the WWII genocides were all carried out by nice, white, christians.
The Rwandan butchery was carried out by catholics, not white but again christians.
Moslems have a long way to go to catch up
Complain about this comment
And now to Sistan@Beluchistan, and an issue od Shia slaughtering Sunni and vice versa since times immemorial; way before there were United States or even British colonies in the New World...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
And in baluchistan of all the places, they are trying to create a sunni vs shia situation...Go take a look at baluchistan, both of iran and pakistan..Come to think of it, read something about baluchis..Allow me to tell you, baluch's are nationalists, religon comes second to them..Either you are baluchi or you are not..thats their starting and end point. its western backed separtists who are trained in camps in afghanistan, run by RAW. Every tom dick and harry knows about it..USA, NATO, india and even israel is busy in that region..this is what "rumsfeld" called, the "unknown", the things he said people wouldnt know about the war against terror..
Complain about this comment
91. At 6:10pm on 20 Oct 2009, colonelartist wrote:
And now to Sistan@Beluchistan, and an issue od Shia slaughtering Sunni and vice versa since times immemorial; way before there were United States or even British colonies in the New World...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
And in baluchistan of all the places, they are trying to create a sunni vs shia situation...Go take a look at baluchistan, both of iran and pakistan..Come to think of it, read something about baluchis..Allow me to tell you, baluch's are nationalists, religon comes second to them..Either you are baluchi or you are not..thats their starting and end point. its western backed separtists who are trained in camps in afghanistan, run by RAW. Every tom dick and harry knows about it..USA, NATO, india and even israel is busy in that region..this is what "rumsfeld" called, the "unknown", the things he said people wouldnt know about the war against terror..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must understand that to right wing Americans Moslems do not have countries or nationalism etc.
Religion is all they ever think about and all they ever do.
Of course moslem countries have fought each other (Iraq/Iran)quarreled over resources, borders, etc, very much like Western Countries, but they's all moslems n that's it Huckleberry.
It is of course deeply anti-semetic.
Complain about this comment
I am amused when I hear people complain that Obama is just an egotistical media-hungry self-absorbed 'rock star' who's only in this for the fame and glory.
People have told me that I only like Obama because I've been wooed by his powerful speeches. Of course, I don't watch TeeVee news and have never heard his speeches (or the unfortunate 5 second sound-bites shown on FOX). Rather, I read his policies and agreed with his ideas.
But that's neither here nor there.
I believe that Obama knows when to step out of the lime-light.
I believe he's clever enough to know that there are people who will rally against a position -- just because he's for it.
And - I believe that by empowering congress, Hillary, Bill, or Joe-the-Biden (VP)... he is simultaneously strengthening our governing infrastructure and strengthening the positions for which he is working.
Go figure.
Oh, and Bono's "Rebranding" idea makes sense. Maybe it's some of this "Rebranding" of Obama's that unsettles some Americans right now. We can't trust our employers, our savings, our bankers, our pastors... and now we have to swallow changes in governing style?
-- Gosh - the only thing we-the-people can trust in now is FOX KNEWZ!
But then... I probably only approved of Bono's article because I was a teen in the 80's and am therefore seduced by his cool shades and hipster tunes. *sigh*
Complain about this comment
St Dominic #5:
I agree with your summary from the perspective of popular opinion, but I'm worried about the conclusions. Do you really think this? Or do you just figure most Americans think this?
That is: Yes, most folks don't care about Biden. Yes, he can speak first and think later. But do you srsly think he'd get fired? I've often thought that his gaffes have been useful when the spotlight on Obama has gotten too hot. So long as he doesn't contradict WH Politic, I'm thinking he's going to stick around.
ALSO: While our domestic dilemmas are much more near and dear to the hearts of our democratic majority, I truly believe that some of our present domestic issues are interrelated with our recent history of international negligence.
Most of us dumb Americans are worried about our jobs, but we probably don't realize how our international energy dependencies, our current military situation, and lack of productive export is affecting our education, health care and economic situations.
Changing long term international economic and energy policy will have a significant long-term positive affect on our domestic problems... which we may not see w/in 4 years.
So... what are Obama's greatest worries?
Choose "E. All of the Above".
-- And I think they're all being addressed.... slowly... but surely.
Complain about this comment
Philly-Mom (#94) "That is: Yes, most folks don't care about Biden. Yes, he can speak first and think later. But do you srsly think he'd get fired?"
I don't know where StD got that idea. The Vice President cannot be fired, or "forced to resign," by any means short of impeachment by the House and a real possibility of conviction by the Senate. That is not going to happen.
(In the case of Agnew, who resigned without being impeached, he was forced out by a credible threat of criminal prosecution. This is a special case which does not apply here.)
Whether Biden is on the ticket in 2012 is an entirely different matter.
Complain about this comment
@--- 4. At 11:26am on 19 Oct 2009, powermeerkat wrote:
[wihtouth closing madrassas, also in the U.K., nothing will change much]
===============================================
Totally off topic but you're way off here on closing the madrassas.
Madrassas are breeding grounds because the state in these countries with problems allows this. State needs to put its foot down on telling the religious leaders to back off and out of politics. Do the right thing and open a political party but none of the other current nonsense.
Islam (read leaders of church/mosques and state) needs to do what Europe eventually did to get the Mosques (aka Church) out of state business. And what Europe did to get out of the dark ages. Separate church and state - Islam is currently church and state in a lot of countries.
Muslims states need to be able to stamp their authority and tell church to exist out there on its own. If a church breaks the law it should be prosecuted.
Madrassas don't need to go .. they just need to be told that they have no jurisdiction and definitely no power to preach or practice violence.
Complain about this comment
Madrassas are breeding grounds because the state in these countries with problems allows this. State needs to put its foot down on telling the religious leaders to back off and out of politics. Do the right thing and open a political party but none of the other current nonsense.
Islam (read leaders of church/mosques and state) needs to do what Europe eventually did to get the Mosques (aka Church) out of state business. And what Europe did to get out of the dark ages. Separate church and state - Islam is currently church and state in a lot of countries.
Muslims states need to be able to stamp their authority and tell church to exist out there on its own. If a church breaks the law it should be prosecuted.
Madrassas don't need to go .. they just need to be told that they have no jurisdiction and definitely no power to preach or practice violence.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you know that madrassas teach violence? I can say the same thing about your college and univerties where you read just your version of the story, telling your young people rubbish about islam and muslims..The classical expample of your institutions preaching hate was when president of iran was humiliated by one your so called very educated head of dempartment or dean or president, whatever you call those folks..His rant about iran, about president of iran showed his lack of knowldge and his fanatism..with teachers like those, your preachers and religious leaders dont have to take a center stage..Islam is not christianity and muslims are not christians..Christianity had to be separated from the state, otherwise you would still be doing what your ancestors, and popes were doing..killing galileo for telling that earth not sun that is in motion..When muslims were ruled by islamic laws, they made progress both in science and in matter's of life..Christian's have to separate their religon because their progress started after that, muslims have to turn back to islam, because their decline started when they started separated islam from their daily and political lives..The violance preaching in madrasses started when CIA got involved with what they should teach the students..that is, violance.
Complain about this comment
53 As A post
do you not think that America was rude during the Bush years. and before in the clinton years?
The world was calling for action on the global warming Issue but America said" we do not care what you think, We want SUV's so NO we will not listen to the international body of scientists. We will not listen to voices of reason against war.We will not listen to the UN on our buddy I, we will not listen to you"
then you get upset that they are not polite to you.
Well that is another example of Why Americans get so much disrespect.
America sent John Bolton. to the UN as it's voice. He was a real good example of trying to get along and respect wasn't he.
Complain about this comment
@ 97. At 5:21pm on 21 Oct 2009, colonelartist
==================================================
I like that you are willing to engage in some form of dialogue - even if it is total disagreement.
So I will start by agreeing with you that I may not know enough about your religion to tell you what to do but then tell me what can you do about the problem? Surely you don't like the extra violent circumstances in countries like Pakistan.
Let me also ask you this - are you against muslims like Osama bin Laden who preach violence against all sorts of countries or are you with them?
If, as I assume, you are against them - then please suggest how to deal with people like them?
You give us the solution to solving the nonsense that goes on in countries like Pakistan where Sunnis and Shiites refuse to co-exist and end up blowing each other out of this world.
This violence is spilling over into the lives of lots of people who have done no wrong. Including innocent people in Pakistan and the same women and children you want to have protected in Afghanistan, Somalia to name 2 countries where the violence (directed at innocents) is mind numbing. Taliban and the Somali folks were very violent (and possibly mis-using Sharia) way before international folks started interfering.
Help us figure out what it is that will make the senseless violence go away - honestly if you want to govern your countries with Islam and Sharia - please do so. But we want to be out of their violence equations.
For the record I am not Christian, that was an observation. Though I will still agree that I do not know enough about your religion.
Curiously enough at the end of your argument you did agree that violence is being preached in madrassas. How do we end the sad, sad current state of affairs?
Complain about this comment
89. At 5:29pm on 20 Oct 2009, colonelartist wrote:
You read carefully.
8 yrs ago, the same reasons were used against afghanistan..Americans wanted to destablize pakistan, and they have done a good job..extremely good job
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Really US wants to destabilize Pakistan??!!! Are you kidding me - are you on dope and just having a bad trip!!
US has always come to Pakistan's aid in spite of what India has been saying about the army and ISI inciting violence in India, Afghanistan and possibly even Iran (as Iran claimed recently).
But enough of this - I will give you the benefit of doubt and just assume you are in a wee bit of a wind-up-merchant mode today.
I would still like to hear your thoughts on how to end the violence and problems in all your countries (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran). Honestly a little hard to tell which one you're from.
Complain about this comment
@ Mark Mardell.
Have to say your blog has certainly gotten a few Bidenesque rants today. Cheers!
Complain about this comment
To Khansha #99, using your own words...
Maybe Osama was a keen gardener.
Let me also ask you this - are you against gardeners like Osama bin Laden who preach violence against all sorts of countries or are you with them? If, as I assume, you are against them - then please suggest how to deal with people like them?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
@ 102. At 7:02pm on 21 Oct 2009, _marko wrote:
To Khansha #99, using your own words...
Maybe Osama was a keen gardener.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Marko,
I like your take on this in some ways, not sure what your intention but I will play along.
I will assume there is a fairly willing and able minority of gardeners (read extremist guys) out there who are preaching and practising violence in the name of their version of Gardenism.
In interest of carrying this analogy a little further:
1. - lets assume that this gardeners in minority, quite unlike the large majority gardeners (read moderate guys), want to make use of fertilizers which are clearly dangerous to those around them and themselves too (a la Mary Shelley's Frankenstein will come back to haunt them).
2. - the rest of the world (non-gardeners and moderate gardeners) in the past made use of or sold these dangerous fertilizers and have come to realize that they are not good for the world at large. Be it health wise, waste of resources, impolite to neighbors, essential argument is that the fertilizers are over all dangerous.
3. - coming back to our minority of gardeners, who now want the rest of the world to continue to use the "bad" fertilizer or die and consequently launch attacks against the rest of the world and use money from opium (and oil/aid?) to finance themselves.
4. - the world decides its not going to give in to the ridiculous demands being made by this minority gardening group and now their is a war.
5. - at the same time this fertilizer is being forced on innocent communities that don't want to be associated with its use and its spilling into - for the lack of a better analogy - their water and food supply and killing them. A rather pathetic state of affairs.
=============================================================
Are we in agreement on this analogy _marko? What did I miss? Otherwise I would say that perhaps this gardening situation needs some correcting.
=============================================================
1. First question is who owns this issue of solving this problem?
2. Is it the majority of gardeners or the rest of the world?
3. Should the majority of gardeners not be a little more vocal in their criticism of the actions of the minority - to at least distance themselves from these actions? This is my main question.
4. Is it ok for the majority of gardeners to sit quiet and NOT stand up to be counted against those bad guys in the minority?
To stand up to take their "art of gardening" back if in fact gardening is such a great thing to have around.
And to take it back for all the beauty they claim gardening brings to world.
I ask you.
Complain about this comment
is Biden indeed a "good Veep" as US intelligence community weekly "Newsweek" asserts?
Well, let me ask this: what do the "short-range" missiles to be based in Poland "on a smaller base" supposed to be doing? Protecting Europe from iran? Or providing cover for Poland so it can continue meddling in the lives of people who live beyond its eastern borders?
Potentially backing up claims yet to be spoken aloud about "restoring Polish lands" currently in Ukraine thatw ere "conquered by Stalin"?
Biden is the Veep who just can't stop meddling.
And Newsweek is the periodical that has lost all vestiges of subtlety with its "Dump Berlusconi!" cover.
Why are people so enraged about Berlusconi? Because they "only just found out" how he views women?
Or is it because italy under Berlusconi is actually beginning to make an effort to go after the most out-of-control hyper-rich who have played everyone they could reach?
What exactly is Newsweek trying to do on behalf of Europeans that Europeans cannot do better themselves?
And what is Biden promising Poland, on behalf of whom? is he also the brains behind the Georgian propaganda film intended to override existing legal findings in favour of one more even-more-provocative smear of Russians on behalf of Saakashvili?
Will Europeans be masters of their own destiny any time soon? Or will you be allowing the tail to wag the dog for another few decades?
"Good Veep"? Good grief! if only Michelle Obama had not insisted so much on Biden... Why couldn't Dennis Kucinich have been the Veep? Or Schumer? What, not enough brainy Democrats available?
Complain about this comment
What I've learnt about these Madrassas is that they have a very informal teaching of reading and writing and students are taught an extremist interpretation of what the Korean says. Students generally come from a poor background and are illiterate. Pakistan shows no will to regulate them. Pakistan is sowing the seeds of its own, and the world's, destruction.
The situation in Pakistan is serious!
Complain about this comment
What I've learnt about these Madrassas is that they have a very informal teaching of reading and writing and students are taught an extremist interpretation of what the Korean says. Students generally come from a poor background and are illiterate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well you learnt wrong. the students in your colleges and universities are taught an extremist interpretation of what reality is..You have something against the poor and illiterates?
Complain about this comment
To khansha #104:
I thought it might be useful to introduce gardening but now I'm not so sure!
The important thing is that you distinguish between gardeners that are completely bonkers and the vast majority that are ok. When you see a gardener you don't automatically think he's bonkers.
This issue of responsibility has come up before. Maybe a religious analogy would have been better:
Why do you automatically not expect the whole Christian community to condemn the murder of an abortion doctor?
1) Everyone
2) Even non-gardeners should be interested in problems that affect everyone.
3) No. Gardeners should say just because one gardener is bonkers that doesn't mean as a gardener I take any responsibility for his actions.
4) see example above about Christianity.
It's irrational to generalise when you admit that you "may not know enough about" the religion in question.
Complain about this comment
Mr. Mardell, I appreciate your voice and the views you express regarding America. I prefer to read your insights into our society than those that appear on my doorstep. Your perception of this country should not be taken with rancor. Because you have nothing to gain by taking sides you are more likely to see things as they are not how we wish them to be. Thank you.
Complain about this comment
Hi _marko
The reason I made the gardener argument is because yes gardeners are peace loving people but at the same time being a gardener does not and should not absolve you of your wrong actions. It makes you a bad gardener - and surely a bad person.
BTW your answers appear prejudiced and your argument flawed when you say in Answer 1 that everyone owns the problem that the minority gardeners created but in Answer 3 the majority of gardeners do not have any responsibility.
I do believee the majority of gardeners have a duty to at least condemn the actions of the minority. I am asking the leaders of the majority of gardeners to step up and announce their disapproval of the minority's actions.
I did not call these minority gardeners bonkers (you did) but I do believe :
a. they are bad people or
b. people with horribly flawed judgement.
I do believe a Muslim person when he/she says Islam is a religion of peace. But peace is practiced (not only preached) and acts of violence need to be condemned.
When I see a Muslim I do Not think he is bonkers or a terrorist or a bad person. I have no issues with all muslims and hence do not see myself generalizing. I do have issues with muslims who:
1. who are willing to hurt many others in an effort to get them to look at things their way.
2. who are unwilling to condemn such obvious acts of violence and mass terrorism - aka Stand By. It is not acceptable to me that someone can decide he wants to blow me out of existence for something they believe. The worst part is I have done nothing wrong to them personally. Does this not bother you?
I will not condemn the Christian community - because people of all religions and races and countries choose to practice abortion. Allow me to deconstruct your argument to individual components - it is an individual's decision to end a pregnancy and that honestly has little to do with me unless I was somehow involved in the pregnancy. This decision does not necessarily terrorize my (or the thousands who live around me) day to day existence.
I differ from your point of view on abortion because I view abortion as a choice. I will say no more because this is a totally different issue from terrorism.
Complain about this comment
To khansha
I'm prejudiced in thinking that people are presumed innocent before being proved guilty.
I stated that the gardeners were not responsible in the sense that they were not solely responsible, not contradicting that we're all responsible for serious problems.
I agree and have issues with extreme muslims.
Ok. Of course the example of murdering an abortion doctor is different to terrorism in this analogy. My analogy implied that it may have been motivated by a religion firmly against abortion. Using another example, some people in the past would have felt suspicious of all Irish people because of the problems with the IRA. People are free to express prejudice even if there's no evidence for generalising that prejudice. It's almost as if all rationality is temporarily suspended when there's an attrocity.
If someone commits an attrocity, some people are too quick to generalise to any larger community, whether that be based on religion, culture or even having a beard! Just as if someone does something good, it's easily to generalise to the larger community, rather than regard it as an exception. This is just an intellectual weakness and a very crude survival instinct.
Thanks for addressing my posts.
Complain about this comment
Why the president appeals to the rest of the world, well I am not sure about that!!
Where are the signs of strong leadership? There are none!!!
You cannot run or rule the USA by consensus, you have to make decisions [good or bad] but at least make decisions, playing footsie around corrupt senators, world leaders and so on is not the way to lead a nation!!
Unfortunately, despite my high hopes for President Obama, my greatest fear is that he is playing directly into the hands of his enemies, and history will show him to have been a very weak president and the back lash will be terrible to behold..
Complain about this comment
13. At 2:04pm on 19 Oct 2009, kunjani wrote:
“A CIA operative stated on BBC World Service a couple of weeks ago, that the Afghan war cannot be won without first analysing why al Quaida attacked the US in the first place. His opinion was that it was the result of the unqualified partisanship of the US for Israel and ensuing belligerant stance toward the Arab world. Oddly nobody seems to be discussing this linkage. Is it taboo?”
This topic gets worked to death on many other sites and even threads at the BBC. There is a lot of misperception on all sides.
1. Bin Laden wanted to replace the insufficiently reactionary royal government of Saudi Arabia. [OK, OK, insufficiently Islamic fundamentalist].
2. The KSA government enjoyed Western [especially American] support, including military support in the form of weapons, training, and some military personnel.
3. For attacking his government he was expelled from his homeland and wanted vengeance against those supporting said government.
4. Bin Laden was not very supportive of the Palestinian cause until he found it expedient to use that to raise anti-West and Anti-US feeling to turn to his own ends.
5. He apparently went to Afghanistan as a Jihadi, may have received indirect support from US sources trying to pay the USSR back for the Vietnam loss.
6. He joined forces with the virulently anti-West Ayman Zawahiri, who got him to expand his horizons to the wider anti-West, anti-America and anti-Israel world.
It seems clear to me that if the US pulled out of the Middle East and dropped all support of Israel today, Bin Laden would carry on. Don’t forget he demanded that Spain be given back to the Caliphate, and that westerners embrace Islam and veil their women.
Complain about this comment
37. At 4:54pm on 19 Oct 2009, saintDominick wrote:
Ref 18, powermeerkat
“Iraq was a modern and secular country before we decided to invade and replace the Baathists with Shiite fanatics. Before the invasion, Iraq was, indeed, considered a threat by many of its neighbors and Al Qaeda. That is one of many reasons why our decision to attack Iraq and replace Saddam with a regime aligned spiritually to Iran was so flawed.”
SD, while I agree with the first clause of the first sentence, I can’t follow you over the edge thereafter. Do you really think we wanted an ally for Iran? You do remember the invasion of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia that imperilled regional stability and the world’s OIL? I agree with you on the dubious planning, moronic execution, insensitive policies and, most of all, imbecilic and flawed decisions.
49. At 5:29pm on 19 Oct 2009, gigacheetah wrote:
[At 5:03pm on 19 Oct 2009, Simon21 wrote:]
“…It is a law of the international system that 1) great powers interfere in the affairs of weaker states; and 2) do so strictly on the basis of their own interests.”
OK, but as to point 2, the US has not always been so consistent, sometimes interfering for humanitarian or other reasons contrary to its interests. Grenada, Vietnam and Bosnia come to mind.
If you are of a mind to disagree, please indicate specifically in each case how the interference was in America's best interests.
Complain about this comment
Response to 111. At 7:27pm on 24 Oct 2009, _marko wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------
I should clarify what I meant by the responsibility of fellow gardeners/muslims to own the problem.
I did not mean because the extremists blow up things the moderates should be held responsible for their actions and be prosecuted or persecuted.
When I say responsibility I am asking the moderates to come out and clearly denounce those actions. For example why do the moderate religious leaders not come out in force and say this is wrong? How is that we do not have muslims publicly condemning these actions?
I am sitting on the other side and I get the impression that the moderates somehow approve these violent episodes from people like al queda and taliban.
The responsibility I speak of is to speak out against such actions.
Often times on media sites I hear moderate muslims say things like "why do ask you me about all these negative things about the middle east". The fact is these al queda people are very real and in this day and age ready and willing to send the whole world back into the middle ages.
The responsibility to act and speak against is for the rest of the world to take up (that includes moderate muslims). The responsibility rests on us, the rest of the world, to protect ourselves and possibly millions of people in countries like Afghanistan and Somalia who do not want any of this violence and hatred.
Complain about this comment
Hi _marko,
The bad gardeners are killing and hurting the innocent gardeners quite often. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8337119.stm
The bad gardeners have a terribly hurtful agenda. And it also the responsibility of good gardeners to help stop and to speak out against the bad gardeners.
==
khansha
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS