Obama's Afghan troop conundrum
UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown says he's willing to send 500 more troops if Nato allies do more. Of course the biggest Nato ally is the US. How many is Barack Obama prepared to send?
The word around Washington is that General Stanley McChrystal has given the president a "Goldilocks" choice of numbers - hot, cold and just right. Ten-thousand: too little. Eighty-thousand: unrealistically high. Forty-thousand: just right, for the general if not the politicians.
The debate within the White House has often been characterised as a conflict between those, like the general, who want troop-heavy state-building and those who want to concentrate on counter-terrorism: scaling back to attacking potential terrorists. I have been searching for those who back the latter view, said to be favoured by the vice-president, and do you know what? In this town I think I have a better chance of discovering a unicorn hiding under Dupont Circle.
Of course, there are senior senators who doubt the wisdom of sending so many troops. There are many who think the elections were too flawed and the government too corrupt for the Afghans to be proper partners in such an enterprise. But that is not the same as proposing a coherent military or diplomatic strategy to put in its place. My fruitless search may be the result of the fact that the most senior people in this town's many excellent foreign policy think tanks, and those whose opinion carries the most weight, are often ex-military, ex-administration, ex-intelligence community.
Of course they have a wide range of views but, like a heated discussion within a religious community, the debate takes place within the boundary of common assumptions. This interesting article argues the world would be different if LBJ had listened to writers, not generals, and that Obama should be listening to free thinkers.
But my hunch is that I should be looking for a straw man, not a unicorn. One of those senior figures said to me recently: "I keep trying to write that speech where Obama turns down McChrystal's request. I can't do it." I am sure Obama would like to send as few troops as possible but I, too, think that the debate is, in part, to demonstrate to the vocal critics in his own party that he has looked at all the options and there is no alternative. But I could be wrong. We'll know within weeks.
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~04~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
500 troops for Brown.
5000 troops for Obama.
A great day for Osama.
P.S. I don't know, Mark who's hiding around Dupont Cricle.
I do know who's lording it around Dupont Circle.
Those creatures are definitely not unicorns.
Complain about this comment
Three days after his nobel prize, Obama is condsidering about troops surge/increase..So much for the pre-emptive peace award.
Complain about this comment
1. At 4:04pm on 14 Oct 2009, powermeerkat wrote:
500 troops for Brown.
5000 troops for Obama.
A great day for Osama."
Not as great as when Bush was reelected.
They should have been able to find him then simply by the cheering on election night.
Complain about this comment
2. At 4:32pm on 14 Oct 2009, colonelartist wrote:
Three days after his nobel prize, Obama is condsidering about troops surge/increase..So much for the pre-emptive peace award.
"
That would be because it wasn't pre emptive.
Complain about this comment
It was Secretary of Defense McNamara that LBJ was listening to, not merely the generals:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pentagon3/doc158.htm
Never mind the writers. He should have listened to Senator Richard Russell (and others, such as Church, Morse, and Gruening):
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/vietnam/lbjrr.htm
Both of these predated the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which is when things really started to get out of control.
To be fair, the notion that the US had to stand against communism in East Asia was held by presidents Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy, before LBJ. Eisenhower was the principle player of the three, in my view, because he gave us the Dulles brothers, and because the Geneva Accords happened on his watch. Then was the proper time to return Vietnam to the Vietnamese.
Complain about this comment
I agree with your conclusion. I expect McChrystal will get his 40,000. If he doesn't, then the blame will fall on Obama whenever something goes wrong.
I would give him all the men and material he wants, as long as the focus is on taking the battle to al Qaeda and their protectors, and not on "nation-building" in a general sense.
Complain about this comment
I think we should leave the Middle East.Want Terrorist dead make large cash payments for dead Terrorist.I have never really understood what we're doing there.I'll admit I don't understand Middle East or Asian culture or what the end result is.Most Americans just wanted Bin Laden dead,but don't really care now.Pay for schools but do it with NGOs.Give scholarships and build colleges in these places again with NGOs. Intelligence is a resource if there isn't enough in a country than there is no progress or advancements or spread of education.Meanwhile we could trying using our American values and resources on Americans.The biggest reason why if Obama send troops will be simple. Most US citizens are concerned with domestic issues, out side of North,Central or South America the rest of the world is far away.Most Americans are unsure about foreign diplomacy and leave it to their public officials.Who always take advantage and do things most Americans would disagree with.We assume out leaders know something we don't which is a big mistake.However I don't see any value of being there if it's simply about the lifestyles of the general public of Afghanistan there are other ways to accomplish in assisting people other than warfare.Plus what about the issues here.How can you tell Americans it's more important to work on social problems like education,unemployment,crime,drugs,civil rights,infrastructure, etc..for other citizens than your own?Take care of our children first before we take care of other peoples.There are plenty of children in US being deprived of proper education because of lack of money and crime.Detroit,New Orleans,Baltimore,Chicago,and rural as well ,etc...We have plenty to do here for our own.
Complain about this comment
If you're "sure Obama would like to send as few troops as possible but think[s] that the debate is, in part, to demonstrate to the vocal critics in his own party that he has looked at all the options and there is no alternative" then yes, you're probably wrong. Of course, you don't really need to demonstrate anything much to "vocal critics" within the Democratic Party because sadly, there really aren't many; unless they too, are all hiding under Dupont Circle with the unicorns. It's even more wrong to assume that Imperialist-in-Chief Obama is in any way anxious himself "to send as few troops as possible". Rather, "the debate is, in part, to demonstrate to the" gullible American public that war is the only alternative. Both Democrats and Republicans are war parties. They prefer war to peace, there is never any real debate over that, and Obama is no exception. He wouldn't be where he is today if he was. Amerika is about to embark on another killing spree under a Nobel Peace Prize winner. And the corporate press will be cheering him on.
Complain about this comment
I was under the impression that Brown was talking about NATO allies other than the US. Is this just stretching a point to include Obama to give the article a few more readers?
Complain about this comment
Increasing troop levels by 5,000, 40,000 or 80,000 would be a logical approach if the goal was to defeat a conventional army. Unfortunately, we are not fighting an army, have no idea who are "enemies" are or how many are there, where they hide and, most importantly, what would constitute victory.
We are fighting an armed insurgency against the people of Afghanistan who are as determined to rid themselves of our presence, the same way they were when other superpowers invaded their country and the same way we would under similar circumstances.
Considering the fact that the Afghan people have the moral high ground inasmuch as they are fighting for their sovereignty, and that our decision to escalate this conflict lacks a clear goal or a well defined strategy, we better prepare ourselves for additional requests for more troops in the future and a permanent presence in a country where we are not welcome.
Complain about this comment
ref #10
saintDominick wrote:
Increasing troop levels by 5,000, 40,000 or 80,000 would be a logical approach if the goal was to defeat a conventional army. Unfortunately, we are not fighting an army, have no idea who are "enemies" are or how many are there, where they hide and, most importantly, what would constitute victory.
We are fighting an armed insurgency against the people of Afghanistan who are as determined to rid themselves of our presence, the same way they were when other superpowers invaded their country and the same way we would under similar circumstances.
Considering the fact that the Afghan people have the moral high ground inasmuch as they are fighting for their sovereignty, and that our decision to escalate this conflict lacks a clear goal or a well defined strategy, we better prepare ourselves for additional requests for more troops in the future and a permanent presence in a country where we are not welcome.
______________________________________________-
Do you honestly think the Tailban or Omar speak for the majority? they may not like the U.S but if they weren't afraid of beheadings or rapes they would admidt that given the choice Allied troops in the country supporting the goverment or intolerant sharia law and thug rulers they would pick the former
Complain about this comment
Meanwhile, In Pakistan, nearly 100,000 pashtun, mainly from the tribe called wazir, are running away from the allies of usa,who har constantly bombing them and the government's agent has issue arrest order of all the people of wazir tribes and to confiscate their properties all over Pakistan. as americans try to find out or locate the objectives of going to war.
Complain about this comment
i watched a front line on opb last night. It seems that someone should try telling the soldiers to not act like blowhards in a frat hall.
they should be more diplomatic. when dealing with locals instead of trying to break the ice with"where are you taking them donkeys" how about a simple.
" Nice donkey dude"
there was little civility in the voices I heard but there was a lot of that macho crap that is so america.
it is no wonder that some old guy who has seen nothing but war thinks "rude s.."
It did seem that the soldier thought he was being nice.
but then he was like a borish american tourist and all in the UK should know how irritating that is.
;)
Complain about this comment
11. At 7:02pm on 14 Oct 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
ref #10
saintDominick wrote:
Increasing troop levels by 5,000, 40,000 or 80,000 would be a logical approach if the goal was to defeat a conventional army. Unfortunately, we are not fighting an army, have no idea who are "enemies" are or how many are there, where they hide and, most importantly, what would constitute victory.
We are fighting an armed insurgency against the people of Afghanistan who are as determined to rid themselves of our presence, the same way they were when other superpowers invaded their country and the same way we would under similar circumstances.
Considering the fact that the Afghan people have the moral high ground inasmuch as they are fighting for their sovereignty, and that our decision to escalate this conflict lacks a clear goal or a well defined strategy, we better prepare ourselves for additional requests for more troops in the future and a permanent presence in a country where we are not welcome.
______________________________________________-
Do you honestly think the Tailban or Omar speak for the majority? they may not like the U.S but if they weren't afraid of beheadings or rapes they would admidt that given the choice Allied troops in the country supporting the goverment or intolerant sharia law and thug rulers they would pick the former
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When were the Afghans given that choice? And what do you think US troops do to the Afghans - hand out sweets?
Do you know how US troops treated Vietnamese women (now recently revealed)?
And since when has the US ever been concerned what the peoples it conquers think or want?
You are not exactly the best person to speak for the afghans, Kurds etc all of whom are moslems and non-white.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
12. At 7:10pm on 14 Oct 2009, colonelartist wrote:
Meanwhile, In Pakistan, nearly 100,000 pashtun, mainly from the tribe called wazir, are running away from the allies of usa,who har constantly bombing them and the government's agent has issue arrest order of all the people of wazir tribes and to confiscate their properties all over Pakistan. as americans try to find out or locate the objectives of going to war."
And given the fact that after 8 years the US/UK command still doesn't think it can win, you can be pretty sure the war is being lost.
The Taliban have succeeded better than either Germany or Japan in WWII, and they number less than a million, have no airforce or armour and no sure means of supply.
Either they are military supermen or the so called campaign is a complete cock-up.
Complain about this comment
ref #14
When were the Afghans given that choice? And what do you think US troops do to the Afghans - hand out sweets?
Do you know how US troops treated Vietnamese women (now recently revealed)?
And since when has the US ever been concerned what the peoples it conquers think or want?
You are not exactly the best person to speak for the afghans, Kurds etc all of whom are moslems and non-white.
_______________________________________________-
First the U.S does not conquer, if so they would have put the Kurds in charge of Iraq.
Second you are right I am not because I am not an afghan or kurd but I have no problems with moslems or non whites that is the ACORN track you take.
I have praised many African or African Americans on this blog, but I also criticize whites and african americans, Europeans and Africans as well.
But you are so PC that you think only whites and jews can be criticized.
Complain about this comment
that given the choice Allied troops in the country supporting the goverment or intolerant sharia law and thug rulers they would pick the former
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would your mind even let you think for a second that anyone would prefer to live under invasion? Given the choice the majority will choose sharia law..The majority always choose its own people and its own laws, its own culture and tradition.
Complain about this comment
Obama chose Biden for his experience in these matters and his words will carry a lot of weight. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama bucked the trend towards troop increases for a smaller, more focused plan in Afghanistan to move against the few al Qaeda elements left there, with more effort going to help Pakistan secure its borders and root out the terrorists there.
Obama's stated goal has always been to deny the terrorists safe havens wherever they are found, by whatever means necessary. I'm sure he knows very well that it profits him nothing, either militarily or politically, to increase troop levels in Afghanistan if the bad guys are all in Pakistan.
Complain about this comment
Ref 11, Magic
I suspect that if the people of Afghanistan had to make a choice between the Taliban, whose members are mostly Afghans, and foreign invaders (us) they would prefer the former rather than the latter.
When the Taliban punishes people that violated Sharia law or their traditions they are, in effect, carrying out justice in accordance with the expectations of the people of Afghanistan. We may not like what they do, and most of us consider it barbaric, but what we think and believe is of little consequence in countries where Western values and our way of life are regarded as the work of the Great Satan.
We have tried to impose our values on the people of Afghanistan for 8 years and have failed miserably because, contrary to what we hear from our government we are not fighting a political party or small groups of terrorists, but an entire culture determined to preserve their way of life no matter how offensive it may be to us.
The path we have chosen is not only devoid of morality or logic, it is in fact undermining our ability to locate and deal with Al Qaeda and its Saudi financiers, the ones responsible for 9/11.
Complain about this comment
ref #18
colonelartist wrote:
that given the choice Allied troops in the country supporting the goverment or intolerant sharia law and thug rulers they would pick the former
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would your mind even let you think for a second that anyone would prefer to live under invasion? Given the choice the majority will choose sharia law..The majority always choose its own people and its own laws, its own culture and tradition.
___________________________________________
I am sure woman like being whipped or stoned for not satisfing their husbands or wearing a burkah.
Complain about this comment
ref. 10, saintDominick:
I'd be in total agreement if you changed one thing in your post: substitute every occurrence of Afghanistan with Vietnam.
While there are certainly opportunities to apply lessons learned in Vietnam to Afghanistan, it's a huge mistake not to analyze the current situation on its own terms. I agree that the Vietnam war was about independence from foreign powers (even though we thought we were fighting a communist conspiracy), but that's not Afghanistan.
The Afghans are a routed people who no longer have any confidence that one of their own will lead them out of the deplorable conditions they find themselves in. Yes, they're unhappy with America right now, but mostly because they saw our intervention as a real chance to get their country off the mat but feel that we haven't improved their conditions past where they were right after we removed the Taliban from power. Since then we've accomplished little at the cost of a lot of dead and wounded Afghans. How could they not be unhappy? Heck, I'm not happy about it.
I think you're off base when your assert that this conflict is all about throwing foreign invaders out of the country and that that goal has widespread support. While our presence will never be entirely welcome and Afghans will not feel restored until we leave, the only realistic alternative is still the Taliban, and Afghans really don't want those guys back. The fact of the matter is that we're much the lesser of two evils.
What the Afghans want (from what I've managed to gather from the web) is not more U.S. troops but more Afghan troops. They believe that requires U.S. control for the time being, and I'm inclined to agree with them. The 40,000 troops that the President is about to authorize must be used to secure the situation on the ground to the point that the development of the Afghan security and military forces can be accomplished. The additional troops cannot be seen to only lead to more carnage. Of course, just how that's done, I'm not sure.
We need to find the equivalent of a Gen. Patreus for Afghanistan.
Complain about this comment
Obama's stated goal has always been to deny the terrorists safe havens wherever they are found, by whatever means necessary. I'm sure he knows very well that it profits him nothing, either militarily or politically, to increase troop levels in Afghanistan if the bad guys are all in Pakistan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you even reflect how amazingly your leaders and media has just shifted the war to pakistan? you dont even know but your government as usual has destablized the country and all the media and experts are doing is to create a hype and fear in your minds by repeating one liners , Are the nukes of pakistan safe..For once ask your leaders to tell you about their sources which makes them believe that all the bad guys are in pakistan..If your leaders ever bother to give you the information, you will see that their sources are karzai and his merry men.Thats why, fraud elections or whatever, Karzai is going to stay..He has yet to be used.
Complain about this comment
I am sure woman like being whipped or stoned for not satisfing their husbands or wearing a burkah.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
i dont think afghanistanis men or women like to be punished..Otherwise it wouldnt be called a punishment, but some sort of sick sexual games. I am sure you know what I am talking about, when your brave soldiers were busy torturing in abu gharaib, we were often told by your media that what we thought was sexual abuse was just part of american's college life..
Complain about this comment
The fact of the matter is that we're much the lesser of two evils.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
If Herr Freud would have read your post, espcially the above sentence and the one before it, He would have said, and I quote, "Surely its narcissism"
Complain about this comment
What the Afghans want (from what I've managed to gather from the web) is not more U.S. troops but more Afghan troops.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
And what would they use those troops for? kill their own people? Like their neighbours in pakistan? Afghanistanis have already done before taliban came into power.
Complain about this comment
AndyPost (#22) "We need to find the equivalent of a Gen. Patreus for Afghanistan."
Why don't you think that's McChrystal? He reports directly to Petraeus, and he's only been on the job a few months. The policy is under review. I'll wait to see how it turns out. If McChrystal is given what he says he needs, and if he doesn't produce the expected results, then hold him accountable.
Complain about this comment
Would additional US troops be refreshing/replacing troops who have too long been in abroad?
Will the troops have specific training/skills that would enable them to more effectively operate ground operations in a civilian contexts?
There are questions to which we have no answers. Our previous office was VERY tight-lipped about these things, our current office seems much more willing to obtain external consultation from congress and to double-check military strategy and data.
-- So... who among us really has any clue what would work over there?
I just hope this White House v. Pentagon pissing contest ends soon so that Obama can move forward on other matters. Make a plan and move on it, kids. There's economy, ecology and education yet to tackle, ya'll. Yeesh.
Complain about this comment
President Obama will likely put in another 20,000 to 40,000 troops. I believe he will focus on border control and villages/towns, rather than the mountain areas. What we and our allies need is a REAL STRATEGY, and not STRATEGERY, as it was called by Bush. Bush's stretegery has dragged on and I hope Obama actually comes up with a strategy, not strategery. I also hope that Obama states what our goals are and how we can achieve them responsibly, without giving too much of our strategy away. Some things should be kept secret. Obama needs to follow what is right, rather than what is easy. You have to put in more time and effort to get quality results and I imagine this war is the same way.
On another note, it is disappointing that Russia is not helping the USA more with sanctions, during Hillary's visit. I am glad they treated Hillary well, but why is Putin so protective of Iran, when Russia has so many Jewish people? Is it oil/trade deals, which is merely a matter of money? There are things worth more than money, such as the safety of stopping more nuclear weapons. But perhaps money means more to Putin and Russia than stopping the spread of nuclear weapons.
Complain about this comment
Philly-Mom (#28) "Would additional US troops be refreshing/replacing troops who have too long been in abroad?"
The debate is over the total level of troop committment at any one time. Rotation of troops in units already committed to Afghanistan is not part of the equation.
Complain about this comment
29. At 9:26pm on 14 Oct 2009, Illinoisan wrote:
"On another note, it is disappointing that Russia is not helping the USA more with sanctions, during Hillary's visit. I am glad they treated Hillary well, but why is Putin so protective of Iran, when Russia has so many Jewish people? Is it oil/trade deals, which is merely a matter of money? There are things worth more than money, such as the safety of stopping more nuclear weapons. But perhaps money means more to Putin and Russia than stopping the spread of nuclear weapons."
Russia has so many "jewish people"? Russia has a lot of tall people too, should they therefore be intersted in Rwanda?
What weird reasoning is this.
Incidently Iran has a number of "jewish people", don't you think the sanctions will hurt them?
Do you think "jewish people" run the world?
Complain about this comment
21. At 8:29pm on 14 Oct 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
ref #18
colonelartist wrote:
that given the choice Allied troops in the country supporting the goverment or intolerant sharia law and thug rulers they would pick the former
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would your mind even let you think for a second that anyone would prefer to live under invasion? Given the choice the majority will choose sharia law..The majority always choose its own people and its own laws, its own culture and tradition.
___________________________________________
I am sure woman like being whipped or stoned for not satisfing their husbands or wearing a burkah.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iam sure they like it much better than having the US or Israelies blow their children up.
And then say "opps"
Complain about this comment
But Mark, surely you're aware that those within a religious comunity, while their debates do in fact take place within the boundries of common assumptions, do still hold very drasticly aposing views of their religion itself, the place it should have in their personal lives, the place it should have in public life, and the place it should have in governmental life? Two given people agreeing upon "common assumptions" do not mean, in any way, that they'll agree on the basics of how to solve a given problem! Just look at the current debates going on within the Christian comunity in the US and the Muslum comunity in the UK.
That having been said, don't you think it scary, to say the least, that you couldn't find any aposing viewpoints in Washington regarding Obama's Afghanistan strategy? It seems even Biden is afraid to speak his mind now!! What ever happened to his Lincoln-esque "team of rivals" cabanit? What ever happened to all the people who would engage him in heated debate for the good of the country; which was the main reason why, he claimed, he was appointing them in the first place? It seems they have suddenly lost the courage to speak their minds.
Perhaps the reason why you'd be better off looking for Unicorns (and lepricons while you're at it) under Dupont Circle than aposing viewpoints to general McChrystal's Afghanistan strategy, is administration officials's fear of expressing their opinions and the fact that an offle lot of Obama's top advisors (and not just think tank heavyweights,) are X-military and X-intellijence officials. As William Astore brilliantly puts it: "Don't we know, that Obama's "civilian" advisors include "Karl W. Eikenberry, a retired lieutenant general who is the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, Douglas Lute, a lieutenant general who is the president's special advisor on Afghanistan and Pakistan (dubbed the "war czar" when he held the same position in the Bush administration), and James Jones, a retired Marine Corps general, who is national security advisor, not to speak of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency"? Are we surprised, then, that when we "turn crucial war decisions over to the military, [we] functionally turn foreign
policy over to them as well"? And that they, in turn, always opt for more troops, more money and more war?"
I personally think it would be wonderful if Astore's advice were taken and Obama went after the specific terrorists that attacked us and not tryed to build a nation in our image. But as Astore has explained, it looks most likely that this will not happen, and that instead Obama will go the way of Johnson and throw more money and troops at Afghanistan until it ruins him as it did Johnson.
It will be most interesting to see, if as Astore has predicted, assuming Obama grants McChrystal's requests, whether he himself will be punished with only one term in office as Johnson was. Only time will tell.
Complain about this comment
23. At 8:34pm on 14 Oct 2009, colonelartist wrote:
For once ask your leaders to tell you about their sources which makes them believe that all the bad guys are in pakistan.
I don't have to. I can read the reports coming out of Pakistan myself. Not to mention Somalia and other locations. Not everyone gets their news from Al Jezeera and The Guardian.
Complain about this comment
ref #32Iam sure they like it much better than having the US or Israelies blow their children up.
We know you blame these two countries for all the worlds ills.
But I don't believe Israel has killed anyone in Afghanastan. And more people have died there because of the Tailban and Al Quda.
Just as all the people died in Lebanon and Gaza should hold Hezbollah and Hamas responsible.
Complain about this comment
17. At 7:50pm on 14 Oct 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
ref #14
When were the Afghans given that choice? And what do you think US troops do to the Afghans - hand out sweets?
Do you know how US troops treated Vietnamese women (now recently revealed)?
And since when has the US ever been concerned what the peoples it conquers think or want?
You are not exactly the best person to speak for the afghans, Kurds etc all of whom are moslems and non-white.
_______________________________________________-
First the U.S does not conquer, if so they would have put the Kurds in charge of Iraq."
That is not even coherent. Learn English.
What has putting the Kurds in charge have to do with conquest?
"Second you are right I am not because I am not an afghan or kurd but I have no problems with moslems or non whites that is the ACORN track you take."
So why do you criticise them all the time using rumours and slurs taken from extreme far right web sites?
Like claiming Nelson mandela and Desmond Tutu are terrorists? On no evidence
"I have praised many African or African Americans on this blog, but I also criticize whites and african americans, Europeans and Africans as well."
I haven't seen one black (perhaps Clarence Thomas) or Palestinian or native American you have praised.
The other day you wrote about native Americans "they call themselves tribes"
What sort of comment is that? And that is before criticising them for not being Native American enough and daring to try and take on white man's activities.
"But you are so PC that you think only whites and jews can be criticized."
So that makes it OK to critise anyone of a different colour to yourself?
And I do not criticise "jews" (a ridiculous idea, jews FYI don't all think the same, few think like you for example). I actually think Karl Marx was a political genius (flawed of course), Norman Finkelstein, Norman Mailer, Hannah Arendt, jews against the occupation etc are very worthy of respect.
Especially compared to Dershovitz or Sharon or even worse, Lieberman.
More intersting is the way you cannot criticise israel. You apparently beleive it can never be wrong no matter what it does or who leads it.
What sort of weird PC is that?
Complain about this comment
"It seems they have suddenly lost the courage to speak their minds." (from post #33)
Perhaps they are speaking their minds in confidence, which is as it should be.
Complain about this comment
Pathans, especially the waziri pathans which the world has all of a sudden become so against appreciate a person, or a group who can create a problem, then control it and finally solve it in a manner that noone leaves the negotiating place feeling that he was treated unfairly..Now, when they see their enemy, the super power, who challanged them, all they see a nation, who created a problem, but cannot control it and as far as solution is concerned, its not on the horizon. 8 yrs later, and the tribesmen are still standing..In october 2001 americans underestimated the war strategies of the tribesmen in afghanistan, and in 2004, pakistan did exactly the same thing in north wazirstan, attacked it when the general musharaf told americans that he had sighted a high level alqaida target over there..more than 100 of his soldiers were kidnapped or killed and no target of high or low level ever located..
Complain about this comment
Ref. 27, GH1618:
"Why don't you think that's McChrystal?"
I wasn't being that literal. Patreus came up with the strategy for getting things settled down in Iraq. I read that the same strategy won't work in Afghanistan, but we need something as effective. In that way, McChrystal could be Afghanistan's Gen. Patreus. I don't really know either way. Other than his involvement in the Tilman fiasco, I haven't heard any criticism of him.
Complain about this comment
Some people call a portion of Israel's land as occupied. What about Tibet?
If Palestine wants to fight Israel for a portion of land, then so be it. Let the two countries fight, with no one else involved. That is the only fair way to do it. This fight should be kept between the two countries and the two countries alone. It is not anyone else's fight.
Complain about this comment
35. At 10:19pm on 14 Oct 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
ref #32Iam sure they like it much better than having the US or Israelies blow their children up.
We know you blame these two countries for all the worlds ills."
Can't answer the point eh. Oh dear.
Let's try again
What do you think women prefer - having to wear the Burqa or having a daisy cutter, cluster bomb etc dropped on their kids.
Simple point what do you think?
"But I don't believe Israel has killed anyone in Afghanastan. And more people have died there because of the Tailban and Al Quda."
Unfortunately you miss the ever so slightly relevant point that the Taliban are not from the US and do not drop bombs on schools while muttering slogans about "freedom".
I refered to Israel as it like the US beleives if you say opps after killing children that makes it OK.
"Just as all the people died in Lebanon and Gaza should hold Hezbollah and Hamas responsible."
Hezbollah doid not drop cluster bombs oin civilians and Hamas did not shoot at people waving white flags.
The killer is responsible for killing, the rapist is responsible for rape. I beleive you will find in the US that if you murder a child claiming someone "inspired" you to do it, this will not save you from execution.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 26, colonelartist:
"And what would they use those troops for?"
To fight anti-government groups like the Taliban. It's their fight, not ours. We're just very interested in seeing them win.
At a minimum we must leave them with the ability to police their country. They don't necessarily have to be a thriving democracy.
Complain about this comment
I wasn't being that literal. Patreus came up with the strategy for getting things settled down in Iraq. I read that the same strategy won't work in Afghanistan, but we need something as effective. In that way, McChrystal could be Afghanistan's Gen. Patreus. I don't really know either way. Other than his involvement in the Tilman fiasco, I haven't heard any criticism of him.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, now is the time to learn from vietnam. Do you remember a major colin Powell who investigate that notorious americans killing of civilians? I highly recommend that if availabe read how colin powell didnt find anything wrong. Yrs later, gen colin powell, his troops during gulf war shot and killed iraqi soldiers who were surrendring and 5 yrs ago, the same guy now promoted as sec of state, lied about WMD in UN, waving anthrax, using power point he told every one that the drums in the picture were actually filled with biological weapons. The way he covered up Tilman's death.if he was spanish government, people would have demanded him to step down..People like this general and colin powell should be watched carefully..
Complain about this comment
34. At 10:13pm on 14 Oct 2009, Gavrielle_LaPoste wrote:
23. At 8:34pm on 14 Oct 2009, colonelartist wrote:
For once ask your leaders to tell you about their sources which makes them believe that all the bad guys are in pakistan.
I don't have to. I can read the reports coming out of Pakistan myself. Not to mention Somalia and other locations. Not everyone gets their news from Al Jezeera and The Guardian."
or you could use common sense and history. Have you never heard of the mobile phone and the internet?
Or the fact that in a guerilla war the good and bad guys are indistinguishable?
Complain about this comment
40. At 10:34pm on 14 Oct 2009, Illinoisan wrote:
Some people call a portion of Israel's land as occupied. What about Tibet?"
What about Tibet? Very cold and they put salt in their tea.
"If Palestine wants to fight Israel for a portion of land, then so be it. Let the two countries fight, with no one else involved. That is the only fair way to do it. This fight should be kept between the two countries and the two countries alone. It is not anyone else's fight. "
Good, agreed and of course the US will give the Palestinians the same weapons and training it gives the Israelies, or otherwise it would not be a fair fight.
Would it.
Complain about this comment
And finally after 8 yrs, americans, their vehicles and luggage coming and going out from pakistan will no longer enjoy the facility of waltzing and out of the country bypassing the normal checks at the airports.
Complain about this comment
First the U.S does not conquer, if so they would have put the Kurds in charge of Iraq."
That is not even coherent. Learn English.
What has putting the Kurds in charge have to do with conquest?
(Maybe you should learn english Simple Simon. It is clear from a purely selfish interest making the Kurds are overloads and than taking the oil would be the act of a conquerer)
"Second you are right I am not because I am not an afghan or kurd but I have no problems with moslems or non whites that is the ACORN track you take."
So why do you criticise them all the time using rumours and slurs taken from extreme far right web sites?
Like claiming Nelson mandela and Desmond Tutu are terrorists? On no evidence
(I have given plenty of evidence on the support of terrorists supporting the PLO attacks against Israel is something Mandela did and I have spoken about Rice, Oprah and Thomas, but they are not your type)
"I have praised many African or African Americans on this blog, but I also criticize whites and african americans, Europeans and Africans as well."
"But you are so PC that you think only whites and jews can be criticized."
So that makes it OK to critise anyone of a different colour to yourself?
And I do not criticise "jews" (a ridiculous idea, jews FYI don't all think the same, few think like you for example). I actually think Karl Marx was a political genius (flawed of course), Norman Finkelstein, Norman Mailer, Hannah Arendt, jews against the occupation etc are very worthy of respect.
Especially compared to Dershovitz or Sharon or even worse, Lieberman.
(Dershowitz is a noted proffessorm lawyer and far more knowledgible than Jimmy Carter will ever be, Sharon is a war hero who made an attempt for peace which was repaid by blood by the Palestinians and Lieberman never took a sweet heart loan like fellow CT Senator Dodd did)
Simon how did you become so ignorant of the world and facts. Now go back to watching MSNBC.
Complain about this comment
42. At 10:35pm on 14 Oct 2009, AndyPost wrote:
Ref. 26, colonelartist:
"And what would they use those troops for?"
To fight anti-government groups like the Taliban. It's their fight, not ours. We're just very interested in seeing them win.
At a minimum we must leave them with the ability to police their country. They don't necessarily have to be a thriving democracy."
Yes, the only very slight problem with this idea( we hear this from various politicians too) is that a country's army and police tend to reflect its political/social state.
Or to put it simply if the police commissioner has got his role by paying huge bribes and the PM is on the take and money to develop the Police is squirelled away in New York, Zurich and London - then the actual police force is not likely to be up to much.
The idea that the Afghan army and Police can be pillars of rectitude while their political masters are counting the bribe money is, shall we say, amusing?
Complain about this comment
To fight anti-government groups like the Taliban. It's their fight, not ours. We're just very interested in seeing them win.
At a minimum we must leave them with the ability to police their country. They don't necessarily have to be a thriving democracy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, the strangest idea that the west has about a muslim country's army is that it should kill its own people..I belong to the old school which still believe that army must be trained to protect its borders from their enemy countries and not to be trained to kill its own people. If you like the idea of army doing the police work, replace your police with the army..but dont do something which you would be against if it was done in your country. Secondly we have already seen, that taliban defeated the noethern alliance..in a yr or two, they had 90% of the entire afghanistan under their control. Think of something outside the box.
Complain about this comment
I don't have to. I can read the reports coming out of Pakistan myself. Not to mention Somalia and other locations. Not everyone gets their news from Al Jezeera and The Guardian."
or you could use common sense and history. Have you never heard of the mobile phone and the internet?
Or the fact that in a guerilla war the good and bad guys are indistinguishable?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anything beyond 100 yards on either sides of the main road is off limit to the adminstration. Have you ever heard about his on your cell phone, internet. Have you ever heard of the british afghan war?, the soviet union afghan war? both these western great powers of their time, have come and gone accusing those people with everything the american media and leaders are accusing...Their sources, are likes of karzai..thats why karzai is going to stay..And karzai knows it, thats why he could boldly go to dostum and demmand 2 millions vote right under NATO's nose..
Complain about this comment
47. At 10:50pm on 14 Oct 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
First the U.S does not conquer, if so they would have put the Kurds in charge of Iraq."
That is not even coherent. Learn English.
What has putting the Kurds in charge have to do with conquest?
(Maybe you should learn english Simple Simon. It is clear from a purely selfish interest making the Kurds are overloads and than taking the oil would be the act of a conquerer)"
Sorry more gibberish - the US controls Iraqi oil. Is that the point you are making?
"Second you are right I am not because I am not an afghan or kurd but I have no problems with moslems or non whites that is the ACORN track you take."
So why do you criticise them all the time using rumours and slurs taken from extreme far right web sites?
Like claiming Nelson mandela and Desmond Tutu are terrorists? On no evidence
"(I have given plenty of evidence on the support of terrorists supporting the PLO attacks against Israel is something Mandela did and I have spoken about Rice, Oprah and Thomas, but they are not your type)"
Never once have you proved nelson mandela is a rascist terrorist or tendered any evidence.
If support for the Palestinians makes you a terorist than that would include George Bush. Itzak Rabin and 90% of the world.
That is PC of a differnt scale.
As for Oprah and Rice, one can only conclude you are not being serious. You never mention either and they have nothing in common except their skin colour.
Very bizzare. Oprah? What has she to do with anything? I beleive paid up members of the KKK liked "Minstrel Shows". The fact you watch her TV programme proves nothing.
"(Dershowitz is a noted proffessorm lawyer0"
He used to be but has since become a caricature since he became a devoted Israeli apologist and tried to justify torture.
"and far more knowledgible than Jimmy Carter will ever be"
But with far less hunamity, ethics and common sense.
"Sharon is a war hero who made an attempt for peace which was repaid by blood by the Palestinians and Lieberman never took a sweet heart loan like fellow CT Senator Dodd did)"
Sharon was censured by his own parliament - is that a hero? Lieberman is being investigarted for corruption and would be arrested in civilised countries for incitement. He to has been censured by the israeli parliament.
Your "heroes" don't seem very heoric when compared to Carter. Can't recall him being censured by COngress for his behaviour duing a massacre.
Can't remember him insisting all jewish, black Americans be compelled to prove their loyalty.
"Simon how did you become so ignorant of the world and facts. Now go back to watching MSNBC."
Still can't answer the question eh how pitiful. Can't argue so he runs away.
Pathetic. if you want to defend your views you had better not run away from simple questions.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 48, Simon:
"Yes, the only very slight problem with this idea( we hear this from various politicians too) is that a country's army and police tend to reflect its political/social state..."
Yes, I agree. It's a tall order and what you point out seems to me the biggest challenge: cutting a cancer out of a once thriving culture without killing the patient.
Godspeed... I guess.
Complain about this comment
Ref 22, Andy
"While our presence will never be entirely welcome and Afghans will not feel restored until we leave, the only realistic alternative is still the Taliban, and Afghans really don't want those guys back."
Time will tell, but I would not be surprised if their opposition to a foreign presence in Afghanistan is focused on Al Qaeda and the "coalition" forces, in part because they want to restore their sovereignty, but more than anything else because they are the Taliban.
I simply do not believe the insinuations that the Taliban is a foreign force imposing its will upon innocent Afghans. Yes, their excesses are very difficult to understand and imposible to support, but that is their culture, their country, and those are the values they want to live by.
It is not up to us to dictate to others how to live, particularly when we do not tolerate foreign interference in our internal affairs no matter how benign or trivial it may be. Contrary to what some believe we do not have a divine right to impose our will on others, invade someone else's land, and depose or install governments at will.
Complain about this comment
Counter Terrorism or Counter Insurgency -- what really matters in the long run is the possibility of training effective Afghan security forces. And what matters most in the training of Afghan security forces is politics.
If the Karzai Administration cannot be relied upon to effectively manage the resources allocated for this task, the task will not be accomplished. I would, therefore, submit that the 'solution' to stabilizing Afghanistan (thereby accomplishing our goal of security, and achieving some semblance of prosperity for the Afghan people) is at least as much political as it is military.
This position is further reinforced when the efficacious delivery of aid and development projects are brought into consideration. 'We' have botched aid in many ways -- but the blame for the top heavy delivery systems that exist can be partially explained by the need to bypass the Afghan government's endemic corruption.
Without a stable, mostly non-corrupt, functioning polity in Afghanistan, we will not achieve our goal of security through any level of troop 'surge.' If we are not committed to political stability in Afghanistan, I would suggest we should get out now, and let Special Forces strike teams ensure that no 'Safe Havens' for terror are allowed to develop.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 53, saintDominick:
Yours is not the only response that contained the same misconception of my argument. I believe Afghanistan is in the midst of a stalled civil war, the kind that we haven't seen for awhile, a full set-piece affair (like the American and Spanish examples). We're simply taking sides and restarting it.
And, yes, we're interfering. No kidding.
I continue to maintain that we have a legitimate interest in what happens in this corner of world. We were attacked from there. We have the right to see that it doesn't happen again.
I suspect the Taliban used al Qaeda. Bin Laden had a ton of money and a vision that resonated with them, and they bought into it, but like every other foreign entity in Afghanistan, al Qaeda got bled dry. If Afghanistan ever got back on its feet, it could make a fortune selling desiccant.
We've had uncanny success fighting al Qaeda. We may not have gotten the CEO, but we've been blowing away their middle management for years. No military organization can function properly with a (well more than) decimated officer corps. And they have been so far utterly unable to respond in kind.
The Taliban, however, present a different issue. First off, there are a lot of them, and, second, they put up a pretty good fight from what I understand. They are certainly Afghan (really, no doubt there), but there is also no question that they don't represent all of Afghanistan. Indeed, they have bitter enemies amongst their countrymen.
The Taliban decided to declare the U.S. its enemy. I don't know why. I can't help but wonder if they knew what kind of response they were to receive. They have not rescinded their stance. If we move out, they move back in. Basic rule of war: you can't allow the enemy safe harbor.
So, we back the other guys. We move in more troops, establish a perimeter centered on Kabul,defend it and die in numbers while we train and arm an effective opposition to the Taliban (it may be a fairly nasty piece of work). Then we hope they win. I think, unlike us, they can. They'll fight an Afghan war. If they do win, they'll rely on us for arms, and we'll end up with the same loose (and quite limited) control we have over Israel. Afghanistan will be uniquely Afghanistan. But that's enough. We win.
Complain about this comment
Finally international public attention is turning to Pakistan, the birthplace of Taliban and a safe haven of al-Qaida leadership.
More importantly, methods used by Talib "freedom fighters" have helped turn the tide of Pakistani public opinion, which is now decisively against them.
Even more importantly, more and more Pashtuns from North Western Frontier-Province (including local village and clan chiefs) have begun to offer Talibs some of their own medicine. And they are doing it more effectively, and much more ruthlessly, than Pakistani Army ever could.
Complain about this comment
53. At 01:19am on 15 Oct 2009, saintDominick wrote:
I simply do not believe the insinuations that the Taliban is a foreign force imposing its will upon innocent Afghans. Yes, their excesses are very difficult to understand and imposible to support, but that is their culture, their country, and those are the values they want to live by.
It is not up to us to dictate to others how to live, particularly when we do not tolerate foreign interference in our internal affairs no matter how benign or trivial it may be. Contrary to what some believe we do not have a divine right to impose our will on others, invade someone else's land, and depose or install governments at will.
54. At 02:42am on 15 Oct 2009, chronophobe wrote:
Without a stable, mostly non-corrupt, functioning polity in Afghanistan, we will not achieve our goal of security through any level of troop 'surge.' If we are not committed to political stability in Afghanistan, I would suggest we should get out now, and let Special Forces strike teams ensure that no 'Safe Havens' for terror are allowed to develop.
------------------------------------
I know very little about this business. Western democracies appear to be very naive and ill prepared to deal with Middle Eastern way of conflict. The two comments above make the most sense to this outsider, and seem to coincide with the comments of colonelartist and others who are at least not giving us varnished and predigested pro-western points of view.
No one, east or west, has been able to explain to me how military occupation will bring Afghanistan, Iraq, or Pakistan into the Western world, or reverse the influence of their ancient customs and a modern international radicalism that has no Western equivalent. Until I see a clear and achievable goal with a strategy that amounts to more than merely 'send more, spend more', I see only futility and, of course, the greed and influence of the military-industrial complex an old soldier once warned our parents about.
The '90s, from the fall of the Soviet Union to 9/11/01, seemed to have a golden promise - 'the end of history' - but the void was quickly filled by a new and bedeviling terror. I think that it may have been the West's very success that caused the fear and loathing that are turned against us now, and from which we seem so ill prepared to protect ourselves.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
ref51. At 11:28pm on 14 Oct 2009, Simon21 wrote:
47. At 10:50pm on 14 Oct 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
First the U.S does not conquer, if so they would have put the Kurds in charge of Iraq."
Sorry more gibberish - the US controls Iraqi oil. Is that the point you are making?
(If the U.S controlls the oil why is China involved in the first commercial venture)
"Second you are right I am not because I am not an afghan or kurd but I have no problems with moslems or non whites that is the ACORN track you take."
So why do you criticise them all the time using rumours and slurs taken from extreme far right web sites?
Like claiming Nelson mandela and Desmond Tutu are terrorists? On no evidence
"(I have given plenty of evidence on the support of terrorists supporting the PLO attacks against Israel is something Mandela did and I have spoken about Rice, Oprah and Thomas, but they are not your type)"
Never once have you proved nelson mandela is a rascist terrorist or tendered any evidence.
If support for the Palestinians makes you a terorist than that would include George Bush. Itzak Rabin and 90% of the world.
(Most of the world does not support terrorist attacks against Israel but Mandela did)
That is PC of a differnt scale.
As for Oprah and Rice, one can only conclude you are not being serious. You never mention either and they have nothing in common except their skin colour.
Very bizzare. Oprah? What has she to do with anything? I beleive paid up members of the KKK liked "Minstrel Shows". The fact you watch her TV programme proves nothing.
(I am talking about a self made women with Oprah and Rice not a woman who was given a 300K job for being married to a poltician)
He used to be but has since become a caricature since he became a devoted Israeli apologist and tried to justify torture.
"and far more knowledgible than Jimmy Carter will ever be"
But with far less hunamity, ethics and common sense.
(but still a bigot)
"Sharon is a war hero who made an attempt for peace which was repaid by blood by the Palestinians and Lieberman never took a sweet heart loan like fellow CT Senator Dodd did)"
Sharon was censured by his own parliament - is that a hero? Lieberman is being investigarted for corruption and would be arrested in civilised countries for incitement. He to has been censured by the israeli parliament.
(Sharon's great deeds during the wars plus his generous widthdrawl from Gaza outweigh any minor transgressions)
"Simon how did you become so ignorant of the world and facts. Now go back to watching MSNBC."
Still can't answer the question eh how pitiful. Can't argue so he runs away.
Pathetic. if you want to defend your views you had better not run away from simple questions.
Complain about this comment
KScurmudgeon – I believe your last paragraph is basically right, after the fall of the Iron Curtain the West, especially the USA, thought that had essentially won the ideological war and other than a few troubled spots in the world everything was going to okay. Businesses saw opportunities to expand into new markets creating a kind capitalist imperialism. This is the reason you can go to pretty much any city in the world and find a McDonalds and a Starbucks, obviously the corps never saw this a problem neither did the tourists, finding a bit of homeland wherever they travelled.
There were two problems though, firstly while many in these countries seized these new opportunities, others realised that with Western brands came Western culture. Not unreasonably they saw this as an attack on their cultures. This bred resentment and anger, when people feel that their beliefs are being attacked by forces beyond their direct control they begin to radicalise their beliefs. The rise in Creationism in the West is a result of a perceived attack by secular science. Islamic Creationism is based in a nominally secular Turkey for similar reasons. Western influenced Persia radicalised into a strict Muslim Iran. Even the Taliban can in part be blamed on the incursion from a secular Communist Russia.
The second problem was that in winning the ideological war the West had got into bed with some reasonably unpleasant people, South American fascist dictators, radical Islamic militants. After the West believed it had won the war, these former assets became rather embarrassing and so were sidelined, a bit like Ho Chi Minh had been after the Second World War. This left in some cases well trained, armed and resentful combatants, who felt that their ambitions had been used and abandoned by the West.
In certain instances the two problems became aligned, radical Muslims who felt both that their culture was under attack from Western secular commercialism and that they had been used and abandoned by the West with promises left unhonoured. While the West were slapping themselves on the back these radicals were getting more and more angry until the forgotton worm got fangs and bit the West back.
Part of the problem we have in Muslim countries we have ‘liberated’ is that many of the population don’t see it as liberation, they see it as Western cultural imperialism. Even those who want to the Taliban removed don’t want to see their culture subsumed by burgers and expensive coffees.
Again the West is tending to use the idea that ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’ forgetting that many of our current enemies used to be our former nominal friends. If history repeats itself we may well be arming and training the next set of people who will attack the West and the principles (or lack of) we hold dear.
Complain about this comment
Ref 55, Andy
"I continue to maintain that we have a legitimate interest in what happens in this corner of world. We were attacked from there. We have the right to see that it doesn't happen again."
Every nation has the right, in fact, the obligation to defend itself and protect its security. The problem is that whether intentionally or not that is not what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. We were not attacked by these countries, we were attacked by Al Qaeda, a terrorist organization composed of fundamentalist Wahhabists and financed by wealthy Saudi princes who remain at large and as determined to inflict pain on a culture they hate while we seem to be determined to do everything we can to exacerbate the problem and elevate their stature, not to mention their ability to recruit, plan, and prepare for more attacks.
The best way to fight terrorism, if that is what we really want to do, is to determine and understand the root causes of the problem and address them accordingly. Matching or exceeding the brutality of our enemies is not the way to go. My guess, is that our leaders are well aware of what motivates terrorism, but are unwilling to address its causes because doing so would be detrimental to the advancement of our interests and the achievement of our geo-political goals.
Complain about this comment
@59
Very astute observations and phrased much better than I could hope to put it.
Complain about this comment
@529 Simon21
What a pity Mark that all our political meditation over this asian country should be reduced into troops and hardware. As if all our contribution to the welfare of the Afghan nation is to be measured in human beings in uniforms! We shall never succeed this way. Nor anybody did in history.
Complain about this comment
ref #60
The best way to fight terrorism, if that is what we really want to do, is to determine and understand the root causes of the problem and address them accordingly. Matching or exceeding the brutality of our enemies is not the way to go. My guess, is that our leaders are well aware of what motivates terrorism, but are unwilling to address its causes because doing so would be detrimental to the advancement of our interests and the achievement of our geo-political goals.
____________________________________________________-
That is the fundamental question, but can you accept for some like Al quada and I would argue Hezbollah and the Iranaian mullahs that intolerance of other beliefs is the root cause?
Complain about this comment
I was supportive of invading Afghanistan 7 years ago. I am generally supportive of using military force where less violent means don't achieve the necessary effect. I am supportive of having a military presence in Afghanistan to hunt and kill the Taliban and Al Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan relentlessly. Afhganistan and Iraq are two different places. A surge in Afghanistan will help temporarily but won't achieve peace or meet conditions of victory. A surge will mean more military men and women away from their families and more casualties; but military members are volunteers who understand this reality when they sign up. Lets do the surge, improve the situation and see where we stand 18 months from now. We won't win, but maybe a surge can change the situation for the positive and give us some breathing room.
Complain about this comment
Ref 63, Magic
"That is the fundamental question, but can you accept for some like Al quada and I would argue Hezbollah and the Iranaian mullahs that intolerance of other beliefs is the root cause?"
Determining the reason for the hatred that so many people feel towards us requires a little more than simplistic conclusions or the facile approach of blaming others for our actions.
The first thing we should do is reflect on what we have been doing throughout the past century or so, do it pragmatically and objectively, and we must be ready to accept responsibility for our actions, as well as those of our allies before we point fingers at those who resist our goals and our presence in their countries, regardless of how laudable or righteous we may think our goals and actions may be.
In answer to your question, no I do not accept the premise that the intolerance of others is only reason for the problems afflicting the world, if we do not recognize the fact that our own intolerance contributes to the mayhem as much as the actions of others. IMO, there is a very fine line between our reprehensible actions in the Muslim world and the actions of those we consider terrorists.
Complain about this comment
65 well said St dom.
Complain about this comment
KScurmudgeon (#57) "No one, east or west, has been able to explain to me how military occupation will bring Afghanistan, Iraq, or Pakistan into the Western world, or reverse the influence of their ancient customs and a modern international radicalism that has no Western equivalent. Until I see a clear and achievable goal with a strategy that amounts to more than merely 'send more, spend more', I see only futility and, of course, the greed and influence of the military-industrial complex an old soldier once warned our parents about."
No one wants to "bring Afghanistan ... into the western world" or "reverse the influence of their ancient customs." The objective is to disrupt and destroy al Qaeda and prevent the region from again becoming a base for terrorist operations against the United States and its NATO allies. President Obama has consistently focused on this objective. I don't know how it can be explained any simpler than that.
Complain about this comment
AndyPost (#55) "I continue to maintain that we have a legitimate interest in what happens in this corner of world. We were attacked from there. We have the right to see that it doesn't happen again."
That's it in a nutshell.
Complain about this comment
The other aspect of the problem not discussed above is the fact that the Taliban are largely based in Pakistan, and are committing acts of terror there. The government of Pakistan is moving against these terrorists. The NATO presence in Afghanistan makes this difficult problem easier. If the Taliban (and al Qaeda) could operate in Afghanistan with impunity, it would be impossible for Pakistan to root them out.
Complain about this comment
Finally international public attention is turning to Pakistan, the birthplace of Taliban and a safe haven of al-Qaida leadership.
More importantly, methods used by Talib "freedom fighters" have helped turn the tide of Pakistani public opinion, which is now decisively against them.
Even more importantly, more and more Pashtuns from North Western Frontier-Province (including local village and clan chiefs) have begun to offer Talibs some of their own medicine. And they are doing it more effectively, and much more ruthlessly, than Pakistani Army ever could.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
International public is again acting like lemmings. Allow me to take you a few years back..it all started in july 2002, when pakistani army for the first time since the country's independence entered the khyber agency without any provocation from the tribes. The tribes had neither threatened the pakistani army nor the state..Pakistani army under the leader of the most adored dicator of the west, gen musharaff, decided to attack its own countrymen, to serve the americans in afghanistan in july 2002. However the tribes allowed the army to stay on the conditions that the state will use money to develop the area.The pakistani army did not fullfill its promises and instead declare an an all out war against the waziri tribes because the americans were sitting on the other side of waziristan agency and accused these tribesmen for allowing taliban for sending men accross the border to kill americans. and the war between army and waziris started in 2004 when their leader who had entered a peace deal with the army was conviently killed by and american drone. gradually extended and in 2004 things just deterioated. So, while you were discussing iraq whether to call it civil war or a sunni shia or muslim killing muslims, your leaders were quietly expanding the war to pakistani self adminstrated areas, which somehow in western media were being called, "lawless" areas..If there was someone who uphold the law , it was these tribesmen..The agreement between pakistani government and these areas, is that if army enters those areas without being provoked, they have the right to defend "Anything beyond 100 yards on either sides of the main road is off limit to the adminstration" thats the agreement that these tribesmen have with the pakistani government and I think it was actually between the brits and these people thats why up until recently the convoy of NATO trucks could use that road to to supply things to their soldiers in afghanistan....
Talib doesnt mean freedom fighter, it means something else, talibs in english and taliban in persian, pashto and urdu. have always been there, Read any book about brit afghan wars and you will find at least one reference to talibs, the students, "who fight alongside these Ghazis during summers and then they go back to their religuos schools and return in summer to fight./at that time the word used to describ those who fought against the brits, was ghazi/ And the last part of your post is just an imagination of someone who doesnt know anything about the back ground of these tribes..The two tribes, are trying to assert their positions..The waziris have always been the ones who had to suffer the most, because of their upfront nature and their innate disgust against subjugation.In iraq, americans managed to pitch sunni against shia, in pakistan, they have pitched meshud tribes and pakistani army against waziris. And all this because the american leaders dont want their soldiers to die because if they start dying the way they did in vietnam, the american public will wake up do what it did to bring the troops back home.
Complain about this comment
12,18 ,Most in Afghanistan would not prefer to live under Sharia law,those who do ,do so out of safety not principle scared US will leave and they will be picked on.Afghanistan was once a progressive country and I am almost positive many would like it to return to it's past not that long ago before war with Communist Russia AND OTHER FOREIGN INVADERS WHO ARE ALSO NOT FROM AFGHANISTAN STARTED PROBLEMS FOR THEIR PEOPLE.I would rather live under foreign invaders who are building US a new government than let's say the extreme religious right in this country who actually want the same thing.Women and girls at home,ban certain holidays,ban freedom of speech and expression and many other things like attacking the gay community.Most voters recently polled said they would never vote for a extreme Pentecostal/Evangelical Candidate.Extreme Religious Rubes live everywhere.They are not the majority of any country they are just more extreme at getting what they want.Americans know why they are there to get the people who wronged us.We are just debating whether we should help the people out at the same time.I say yes if it's done right with assistance from others countries and Afghans,no if it follows anything Bush has been doing before he left office.I bet President Obama will send troops it will probably will be successful,I am only upset because I know it will delay focus on the citizens in our country who need help.I care more about my children and other US kids first but I am not without compassion for Afghans people or children.By the way US is not getting mineral rights in Afghanistan,China is they have a contract with Afghan Gov.We are not there for resources.The Us is a diverse and Rich land beside Oil which we are trying to get off,we don't need many resources from others.Most are agricultural products like Coffee.You know little about the US or it's people or their motives.So stop trying to use illogical facts A) about countries we are not B) about things unrelated to prove your silly point of view.What ever we do it isn't your decision is it.
Complain about this comment
CA – Yes truly shocking the American government did not want their soldiers dying needlessly when their ally could move in soldiers to prevent it! Obviously the government of the US ally should have just sat back and watched while its porous border was used by the Taliban as a bolthole. I now see these poor oppressed and misunderstood tribesmen are blowing up Pakistani civilians well out of their precious valley. I cannot see why international opinion is so against these upfront independently minded tribesmen, who simply wish to live their lives as they always have, such as running around with AK-74’s and growing and/or transporting Afghan opium to markets in the West.
Complain about this comment
Here's a link to a New York Times article on what the Taliban are doing in Pakistan:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/07/world/asia/07pstan.html
People who think there is a "very fine line between our reprehensible actions in the Muslim world and the actions of those we consider terrorists" are either not thinking very clearly, or lack a moral compass.
Pakistan and the United States (with NATO help) need to cooperate and crush these demented people.
Complain about this comment
I was supportive of invading Afghanistan 7 years ago. I am generally supportive of using military force where less violent means don't achieve the necessary effect. I am supportive of having a military presence in Afghanistan to hunt and kill the Taliban and Al Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan relentlessly.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why? I would like to know why you supported invading afghanistan? How do you know that the world will be a safe place for you even after every taliban and alqaida is killed? 8 yrs later and three countries being used as the battlefield.
Complain about this comment
What ever we do it isn't your decision is it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
When whatever you do is on our soil than it becomes our decision. The gulf war and and american troops presencee in saudi arabia. that happened not inside usa, but outside it. Did you remind your president, when he started gulf war against iraq, that iraq didnt invade kuwait, it just took what was natural its..On one hand, you supported israel for occupying the land on the bases of that land belonged to them and on the other hand you attacked iraq for taking back what was its..
Complain about this comment
Yes truly shocking the American government did not want their soldiers dying needlessly when their ally could move in soldiers to prevent it! Obviously the government of the US ally should have just sat back and watched while its porous border was used by the Taliban as a bolthole.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The border was sealed before american attacked afghanistan..its not porous as it used to be during soviet occupation..If you had been there both at the time of soviet occupation and then american occupation, you would have not only seen the difference, but felt it too. And where were your competent military general who went to war without thinking about this? And why all of a sudden now, they have realised that borders are pourous after 8 yrs of war..Blaming others for your failures isnt going to get you a victory..The americans take one state at a time..Now since they have managed to destablise pakistan...they can make it into another Laos. The objective of this war is to hold the death rate of your soldiers at the lowest level..And consider your self victorious because thats what you have acheived every year.
Complain about this comment
I now see these poor oppressed and misunderstood tribesmen are blowing up Pakistani civilians well out of their precious valley. I cannot see why international opinion is so against these upfront independently minded tribesmen, who simply wish to live their lives as they always have, such as running around with AK-74’s and growing and/or transporting Afghan opium to markets in the West.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOu havent and you will never see how the tribesmen were blown into pieces by drones and pakistani army. They are not running around with Ak 47, thats what your generals thought when they decided to attack afghanistan..A bunch of taliban running around with Ak47, nothing compared to the super power and its super weapons..And 8 yrs later, the super power is still stuck, blaming everyone else but itself for blundering..It depends on the market, doesnt it, the west gets what it wants, the herion and they get from the west, what they want, weapons..
Complain about this comment
"This interesting article argues the world would be different if LBJ had listened to writers, not generals, and that Obama should be listening to free thinkers."
(Mark Mardell quote)
YES YES YES Mr. Mardell : )
That is exactly the heart of the problem. The wrong people are being listened to..and they continue to send us down the wrong path. In order to become a military leader one needs certain personality characteristics and skills and those skill sets do not lead to a person who can successfully change a culture.
What the US needs is a Secretary of Peace in the president's cabinet to balance the Secretary of War.
Flood Afghanistan with radios and broadcast religious sermons from Muslim leaders with support from the Koran.
Play music on the radio and have festivals with kite flying contests.
Celebrate LIFE!!!
I would like to see a film done by an excellent writer and director telling about a young man and his entry into the Taliban..a morality tale..where the love for humanity saves him...
Cry to Cyber space:
........................................................
The President's cabinet needs a SECRETARY OF PEACE
........................................................
Complain about this comment
What the US needs is a Secretary of Peace in the president's cabinet to balance the Secretary of War.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
uh huh, I think you should throw this idea out of the window..its born dead..why would usa need a sec of peace when they have a president who just got the nobel prize for peace..What would you do with a sec of peace when you have a president of peace.
Complain about this comment
Here's a link to another enlightening story about the Taliban:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8308313.stm
Complain about this comment
75. I was like 10 during Gulf war,Israel was decided by my grandparents.If you don't want our Robots killing you than don't kill us hand over Bin Laden.And stop protecting our enemies.Why is it a big deal to you that we have machines instead of men.Is it because you know we can make more.Of course we use technology that's what happens we you teach your people to read and your children(all your children) go to school.Maybe they should try it in large portions of middle east.They used to be an educated place.Why not again.But than maybe there wouldn't be the violence and unemployment there if people were educated.Where was this compassion for civilians when it was ours civilians.People who were completely innocent just going about there daily lives.Americans have an old saying DON"T TREAD ON ME.Americans try being moralistic however we don't like it when people attack us and we do retaliate.Afghanistan has an opportunity to be peaceful and make a national country that doesn't get sucked into it's neighbors nonsense and do what best for all people their.Beside The US believe it or not is trying to harm as few Civilians as possible.And people keep bringing up some the misbehavior of soldiers towards the captured ,they are not encouraged by the Government which is Congress Bush hid it from them knowing they wouldn't allow it and many citizens believe he should have a trial.And I do believe their are people (Afghans) who want progress in Afghanistan they tried many times.The Rubes of Afghanistan ask people for weapons to stop modernization asking foreigners into their country.And it wasn't the Afghans who defeated the British or Russians or etc..It was there Enemies who did that like the US against Russia.Russia would have totally controlled Afghanistan which some Afghans wanted because it would have made Afghanistan Modern.Which that country has been trying to do for years.By the way if the people of the regions that Iraq claims was theirs believed they were Iraqi than we would've been a part of Iraq already And Saddam wouldn't have needed an army because they wouldn't fight being united with their own.East and West Germany aren't sending armies to each other because they have always been one people and became one people again.You are again making up things that have nothing to do with the other.Typical of you.
Complain about this comment
75 What does Saudi Arabia have to do with Afghanistan or the gulf war.nothing.They are different places you keep bringing up 2 unrelated things and trying to prove a point with unrelated facts and situations.This is about Afghanistan.And people who attacked Americans.
Complain about this comment
79. colonelartist
Part of the problem for the US is that too many people have no idea of what type of alternatives are available to war. When I was protesting against the Iraq War I had a sign saying "War is not the Answer" Some people driving by ..and they were nice people...were stopped at a traffic light and asked ..what is the answer then?
I now had about 2 minutes to explain complex ideas about diplomacy and uniting with other nations and preventative actions of bringing justice etc..to counter their own simplistic ideas about war or no war...and anyone saying war is not an answer already has a ill to climb..because opposing war is considered being wimpish.
It is easy to say the US should withdraw..because there are ideas of isolationism in the US that are well understood..but the concepts of working with other nations ..those are less understood...
Meanwhile Fox news was saying that the protesters had no idea about what they were protesting about...They just wanted attention...
( There is no Secretary of War...I made a mistake ..its Secretary of Defense)
and yes I want a Secretary of Peace ..whose purpose is to promote peace with proactive solutions that will stop wars from emerging
Complain about this comment
Apparently Iraq attacked Kuwait because they wouldn't forgive their debts.And with sanctions were becoming poor.Not because it belonged to them.I don't dispute the British drew lines for nations however they were stuck between separating people and dividing up resources plus the lines were constantly changed in history by predecessors,They did try to appease people but you can't please everyone all the time.And these lines are here now so celebrate your culture while being a nationalists and doing what's best for others within your line of country not those that have the same ethnic or religious background.I am partly German by ancestry My Grandfather still went to war during WW2 irregardless where his parents came from.My Great Aunts also enlisted as nurses even though their parents were German immigrants.Because they were Americans.Doesn't mean they gave up their culture but it did eventually get blended by later generations.And again using facts that are irrelevant and don't make sense.
Complain about this comment
We do have a Secretary of Peace... otherwise known as the Secretary of State whose job it is to use diplomacy (talking with other countries) to solve problems. Many things can be solved diplomatically; many things involving important national interests, religious/ethnic passions and resources can't be solved using diplomacy. Many countries, including the US, see the use of force as a reasonable step to get what they want Think of cost-benefit analysis equation where human lives, particularly those not of your tribe or nation count for nothing in the equation. That is the reality of the world.
Look at Darfur; what has diplomacy done for them?
Grow up folks; at the end of the day its everyone for themselves and life is cheap in other countries!
Complain about this comment
Secretary of State appoints ambassadors,both are supposed to work out negotiations and demands for their country.However just like War,only the President himself can sign peace treaties which then are only legal when ratified by Congress.So I think Secretary of State is supposed to be the secretary of Peace.And negotiate to avoid conflicts.
Complain about this comment
85. mischievousdoug
A Department of Peace is a new concept for you...
but the US is a violent nation by comparison to other wealthy western nations.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4908415
"Washington, DC – "Appoint a Secretary of Peace in a Department of Peace" was one of the nation’s top 10 "Ideas for Change" presented to the Obama Administration by Change.org last Friday during an event at the National Press Club. This call for systems and structures to proactively address the root causes of violence earned nearly 15,000 votes, ultimately placing second out of a total of more than 7,000 ideas submitted throughout Change.org's multi-week competition."
"Domestically, the Department will research, propose and facilitate practical, field-tested solutions to reduce and prevent violence. It will provide additional financial and institutional heft to strengthen and complement our current approach to violence, focusing on prevention through multi-layered strategies including increased funding for local programs already proven effective at reducing and preventing violence."
"A Peace Academy, on par with the military service academies, will provide highly trained personnel for domestic or international nonviolent conflict resolution."
"Internationally, the Department will research and analyze foreign policy and recommend to the President ways to address the root causes of war. The Department will also provide expert advice to the President on nonviolent means of diffusing or dealing with international crises."
Complain about this comment
This is the problem I have. I now have to educate people about what I am talking about. And a basic problem I will face is that the word "peace" in the US is a pejorative and a subject for ridicule. (grumble)
Anyway:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Peace
"The Department of Peace and Non-violence is a proposed cabinet-level department of the executive branch of the U.S. government. Founding father Benjamin Rush proposed a Peace Department for the first U.S. cabinet, under George Washington, but a more recent proposal came from Rep. Dennis Kucinich in 2001 and formed a part of Kucinich's Presidential campaign platform in 2004 and 2008. A bill for this purpose, H.R. 3760, was introduced in the House of Representatives on September 14, 2005. It was re-introduced as H.R. 808 on February 5, 2007 and 65 co-sponsors quickly signed on. In July, 2008, the first Republican Co-sponsor, Congressman Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) signed on."
"The Peace Alliance and the Student Peace Alliance organization supports the creation of a U.S. Department of Peace and Non-violence. It is an independent grassroots political movement that operates autonomously. The ongoing movement is supported by Kucinich and the author and motivational speaker Marianne Williamson, as well as an increasing list of celebrities such as Joaquin Phoenix, Frances Fisher and Willie Nelson, as well as late former CBS Evening News anchor Walter Cronkite. This movement actively lobbies for the endorsements of congressional leaders and is active in soliciting and receiving a growing list of bipartisan endorsements from city councils such as Atlanta, Chicago, Columbus (Ohio) and Los Angeles. It has local grassroots chapters in over 264 congressional districts.[1]"
Some selected proposals from the list at the wikipedia link
# To support our military with complementary approaches to ending violence.
# Making regular recommendations to the US President for various arms reductions strategies.
# Assumption of a more proactive level of involvement in the establishment of international dialogues for international conflict resolution (as a cabinet level department).
# Establishment of a US Peace Academy, which among other things would train international peace-keepers.
Complain about this comment
ref #83 bethpa wrote:
79. colonelartist
Part of the problem for the US is that too many people have no idea of what type of alternatives are available to war. When I was protesting against the Iraq War I had a sign saying "War is not the Answer" Some people driving by ..and they were nice people...were stopped at a traffic light and asked ..what is the answer then?
(Do you think war is never the answer)
I now had about 2 minutes to explain complex ideas about diplomacy and uniting with other nations and preventative actions of bringing justice etc..to counter their own simplistic ideas about war or no war...and anyone saying war is not an answer already has a ill to climb..because opposing war is considered being wimpish.
It is easy to say the US should withdraw..because there are ideas of isolationism in the US that are well understood..but the concepts of working with other nations ..those are less understood...
Meanwhile Fox news was saying that the protesters had no idea about what they were protesting about...They just wanted attention...
(Maybe you can emphasize with the Tea Protesters who felt that way about the media)
( There is no Secretary of War...I made a mistake ..its Secretary of Defense)
and yes I want a Secretary of Peace ..whose purpose is to promote peace with proactive solutions that will stop wars from emerging
(I read some of what was on your Wikipedia link, I don't want someone who seems to have a social agenda affecting foriegn policy)
Complain about this comment
What does Saudi Arabia have to do with Afghanistan or the gulf war.nothing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
And what does uk, france, germany, poland, canada to do with 9/11 in newyork, nothing. Saudi arabia has more to do with gulf war than your allies in afghanistan..It provided bases to the american troops from where iraq was attacked..and later on failed to get these troops out of country despite people of saudi arabia wanted their government to do just that..And from this emerged ben laden. So actually, if americans just had moved their troops out from saudi arabia, it would still have those two towers, would not have to attack afghanistan, would not have to blame their failure in afghanistan to pakistan, and you wouldnt be discussing this whole thing..
Complain about this comment
Apparently Iraq attacked Kuwait because they wouldn't forgive their debts.And with sanctions were becoming poor.Not because it belonged to them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kuwait was part of iraq, and when iraq decided to take it back, it wasnt under sanctions..
Complain about this comment
ref #65
IMO, there is a very fine line between our reprehensible actions in the Muslim world and the actions of those we consider terrorists.
____________________________________-
That is the fundamental difference I see the U.S and its allies includeing Israel minimizing civilian casulities and obeying the rules of war.
Other wise the U.S could carpet bomb the afghan/paki border, Beruit would be a crater.
So please no moral equvilency,.
Complain about this comment
89. MagicKirin wrote:
"I don't want someone who seems to have a social agenda affecting foriegn policy"
How do you define a social agenda? Can you give an example?
For Afghanistan I think we want girls in school and people learning how to read....
just the basics....good health care etc...
Complain about this comment
Other wise the U.S could carpet bomb the afghan/paki border, Beruit would be a crater.
So please no moral equvilency,.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
More wrong could you never get..If israel or US could carpet bomb afghan pakistani border, it would have done it..It cannot even stand up against taliban "running with ak47 in afghanistan after endless carpet bombing..Just get this thought out of the window once and for all..You dont want us or israel start a 3 ww, now do you? Would be could be , if and then..Get out of these imaginative scenario..USA and Israel are killing systematically, as long as people dont start find new constructs to define what usa and israel is doing , both these will continue to kill ,slowly and surely. Welcome to the genocide and war crimes of the 21st century..When taliban are going to use the same tactic, then you will call it barbaric..
Complain about this comment
# Establishment of a US Peace Academy, which among other things would train international peace-keepers.
____________________________________--
Thgat I could support in theory but the U.N would take it over and then we would have the same problem with rapes and favortism.
Complain about this comment
MagicKirin
Yes sometimes war is necessary and a military can stabilize an area...but if there is no program to continue the stabilization there will be more wars in that area.
If a military moves in and kills many people then moves out...what will it have gained ...but hatred?
In order to stop the killing there must be a changing of peoples' minds and how will a military do that by killing?
The military is trying to establish some relationships but how can they? They are soldiers and feared...
Complain about this comment
ref 93
How do you define a social agenda? Can you give an example?
____________________-
Here is one animal rights could be considered a pretext for PETA activism. I am no fan of horse racing but dog racing is already being banned.
Complain about this comment
ref #94
More wrong could you never get..If israel or US could carpet bomb afghan pakistani border, it would have done it..It cannot even stand up against taliban "running with ak47 in afghanistan after endless carpet bombing..Just get this thought out of the window once and for all..You dont want us or israel start a 3 ww, now do you? Would be could be , if and then
____________________________-
You don't know the restraint being used. Israel in particular minimized civilian casulties. Don't believe the lies in the U.N reprt. Maybe carpet bombing would not work but the U.S is not putting it's full offensive capabilities to use. They have not since WW2
Complain about this comment
I wonder why Mark is so quiet about the kerry lugar aid package to pakistan, it was signed by the american president today. 7.1 billion dollars in return of pakistan soverginty..Not a bad deal for america.
Complain about this comment
Magickirin
All laws are based upon social agendas.
Complain about this comment
You don't know the restraint being used. Israel in particular minimized civilian casulties. Don't believe the lies in the U.N reprt. Maybe carpet bombing would not work but the U.S is not putting it's full offensive capabilities to use. They have not since WW2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And you prove my point..More force would mean one thing, ww3, which would mean american soldiers dying like they died during ww2..Carpet bombing failed, it failed in iraq and it failed in afghanistan..dont imagine things, just pay attention to the reality, and the reality is, your generals started this war relying on their air power, which totally failed to serve their purposes..these generals are products of those who thought the reason soviet union withdrew so quickly was after the afghans were supplied with stinger missiles by usa. It was after these stingers that afghans managed to shoot the helicoper gunships of the soviet, which forced the soviet to withdraw sooner than they had planned..The american generals I am sure thought that without ground to air missiles , taliban wouldnt stand a chance and victory would be within their reach within a year. How wrong they were..
Complain about this comment
And another american drone killed 5 people in pakistan.
Complain about this comment
We must set out to finish our mission: to take out the Islamic terrorists who murdered and want to murder innocents in the USA, GB and all around the world. It is do or die time to find these murderers and dispose of them. They are serial killers, sick and twisted to the core. There is no reasoning or justification for what they have done. Any religion that promotes killing and murder is not really a religion, but an agenda by a group of serial killers. We should show them no mercy, as they have showed us no mercy.
The only way to end this war is to take out the Islamic terrorists. There is no other option. Take them all out.
Complain about this comment
All is fair in love and war.
Complain about this comment
Those who live by the sword, die by the sword
Book of Matthew, verse 26:52
"a metaphorical expression meaning that living one's life in a certain way will, in the end, affect one's destiny. "
Complain about this comment
It is like the latest Rambo movie, with the group of missionaries, who want to go to Burma, even though there is war there. They want to help, regardless of the danger. So they are gliding down the river and a boat stops them. The guys in the boat want the lone woman. Rambo kills the guys in the boat, because he knows that they are evil. The Islamic terrorists are pure evil. We cannot convince them to stop murdering people, that is what they do. Murder is their religion and occupation. The only way we can end this war is to take the murderers all out.
Complain about this comment
Maybe Bin Laden and the people of Saudi Arabia should launch a complaint or action against their own government inside their own government instead of using Afghanistan and it's people if it has a problem with negotiations it's government makes with the US.They don't do it in Saudi Arabia because they don't want to hurt or lose money for their own people.All the more reason to get them out of Afghanistan since they don't belong there Terrorizing the people of Afghanistan or the US.If I have a problem with my government and it's contracts it makes I complain to my own Government I don't attack innocent people from the country of the government who has the contract.What do expect them not to retaliate that's stupid.Tell the government of Saudi Arabia to get US to leave not take over neighboring country and a ttack another from it.
Complain about this comment
103. At 10:24pm on 15 Oct 2009, Illinoisan wrote:
We must set out to finish our mission: to take out the Islamic terrorists who murdered and want to murder innocents in the USA, GB and all around the world. It is do or die time to find these murderers and dispose of them. They are serial killers, sick and twisted to the core. There is no reasoning or justification for what they have done. Any religion that promotes killing and murder is not really a religion, but an agenda by a group of serial killers. We should show them no mercy, as they have showed us no mercy."
Your puerile rantings get increasingly tediuos.
The world is not like the Lone Ranger TV programme.
"The only way to end this war is to take out the Islamic terrorists. There is no other option. Take them all out."
Wow really they must be quivering in their boots - with laughter.
Complain about this comment
104. At 10:31pm on 15 Oct 2009, Illinoisan wrote:
All is fair in love and war."
Especially when you are not the one in the war.
Complain about this comment
92. At 9:19pm on 15 Oct 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
ref #65
IMO, there is a very fine line between our reprehensible actions in the Muslim world and the actions of those we consider terrorists.
____________________________________-
That is the fundamental difference I see the U.S and its allies includeing Israel minimizing civilian casulities and obeying the rules of war."
By bombing schools? Shooting children? This is "Nelson Mandela is a terrorist stuff."
"Other wise the U.S could carpet bomb the afghan/paki border, Beruit would be a crater."
Would it? And the US fleet nearby would have been Pearl harboured by Russian missiles.
"So please no moral equvilency,."
SO please no more propaganda leaflets from the IDF.
Complain about this comment
89. At 9:15pm on 15 Oct 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
(I read some of what was on your Wikipedia link, I don't want someone who seems to have a social agenda affecting foriegn policy).
Really even if that Social Agenda includes appeasment of Israel?
Complain about this comment
Thank you colonelartist I was unsure about troop enlargement but you have convinced me it's necessary to drive out invaders and return Afghanistan to the Afghan people.I am going to contact President and Representatives for both houses of Congress to let them know of my support for troop enlargement.Then hopefully they can make their country their own again.
Complain about this comment
67. At 4:07pm on 15 Oct 2009, GH1618 wrote:
"No one wants to "bring Afghanistan ... into the western world" or "reverse the influence of their ancient customs." The objective is to disrupt and destroy al Qaeda and prevent the region from again becoming a base for terrorist operations against the United States and its NATO allies. President Obama has consistently focused on this objective. I don't know how it can be explained any simpler than that."
Because as a military definition it makes no sense. Al Queda is not an army.
How can someone not know this?
Therfore the "objective" is non existant.
Al Queda could change its name tomorrow, would that count as victory?
Complain about this comment
54. At 02:42am on 15 Oct 2009, chronophobe wrote:
"Without a stable, mostly non-corrupt, functioning polity in Afghanistan, we will not achieve our goal of security through any level of troop 'surge.' If we are not committed to political stability in Afghanistan, I would suggest we should get out now, and let Special Forces strike teams ensure that no 'Safe Havens' for terror are allowed to develop."
That is the point. No minor surge is going to persuade Afghans that their government is a shining light of demoncracy and recititude. All they will be is reinforcing a corrupt regime.
And that means more recruits for the Taliban.
Complain about this comment
90. At 9:15pm on 15 Oct 2009, colonelartist wrote:
What does Saudi Arabia have to do with Afghanistan or the gulf war.nothing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
And what does uk, france, germany, poland, canada to do with 9/11 in newyork, nothing. Saudi arabia has more to do with gulf war than your allies in afghanistan..It provided bases to the american troops from where iraq was attacked..and later on failed to get these troops out of country despite people of saudi arabia wanted their government to do just that..And from this emerged ben laden. So actually, if americans just had moved their troops out from saudi arabia, it would still have those two towers, would not have to attack afghanistan, would not have to blame their failure in afghanistan to pakistan, and you wouldnt be discussing this whole thing.."
Very true. But do not forget the US right was looking for a demon and had been ever since 1990.
There was nothing particularly amazing or highly planned about 9/11.
Complain about this comment
The only way to end this war is to take out the Islamic terrorists. There is no other option. Take them all out.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like the brits tried to do with one called Fakir Ipi wazir? the brits with their fire power including RAF jets and still they couldnt win against him and his few hundred men..they will not let you win, they will make you sit down and talk.
Complain about this comment
98. At 9:45pm on 15 Oct 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
ref #94
"You don't know the restraint being used. Israel in particular minimized civilian casulties. Don't believe the lies in the U.N reprt. Maybe carpet bombing would not work but the U.S is not putting it's full offensive capabilities to use. They have not since WW2"
As if oppressing 4 million people, killng them, denying food and medical supplies and stealing their land during "peace talks" - amounts to "minimising civilian casualties".
GOing by this logic:
Stalin's NKVD minimised unecessary casualties in 1936 because it didn't shoot all its victims.
The German army didn't level Paris in 1944 - so it was concerned with minimising civilian casualties too.
This is a Dershovizian black is white comment.
Complain about this comment
Maybe Bin Laden and the people of Saudi Arabia should launch a complaint or action against their own government inside their own government instead of using Afghanistan and it's people if it has a problem with negotiations it's government makes with the US.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where were you all those years when after gulf war, ben laden along with the rest of ordinary arabians were demanding americans troops out of saudi arabia? Everyone knows that america made the saudi government to force ben laden out of his own country...your stuctures would still be standing tall if your government hadnt made saudi government force ben laden out of his own country..You have to know actions of your own government. Otherwise you will continue to think that the truth is lie and lie is the truth.
Complain about this comment
80. At 6:20pm on 15 Oct 2009, GH1618 wrote:
Here's a link to another enlightening story about the Taliban:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8308313.stm"
Wow can it be that the Taliban are not going to let their enemy set up schools in their area?
Did the US let Japan suppport and set up schools in California after 1941?
Remember what the VC did to American paid teachers (and anyone else who took money and resources from the enemy) when they caught them?
Cant speak Pashtun but it is probably a fair bet that the Taliban are not going to give medals to any who collaborate with the enemy.
Hint they sometimes didn't use bullets.
Complain about this comment
I don't attack innocent people from the country of the government who has the contract.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You dont, because you have your military doing that for you..best example is pakistan..your country attacks pakistan weekly.. and its supposed to be your allies..Terrorists are captured in uk, ever heard usa sending drones to uk in the name of war on terrorism?
Complain about this comment
112. At 11:11pm on 15 Oct 2009, faeyth wrote:
Thank you colonelartist I was unsure about troop enlargement but you have convinced me it's necessary to drive out invaders and return Afghanistan to the Afghan people.I am going to contact President and Representatives for both houses of Congress to let them know of my support for troop enlargement.Then hopefully they can make their country their own again."
Not certain but think you will find the President and Congress think the US is already their own country.
Complain about this comment
Thank you colonelartist I was unsure about troop enlargement but you have convinced me it's necessary to drive out invaders and return Afghanistan to the Afghan people.I am going to contact President and Representatives for both houses of Congress to let them know of my support for troop enlargement.Then hopefully they can make their country their own again.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
My pleasure.the more the merrier.
Complain about this comment
ref #117
As if oppressing 4 million people, killng them, denying food and medical supplies and stealing their land during "peace talks" - amounts to "minimising civilian casualties".
_______________________________________________-
It was never thier land. Second since Hamnas smuggles weapons with aid, you can't expect Israel to let it go. The Palestinians made their bed by choosing terror over peace.
If one side has to suffer it should be them, because they do not want peace. simon you never answer the fact that Israel honored it's peace with Egypt and the Palestinians have never kept there word.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
People who set up schools in Afghanistan and insist that girls attend them are obviously Taliban's ememies.
Since the only schools (for boys from Afghanistan, Pakistan and...UK) which are acceptable to Talibs are madrassas.
Because, we're told here, its "their culture".
The same culture that has destroyed priceless Buddha statues?
There were people in Germany who were burning books and paintings in the 30s. And people in the 40s.
Would you say that they represented German culture?
And those who were doing similar things in USSR - Russian culture?
Complain about this comment
"Ten gunmen, some of them teenagers, died in attacks on three police centres in the Punjab province capital." [BBC World Service]
Were they products of the schools set up by the U.S.?
Is Pakistan (or has it ever been) occupied by US/NATO troops?
Complain about this comment
"Five men have been found guilty in Sydney, Australia, of conspiring to commit terrorist attacks.
A jury deliberated for 23 days before convicting them on charges including possessing chemicals for explosives and instructions to make bombs.
[...]
Prosecutor, Mr Maidment had said: "They were motivated to pursue what they probably saw as a religious cause, that is that of jihad." [BBC]
Question: what type of schools have those specimens attended?
Complain about this comment
To powermeerkat
So what you're saying is that if someone does something very bad you can't possibly generalize to include the whole culture (Russians, Germans, Christians, Americans etc) but you can generalize in the case of the unfamiliar Muslim culture.
Complain about this comment
Re #128
There is no such thing as Muslim culture.
There was however such a thing as Egyptian culture, Arab culture and Persian culture.
What Islam did to them is a matter of a well documented historic record.
Just as what it did to a part of India known today as Pakistan.
And to Indonesia. [Bali, anyone?]
Complain about this comment
"We started using the suicide bomber because we were under siege at the time," a militant leader told me in 2006.
"We were short of trained men as many had been arrested or killed in the crackdown following 9/11. The places where we could set-up training camps were also declared out of bounds.
"The easiest way to fight back was to use a bomb and the easiest way to ensure its success was to use someone to manually detonate the device. Little training was needed, and the younger the bomber the easier it was to convince them," the militant said. [BBC report from Pakistan]
So obviously if there had been no arrests and training camps would not been denied to Pakistani Talibs there would have been no bomb attacks, because there wouldn't have been any shortage of "trained men". ;-)
Complain about this comment
Re "Muslim culture"
Watch this "Romance in Tehran park"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8285777.stm
Complain about this comment
129 meerkat
"There was however such a thing as Egyptian culture, Arab culture and Persian culture.
What Islam did to them is a matter of a well documented historic record."
There was also a celtic culture, maya culture, inca culture etc. What Chrsitanity did to them is a matter of well documented historic record.
Let's get those Christians!!!!
Complain about this comment
They were motivated to pursue what they probably saw as a religious cause, that is that of jihad."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is purely the procecuters own opinions. He doesnt know for fact that this was motivated by jihad, he just guessed it..The probability principle says that the other half of the equation says they probably werent motivated by religious cause...
Complain about this comment
So obviously if there had been no arrests and training camps would not been denied to Pakistani Talibs there would have been no bomb attacks, because there wouldn't have been any shortage of "trained men". ;-)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, thats what he is saying.. simple and straight forward facts..Less collateral damage. War has to be fair if people are to be tried for war crimes..When you dont have any rules of war, you cannot accuse anyone for war crimes..
Complain about this comment
The same culture that has destroyed priceless Buddha statues?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atleast they made those statues famous all over the world...Its not as if the world used to come there every day.Majority of people who carelessly opinionate about those stautes after their destruction, didnt even know about their existance.
Complain about this comment
To powermeerkat
"Let's get those Christians!!!!" in #132
Do you agree we should get those Christians? if not, why not?
Complain about this comment
"Held back by a police line, and surrounded by camera crews from around the world, they chanted slogans such as "Sharia for the UK" and "Freedom go to hell" and held up placards saying: "Sharia for the Netherlands" and "Islam will be superior"." [BBC World Service]
and those people were motivated by...?
Complain about this comment
Re#132 RomeStu wrote: Let's get those Christians!!!!
That's precisely what Islamic fanatics are saying. :-)
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"The city [Peshawar] was also targeted on Thursday, when a bombing killed a child, and one week ago, when a deadly bomb ripped through a busy city market in the city.
[..]
Most of the injured had been shifted to hospital but one witness told me he saw a massive plume of smoke and then, when he went to the site, he saw bodies strewn across the ground without arms or legs.
Local shopkeepers said that people were afraid to come to the bazaar because of all the recent blasts.
That attack killed at least 49 people in the busy Khyber Bazaar."[BBC]
There's no shortage of "trained peple" and no shortage of terrorist training camps in Pakistan now. Particularly in Waziristan.
And yet still bombs.
BTW. the victims weren't soldiers or policemen.
Those bombed on a bus in Afghanistan just recently were women and children.
Cricketers from Sri Lanka targeted by "freedom fighters" weren't soldiers or policemen either.
And yet Taliban apologists still do not run out of excuses.
Complain about this comment
colonelartist so by your logic anytime anyone murders others,or sells out their own people for money,or terrorizes people in different countries they have no ethical or moral responsibility because they are middle eastern.I am glad we hold our governments accountable.that's why congress went from GOP to DEM in 2006 because we know their blunders and evil and that why Obama was elected instead of McCain it was about accountability and we held them accountable for it ,not make excuses for it or the double standard you seem to have for the Middle East as opposed to the West.There is enough blame to go around that's why wars happen but everyone has to take responsibility for their actions even if provoked.every one has excuses and reasons.And the reason is usually Greed and Power of the elites using others such as religious beliefs and poverty to get what they want.It happens everywhere.Americans are angry at former President Bush and GOP,he's already basically been decided as worse President in US history for exploiting people for profits of the rich.And Rich lives everywhere.Why do you make excuses for the mistreatment of the population in the Middle East,If you ask me both the US and European and Middle Eastern population has just been scam by the wealthy and religious elites.Now Obama didn't start the war in Afghanistan however he doesn't want to leave a broke down crap hole,some US want to cut loses and leave and just hand out money however some believe you need troops to protect the people of Afghanistan and the building projects to ultimately help the people there.Most Americans have every intention of helping the people,they are unsure the best way.You clearly don't understand Americans or their culture or their people.Saudi Arabia asked US to help defend it for fears of Iraq and elites with their oil money.Bin Laden thought he could help, Saudi Government knew he didn't have the resources or troops to get the job done.He has used many people out of Ego that comes from being a elite who was denied ,who can't be a Hero all the time so he thought he would be a hero in a different country but instead brought war to a country that had nothing to do with Saudi Arabia,Iran,US,Iraq,etc or their wars for Oil..Because he helped them once during Soviet invasion with again American Money and assistance the Afghan people they thought a hero was returning to help them but instead hurt them by exploiting their poverty and religion.And convincing them to take part in militant fight that wasn't their problem.Bin Laden left Saudi Arabia because he was a rich elite and couldn't get what he wanted from his government and was rejected by his rich royal family friends.He has exploited the Afghan people and you know it.Just as the Rich in this country has too.Right now Americans are angry for being exploited and exploiting others for profits.Try holding your Elites equally responsible.We are all getting fleeced by the wealthy they will use God if it benefits them.If you want to reach the American public with concerns have a celebrity make a documentary don't attack innocent people especially children.Most Americans are very protective of Children.Those who aren't are pretty much decided as being criminals or horrible people.
Complain about this comment
colonelartist so by your logic anytime anyone murders others,or sells out their own people for money,or terrorizes people in different countries they have no ethical or moral responsibility because they are middle eastern.I am glad we hold our governments accountable.that's why congress went from GOP to DEM in 2006 because we know their blunders and evil and that why Obama was elected instead of McCain it was about accountability and we held them accountable for it ,not make excuses for it or the double standard you seem to have for the Middle East as opposed to the West.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, you dont hold your leaders accountable. Which leader in your country has been held accountable for the war in iraq? A war started on the basis of lies. Name one.
Complain about this comment
Cricketers from Sri Lanka targeted by "freedom fighters" weren't soldiers or policemen either.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ask the sri lanken government and it will tell you that tamils were involved in it...
Complain about this comment
Obama didn't start the war in Afghanistan however he doesn't want to leave a broke down crap hole.............
Saudi Arabia asked US to help defend it for fears of Iraq and elites with their oil money.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, he didnt start the war, but he doesnt want to stop it either. To obama goes the credit of war with pakistan.And thats why you should have voted for Mccain. Democrats keep the flame burning so that republicans can start the war, and then democrats take over, saying, "we didnt start the war".
Saudi King, according to your defination of democracy, has not power f people behind him, he is a dictator..King of saudi arabia, karzai, they are your dictators, they are sitting firmly because they serve american interests..The government of usa forced the king of saudi arabia to invite the troops to stay in saudi arabia on the pretext of that the kingdom was scared of iraq..the non saudi arabians, all those who are not in the royal family of saud, were against it..And they are in majority..The saud are just one of the many families in that country.Your government support saud family to stay in power,the sauds were scared a coup against them.
Complain about this comment
Try holding your Elites equally responsible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its not afghans who want a second round of elections in afghanistan, its usa and the west..afghans want him out of the campaign, A candidate who has been shown to have cheated in elections dont get a second chance, according to your democracy.But, he will be elected as president because the west wants to him to ask the west to do things which the west wants to do---just like america made saudi king to invite them to be in saudi arabia..In iraq, the same thing. In pakistan the same thing..when everyone in pakistan was protesting on streets, he was much adored by the west and it was not until the whole of the country was ready to surround his president house, that the west finaly distanced themselves with him..Left alone he had to go..Its was the death of benezir which made him leave pakistan, otherwise the general was already to be the president with her as his prime minister..Finally those who are protesting up in the north are being killed..and then called terrorists..
Complain about this comment
Try holding your Elites equally responsible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why should I hold my elites responsibles, my problem will be solved if you hold your leaders or elites or whatever they are to you, accountable..For a change, do it and we will see if your government what your government do you . call you terrorist or insurgents and blow up your houses..
Complain about this comment
You just can't admit there are greedy people everywhere looking out for their own interests even in Middle East and the US can't force anyone to sign their names to a document unless it costs that greedy person money from the U.S your monarch sold you out,take it up with him still not sure what has to do with foreign Terrorists who are in Afghanistan or Pakistan,they are not citizens of those countries.By the way the US had a monarchy once as well as many European nations which don't now and the ones who do have limited power.If Saudi's don't like the government do something about it we did.Don't blame your problems of your government on other nations because they the foreigner exploits your people from permission from your government that's ridiculous.America made us do it,Yea Right It always easier to blame someone else for your problems than fixing them for your self because that would take work and risk.And if Dems don't stop Corporation from exploiting people they to will lose office,there are other parties waiting to take over.Besides you know nothing about Americans politics or it infrastructure.Obama never said he would end the Wars he said he would manage them better over time leaving the people a functioning government run by the people the same that was done for countries which used to be territories and Japan.Eventually the people of Iraq and Afghanistan will rule themselves they can use the court and votes to make changes and share resources or guns and continue violence fighting over resources.Do You only think that Bush being held responsible has to mean violence than you don't understand the US,he lives in isolation because he is hated and ridiculed where ever he goes same as Cheney.No matter where they go.And there is talks of a Trial for them however it very complicated based on the laws passed by Congress and the Supreme Court.It would take years and changes to Laws,which couldn't happen right now because of Bush 1 and 2 appointees to Supreme Court.It would literally take years because those judges are appointed for life or if they choose to resign.When we had fights with Britain during revolution,War of 1812 you don't think it costs us money from trade,it did.And again when we had a Civil War over slavery again it costs us money from trade.We did what was moral for our people even if it cost us money.You can change your own country.The middle East was once an educated and wealthy region but only the people there can decide to change by holding the people that govern them can accountable and working with all people of your country to improve it.
Complain about this comment
A democracy is a bloodless revolution using votes to get rid of ineffective leaders and their policies using the votes ,the majority rules the country while the courts protect the minorities view.We used votes to avoid militant bloodshed to get rid of leaders.Congress has Representatives so each district can voice their opinion,that's why there are 2 Houses of Congress.One is based on population,the other is 2 Senators for each 50 states,each State has their own views.This was how we compromise population and government of all 50 states.Both houses have to agree when writing laws.That way if something is important enough it gets passed through and sent to President to sign he can veto or sign into law.If he veto's it and it's important to Congress they can over ride his veto with a 2/3rds majority vote.After it passes Congress and approved by President or over ridden by Congress,The Supreme Court(who are judges appointed by President and approved by the Senate because that there Privilege)they decide if it's legal according to constitution and doesn't go against Bill of Rights which is the individual rights of every person in US.House which is elected by Population gets to approve budgets that's their privilege and they can make decisions against a President by not giving him funds and only Congress can collect Federal Taxes so they have the money.It's complicated and a slow process.And no matter what you think of Bush2 only Congress can declare war and accept terms of peace.Obama has to make a decision about Iraq and Afghanistan but only with support from Congress.Congress is just as much involved.If Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq and Congress didn't,he wouldn't have been able to,that's why those congressman and senators were voted out in 2006 because they approved the war.However the US was already there and if we help destroy a country we feel we should help restore the country.The American public is trying to right their wrongs from their ineffective Leaders Bush and GOP.
Complain about this comment
138. powermeerkat wrote:
"Re#132 RomeStu wrote: Let's get those Christians!!!!
That's precisely what Islamic fanatics are saying. :-)"
Oh, I thought they were just after the 'Merkuns and their puppets (sorry, allies). I bet the Argentinians and Poles are beginning to worry.
At least the Czechs will be ok - they're predominantly atheist now. Sensible people and great beer.
Complain about this comment
A democracy is a bloodless revolution using votes to get rid of ineffective leaders and their policies using the votes ,the majority rules the country while the courts protect the minorities view.We used votes to avoid militant bloodshed to get rid of leaders.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
And then you can in far off countries, use your corrupt system of democracy to get your lackeys in power..Its not me, who rejected hamas when it was elected, its your elected leaders who refuse to believe the elected leaders of palestine as elected..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..Maybe perhaps in your country a candidat for president who gets his party's votes through fraud is allowed to run for the president elctions, thats why west is just saying that karzai didnt get 50 percent votes he cheated, thats why second round should take place..Your system is corrupt, have a look at it in afghanistan, iraq, even in egypt..its for you to decide to do something about it or continue to support it..which if you do, would mean, that the society has a room for lot of corruption.
Complain about this comment
The American public is trying to right their wrongs from their ineffective Leaders Bush and GOP.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allow me to point out something. Those who are not from usa, couldnt care less if its bush or obama, if its democrats or republicans..thats your internal politics..to a non american, republican and democrats are all the same..Example, both voted for afghan war, iraq war, agree to exapand war into pakistan, agree on iran..
Complain about this comment
Time to cut bait. Send the military home and use the drones. Where is "SemperFi"
Complain about this comment
140. At 5:17pm on 16 Oct 2009, powermeerkat wrote:
"The city [Peshawar] was also targeted on Thursday, when a bombing killed a child, and one week ago, when a deadly bomb ripped through a busy city market in the city.
[..]
Most of the injured had been shifted to hospital but one witness told me he saw a massive plume of smoke and then, when he went to the site, he saw bodies strewn across the ground without arms or legs.
Local shopkeepers said that people were afraid to come to the bazaar because of all the recent blasts.
That attack killed at least 49 people in the busy Khyber Bazaar."[BBC]
There's no shortage of "trained peple" and no shortage of terrorist training camps in Pakistan now. Particularly in Waziristan."
Hmmm why is that you reckon, nothing to do with drones operated by foreigners killing schoolchildren?
"BTW. the victims weren't soldiers or policemen."
BTW (and keep this under your hat) its a guerilla war.
"Those bombed on a bus in Afghanistan just recently were women and children.
Cricketers from Sri Lanka targeted by "freedom fighters" weren't soldiers or policemen either."
Neither were the women and children trying to get free fuel from two hijacked trucks.
Didn't stop the brave USAF killing scores of them. Lying. Then admitting the atrocity and saying opps!
"And yet Taliban apologists still do not run out of excuses."
With the US bombing the Taliban do not need excuses.
Complain about this comment
137. At 4:13pm on 16 Oct 2009, powermeerkat wrote:
"Held back by a police line, and surrounded by camera crews from around the world, they chanted slogans such as "Sharia for the UK" and "Freedom go to hell" and held up placards saying: "Sharia for the Netherlands" and "Islam will be superior"." [BBC World Service]
and those people were motivated by...?"
Hazarding a guess here but I would think they were pushing a cause as they have a perfect right to do in a democracy.
Yep even non-whites or those who follow a semitic religion have democractic rights to gather and shout slogans - just like white christian people do.
Perhaps you should go and live in the PRC or North Korea if democracy bothers you so much.
Complain about this comment
"Held back by a police line, and surrounded by camera crews from around the world, they chanted slogans such as "Sharia for the UK" and "Freedom go to hell" and held up placards saying: "Sharia for the Netherlands" and "Islam will be superior"." [BBC World Service]
and those people were motivated by...?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the dutch guy called Wilder..Who else do you think? Wilder not only motivates his own extremists, but his opposition also gets motivated. What was he doing in uk, anyway..He is not not the citizen of united kingdom (queendom) the protesters are and in their country, their freedom of speech comes before that of the wilder..And before you act as Wilder. Instead of reacting to the slogan "freedom go to hell", you should atleast pay a lip service against it as well, such parties should not be encouraged..the only difference between freedom party of wilder and Nazi party of hitler, nazi's was against jews, and freedom is against muslims. Any Tom Dick and Harry knows that Wilder's party is called freedom party, and this situation occured when Wilder visited london..
Complain about this comment
"Argentinians are beginning to worry"
Argentina has already BEEN a victim of terrorist bomb attack which resultated in a massive loss of life. [How soon they forget!]
It was organized by terorist Quds (part of Iranian Revolutionary Guard).
The organizer of that attack is now a minister of defense of Islamic Republic of Iran. Laughing at Interpol on whose 'wanted' list his mug has been prominently displayed for quite some time.
P.S. It would be nice if some people admitted that they are simply Taliban, Quds and al-Qaida and similar outfits' sympathizers, if not supporters.
But somehow I doubt they will.
Complain about this comment
156. At 5:46pm on 17 Oct 2009, powermeerkat wrote:
"Argentinians are beginning to worry"
Argentina has already BEEN a victim of terrorist bomb attack which resultated in a massive loss of life. [How soon they forget!]
It was organized by terorist Quds (part of Iranian Revolutionary Guard).
The organizer of that attack is now a minister of defense of Islamic Republic of Iran. Laughing at Interpol on whose 'wanted' list his mug has been prominently displayed for quite some time."
And you know this for a fact because he is a moslem and Iranian? Interpol however disagrees with you, doesn't it.
"P.S. It would be nice if some people admitted that they are simply Taliban, Quds and al-Qaida and similar outfits' sympathizers, if not supporters."
It would also be nice if the boards were closed to Islamophobes looking for a new group to hate.
Complain about this comment
Additional troops will not help if the commander and chief is incompetent.
Our casualties are one half again higher than Bush's highest rate. The reason is because "the politicians" will not allow an air strike to come to the aid of ambushed troops. (and yes, the unsupported troops get slaughtered) The troops can not shoot until they are under fire; the insurgents learned to aim before starting the volley.
Why do the generals not support our troops or allow them to fight? Because they are following orders from higher up. They only answer to one person.
Obviously, the community organizer is incompetent in this theater, too.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Iran's minister-terrorist NOT on Interpol's 'wanted' list?
"Iran's defence minister-designate is on an Interpol "wanted" list over the 1994 bombing of a Jewish centre in Argentina, the agency has confirmed.
It says it has had a "red notice" for Ahmad Vahidi since 2007 over the Buenos Aires attack that killed 85 people.
Interpol uses red notices to inform its 187 member countries that an arrest warrant has been issued for an individual by a judicial authority." [BBC]
Yes, facts are stubborn things.
Complain about this comment
Another prominent Islamic leader on an international "wanted" list.
Leader of Sudan, Omar Hassan al-Bashir is an indicted war criminal held responsible for the deaths of over 300,000 people in Darfur.
And whose regime, may I add, is staunchly supported by PRC.
True or false?
Complain about this comment
"Several top commanders in Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard have been killed in a suicide bombing in the volatile south-east of the country.
Iranian state media say at least 20 people have died in the attack, in the province of Sistan-Baluchistan, and dozens more injured.
[...]
The deputy commander of the Guard's ground force, General Noor Ali Shooshtari, and the Guard's chief provincial commander, Rajab Ali Mohammadzadeh, were among the dead, Irna state news agency reported.
[BBC]
What goes around, comes around?
Complain about this comment
75. At 5:17pm on 15 Oct 2009, colonelartist wrote:
“Did you remind your president, when he started gulf war against iraq, that iraq didnt invade kuwait, it just took what was natural its..” [sic]
Let me get this straight, if the US wants Canada, the US can just march in and take “what was naturally its.” [sic]. I can’t tell if you are being illogical, trying to make a joke, don’t know the historical facts, or suffer from some other problem.
Complain about this comment
Colonelartist wrote, "War has to be fair if people are to be tried for war crimes..When you dont have any rules of war, you cannot accuse anyone for war crimes..."
Well, at least there appears to be something that we can agree on. BUT if we extend this to respect for human life and proportionality of punishment to offense we would have to criticize people who impose the death penalty for cultural reasons [Taliban, Wahabi, Darbasti].
Complain about this comment
123. At 00:53am on 16 Oct 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
ref #117
“It was never thier land.” [sic]
I presume you mean that Palestine never belonged to the Palestinians. After Masada the Romans expelled most Jewish survivors. So from that time to 1923, who was living in Palestine and how long [in generations] had they been there? I don’t want to get into the case of the Peleseti/Philistines/ Phoenicians, whom the illegal immigrants [Israelites] dispossessed in their religious “jihad” previously [and not completely, at that].
I do not accept the Torah/Bible as a deed granting the land to the people who wrote it. So, after centuries, the dispossessed return to Israel and buy some land. That would not have been a problem if the land had not been purchased from the Turkish occupiers rather than the people who had been living and working on it since Roman times.
This does not justify killing innocent more recent (Jewish) immigrants. I have told both Muslim and Jewish people who complain about the situation in Israel, “as long as both Muslim and Jew, who are 'sons of Shem,' continue committing the sin of Cain against each other they will continue to be punished.”
Complain about this comment
Several top commanders in Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard have been killed in a suicide bombing in the volatile south-east of the country.
Iranian state media say at least 20 people have died in the attack, in the province of Sistan-Baluchistan, and dozens more injured.
[...]
The deputy commander of the Guard's ground force, General Noor Ali Shooshtari, and the Guard's chief provincial commander, Rajab Ali Mohammadzadeh, were among the dead, Irna state news agency reported.
[BBC]
What goes around, comes around?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
And this has to do with increasing american troops in afghanistan?
And should we say, what goes around, comes around to the 9/11 episode in newyork and pentagon?
Complain about this comment
Let me get this straight, if the US wants Canada, the US can just march in and take “what was naturally its.” [sic]. I can’t tell if you are being illogical, trying to make a joke, don’t know the historical facts, or suffer from some other problem.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If usa can prove that canada was at some point theirs, then by all means..And then once canada is joined (again) with usa, then it should give the whole area back to native americans..Because this logic is being used by usa and the rest of "decent" westeren countries when they justify outsider coming to middle east and forming a borderless, constituional less, israel.
Complain about this comment
Well, at least there appears to be something that we can agree on. BUT if we extend this to respect for human life and proportionality of punishment to offense we would have to criticize people who impose the death penalty for cultural reasons [Taliban, Wahabi, Darbasti].
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
But why would you be so hyper to extend it to taliban or the other two you mentioned, when you yourself cannot follow the rules when its time to follow them..Those rules arent meant to be applied during peace..Their testing times come when there is war, and as far as I know, the west failed to do it..I suggest, you start to worship those rules now.
Complain about this comment
Iranian ayatollahs now accuse Pakistan of assisting Jundallah in their bombing attack on Revolutionary Guard leaders in Iran's Sistan&Baluchistan province.
Oh, irony of that all.
Complain about this comment
A comment posted on HYS:
"Some Pakistani colleagues of mine were so confident that running the UK by their way (Sharia law) would make it a better place.
May I suggest, that they reconsider their unsolicited advice?
M Agrawal, London, United Kingdom "
Complain about this comment
Found on HYS:
I'm a teen and resident of South Punjab (Pakistan). Today when i went to school and there was crowd...I enquired whats happening and I was told that it'll be off for a week due to state's condition(Taliban oppose coeducation). I don't like missing school :-p
Ahmed, D.G Khan
Complain about this comment
170. At 08:28am on 19 Oct 2009, powermeerkat wrote:
A comment posted on HYS:
"Some Pakistani colleagues of mine were so confident that running the UK by their way (Sharia law) would make it a better place.
Some Christian colleagues beleive abolishing education in evolution will make the world a more holy place.
"May I suggest, that they reconsider their unsolicited advice?
M Agrawal, London, United Kingdom "
Why?
Complain about this comment
171. At 11:04am on 19 Oct 2009, powermeerkat wrote:
Found on HYS:
I'm a teen and resident of South Punjab (Pakistan). Today when i went to school and there was crowd...I enquired whats happening and I was told that it'll be off for a week due to state's condition(Taliban oppose coeducation). I don't like missing school :-p
Ahmed, D.G Khan
Apologies that your text is used by someone with a certain, shall we say, problem.
But congrats on having a computer and electricity
Complain about this comment
162. At 09:23am on 18 Oct 2009, powermeerkat wrote:
"Several top commanders in Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard have been killed in a suicide bombing in the volatile south-east of the country.
Iranian state media say at least 20 people have died in the attack, in the province of Sistan-Baluchistan, and dozens more injured.
[...]
The deputy commander of the Guard's ground force, General Noor Ali Shooshtari, and the Guard's chief provincial commander, Rajab Ali Mohammadzadeh, were among the dead, Irna state news agency reported.
[BBC]
What goes around, comes around?"
And this is your reaction to a suicide bomber?
Hmmm interesting.
What if the victims had been white?
I think we know the answer to that one.
Complain about this comment
160. At 06:54am on 18 Oct 2009, powermeerkat wrote:
Iran's minister-terrorist NOT on Interpol's 'wanted' list?
"Iran's defence minister-designate is on an Interpol "wanted" list over the 1994 bombing of a Jewish centre in Argentina, the agency has confirmed.
It says it has had a "red notice" for Ahmad Vahidi since 2007 over the Buenos Aires attack that killed 85 people.
Interpol uses red notices to inform its 187 member countries that an arrest warrant has been issued for an individual by a judicial authority." [BBC]
Yes, facts are stubborn things."
So is bigotry and reacial prejudice eh. Wanted is not the same as guilty. Save if you beleive in lynch law
Complain about this comment
160. At 06:54am on 18 Oct 2009, powermeerkat wrote:
Iran's minister-terrorist NOT on Interpol's 'wanted' list?
"Iran's defence minister-designate is on an Interpol "wanted" list over the 1994 bombing of a Jewish centre in Argentina, the agency has confirmed.
It says it has had a "red notice" for Ahmad Vahidi since 2007 over the Buenos Aires attack that killed 85 people.
Interpol uses red notices to inform its 187 member countries that an arrest warrant has been issued for an individual by a judicial authority." [BBC]
Yes.
Maybe you should read docuemtns before citing them?
This man is not wanted by Interpol:
INTERPOL respects the sovereignty and independence of each of its 187 member countries, and any decision to arrest or not arrest a person who is the subject of an INTERPOL Red Notice is made by each individual member country.
INTERPOL cannot demand that any member country arrest the subject of a Red Notice."
Could it be clearer?
Sorry if your English is not so good.
Complain about this comment
Iranian ayatollahs now accuse Pakistan of assisting Jundallah in their bombing attack on Revolutionary Guard leaders in Iran's Sistan&Baluchistan province.
Oh, irony of that all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And everyone in pakistan knows that jundallah is an organization which is greatly and unconditionally supported by india..and this organization along with others have known to have used Nato weapons..Your question to yourself should be, "how do these people get hold of such weapons"..Baluchistan both in iran and pakistan is rich with oil and natural gas, the people who know the unknowns of the war against terrorism, had for a long suspected that west wants to liberate iranian baluchistan in the same way they liberated kurdistan, but for that they want part of pakistan's baluchistan as well..Ergo, you hear american plan of droning some areas of pakistan's baluchistan including its capital, quetta, under the pretext of "taliban are there". And the teenaged boy in D.G. khan, tell him his school was closed because of the refugees who are arriving from the under attacked areas in south waziristan.It will probably be used to accomodate the refugees..
Complain about this comment
167. At 2:38pm on 18 Oct 2009, colonelartist wrote:
McJakome: "Let me get this straight, if the US wants Canada, the US can just march in and take “what was naturally its.” [sic]. I can’t tell if you are being illogical, trying to make a joke, don’t know the historical facts, or suffer from some other problem.
colonelartist: "If usa can prove that canada was at some point theirs, then by all means..And then once canada is joined (again) with usa, then it should give the whole area back to native americans..Because this logic is being used by usa and the rest of "decent" westeren countries when they justify outsider coming to middle east and forming a borderless, constituional less, israel."
Proof? India can give proof that the Raja of Jammu & Kashmir legally transferred his sovereinty to India, Israelis can show you receipts and deeds prooving that they bought palestinian land from the turkish owners.
Will you accept those proofs, or only proofs that appeal to you? They are certainly as strong as Saddam's claim on Kuwait [especially the Kashmir claim]. I think all of them are wrong because the people living there did not consent or approve. But that's just western prejudice.
PS Is India a "Western outsider"?
Complain about this comment
colonelartist: "If usa can prove that canada was at some point theirs, then by all means..And then once canada is joined (again) with usa, then it should give the whole area back to native americans..Because this logic is being used by usa and the rest of "decent" westeren countries when they justify outsider coming to middle east and forming a borderless, constituional less, israel."
Proof? India can give proof that the Raja of Jammu & Kashmir legally transferred his sovereinty to India, Israelis can show you receipts and deeds prooving that they bought palestinian land from the turkish owners.
Will you accept those proofs, or only proofs that appeal to you? They are certainly as strong as Saddam's claim on Kuwait [especially the Kashmir claim]. I think all of them are wrong because the people living there did not consent or approve. But that's just western prejudice.
PS Is India a "Western outsider"?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
If usa has a proof about canada, it can go ahead. Your jump from canada to kashmir and then palestinian is quite a long one..A world's record, I must say. If israel and india has such a proof, they can present it in UN..The pakistanis and the kashmirees and palestinians will gladely take India and israel up over there..And who knows, pakistanis would not only end up with kashmir but also Hyderabad deccan as well..I suggest you first read the report written by the father of Madeline Albrite about kashmir...and his conclusion..and UN resoultion where it passed a decree about holding a plebcite in indian occupied kashmir.I will not confuse you by telling you to read about hyderabad deccan..Things you dont know, should not be known to you. YOu like to float with the wind, and so you should..
Complain about this comment
I think all of them are wrong because the people living there did not consent or approve.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever heard syed Ali shah Gilani? Mir wais omar Farooq? Do you know what their stand is? Do you know about the security council's resolution passed 61 yrs ago where it told india to allow kashmiris to hold a plebicite? Do you know that UN still consider kashmir as disputed areas, go check its map..
When a western outsider is the leader of the ruling party in india, then it becomes a western outsider..
Complain about this comment
colonelartist wrote: "The pakistanis and the kashmirees and palestinians will gladely take India and israel up over there..And who knows, pakistanis would not only end up with kashmir but also Hyderabad deccan as well..I suggest you first read the report written by the father of Madeline Albrite about kashmir...and his conclusion..and UN resoultion where it passed a decree about holding a plebcite in indian occupied kashmir.I will not confuse you by telling you to read about hyderabad deccan..Things you dont know, should not be known to you. YOu like to float with the wind, and so you should.."
You didn't answer the question, you blathered and put up a smokesreen. I guess that answers my question, you consider yourself judge, jury and executioner and accept only evidence that conforms to your personal and associative prejudices.
Of course I know about Hyderabad and other issues from the partition. So what? The issue is not whether there are other issues or whether they have been resolved but whether they are legitimate and whether there is any difference between them.
Bogus legalism, without the consent of the people, is not acceptable. You can not reasonably or logically insist that Saddam Hussein had a legitimate right to Kuwait whilst denying that India and Israel have "legitimate" rights to their conquests.
I asked about Canada to determine if you were propounding a universal truth, it is you who brought up Mexico and Native Americans. Do you also consider the bits claimed by Pakistan and India and snatched by China to have been legitimately taken, and that China is a Western imperialist outsider?
"When a western outsider is the leader of the ruling party in india, then it becomes a western outsider..." From an Indian perspective, the constant attacks, occupations and imperialism by Arab and Persian invaders over the past centuries could be said to be "western" colonialism and imperialism, could they not?
Does President Obama make the US a non-white, African nation?
Your illogicality, tendency to obfuscate and obvious prejudices make reading your posts less than enlightening.
Complain about this comment
I asked about Canada to determine if you were propounding a universal truth, it is you who brought up Mexico and Native Americans. Do you also consider the bits claimed by Pakistan and India and snatched by China to have been legitimately taken, and that China is a Western imperialist outsider?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I said, if usa can prove it, then it can take it, I will not say anything against it, it has my permisiion.China can take whatever it has taken, i have nothing against china.I am satisfied that china doesnt consider kashmir to be an indian part and issues a different visa to those people..The leader of ruling party is a european, not even a born indian.And as far as us is concerned I dont care if its ruled by a black or white or blue, or green or even a donkey.
Complain about this comment
Dear McJ:
Did you never hear the saying that you should never argue with a drunk or a fool?
Yours,
IF
Complain about this comment
Did you never hear the saying that you should never argue with a drunk or a fool?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allast someone said what taliban and all those who are against western allies grand scheme of neo colonization of muslim world, have been saying fom the day one about these westerners whose record is stuck on two or three things " islamists are evil, islamists kill for their religon, islam is extremist religon".
Complain about this comment
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
______
McJ:
Correction: Never argue with a drunk, a fool, or the mentally ill.
Yours,
IF
Complain about this comment
33. At 10:08pm on 14 Oct 2009, PursuitOfLove wrote:
"But Mark, surely you're aware that those within a religious comunity, while their debates do in fact take place within the boundries of common assumptions, do still hold very drasticly aposing views of their religion itself, the place it should have in their personal lives, the place it should have in public life, and the place it should have in governmental life? Two given people agreeing upon "common assumptions" do not mean, in any way, that they'll agree on the basics of how to solve a given problem! Just look at the current debates going on within the Christian comunity in the US and the Muslum comunity in the UK."
You are making a number of unjustified assumptions. Yes in modern Western culture it is considered necessary to dialogue and to tolerate dissent. It was not always thus, and, unfortunately, Wahabbis and Taleban think that they know exactly what God wants and the only alternative is death to the infidel.
Pointing to dialog in the UK or American Muslim communities is misleading. They are surrounded by the tolerant Western culture. What would happen if they started beheading infidels and apostates in these countries? Those who didn't face prison terms [death in Texas] would probably face deportation.
Do you know what happend under the Taleban in Afghanistan and what happens in Saudi Arabia if you say something in opposition to the prescribed code, much less actually behave in an alternative fashion?
Complain about this comment
Oh Mark, please tell me you don't actually believe that article. LBJ NEVER listened to his generals. Thats why we had the most restrictive operational methods ever in the world. Why it took till 1972 for a full air campaign to occur over the North, and even then it was abruptly halted when the North fled to the negotiating table, the war nearly lost for them. This is the same crap that lodges in our popular memory of Vietnam. Afghanistan is nothing like Vietnam, save for people who think we're in the same protracted war. There are similarities - namely a gueriilla force that takes refuge across the border when the going is tough, where Coalition forces can't get them.
But thats about it. The Vietcong were more or less controlled by the Northern army (never a 'popular' group), had Northern political officers, and was TOTALLY wiped out from the Northern initiated Tet Offensive. Also, Vietnam was a developing country, whereas most of Afghanistan is about as developed as the Jurassic Park. What people don't realize is this endavor will take TIME - the alternate scenario is loads of refugees. In Afghanistan's case, its a constant theme - with everu change of government, you can find the last regime's refugees somewhere in Europe/etc.
Its sad, but people just don't have the will. This is an endeavor that will take a long long time. But to me, the alternate scenario is unacceptable. People seem to have forgotten we were ATTACKED from that place on 9/11. And people's fairyland delusions of simply keeping the Taliban and AQ in check with drones and special forces is impossible - it was already tried. Real changes require real effort.
Complain about this comment
Its sad, but people just don't have the will. This is an endeavor that will take a long long time. But to me, the alternate scenario is unacceptable. People seem to have forgotten we were ATTACKED from that place on 9/11. And people's fairyland delusions of simply keeping the Taliban and AQ in check with drones and special forces is impossible - it was already tried. Real changes require real effort.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no alternative scenario. You were not attacked from that place..the link which you managed to establish was the presence of one person in afghanistan, which you could not even prove was behind that attack when you invaded that country, the prove was selectively gathered by the so called terrorists in gitmo..But 8 yrs after this mess, people on the other side have forgotten 9/11..they have lost more people because of this incidence..Its up to you folks to confront your government why other options were rejected in a hasty manner..
Complain about this comment
India can give proof that the Raja of Jammu & Kashmir legally transferred his sovereinty to India,
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This day in 1947, the indian troops formally occupied kashmir. Two days earlier indian defence committee headed by lord Mountbatten gave the orders to occupy it..The raja of whom you spoke, had until that day hadnt decided which way to go. The english gentleman alloted to pakistan, General Gracy refused to send troops of kashmir to help the uprisers to liberate from the indians..If you pay notice to the corruptness of your leader's present, you will have no problem decoding the past.this is the beauty of living in the present.
Complain about this comment
185. At 3:43pm on 25 Oct 2009, Interestedforeigner wrote:
“McJ:
Correction: Never argue with a drunk, a fool, or the mentally ill.”
Yes, but I have an almost irresistible urge to sober up the drunk, wise up the fool, and cure the mentally ill. I am, however able to resist the urge [usually] to correct the grammar of the ungrammatical and the spelling of the questionably literate [that chore I leave at work].
Best regards,
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS