Afghanistan troops: Decision time for Obama
President Obama has held his ninth and last meeting on strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and after months of deliberating he's ready to make an announcement next week. We expect it to be a big speech on Tuesday, during TV prime time, which means around 8pm Eastern Standard Time (0100 GMT). He could make it from the Oval Office, or in front of troops.
While some Republicans have criticised the president for dithering, envoy to the region Richard Holbrooke , who had a junior ringside seat during LBJ's critical decisions about Vietnam and was of course deeply involved in Bosnia and Kosovo, said recently that it has been "the most tough, sustained, thoughtful process I have every seen: exactly the way decisions should be made".
By the end of next week comments on the process will give way to debate on the substance, about the decision itself.
If he does decide to increase troop numbers, the reaction from his own party will be all important. Many resent the commitment and the cost, and think the American people are with them.
If the president sets his face against his own most loyal supporters, it could set a tone that make a real difference to his whole administration.
Already one Democratic congressman is calling for a new tax on the rich to pay for the war.
A thoughtful piece in The Nation argues that Obama should be the first Democratic president to buck the trend and refuse to ramp up a war to appease the right, and another commentator Tom Engelhardt sets out the speech he wishes the president would make ending the war.
He won't do that, but he will be talking about an end game.
The president has repeatedly made the point that this decision is about far more than troop numbers, and he'll be crafting the speech to make sure its not the only headline.
He's also said time and time again that this is not an "open-ended" commitment, and how and when troops will be withdrawn are expected to be a big part of the announcement.
The handover to Afghan police and army could be rolled out region by region.
There is also a suggestion that there will be what have become know in the jargon as "exit ramps", which translates as "slipways" in British English: ways of getting out sooner if the Afghan government doesn't live up to its promises.
The world has been waiting a while for this decision. When it comes it will tell us a lot about this president.
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~00~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
You can always count on the Republicans to undermine the country. This is a war started by Bush/Cheney and the Republicans. The President sees the implications for India and China and Pakistan. Pakistan is unstable and any actions taken could have negative results. The American public is not supportive of a long event. The Republicans whose mantra has always been to support the president in times of war have obviously changed their minds. But Republicans are simply the street-walkers for banks and big business. It takes a day to start a war but a generation to build a nation. Expectations need to be realistic and terrorist are real so the decision needs to have support and a plan that will bring results. The public does not have the information and people should allow the President to enact his plan.....judge the outcomes not the plan. Always remember that when you listen to the critics on radio and TV, the vast majority never spent a day in uniform nor been near a shot fired in anger but pontificate about war strategy..hypocrites and cowards.
Complain about this comment
Fingers crossed for a solution leading to an end of the killing.
Complain about this comment
not yet
Complain about this comment
the tax should be on those idiots that voted for GW twice. they should be in the poorhouse, forfeiture laws should apply.
But then there are no people that seem to admit to voting for both.
they all claim
"I'm independent"
Complain about this comment
PS it won't matter what he does the right are still going to bitch.
that's all they do.
Obstructive buggers.
Complain about this comment
Mark:
I don't think this decision has anything to do with political maneuvering. That kind of myopia afflicts only those inside the beltway. Watching video of the President walking through section 60, it struck me what a lonely job the Presidency is. Whatever the decision, it will lead to the erection of more headstones. He must be sure that the sacrifice is not made in vain. I don't envy the President his decision.
Godspeed, sir.
Complain about this comment
The election races of 2010 & 2012 are already underway; this speech is bound to fire them up, along all positions.
I think President Obama is smart enough to understand that the only thing to do is make the best decision he can based on his own analysis, interpretation and logical processes. Trying to shape a decision with an eye to pleasing someone -- anyone -- or calculating a potential uptick in the polls, or framing a future campaign ad, is far too risky. It can easily backfire.
The best thing to do is make a good honest decision.
The White House has certainly heard my opinion, for what it's worth, along with millions of others. It coincides with the "dissenting" military assessment (from Kabul, by E.), and also with much of what the Hon. Nancy Pelosi (who used to represent me when I lived in her district in SF, by the way) has articulated of late.
Most of all, for the sake of American families as well as Nato families, Afghans as well as families of troops in Pakistan fighting the Taliban: I hope and pray President Obama reaches a good decision that does not lead to a drawn-out, costly, smouldering war which keeps the region from ever attaining (regaining) any kind of functionality.
Yes, war also leaves carbon footprints and has implications for climate change & public health expenditures.
Any kind of ambiguous outcome will not work. The Taliban will not simply "go away" (much less if allowed to reclaim any kind of legitimacy). If given respite, they merely regroup, rearm, recruit and go back to the bloody business a decade later.
Women & children are a very good reason to fight for a decent future for all. Pakistan has been quite impressive (howevermuch this makes India uncomfortable) and I think the right approach could potentially calm & significantly clean up this region in time for reasonably rational elections in the US.
Complain about this comment
Here is a President on the brink of making a very important policy statement. He realises that Afghanistan has to be be protected from al Qaeda and the Taliban. Leaving Afghanistan would be a dereliction of duty as President at all costs.. He came to power promising to free Afghanistan from the tyranny of terrorism. Here is a golden opportunity for him to keep his promise and to rise to the occasion of being one of the finest US Presidents. This statesman has empathy, intelligence and guts.
Complain about this comment
Putting soldiers in harms way, and completing the physical destruction of a Third World country is not something that should be taken lightly. I expect President Obama to increase troop levels in Afghanistan and reiterate our commitment to remain in that country until it is ready to "defend itself". I find his expected decision illogical, immoral, and an endorsement of the despicable decisions made by his predecessor.
This is definitely not the can of change I could believe in. President Obama seems to be more interested in satisfying the warmongering tendencies of the right wing than satisfying the expectations of those that put him in office, and he is going to pay for it next year and in 2012. Most of us will not vote for Sarah or whomever the GOP decides to annoint, but many of us may decide to sit it out, which will be just as bad as voting for a W clone.
Complain about this comment
ghostofsichuan wrote:
You can always count on the Republicans to undermine the country. This is a war started by Bush/Cheney and the Republicans. The President sees the implications for India and China and Pakistan. Pakistan is unstable and any actions taken could have negative results. The American public is not supportive of a long event. The Republicans whose mantra has always been to support the president in times of war have obviously changed their minds. But Republicans are simply the street-walkers for banks and big business.
_____________________-
Actually it's group like move on and the finacier George Soros who undermine the country. Obam,a has taken far too long despite the obamphiles claiming it was thoughtful analysis.
The D3ems will okk for any excuse to tax, how about instead they pay for their own healthcare instead of having the tax payers do it?
Complain about this comment
President Obama has held his ninth and last meeting on strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan,
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does any one in the west, from ordinary people to the media and the politicians ever take a few minutes break, a step back and really reflect on how obama has conviently out of nowwhere, attached the word, pakistan to afghanistan? Taliban were attached to alqaida, iraqi rebels were attached to alqaida, hamas is attached to hizbullah which is attached to Iran, and now, pakistan to afghanistan...Based on the west's past, the AfPak, or Afghanistan pakistan term would be used generously and lo and behold people would no longer distinguish between the two countries and will take it for granted that such was the case since 9/11..
Complain about this comment
"Already one Democratic congressman is calling for a new tax on the rich to pay for the war."
So now we finally now; an effort to deny al-Qaida/Taliban terrorists safe havens is a war of the rich against the poor.
Karl Marx himself wouldn't have put it better.
Complain about this comment
"This is a war started by Bush/Cheney and the Republicans." (from post #1)
Actually, the war was started by al Qaeda. Any US president, Republican or Democrat, would have responded to the 9/11 attacks in like manner.
Complain about this comment
ref #9
This is definitely not the can of change I could believe in. President Obama seems to be more interested in satisfying the warmongering tendencies of the right wing than satisfying the expectations of those that put him in office, and he is going to pay for it next year and in 2012. Most of us will not vote for Sarah or whomever the GOP decides to annoint, but many of us may decide to sit it out, which will be just as bad as voting for a W clone.
_______________________-
The people who put Obama in were young voters and independents. Your vote and mine (in most cases) is a given.
Obama will lose because he is catering to the extreme left far too much. He ran as a centrist and a uniter.
He is far more polarizing than Bush was at this point in his Presidency.
as far as Palin, Dems see her as a more viable canidate than Repubs do. But the vitrol is amazing; Martha Stewart looked like an idiot with her quotes of her being dangerous.
Complain about this comment
"Obama should be the first Democratic president to buck the trend and refuse to ramp up a war to appease the right"...when Obama himself is on the right? Just like most Democrats in their War Party. Why doesn't Obama become the first Democratic president to buck the trend and "appease" the left. The only thing Republicans have to criticize is the "dithering". The only thing most Democrat's have to criticize is the source of funding. Almost no one questions Amerika's god given right to invade or occupy any foreign country it chooses for whatever reasons it chooses. "President Obama has held his ninth and last meeting on strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan"...and as usual, there were no Afghan villagers at the table to proffer their opinions. Big bad Barack and his backroom boys (and girls) will decide their fates for them in the best 'democratic' tradition. "The world has been waiting a while for this decision. When it comes it will tell us"...only what they want us to know and nothing more.
Complain about this comment
"He is far more polarizing than Bush was at this point in his Presidency."
This point in Bush's presidency was shortly after the events of 9/11 2001. Naturally, the President had a surge of support at that time. It was more or less all downhill from there:
President Bush (2) approval ratings
Complain about this comment
Actually, the war was started by al Qaeda. Any US president, Republican or Democrat, would have responded to the 9/11 attacks in like manner.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alqaida was or is an terrorist organization...it terrorized the americans, not went to war...the war was started by usa...the appropriate response to a terrorist attack is not to start wars...America is waging a war which is separate to its hidden response to those terrorist organizations..its waging war in afghanistan, and its responding by drones to the so called terrorists in pakistan..Ironically speaking, those terrorists whom usa targets now, have not attacked usa...
Complain about this comment
Ref. 17, colonelartist:
"...the appropriate response to a terrorist attack is not to start wars..."
Ok, what is the appropriate response? Have your say.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 8, Pancha_Chandra:
"He came to power promising to free Afghanistan from the tyranny of terrorism."
When did he promise that? I don't remember him saying that.
Complain about this comment
Ok, what is the appropriate response? Have your say.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everything else, but the knee jerk, chest thumping, reptalian impulsive, and emotional response..
Complain about this comment
This point in Bush's presidency was shortly after the events of 9/11 2001. Naturally, the President had a surge of support at that time. It was more or less all downhill from there:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
And it was the downhill that made him the president for the second time in 2004?
The approving or disaproving rate scales are meaningless deatils..
Complain about this comment
No. 15, Interesting choice of nom de blog.
Complain about this comment
GH1618
You may recall the Bush/Cheney decided to go to Iraq to settle a personal matter and grab some oil before paying any attention to Afghanistan, so the conditions that confront the current administration are a result of the past administration's failure to address the issue at hand and rather secure the oil in Iraq for their friends. The Republicans are in a big hurry to have a decision from the President, yet when they had the opportunity they decided to expend efforts in Iraq. Republicans have no memory and when they do it is twisted to convey whatever form of dishonesty they are promoting at that time.
Complain about this comment
13. Gary.
Thank you.
Complain about this comment
You may recall the Bush/Cheney decided to go to Iraq to settle a personal matter and grab some oil before paying any attention to Afghanistan, so the conditions that confront the current administration are a result of the past administration's failure to address the issue at hand and rather secure the oil in Iraq for their friends. The Republicans are in a big hurry to have a decision from the President, yet when they had the opportunity they decided to expend efforts in Iraq. Republicans have no memory and when they do it is twisted to convey whatever form of dishonesty they are promoting at that time.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong. Bush chenney, clinton they all went on a war against Iraq.The senate gave its permission to bush..Why did the democrats quickly gave their yes votes to war is for you to ask them...what was the big hurry which the democrats had?. They had always wanted to go to war, but didnt want to start it, so they conviently gave their permission to george, so that they and their supporters would conviently push the blame to bush..
Complain about this comment
ghost.. (#23) "You may recall the Bush/Cheney decided to go to Iraq to settle a personal matter and grab some oil before paying any attention to Afghanistan, ..."
No, you have it backward. The Iraq war started in March, 2003.
Complain about this comment
ghost.. (#23) may mean that the Bush administration began planning operations against Iraq shortly after taking office, while ignoring warnings from the previous (Clinton) administration about the importance of going after al Qaeda. I won't dispute that.
Complain about this comment
I beilieve this is a huge decision for Obama, and he needs to take as much time as he needs. If he desides to send 40,000 more troops, he has to make the right decision
Complain about this comment
14. MagicKirin -
"He is far more polarizing than Bush was at this point in his Presidency."
Well, that's because Bush took long vacations and occasional PR moments during his first few months. Then 9/11 happened and we were united in anger and shock.
Obama has been polarizing because he's acting and calling congress into action in the midst of difficult domestic and international times.
There are no perfect answers.
Any decision will please some and piss people off others... even within the Democratic Party.
But, the point of contention regarding Afghanistan is not THAT we should end it, but HOW we should end it. So, as long as the end is in sight there will be a point on which we might *gasp* all agree. Shocking, isn't it?
Complain about this comment
I beilieve this is a huge decision for Obama, and he needs to take as much time as he needs. If he desides to send 40,000 more troops, he has to make the right decision
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pakistani army is wrapping up their mission in south waziristan, Obama will decide soon...Its not as if he just sat there contemplating, he was waiting for pakistani military to make situation on the ground safe for the incoming american troops...You dont want your troops to die, do you? Consider the pakistani military, as the "infantry battalions for the american troops. How many infantrymen does the american military have? do you have any idea? and how many of those are actually sent to afghanistan? any idea?. Wars cannot be waged without infantrymen.. and wars definately cannot be won by "dont want to die" soldiers.
Complain about this comment
But, the point of contention regarding Afghanistan is not THAT we should end it, but HOW we should end it. So, as long as the end is in sight there will be a point on which we might *gasp* all agree. Shocking, isn't it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, Now I will ask the opposite of what I used to ask before AmEng started the war on iraq. And I never got any answer, the question back then was; "Why do you want to start the war now"? And my question now is:
"Why do you want to end the war now? whats the big rush? What has changed in the last 6 years that the americans want to end the war? They have neither caught or killed top alqaida, nor have the defeated the taliban..so why talk about withdrawing..
Complain about this comment
But Mark, your own comments have undermined your point. While it would behoove the president to consider the domestic political ramifications of any decision (the support of Congress, the people, etc.), it doesn't make sense to presume that this is his primary, overriding focus. For example, if this was a political maneuver, he would have made a decision long ago, instead of after a month of calculations. The announcement would probably be on an aircraft carrier, with some sort of banner or slogan in the background, saying something like "Mission Accomplished" perhaps...
But on a serious note, doesn't the fact that everyone from the military to the State dept. is saying this is a "complex, sub-optimal group of choices" requiring deep thought reflect rather poorly on the Bush Admin? In my own reading of the tea leaves, it seems that this president not only has to plan for this year but also make up for the past eight years since there is apparently NOTHING in Afghanistan to build upon. The ultimate comparison in my mind when hearing the "dithering" comments bandied about is that of the entire English football side, after doing nothing for the first 85 minutes of a game, being subbed out for Rooney, then demanding he score a hat trick by himself to TIE the game (or else he's a failure) with a lead weight tied to his foot. In both cases it is sheer madness.
Complain about this comment
But Mark, your own comments have undermined your point. While it would behoove the president to consider the domestic political ramifications of any decision (the support of Congress, the people, etc.), it doesn't make sense to presume that this is his primary, overriding focus. For example, if this was a political maneuver, he would have made a decision long ago, instead of after a month of calculations. The announcement would probably be on an aircraft carrier, with some sort of banner or slogan in the background, saying something like "Mission Accomplished" perhaps...
But on a serious note, doesn't the fact that everyone from the military to the State dept. is saying this is a "complex, sub-optimal group of choices" requiring deep thought reflect rather poorly on the Bush Admin? In my own reading of the tea leaves, it seems that this president not only has to plan for this year but also make up for the past eight years since there is apparently NOTHING in Afghanistan to build upon. The ultimate comparison in my mind when hearing the "dithering" comments bandied about is that of the entire English football side, after doing nothing for the first 85 minutes of a game, being subbed out for Rooney, then demanding he score a hat trick by himself to TIE the game (or else he's a failure) with a lead weight tied to his foot. In both cases it is sheer madness.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
When will you understand that obama had to wait thiss long because he had paid pakistani military to act as the infantry for american troops`? Do you really think that pakistani army would go on a mission in winters in south waziristan all by itself? It would have prefered not to go at all, let alone in winters..But mr obama wants to send his troops now, so that they be ready for their little skimrishes against taliban in spring and summer.So Pakistani army had to have the major battle..Mr obama will not make up for the past eight yrs, if he wanted that to happen, he would never had supported the fraud karzai..and not had made the fraud abdullah abdullah as the opposition leader..Both had been rejected by the afghans in favour of taliban decade ago..
Complain about this comment
Ryan Hancock wrote:
"I beilieve this is a huge decision for Obama, and he needs to take as much time as he needs. If he desides to send 40,000 more troops, he has to make the right decision"
If he waits long enough we will have lost that war and he will be able stop agonizing about making a decision.
He must have thought about it for about a year now, it was obvious enough that things were not going well when he was elected. Someone should write what to do on a teleprompter somewhere, then he can just read it and be done with it. No decision is also a decision.
Complain about this comment
#12 powermeerkat: "So now we finally now; an effort to deny al-Qaida/Taliban terrorists safe havens is a war of the rich against the poor....Karl Marx himself wouldn't have put it better."
We really need a Godwin corollary for references to Marx or socialism, lol...
The poor have ALWAYS paid for wars in blood, the rich have ALWAYS stayed safely behind and positioned themselves to reap the benefits. Or were the writers of Braveheart simply Marxists?
At any rate... this year I'll celebrating Thanksgiving with my dad who is dealing with Viet Nam/agent orange related illnesses, my sister fighting a very rare cancer possibly connected with dad's AO exposure, and her husband currently in Afghanistan (sans required winter gear in a typically brilliant military maneuver- we may have to fill in the gap as a family). Meanwhile the future of our country and the question of how our children will live is looking a little grim, at least in part due to outrageous spending on a series of ill-conceived wars and little attention to very serious and pressing issues at home.
Taxing the rich to pay-as-you-go for their wars? HECK YEAH, our whole table would heartily raise a drumstick to that idea! We've already been hit where it hurts the most. Let the rich and powerful- who are squarely in the driver's seat after all- feel the pinch for a change, and we'll see how eager they are to start the next fight. If it's so darned important they can front the cash.
Complain about this comment
ref #29Philly-Mom wrote:
14. MagicKirin -
"He is far more polarizing than Bush was at this point in his Presidency."
Well, that's because Bush took long vacations and occasional PR moments during his first few months. Then 9/11 happened and we were united in anger and shock.
(Obama has taken more recreation time than Bush already)
Obama has been polarizing because he's acting and calling congress into action in the midst of difficult domestic and international times.
(dithering apologizing and leaving the healthcare debate in the hands of Pelosi and Reid)
There are no perfect answers.
Any decision will please some and piss people off others... even within the Democratic Party.
But, the point of contention regarding Afghanistan is not THAT we should end it, but HOW we should end it. So, as long as the end is in sight there will be a point on which we might *gasp* all agree. Shocking, isn't it?
(end of the terrorist threat is the goal, why is that so difficult to understand?)
Complain about this comment
powermeerkat wrote:
"Already one Democratic congressman is calling for a new tax on the rich to pay for the war."
Why don't they tax the traders' bonuses 99.9%. That would kill two birds with one stone: at first bring a little money in the country's coffers (given the abyss of the deficit nothing can qualify for more than a little), then get rid of the traders and repair the banking system.
Complain about this comment
9. At 6:05pm on 24 Nov 2009, DominickVila wrote:
“Most of us will not vote for Sarah or whomever the GOP decides to anoint, but many of us may decide to sit it out, which will be just as bad as voting for a W clone.”
This (sitting it out) is one of the 2 destructive voting strategies that have saddled the US with a series of bad politicians. The other is the “vote for the least bad candidate.” But the subtext is one of the two big and corrupt parties’ candidates.
In the last election I voted for the Green Party presidential candidate to show my displeasure with both of the corrupt big parties. [Note: I live in Massachusetts where a ticket with Palin on it had a snowball’s chance ‘you know where’ of winning. Had I lived in a ‘swing state’ I would have been forced to vote for Obama].
Complain about this comment
To me, our policy in Afghanistan should hinge completely on the capacity, or potential capacity, of the Afghans to govern themselves decently, and to field a competent police force and army. We (America and her allies) cannot do it for them indefinitely, or even for very long, esp. not in our current financial state. I haven't read or heard of anything to indicate that the Afghans can do it, or will be able to do it the foreseeable future. For starters, there is no economic base there to finance a government, other than opium poppy farming.
So reluctantly I conclude that we should withdraw, or perhaps restrict our zone of activity to some defensible part of Afghanistan. I say 'reluctantly' because the Taliban will bring utter misery to the populations they rule, particularly the women.
In the long run, the Taliban and Al-Queda will alienate any population they rule, as those angry. badly educated men have no idea how to govern except through fear.
Complain about this comment
13. At 6:15pm on 24 Nov 2009, GH1618 wrote:
‘"This is a war started by Bush/Cheney and the Republicans." (from post #1)’
Actually, the war was started by al Qaeda. Any US president, Republican or Democrat, would have responded to the 9/11 attacks in like manner.”
The War in Afghanistan, yes. But the ill-advised and possibly corrupt war in Iraq was solely the responsibility of the self proclaimed “Decider.”
I admit to suspicions about what Saddam Hussein was up to, and he wasn’t living up to promises and international requirements. But the ineptitude and corruption of the Bush occupation and suspicions of the real reason for the war trump that.
Complain about this comment
To me, our policy in Afghanistan should hinge completely on the capacity, or potential capacity, of the Afghans to govern themselves decently, and to field a competent police force and army. We (America and her allies) cannot do it for them indefinitely, or even for very long, esp. not in our current financial state. I haven't read or heard of anything to indicate that the Afghans can do it, or will be able to do it the foreseeable future. For starters, there is no economic base there to finance a government, other than opium poppy farming.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a reminder. it wasnt afghans who asked or requested you to invade them, it was you who invaded them, then quickly put karzai as their leader, then made him legal by having elections, and re-elected him a few months ago..What if tomorrow karzai quits? where will it leave you? it was in august you begged him to run for the elections..You, america and its allies have to do it..it was your idea..It wouldnt have mattered to afghans if usa was directly ruling them instead of via karzai..those fighting you, would still be fighting you, those supporting you, karzai and his band of decoits and smugglers would be supporting you, you would have to overlook the poppy growth as you are doing it now, because they would be using it to finance their militia men who would be fighting against the taliban along side your troops. The whole drama of government was staged for your benefit so that you would continue to live in your high moral ground, which is infact as mentioned earlier as flat as Denmark. Civilized democratic people, I heard dont like to rub shoulders with uncivilized, non uniformed militiamen..So, a government and the army is needed, and that government and army can only be provided by karzai and those who pay the men to join the uniformed army..
Complain about this comment
The War in Afghanistan, yes. But the ill-advised and possibly corrupt war in Iraq was solely the responsibility of the self proclaimed “Decider.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------
He was the decider, not the dictator, and the deciders job to decide was made easy by all those democrats including hilary clinton who voted for the decider to decide the decision to go to war..
Complain about this comment
34. At 9:59pm on 24 Nov 2009, MariaTee wrote:
"If he waits long enough we will have lost that war and he will be able stop agonizing about making a decision.
He must have thought about it for about a year now, it was obvious enough that things were not going well when he was elected. Someone should write what to do on a teleprompter somewhere, then he can just read it and be done with it. No decision is also a decision."
__________
If you are prepared to be so scornfully critical of his supposed indecision, perhaps you would care to tell us what you would do in his shoes instead ?
Complain about this comment
Mark, you have been amped on this issue for weeks. You are not the only one. The USA and the world are awaiting Obama's action. This decision will define Obama and the USA, for voting Obama. This decision will affect many lives around the globe.
I wish all my best luck to President Obama on coming up with the best solution. He's going to need it.
Complain about this comment
Mark, you have been amped on this issue for weeks. You are not the only one. The USA and the world are awaiting Obama's action. This decision will define Obama and the USA, for voting Obama. This decision will affect many lives around the globe.
I wish all my best luck to President Obama on coming up with the best solution. He's going to need it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
And there was this prince Siddharta Gautama who sat under the tree for years to find the answers to complicated questions about life..the prince was later called Budha...I wonder what Obama will be called when he is fnished thinking about sending a few soldiers more or less to afghanistan..
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
43. Interestedforeigner wrote:
"If you are prepared to be so scornfully critical of his supposed indecision, perhaps you would care to tell us what you would do in his shoes instead ?"
I would go along with the generals' requests, to the best of the military ability. Ask for all competent people in the government and the military to work out the details, fast.
However, I am not the president, never studied politics, never ran for office (heck, I am just an electrical engineer/programmer). So I may not have the background necessary for such a decision. This is why we elect people who claim to have the competence to do so. By now, I don't believe that Obama has either that competence or the fortitude for the job. He would have been wise to satisfy himself with being a senator, at least for a while longer.
Complain about this comment
47. At 00:23am on 25 Nov 2009, MariaTee wrote:
"I would go along with the generals' requests, to the best of the military ability. Ask for all competent people in the government and the military to work out the details, fast."
As I understand it, he has been painstaking in seeking for the most competent advice, so you aren't faulting him there, fair enough.
_______
"However, I am not the president, never studied politics, never ran for office (heck, I am just an electrical engineer/programmer). So I may not have the background necessary for such a decision. This is why we elect people who claim to have the competence to do so."
That was my point on the scornfulness issue. I have known a fair number of people who served in public office. None of them were rogues, most of them really did believe in public service. Unfortunately that is not true of all who serve in public office. Obama does not (yet, at least) strike me as a knave. On the contrary.
America does not need a warrior king right now, like Gustavus Adolphus, or Henry V, or Richard I. America needs Charles-the-Wise, who incrementally won back his kingdom's land, and restored its economy by prudently avoiding battle with the English.
_________
"By now, I don't believe that Obama has either that competence or the fortitude for the job."
Well, I guess we're going to find out. Maybe my expectations of him were lower than most, but he has done surprisingly better than I expected.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 23, ghostofsichuan:
"...grab some oil..."
If you have evidence of that, I'd love to see it.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 35, DigitalJanitor:
"Or were the writers of Braveheart simply Marxists?"
Hmmm... Didn't the character of Robert the Bruce, a nobleman, come to the rescue at the end of the film?
Complain about this comment
Tough presidential decision indeed. No matter what the outcome the critics and… political opportunists are already lining up with their “wisdom” points.
The military adventures began by G. Bush cost this country dearly.
To be fair, initial decision to invade Iraq, to get rid of Saddam and to impose American ideals on local population seemed easily attainable. While some were finding comparison with our Vietnam engagement that comparison was of course baseless. Iraq was not supported by such antagonists as Soviet Union or PRC. Deliveries of fresh ammunition and armament to stalk our forces were not anticipated in Iraq. And how long anyone can effectively fight without bullets? What our “war council” failed to take into account when invading Iraq were difficulties presented in the form of cultural, religious and language differences. Failure of Bush planners to include these considerations can only be explained by their arrogance. Saddam left a surprise to the “liberators” in thousands of stashed around the country small arms cages that were used as needed by Iraqis opposed to the occupation. Afghanistan presents similar yet bigger problem for all foreigners.
So what drives Obama and his advisers to further expand the war effort there? I think that basically the same reasons that originally fueled decision to invade Iraq are applied here. It is simply – we invested in this effort so much , why quit now - after all THEIR WEAPONS WILL SOON END because they do not have steady supplies!
I suppose it is somewhat plausible reasoning. Yet, how will we react if at any, not too distant future, Russia, India, China, Pakistan or Iran, or any combination of those decide to move in and provide Taleban forces with additional, steady help. For any reason.
Will we have the stomach to directly escalate the issue ? If so, for how long, and how far?
That is the dilemma that Obama and his advisers are pondering now. Well, they are past this point. Decisions are , we are told, already made. Maybe it’s time to start praying for the success of these decisions?
Complain about this comment
#13. GH1618: "Actually, the war was started by al Qaeda. Any US president, Republican or Democrat, would have responded to the 9/11 attacks in like manner."
The British Inquiry into the Iraq adventure will reveal some interesting information, that the hostilities were planned at the beginning of the Bush presidency, reported by no less than Britain's 'paper of record', The Times: it appears that plans to invade Iraq were already being drawn up before 9/11. Mr Blair, if not Mr Bush, will come under increasing scrutiny and there are some who believe the former prime minister should be tried as a war criminal. And lest our more conservative contributors consider the source unreliable, bear in mind that the owner of The Times is the owner of Fox News and has committed his red-top, The Sun, to supporting the Conservative Party in the next General Election. It is by no means certain that a Democratic president would have followed the same course as Mr Bush, especially since there were no WMDs discovered.
Complain about this comment
So Obama has announced he is going to make an announcement. Is this so the media can make a beautiful photo op? Is this so they can make arrangements for another multimillion dollar reception because Obama made a decision? Why must there always be pomp and circumstance for this guy to do his job?
Casualties are up in Afghanistan because of Obama and his inept dabbling of being a commander and chief. The generals still are not allowed to call in air strikes to support soldiers. Soldiers are still not allowed to fire until fired upon.
By many of your measures, I am a "potential radical right-wing domestic terrorist". I voted for G.W. twice because there was no "None of the above" on the ballot. I ruled Gore out because of his campaign finance scandal. I ruled Kerry out because he appeared in a photo on the same side as Jane Fonda.
Contrary to your beliefs and prejudices, I do not want to have more troops in Afghanistan. If we have troops there at all, I want them to be able to defend themselves. Why add more just to have them killed?
Complain about this comment
Maybe B.O. will twitter his decision! It worked for naming a V.P.
Complain about this comment
Quite fascinating how the British media gives the appearance of providing more timely and informative US news updates than what is usually presented by the US main stream media. . . One additional item regarding the Obama Afghanastan strategy to be unveiled is that the (approximate) 35,000 troop deployment to Afghanastan is to unfold over a two year time span . . . Presenting reasonable and fair questions as to whether the war effort is 'urgent', a worthy cause to commit to, or whether there is a concern in regards to funding the effort.
Complain about this comment
Curious thing in history:
Democrats talk a mean 'peace' game, but on closer inspection it is they who propogate and get the United States involved in wars. WWI Wilson (D), WWII FDR (D), dropping of the atomic bomb, Truman (D),Korea Truman (D), Bay of Pigs JFK (D), managing a peace with Korea and China Ike (R), Vietnam Johnson (D), Agent Orange Johnson (D), decision to end the war in Vietnam and negotiate with China Nixon (R), relative peace Carter (D) Regan (R), first Gulf War Bush (R), relative peace, Bosnia? Clinton (D), Afgahnistan & Iraq Bush II (R), Obama? (D)
Excluding the Bush family, the Republicans by far have been the more peaceful of the parties. It worries me because a person who does understand military costs was passed over in favor if Obama. It seems the idealist democrats are the ones to fear for the most part as their trail of war and death is the deepest. It is of grave concern that the current US president seems less concerned about the US military and places now part of an American empire, than he enjoying the spoils of the presidency. So often nefarious types around the globe perceive the Democrats to be weak in war, but often find they are the least sensitive and most destructive of the two parties.
Let us hope Obama proves to be an exception to the Democrat war machine.
Complain about this comment
56. At 09:10am on 25 Nov 2009, Baron wrote:
"It worries me because a person who does understand military costs was passed over in favor if Obama."
Really? If you crash your plane or set fire to an aircraft carrier, the USAAF sends you the bill, does it?
Complain about this comment
Asterix,
How awful!
Complain about this comment
I can see you're not a person to be trifled with...
Complain about this comment
56 Baron
You left out a few pertinent facts:
- Reagan: Grenada; Libya; I would think the largest arms buildup in history counts for something, too (esp. with the example set on the deficit)
- Eisenhower: 1st American advisors to Vietnam
-Teddy Roosevelt: (prior to presidency)a driving figure in the Spanish-American War
It's all very well and good to speak in generalities, but oversimplification does no one any good.
And, pray tell, what might be the "spoils of the presidency" of which Obama is partaking at the expense of the military?
Complain about this comment
57. 'Really? If you crash your plane or set fire to an aircraft carrier, the USAAF sends you the bill, does it?'
Interesting, and that is the best retort you could muster? I simply stated it is entirely better to have a person who has been involved in wars and who knows the true cost of wars to be the person deciding how and if a war should be conducted. McCain also stayed when he could have left when we was a prisoner of war. I very much doubt that many people in the world would have stayed on after being through what McCain went through in Vietnam.
Obama has shown nothing to warrent or prove his resolve or bravery. Perhaps he will make a good (albeit, late) decision? Time will tell, but there is much more to McCain's story then being shot down in war and it is very disengenouos of you to try and cast a person like McCain is such a negative, simplistic light.
Complain about this comment
ref #52
David_Cunard wrote:
#13. GH1618: "Actually, the war was started by al Qaeda. Any US president, Republican or Democrat, would have responded to the 9/11 attacks in like manner."
The British Inquiry into the Iraq adventure will reveal some interesting information, that the hostilities were planned at the beginning of the Bush presidency, reported by no less than Britain's 'paper of record', The Times: it appears that plans to invade Iraq were already being drawn up before 9/11. Mr Blair, if not Mr Bush, will come under increasing scrutiny and there are some who believe the former prime minister should be tried as a war criminal. And lest our more conservative contributors consider the source unreliable, bear in mind that the owner of The Times is the owner of Fox News and has committed his red-top, The Sun, to supporting the Conservative Party in the next General Election. It is by no means certain that a Democratic president would have followed the same course as Mr Bush, especially since there were no WMDs discovered.
____________________________
What was done was to have plans and scenarios ready if the need to go to war with belligerent state was necessary. Tere are plans to neutralize Iran right now when that become necessary.
Complain about this comment
Ref 42, colonelartist
"He was the decider, not the dictator, and the deciders job to decide was made easy by all those democrats including hilary clinton who voted for the decider to decide the decision to go to war.."
The decision to go to war after 9/11 would have been made by any U.S. President, regardless of party affiliation. Reflecting on the root causes of hatred, and responding to a devastating attack on U.S. soil with positive deeds and strict focus on the fundamentalist fanatics that attacked us would have been inconsistent with the way we think and act.
We need closure after a traumatic event and the only way to achieve that is by punishing whomever was responsible for the tragedy that afflicted us. Add political consideration and global economic interests to that and it should not be too difficult to understand why an act carried out by a group of fanatics was conveniently transformed into a cultural war.
The self-prescribed Decider, influenced by his VP and the neocons that dominated his Administration, were solely responsible for the decisions to invade Afghanistan and later Iraq. In 1991 and 93 the GOP enjoyed a comfortable majority in Congress, and although that does not absolve the Democrats for going along with what the Administration proposed, I believe it is unfair to blame them for what would have been political suicide to oppose at that time. There is plenty of blame to go around, including a complicit media more interested in ratings than serving the public by providing unbiased and a factual record of events, and an uninformed public that could not differentiate between a terrorist group and a culture, or between an "Arab" and a religion.
Complain about this comment
60.
'You left out a few pertinent facts:
- Reagan: Grenada; Libya; I would think the largest arms buildup in history counts for something, too (esp. with the example set on the deficit)
- Eisenhower: 1st American advisors to Vietnam
-Teddy Roosevelt: (prior to presidency)a driving figure in the Spanish-American War'
Minor military actions could have been added for many presidents and I won't bother to get much into detail.
Reagan did build up arms and in doing so became a key factor in the fall of the Berlin Wall. Again, Reagan did not get the US entangled in a long drawn out war and did not USE those weapons, so no, I do not consider a large military build up to count for anything.
Eisenhower did indeed put advisors in Vietnam, and Kennedy increased the number by quite a few, but is putting advisors in a country the same as fighting a war? Not a chance. I hold neither of them responsible and if I had to pick one, it would be Kennedy for finally agreeing to remove Diem from power. However, Kennedy did show amazing courage and wisdom in his handling of the Cuban Missle Crisis.
Many US Presidents served in the military, Washington being the first among them. I'm not sure how Teddy being involved in the Spanish-American war before he was president reflects on his decisions as president. In fact, it seems you're stretching a bit to bring some balance to the very unbalanced equation I have offered up. I am merely asking for people to look beyond the political assumptions and see the real life results. I found it curious that a party which presents itself as the dove and so often refers to the Republian as a hawk ends up being the one most often responsible for bloodshed and uses of weapons of mass destruction i.e. agent orange, atomic bombings, mass casualties of WWI (without a clear reason to be involved other than the agenda of Wilson...14 points is worth all of that death?).
60. 'It's all very well and good to speak in generalities, but oversimplification does no one any good.'
Again, looking at the historical record, one can draw some conclusions and I am saying that a Democratic presidency tends to lead to escalation and war more than in a Republican presidency (exception Bush family). There are sure to be many reasons for this.
Complain about this comment
Have you had a look at the terrain? And the size of it?
On Magic's Brains (with apologies to Commissary Goldie):
Or e'er dispute Thy pleasure?
Else why within so thick a wall
Enclose so poor a treasure?
--Robert Burns, "On Commissary Goldie's Brains""
Complain about this comment
Obama’s biggest problem, in Afghanistan, is that he has to clear up the last 20th Century style war. I think it is likely that any ‘major’ conflict in the rest of the 21st Century will be handled differently. The idea of sending large numbers of troops in an enemy’s country, leaving them bogged down fighting insurgents/terrorists/freedom fighters (interesting how the Free French Resistance fighters, who made assassinations, blew up military instillations and parts of their own country’s infrastructure are freedom fighters and not terrorists, I guess it all comes down to if you’re on the ‘good guys’ side or not), with little real local support does not seem to get the real results needed.
In most of the 20th Century this was really the only option, the technology to take out key targets, often shielded by civilians (shocking how many presidents and tyrants demand to live in a country’s capital, deliberate provocation if you ask me), didn’t really exist. Even when it did leaders were still influenced by what they thought ‘real’ warfare was all about. A new century demands a new way of dealing with warfare. Sending in unmanned drones and/or highly equipped special forces makes more sense, it is cost affective both economically and in manpower, though I am guessing that the military top brass will not see it that way.
Unfortunately for Obama fighting a 21st Century war in Afghanistan is not possible, the troops are already there.
Baron – I thought that officially the US activities in Vietnam was not actually a war, as no war was ever declared. Or have the history books been rewritten again?
Complain about this comment
66. Baron – I thought that officially the US activities in Vietnam was not actually a war, as no war was ever declared. Or have the history books been rewritten again?
Excellent point and you are correct, it was not an offical war, but for intents and purposes it was. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it has be reclassified as a war at the insistance of Vietnam veterns.
I found a great deal of what you said interesting David. I'm just not sure if warfare and technology is quite to the point where the bogged down-type war can end. I recall many saying that all wars would be fought from the air. Partially true, as it plays a nessesary part of modern wars, however, in the end ground troops always seem to be needed. Even in Bosnia in the 90s, airpower changed the tide of the war, but again ground troops moved in to secure the Balkins.
Speaking of occupation, it does work well sometimes. Take Germany, Italy and Japan after WWII. The best scholars said the Germans had a tradition and disposition which would only lead to tyrany and here they stand today as a model democracy. Ditto Japan. Italians? Well, they always find a way to be different. (Anyone mind explaining how Mussolini's grandaughter is in parliament?)
Complain about this comment
Ref 64, Baron
"Again, looking at the historical record, one can draw some conclusions and I am saying that a Democratic presidency tends to lead to escalation and war more than in a Republican presidency (exception Bush family). There are sure to be many reasons for this."
I agree with your statement which is, clearly, based on historical fact. I find it interesting when the conservative wing of the Republican party refers to Democrats as appeasers when it is them who have a record of appeasement and diplomatic concessions that is second to none. One of the most dramatic examples involves President Reagan's decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Lebanon after the devastating attack against the marine barracks at the Beirut airport. President Nixon's rapproachment with China, which I think was commndable, would have been an unthinkable proposition for any Democratic President.
It is not unusual for staunch "conservatives" to make controversial decisions that alleged "liberals" would not be allowed to make by the US public.
Not surprisingly, President Reagan is portrayed as the personification of strength and power, while Democratic Presidents responsible for some of the bloodiest foreign wars in U.S. history as considered weak.
Complain about this comment
67. At 11:54am on 25 Nov 2009, Baron wrote:
"Anyone mind explaining how Mussolini's grandaughter is in parliament?"
1) She got elected.
2) She posed topless for Playboy.
OK?
Complain about this comment
Baron,
Indeed, and a friend in Afghanistan told me that the best part of Enduring Freedom was the American bombing the front lines, but carpet bombing of Tora Bora was no more successful at destroying its target than in Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos....
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Peace
Complain about this comment
57. At 09:59am on 25 Nov 2009, squirrellist wrote:
56. At 09:10am on 25 Nov 2009, Baron wrote:
"It worries me because a person who does understand military costs was passed over in favor if Obama."
Really? If you crash your plane or set fire to an aircraft carrier, the USAAF sends you the bill, does it?
________
Did Kucinich really set fire to an Aircraft carrier?
Complain about this comment
Ref 67, Baron
"(Anyone mind explaining how Mussolini's grandaughter is in parliament?)"
Physical attributes.
A more pertinent question is who posted the photo of our First Lady that is currently the top searched on Google? I reckon the KKK and its affiliates are alive and well...Sickening!
Complain about this comment
69. At 12:19pm on 25 Nov 2009, you wrote:
"She posed topless for Playboy."
In the interests of fairness and full disclosure, other topless photographs of elected politicians (Vladimir Putin, Nicolas Sarkozy, Ronald Reagan and Angela Merkell, for example) are also available.
Complain about this comment
#56 Interesting - but I fear the 'Republican' party has changed for the worse in recent decades it has become the party of 'me', 'money' and 'religious loonies'.
As for war against a nation for terrorist attacks, a definition of terrorism is "contained in Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d). That statute contains the following definitions: The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant (1) targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." http://www.history.navy.mil/library/guides/terrorism.htm#definition
It is therefore illogical to war against a NATION for acts of a 'terrorist'. The justification used by the Bush administration was "These carefully targeted actions are designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations, and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime." See speech declaring war at
http://middleeast.about.com/od/afghanistan/qt/me081007b.htm
Without using war against the "Taliban regime's military" (Bush's new and creative preemptive ('just in case they might have weapons') war policy) war could not have been justified under US law.
And, to appease those seeking a Marxist bent, heres the conspiracy theory http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/afgh-n20.shtml
#6 I agree, Godspeed Sir.
Complain about this comment
Re comments to my post re taxes.
Perhaps some top Pakistani ISI officers and some Middle east billioners (including Saudis) should be taxed for supporting Taliban/al Qaida for years. And not with peanuts.
Kuwait at least had decency to compensate U.S. for throwing Saddam's thugs out of that country.
Complain about this comment
74. At 12:59pm on 25 Nov 2009, frayedcat wrote:
"to appease those seeking a Marxist bent, heres the conspiracy theory. . ."
Squirrelpost:
Interesting, that link, though we'd read some of the sources already, there were some we hadn't. However, the Red Squirrel Party rather resents the implication that only Marxists seek out conspiracy theories. (Look at where some of the 9/11 stuff comes from!) We consider we are more often the victims of conspiracies. (That is not of course a conspiracy theory, it's just a historical fact . . .)
Complain about this comment
Ref 14, Magic
"as far as Palin, Dems see her as a more viable canidate than Repubs do. But the vitrol is amazing; Martha Stewart looked like an idiot with her quotes of her being dangerous.:
I woould not dismiss Sarah Palin's chances so readily, and insinuating that only Democrats consider her a viable candidate is preposterous and defies logic.
Good old Sarah was in Orlando yesterday signing book autographs for thousands of people, many of who waited in line 24 hours for the privilege of getting her signature and seeing her in person. She has charisma and a message that appeals to the far right and the Christian fundamentalist crowd.
Considering the apparent shift of the Republican party to the far right, I think she has a very good chance of being their nominee in 2012. Whether or not she has a chance of winning against President Obama is a different matter, but just in case I would not be surprised if VP Biden resigns in 2011 and is replace by Hillary.
Complain about this comment
Complain about this comment
Meerkitten,
Used as a channel for US funding to the "freedom fighters" who later turned out to be (EEK!) the Taleban....
Complain about this comment
75. At 1:34pm on 25 Nov 2009, powermeerkat wrote:
"Re comments to my post re taxes.
Perhaps some top Pakistani ISI officers and some Middle east billioners (including Saudis) should be taxed for supporting Taliban/al Qaida for years. And not with peanuts.
Kuwait at least had decency to compensate U.S. for throwing Saddam's thugs out of that country."
What interesting ideas. So we can expect the US soon to take upon itself the right to 'tax' the nationals of any other sovereign country? That's certainly a novel way of paying of the US debt.
And then, should a country be invaded to rid it of an invader it didn't want, it should then pay its rescuer the cost of it being freed? Or one country that invades another should expect its costs to be paid by the invadee? That'd bankrupt Grenada pretty quickly.
Mind you, Iraq was expected to 'pay for itself' in oil, wasn't it? What do we call this new kind of capitalism when investment in a war is expected to bring in a handsome profit? Will you be able to buy shares?
(It used to be called 'privateering', 'piracy' or 'colonialism', I think.)
Anyway, I think the concept you mean is known as 'reparations' which do not have a happy history. It's been tried before. The last time with dire consequences.
(Really, some of the idiotic notions that come out of the political right never cease to amaze me.)
Complain about this comment
77. At 1:38pm on 25 Nov 2009, DominickVila wrote:
"I woould not dismiss Sarah Palin's chances so readily. . ."
Not since her son-in-law posed for Playgirl or whatever it was. Daresay that'll help. And who knows what Sarah might do once the book sales fall off?
Complain about this comment
"He's also said time and time again that this is not an "open-ended" commitment"
You know, every time I read that I wonder how you can not end up with an 'open-ended commitment' when you're in a war when you cannot know how it will end. All that means is "we are committed to withdraw from a war, capitulate, or retreat."
Complain about this comment
Is it not ironic that some of (US and other) the money funnelled into Pakistan during the "Russian years" was used to fund madrassas to stir up Islamic resistance to "the Godless Russians"?
Pentagon: Next 18 Months Key to Afghan Victory
Eighteen months after that will also be key, as will following eighteen months."
But I suppose Irony is mostly lost on Americans
;-)
Complain about this comment
A search for palin and pawn (spelling?) may prove interesting to some
Complain about this comment
#79
Oh, tet another nick? Out of necessity, perhaps?
This too shall pass. :-)
Complain about this comment
Gary : "AQ started this war t "
Fine then find Al quaedaland and invade.
Afghanistan did not start this war.
WE started the WAR against the word terrorism.
We invaded.
If we had simply retaliated to those attacking us there would be little issue or debate. But we didn't.
This "They atarted it" is one of the biggest lies circulating these days.
Along with republicans caring about america, americans.
There are a few others.
Gherky's favourite "never attack mode"
Ethical man had some not fun with a "DoC Dweebhead" promoting republican who was saying the world ain't warming and tobacco is actually healthy.
Squirrelist
Them notions from the right.
They are hard to take seriously until you realise"this Idiot actually believes his own crap"
Check the story of "bill Sizemore" who is seeking to run as Republican candidate (even own party says "sure,over my dead" for Oregon.
Because there are several court cases against him for fraud and fixing ballots.
So by running he can claim a get out of jail card.
Strange delusional freak.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Sizemore
PS I met as many republicans that think Isreal had something to do with the trade towers as dems.In fact more, most of the dems thing GW was involved.
Republicans Israel
Conspiracy theories are non politically selective.
Complain about this comment
Ref 81, squirrellist
"And who knows what Sarah might do once the book sales fall off?"
In the interim she is laughing all the way to the bank...
Democrats have a tendency to underestimate the appeal of opponents, not to mention the effectiveness of vicious attacks and distortions, and by the time we realize that our perceived light weight opponents are an actual threat it is usually too late to devise an effective strategy to fight back.
Don't forget the effectiveness of Swift Boat attacks or the ability of the GOP to transform people that went to great lengths to avoid a tour of duty in Vietnam into war heroes. As bizarre as it may seem, claims of death panels, euthanasia, infanticide and socialism are taking a toll on President Obama's popularity and may contribute to a political debacle in 2010.
For most of us, the issues that influence our decisions when we vote are not foreign but domestic policy. Afghanistan and Iraq are important, but they take a back seat to issues such as healthcare reform, deficit spending, immigration, energy policy, etc.
Complain about this comment
77 Dom. I'm with you. there are so many crazy americans that think she is great and how hard done by she was for being made to look like the racist witch she is.
cause she's racist in the same way as they are.
IE " I'm not racist Just think his colour is different and it unsettles me"
And the press keep giving her time.
I even know one lefty who is always saying "WHY just cause she hunts moose?"
That why you hate her"
I never mentioned moose hunting once. I did mentuion she was thick as a brick and brain deader than a door nail.
Even scientists would have a hard time figuring f she was in a coma if they just looked at the brain waves.
The only thing thicker than Palin are her supporters.
Complain about this comment
re #77
DominickVila wrote:
Ref 14, Magic
"as far as Palin, Dems see her as a more viable canidate than Repubs do. But the vitrol is amazing; Martha Stewart looked like an idiot with her quotes of her being dangerous.:
I woould not dismiss Sarah Palin's chances so readily, and insinuating that only Democrats consider her a viable candidate is preposterous and defies logic.
Good old Sarah was in Orlando yesterday signing book autographs for thousands of people, many of who waited in line 24 hours for the privilege of getting her signature and seeing her in person. She has charisma and a message that appeals to the far right and the Christian fundamentalist crowd.
Considering the apparent shift of the Republican party to the far right, I think she has a very good chance of being their nominee in 2012. Whether or not she has a chance of winning against President Obama is a different matter, but just in case I would not be surprised if VP Biden resigns in 2011 and is replace by Hillary.
___________________________
I disagree with your premise unless you are going to conceed that the Democratic party moved to the extreme left with Obama.
McCain is a moderate by republican standards and the two governors wins are by moderates.
I do't think Palin if she runs would win because Republicans are more pragmatic (they want to win). The proportional and caucus system that let Obama win the Dem nomination is not present in Republican primaries.
I look at Romney who kicked Ted Kennedy's butt in debates and only lost because of Kennedy love and union dirty tricks, Polente as the two more viable canidates.
Complain about this comment
I've only just discovered that along with declaring a National Dairy month, a National Cowboy Day, National Pi Day and suggesting Americans should honour Confucious' 2,560th birthday last month, the US Congreess (occupied with the really important issues of life) has suggested that today should be 'National Complaint-Free Day'.
So I apologise for any offence I may have caused inadvertently to American contributors by complaining about silly ideas today. (I'll save the rest of my moans up for tomorrow.)
Complain about this comment
87. DominickVila :
Well, I'd have something to say about that normally, but I need to take advice on whether bemoaning something is the same, semantically, as complaining. (See 90. Don't want to tread on anybody's toes. There are probably penalties, or taxes or something to be imposed on me if I whinge about anything today.)
Complain about this comment
The decision to go to war after 9/11 would have been made by any U.S. President, regardless of party affiliation. Reflecting on the root causes of hatred, and responding to a devastating attack on U.S. soil with positive deeds and strict focus on the fundamentalist fanatics that attacked us would have been inconsistent with the way we think and act.
We need closure after a traumatic event and the only way to achieve that is by punishing whomever was responsible for the tragedy that afflicted us. Add political consideration and global economic interests to that and it should not be too difficult to understand why an act carried out by a group of fanatics was conveniently transformed into a cultural war.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would have been ,could have been, are meaningless.That which happened is important.And bush the decider made the decision to go to war against afghanistan because the whole nation plus some other nations were united behind him...To go to war against Iraq, the democrats voted a yes, vote..It was not just his vice president, but the democrats too who supported him, in wars and in opening of illegal detation centers...You are part of the world, where no one gets any closure for any traumatic event..Like any other country, americans took advantage of the 9/11.. YOu grabbed the opportunity, and grabbed it good..The rest is just emotional mumbo jumbo to rationalize and justify the atrocities commited in the name of trauma and need for its closure..The terrorists justify their acts in exactly the same way...Your closure becomes their need to have a closure...And it is difficult to understand why an act of terrorists whom you constantly describe as vile, barbarians and etc etc, should make you want to do exactly the same things to the people who never had heard about america or the americans in their entire lives...You want them to sit quietly and say thank you to you for every atrocity commited by your state in the name of some dead people, while you still are killing them on regulary..Explain this to 19, 18 or 20 yrs youngmen who were 8, 9 or 10 back in 2001, and they will , like you , would not understand why american troops are in afghanistan, or why americans are supporting a fraud karzai...Because, on one hand, your Obama sings the praises of democracy and rights and fairness, and on the other hand, he supports karzai...when they try to add two and two, the answer doesnt become four, and then they start questioning the intentions of the occupation.And once you start that, you cannot believe in america or Obama's claim..Obama thinks that publishing more pictures of torture would harm american troops or american image, but in reality, such things are just small details, the real thing is his support to karzai..
Complain about this comment
Paragraphs! Please!
Complain about this comment
#62. MagicKirin:
The British Inquiry into the Iraq adventure will reveal some interesting information, that the hostilities were planned at the beginning of the Bush presidency . . .
"What was done was to have plans and scenarios ready if the need to go to war with belligerent state was necessary. Tere are plans to neutralize Iran right now when that become necessary."
So you're saying that Iraq was a threat to the United States? Frankly, I can't see how that was possible. I think you should await the results of the Inquiry before being so defensive; The Times is not known for its inaccuracies. You believe Mr Murdoch's other publications, don't you?
Complain about this comment
Paragraphs! Please!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraphs take more space..
Complain about this comment
Iraq was only a (barely credible and highly unlikely) threat to Israel.
Complain about this comment
However, I have a simple suggestion which would make life easy for everyone..Obama should specify clearly who is his audiance when he says things about the occupation..For, example, he should say to the americans that whatever emotional mumbo jumbo he utters with respect to sending troops and connecting it with karzai's performace, is for the american audiance, not for the afghans..He should be more precize as he was with his name, he down plays his middle name in usa, but emphasized it when he addressed the muslims in egypt..Everyone understood that in usa, his middle name is a no-no-topic, but in the middle east, he used to to get some sort of connections..
Complain about this comment
Colonel,
But blogspace is cheap!
Nothing makes it more likely that folk wil "scroll on by" your valuable comments (and I mean that) than your presenting them as a large mass of stream-of-consciousness text. Believe me, I thoroughly agree with the sentiments expressed in your last screed, but it took an effort of will to actually go back and read it.
typing <ul><li><i>"
"</i></li></ul>
to end the offset. More hints here
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Peace
Complain about this comment
#76 My apolologies to the Red Squirrels, Shirley there are enough conspiracies for all to share.
This is funny for Palin
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-november-18-2009/daily-show--the-rogue-warrior
Complain about this comment
Ref 94, David
"So you're saying that Iraq was a threat to the United States? Frankly, I can't see how that was possible."
I think Magic's opinion refers to individuals, or countries, that do not support our interests or embrace our values risks. According to him, anyone who is "belligerant" risks the possibility of being spanked by Uncle Sam the way little kids are punished when they misbehave.
In the case of Saddam Hussein, our darling when we used him to punish our nemesis in the Persian Gulf in the 1980s, he simply became a convenient distraction to take our attention away from domestic problems and give an ominous face to the perceived Islamic threat. Transforming him and his small country into a superpower capable of destroying the USA was easy when we consider that many of our fellow citizens would have a hard time finding Iraq on a world map and many view anything foreign with suspicion and apprehension.
The elusive OBL and his gang were simply not enough to satisfy our desire for revenge after 9/11. The idea of a small terrorist group inflicting so much physical and emotional damage on the most powerful nation in the world was - and remains - an inconceivable notion for many of us. We needed someone or something tangible to blame for 9/11, and Saddam and his hapless country fit the bill beautifully; with the added benefit of transforming an ambivalent President into a war hero and creating an economic bonanza for U.S. firms friendly to the Administration.
Complain about this comment
ref #100
Let me answer this, my orginal comment was that there are scenarios in place and adjusted for potential threats. Iraq under Hussein was in that category as is the terrorist state of Iran.
Complain about this comment
ref #86
PS I met as many republicans that think Isreal had something to do with the trade towers as dems.In fact more, most of the dems thing GW was involved.
Republicans Israel
Conspiracy theories are non politically selective.
__________________-
Any Republicans we have heard off. The twin tower conspiracies people are lefties like Alex Jones and Rosie O'donnell.
Who get more credence from some on the left than say the Birthers do on the right.
Complain about this comment
100 DV he became a convenient distraction to the real issue of the day which was global warming and world pollution.
Concentrating on War instead of sorting the mess we created because the money makers were too concerned with the worry that new start ups might get ahead of them in the race for sustainability so best ignore them and try to keep them quiet.
and pretend nothing is happening.
And they are still at it. "ethical man" has an interview with one of the war promoting Global warming ain't happening moron jocks from the states .
Complain about this comment
But blogspace is cheap!
Nothing makes it more likely that folk wil "scroll on by" your valuable comments (and I mean that) than your presenting them as a large mass of stream-of-consciousness text. Believe me, I thoroughly agree with the sentiments expressed in your last screed, but it took an effort of will to actually go back and read it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am a simple third worlder, and not just your aveage third worlder, but a first class village dweller..Things like typing what you said gives me a headache, and I run from the things which gives me headaches because then the flow, or the motion of what i am thinking gets broken..Your "here" page doesnt work..
Complain about this comment
"The twin tower conspiracies people are lefties like "
No gherkin but they sound just like you. they are thick enough to think Global warming is a conspiracy to ruin america.
They think Obama is some forner and they believe that "jews took the trade towers"
I could find a huge number of website that show this hate.
On one side the Feds are taking over. Obama is the anti christ. Obama is a fraud, Nobama, he's trying to take over, he's a dictator.
but unlike you they are deeply racist against Jews.
Not just some israelis but all jews ,and they believe they brought down the towers.
They mentioned guys from mossad jumping on vans celebrating before the Left.
They are the Nazi of america and they Rarely vote Democrat.
So dude, think about it.
The true anti semetics are those you support.
Complain about this comment
"101. At 4:53pm on 25 Nov 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
ref #100
Let me answer this, my orginal comment was that there are scenarios in place and adjusted for potential threats. Iraq under Hussein was in that category as is the terrorist state of Iran."
But next time you will say "Iran has no reason to be fearful of anyone"
Complain about this comment
Magic – Do you really believe that Iraq was ever an actual threat to the USA? If so how?
Complain about this comment
I personally think he took too long to make this decision, but we don't know a whole lot about his decision-making process yet.
I'm going to wait and see what he says first before I make any meaning remarks on the substance of his policy changes in Afghanistan.
However, I do feel that at this point we either need to commit whatever is needed to bring a satisfactory end to the war or start preparing to leave because I cannot support half measures that won't accomplish much.
Complain about this comment
73. on 25 Nov 2009, squirrellist wrote:
"... Angela Merkel..."
_________
Really???
Complain about this comment
Baron yOu and all the right seem to forget this.
MC CAIN PICKED A HALF WITT BIMBO FOR VP.
maybe he was passed over because they saw that he was foolish enough and populist enough to allow that symbol of american freedom from thought to be his running mate.
Sure her book sold well I suspect if she ever did the porn that most really want then she would sell out there.
selling a book to t he americans isn't that hard.
Look thousands of good Christain preachers sell the old testemant as the new testament every day.
You too can be a millionair just send us 5 easy instalments (non refundable ) to
" rip off are us"
PO Box Thick as boiled bisto,
hawegotya, florida.
Complain about this comment
61 Baron
"very disengenouos of you to try and cast a person like " Obama " iN such a negative, simplistic light. "
Complain about this comment
#98. Lord Nathan: Welcome back, but shouldn't that be Laird Nathan?!
Complain about this comment
Let me answer this, my orginal comment was that there are scenarios in place and adjusted for potential threats. Iraq under Hussein was in that category as is the terrorist state of Iran.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Iraq was never a threat, let alone potential threat to usa.or to AmBrit. Now, convince me how iraq is no longer a potential threat to usa without saddam hussain? where is the proof? Where is your concrete proof that can convience you or me or the whole world, that in some future some iraqis would not attack directly or indirectly attack usa the way it was attacked in 2001.
Complain about this comment
Sorry, Colonel, Here it is in working form
Peace
Complain about this comment
Took you a while Mr Cunard.
;-)
Complain about this comment
@106/107: Many countries maintain strategic plans to deal with other countries, specific events, etc. That's been common practice for a very long time. Most of those plans never see the light of day...they used to sit in locked file cabinets, and now reside on classified disk storage.
It's not so much, "We think Country A is a threat" as it is "IF Country A becomes a threat, then...".
That's just part of the world we live in. I think that's all that was being said.
As far as the President's decision is concerned, it's ugly no matter what he chooses. I'm with others, though, who have said that half-measures won't get it done and shouldn't be tried.
The "tax on the rich" to pay for the war, while emotionally satisfying, is something that can be done exactly once. Punitive taxes result in "the rich" taking a walk on salary increases, doing less work, and doing other things to get out from under, and there's nothing short of slavery that can require them to do otherwise. If the Congress wants to be that stupid, it will fit entirely with their long-term (50-year) character.
Complain about this comment
Obama came to power using the slogan "change", and now people instead of anticipating a change, or critisizing him for not showing any substantial change, are left to discuss usless things, like how much time he needs to send how many troops...Where is the change here?
Complain about this comment
ref 107 and 113
Evey reputable intelligence service from CIA to Mi5 to Mossad saw investigations that Hussein was trying to develop nuclear and biological weapons.
And considering the help he got from the IAEA in delaying and fore warning inspections we will never know. but I do not trust the word of a man like El Bareerdi or the ethics of Kofi annan.
But you two as usual miss the point there are scenarios studies on war colleges.
this probaly includes what will be the response if Dictator Hugo escalates his support of FARC and aids them more openly militarily in trying to bring down the democratic goverment in Columbia
Complain about this comment
#116 Ah yes the secret contingency plans, and the never-ending deadly battle against SPECTRE to save the world
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Stavro_Blofeld
Funny how reality mimics fiction
"Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible. I think it's in my basement... let me go upstairs and check." ~M.C. Escher
Complain about this comment
Evey reputable intelligence service from CIA to Mi5 to Mossad saw investigations that Hussein was trying to develop nuclear and biological weapons.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
And every non reputable intelligence even the non reputable UN inspectors questioned the investigations and proofs of reputable services CIAm, MI5 and Mossad..Its time you accept the simple but very hurful truth that these three intelligence services are not reputable after all..The Axis of reputable services, Mossad, CIA and MI5 are a potential threat to the world.
Complain about this comment
#117 Well, one refreshing change is that apparently it only took GWB 3 weeks to plan and declare war on Afghanistan, and Palin took less than a blink to determine she was fit to lead the Country, I kind of like a guy who ponders weighty matters for a bit, and maybe reads up on it jez a little.
Complain about this comment
#118
Speaking of mossad, what are they up to training its people how to plant car bombs !!? Shouldn't they be classed as a terrorist organisation?
Complain about this comment
@119: I sure wouldn't want the job of anticipating the worst men can do. If I miss an event, I am castigated for failing; if I try extra hard not to, I get sneered at. Now that's certainly a rewarding career...
Complain about this comment
#123 - Ah...then you must be in politics...or a working mother...or a public school student...or an NFL quarterback...
Complain about this comment
www.alemarah.info/english
Complain about this comment
please see website of taliban
www.alemarah.info/english
Complain about this comment
#123...not to be too harsh, as Vonnegut said, 'If you can do a half-a$$ed job of anything, you're a one-eyed man in a kingdom of the blind.'
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Ref 118, Magic
"Evey reputable intelligence service from CIA to Mi5 to Mossad saw investigations that Hussein was trying to develop nuclear and biological weapons."
Mossad will say and do whatever is in the best interest of Israel, therefore, their opinion should not be taken seriously.
Not every intelligence agency confirmed the existence of nuclear or biological weapons in Iraq prior to W's decision to attack and destroy that country. In fact, our own CIA tried desperately to remove a comment on that subject from W's State of the Union address, only to see it put back in by Dick "college deferment" Cheney.
UN IAEA inspectors confirmed, repeatedly and publicly, that there was no evidence of WMDs and that they had, in fact, destroyed all the WMDs that the Reagan Administration provided to Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war. Germany and France were also clear on their opposition to war and in their assertions that Iraq was not a threat to anyone. Our response was "freedom fries" and other childish retorts.
Your hero decided to invade and destroy the infrastructure of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, and remove a secular regime that was a former ally to the US from power, to transform himself into a war hero to guarantee his re-election, deliver an object lesson to the Islamic world, establish a robust military presence in the Persian Gulf, and reward the US corporations that funded his presidential campaign with unlimited business opportunities.
W's decision was a cynical, calculated and immoral act that ought to go down in the annals of history as one of the most corrupt ever taken by a world leader.
Complain about this comment
W's decision was a cynical, calculated and immoral act that ought to go down in the annals of history as one of the most corrupt ever taken by a world leader.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
His decision might be cynical or calculated and immoral but the act of war could never have happened without the blessing of your congress or senate..They voted for the war..stop trying to make him look like a first class dictator and stop trying to act as if you lived under dictatorship under bush..You are leaving behind the people of pakistan under dictator general perveiz or afghanistanis under karzai, when you complain like this..it was a joint decision..In democracy, majority makes the decision and the minority has to accept it, and support it..that was the modus operandi of the americans through out the war, and now all of a sudden in th year 2009 of your lord jesus christ, you are trying to wriggle out of all the responsiblities by trying to portray bush as the first class dictator, and americans as the first class citizens of that dictator..You are even leaving behind saddam hussian and iraqis during his regime..
Complain about this comment
#120: " Mossad, CIA and MI5 are a potential threat to the world."
Of course. Unlike al-Qaida, Taliban and Quds.
Complain about this comment
129. At 7:40pm on 25 Nov 2009, DominickVila wrote:
"W's decision was a cynical, calculated and immoral act that ought to go down in the annals of history as one of the most corrupt ever taken by a world leader."
_________
You might think so. It is a sad comment on human history that I rather doubt it would make it into the top 1000. It might not even make it into the top 100 in the last century.
Keep in mind that even Joseph Stalin only gets the bronze medal for evil in the 20th Century. When you measure against that yardstick, these guys don't get out of little league.
__________
While I was thinking about President Obama's upcoming speech at Annapolis on Afghanistan, I was reminded of a piece I heard a long time ago on "As It Happens" on CBC Radio. It was about a "ferret" contest. As might be expected, the contest was held in some place in England, such-and-so-many miles from Reading.
The point of the contest was to see how many ferrets you could hide in your pants, and, once there, how long you could stand to have ferrets in your trousers.
And these guys are all concerned about winning.
Or chickening out.
Cause you wouldn't want anybody to think you're a loser.
But I'm thinking "What kind of loser wants to walk around with ferrets in his pants?"
And I'm thinking "what are they doing in the contest in the first place?"
Why would you want to boast about your ability to keep a stiff upper lip with a pack of ferrets in your pants?
Like, "Get a life" maybe?
Yeah, a lot of like the War in Afghanistan.
But I'm bettin' that you don't choose Annapolis as the location for the speech if you intend to declare that you are getting the ferrets out of your pants, and you don't understand what possessed you to put them there in the first place.
Complain about this comment
#120: " Mossad, CIA and MI5 are a potential threat to the world."
Of course. Unlike al-Qaida, Taliban and Quds.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually if you see the facts...you will see that the axis of reputable intelligence services, mossad, cia and mi5 are potential threat to the world...there targets are global, they are the cause for the creation of alqaida, taliban and anyother so called terrorist organization...
Complain about this comment
Here is a suggestion on how a person can figure out if this Afghanistan endeavor makes even a tad of sense from any perspective.
Get a passport and go live in a 3rd world country for awhile. It doesn't really make much difference where you go, they are all pretty much the same in most regards. Written law is meaningless and corruption rules,The economic system is basically a few monopolies controlled totally by the elite. Class or even caste are very important and the countries can best be defined as a bunch of fiefdoms rather than a nation and on and on.
After a few months, if by no other means than osmosis, you'll realize that nation building or whatever it is that Bush and Obama have and are trying is a fool's errand.
Complain about this comment
105. Baron yOu and all the right seem to forget this.
MC CAIN PICKED A HALF WITT BIMBO FOR VP.
I am not on the right Mr. Fluff. I think both VP canidates were poor. Mrs. Clinton was a much better choice for VP and somelike Romney for the Republicans.
I choose not to be on any line in your political spectrum because it blinds one to what has happened and what is happening. Rather than using logic to understand events everything is seen through political googles if you will and it colors or distorts reality.
This also has a profound influence on the leadership. I believe Obama will make a political calculation instead of doing what he would like and that is to leave Afghanistan. If a president can not lead his troops or does not trust in their mission he should leave. Naturally, there are consiquences to such an action, but it should be the outcome.
One last thing, to the argument that Bush II decided to invade Afghanistan I would kindly disagree, it was pretty obvious the terrorists where allowed to train under the Taliban's wing. When the requests to stop the camps and turn over binLaden were rebuffed all US presidents would have gone into Afghanistan. Bush's tactics in the initial part of the war proved to be quite effective. Again, it was when the more conventional bit of the war was over and the guerilla type conflict began that problems arose. Yes Bush II had a decision, but with bin Laden going on the airwaves to take responsiblity there was no alternative. If you think Bush tricked the congress he also tricked NATO and many countries around the world first for Afghanistan and then less so with Iraq II.
Questions to consider:
1. Should Bush have been more upfront with Americans and pledged American commitment in Iraq for a minimum of 30-50 years and Afghanistan for 75-100 years? (Perhaps letting Americans know it was going to take blood, sweat tears and perseverence is a more honest way to approach these wars?)
2. If Obama chooses a half-measure will it result just another ramping up of the war without a clear mission (but an exit strategy) have the result of intensifying the war? And if this war gets ugly as a result, will Obama do as so many democrats have done in the past and pin his foreign hopes on a bloody war?
I sincerely hope Obama makes a real, not half-decision based on politics.
Complain about this comment
Get a passport and go live in a 3rd world country for awhile. It doesn't really make much difference where you go, they are all pretty much the same in most regards. Written law is meaningless and corruption rules,The economic system is basically a few monopolies controlled totally by the elite. Class or even caste are very important and the countries can best be defined as a bunch of fiefdoms rather than a nation and on and on.
After a few months, if by no other means than osmosis, you'll realize that nation building or whatever it is that Bush and Obama have and are trying is a fool's errand.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrupt attracks other corrupts, in those, few months you will have plenty of time to also realise but which you will not realise, is that every corrupt person has some sort of ties with the west..Ever wonder why people like karzai and musharaff get so easily attracted to the western leaders? they see a great potential in a joint corruption..
Complain about this comment
To all those bashing the CIA,MI5 and Mossad they do more for world peace than the U.N ever has. And those 3 nations have contyributed more to the world than the entire Arab league or group of non alligned nations.
Israel just made a generous concession on the settlement issue, lets see the Arab states reciprocate and contribute something instead of being the side of No peace!
Complain about this comment
Israel just made a generous concession on the settlement issue, lets see the Arab states reciprocate and contribute something instead of being the side of No peace!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suggest you limit your "lets see" to just lets see if this is enough to make Abbas change his mind about not taking part in the next elections in the stateless beseiged areas.
Complain about this comment
136. At 9:35pm on 25 Nov 2009, you wrote:
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have written nothing wrong in this post.it was a reply and an extension to the post 134, Post 134 is an imagery of the third world by a western and my post was a reality of a third worlder about the first world.
Complain about this comment
ref #138colonelartist wrote:
Israel just made a generous concession on the settlement issue, lets see the Arab states reciprocate and contribute something instead of being the side of No peace!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suggest you limit your "lets see" to just lets see if this is enough to make Abbas change his mind about not taking part in the next elections in the stateless beseiged areas.
_________________-
And I suggest you acknowledge that Arab nations like Egypt and the Gulf State have not put enough pressure to make concessions to Israel.
Complain about this comment
ref #117
frayedcat wrote:
#117 Well, one refreshing change is that apparently it only took GWB 3 weeks to plan and declare war on Afghanistan, and Palin took less than a blink to determine she was fit to lead the Country, I kind of like a guy who ponders weighty matters for a bit, and maybe reads up on it jez a little.
________________-
If you mock Palin's qualification how can you support Obama's when her resume was superior. But the American people have seen what happens when unqualified community orginizer gets the job, there will be a shift to experience and resume.
3 years and 2 months till we are rid of Obama can the world survive him?
Complain about this comment
Well Iraq and Afghanistan (who coined that phrase the graveyard of empires?). Both seem such a waste. Of both blood and money. I see some usual members of Nato taking the brunt. I also heard that 30,000 Nato troops were requested from other (the ones that don't take the heat)nations. I haven't heard any more on that lately has anyone? Maybe Northern Yemen will be the next hot spot, has any North Korean ships docked there lately? Face it the world is a mess. Now radicals are being born everywhere in the name of Jihad. Isn't Brussels now like 25 percent Islamic in population. Are they assimulating? I remember the Saudi Arabian American ambassador stating upon replacing leaders in the middle east states "They would rather have nine hundred and ninety nine years of tyranny, than one year of instability." So take the pin out of the map there and place it somewhere else. What a waste of brave soldiers and money. Let them sort out their own messes in their own backyards. Besides Israel has well over 200 nuclear devices, I sure they would send one to Iran if it did what it says it would do from its bombastic leaders often say. Bring the troops home enough is enough.
Complain about this comment
141 you're still here and so are we. so I suspect 3 years however many months will be pure joy compared to your postings for a day.
Complain about this comment
"Israel just made a generous concession on the settlement issue, lets see the Arab states reciprocate and contribute something instead of being the side of No peace!"
LOL sure they did . they were offered another Israeli ultimatum.
"accept this deal! we offer you a freeze on building on your land ,so you should be grateful if we build on their bit of land."
Take from one palestinian while promising the other to be left alone. Then 20 years later. "
forget that freeze. If you want to live in peace let us build on their land over there and don't complain"
a deal designed to promote division between the people of Gaza and the west bank and Jerusalem.
A divisive tactic that some suckers like you fall for every time.
A time honoured tactic.
So obvious to even the simplest political observer.
but it got you good.
But then it doesn't take a lot.
and while you crap on the soldiers that will evict Israeli Arabs or arabs in occupied territories refuse to evict jewish settlers that have refused to leave their illegal even under Israeli law settlements.
Gherkin. you consistently remain totally absurd.
Complain about this comment
Baron Of course you would disagree. NO KIDDING!
PS Clinton as VP over Biden. why exactly. other than sexist comments. tell me why. tell me of her longer serving. what about her great time as VP for Bill. oh she wasn't . She had No experience.
she had experience of back stabbing. then there was her attempt to "NOT" draw race into the election that allowed Palin and the dinosaurs to start running.
tell me she didn't say "obliterate Iran" .
I know DC and a few others liked her but seriously she got turned down.
but the reason I know you to be a bit of a fake is simple.
Hillery used the war to seem hawkish. She used the lives of american soldiers and innocent people in Afghanistan and Iraq to justify her claim to be tough.
And you say she was not blinded by political goggles compared to Obama that said 'seems like a stupid war'
and now "he" (as some who really do give themselves away when they use it) has spent some time considering how to proceed now THEY screwed it all up he is to be further derided for being too political.
Hillery could have said NO to the war.
She didn't. Your Logic completely fails you or your memory is fading, or you tell no truth.
which is it?
Complain about this comment
gherkin."WAR GAMES"
Lol so that was what GW ws doing when he decided to attack Iraq before there was any evidnce?
bull.
Complain about this comment
145. PS Clinton as VP over Biden. why exactly. other than sexist comments. tell me why. tell me of her longer serving. what about her great time as VP for Bill. oh she wasn't . She had No experience.
Well, she did serve in the senate, she was the top canidate for the democratic nomination and she was involved in Bill Clinton's decisions from the beginning.
Actually, she has quite a lot more experience than Obama. Also, if you count making a decision worth something is did quite a lot more of that. Check out Obama's voting record, he voted 'present' more often than saying yes or no. It seems he's angling for the same thing here.
Not sure how you think I'm a bit fake? What is my logic troubles you?
Complain about this comment
#145. What you say about clinton is true. And she would still have made a better VP than biden.
Complain about this comment
Magic – Sorry to burst your bubble about relying on MI5 for supporting a war on Iraq, but there are two rather major issues.
One: The current British inquiry is putting flesh on the bones of what was really already known, the British intelligence agencies had no real evidence to support the invasion, indeed from 2001 Iraq was not regarded as a serious threat, rated behind Syria and Iran. 10 days before the war started they told Blair that the evidence supplied to support the invasion was suspect. This of course ignores the fact that they had already been told to rewrite their reports as they were not sexy enough!
Two: MI5’s remit would not cover gaining information for an invasion. MI5 deals with internal security, it’s sister organisation MI6 is the one that deals with foreign matters (the one Bond is meant to belong to).
Other than that yes I would also trust MI5 to tell the PM when to go to war!
Complain about this comment
149. David Murrell:
MI6 has got a very sexy building on the Thames in Vauxhall, too. (it starred in one of the Bond films as well.) At least I like it.
(Apropos of nothing much.)
Complain about this comment
colonelartist said:
I have written nothing wrong in this post.it was a reply and an extension to the post 134, Post 134 is an imagery of the third world by a western and my post was a reality of a third worlder about the first world.
Why don't you try again and I answer if I can understand what your point is.
Complain about this comment
Squirrel – I remember when the building was opened and the news crew stood on the opposite bank of the Thames, saying they could say where the new MI6 HQ was, while every so often glancing over their shoulder. Subtle British media at its best!
Complain about this comment
ref #144
fluffytale wrote:
"Israel just made a generous concession on the settlement issue, lets see the Arab states reciprocate and contribute something instead of being the side of No peace!"
LOL sure they did . they were offered another Israeli ultimatum.
"accept this deal! we offer you a freeze on building on your land ,so you should be grateful if we build on their bit of land."
Take from one palestinian while promising the other to be left alone. Then 20 years later. "
forget that freeze. If you want to live in peace let us build on their land over there and don't complain"
a deal designed to promote division between the people of Gaza and the west bank and Jerusalem.
A divisive tactic that some suckers like you fall for every time.
A time honoured tactic.
So obvious to even the simplest political observer.
but it got you good.
But then it doesn't take a lot.
and while you crap on the soldiers that will evict Israeli Arabs or arabs in occupied territories refuse to evict jewish settlers that have refused to leave their illegal even under Israeli law settlements.
Gherkin. you consistently remain totally absurd.
___________________---
No Fluff brain you are the one who gets fooled by Arab proaganda. that stance is given in to all our demands and than we come to the table. Israel has made sacrifices name a sacrifice the other side has made.
they started the war and contnue the terrorism. The Palestinians should be treated as a pariah group because their actions show they have no desire for peace.
It is time for the world to stop coddeling them and if that means the Palestinians have to suffer too bad.
The arab states could put pressure to release the political prisonor Shaliet without releasing thousand of Plaestinian terrorists, but they refuse to do this.
Onece again you expect one standard for Israel while allowing the Palestianians and other terrorists free reign.
Go back to your soul mate another terrorist supporter George Galloway.
Complain about this comment
Magic – So all Palestinians (a Semite racial group) should be treated as pariahs for the actions of a few.
Sorry what is the prejudice against a Semitic is called what again? I am sure one of the regular posters mentions this name every so often.
Also still standing by the MI5 justification for the Iraqi invasion are we Magic?
Complain about this comment
ref #154
David Murrell wrote:
Magic – So all Palestinians (a Semite racial group) should be treated as pariahs for the actions of a few.
Sorry what is the prejudice against a Semitic is called what again? I am sure one of the regular posters mentions this name every so often.
Also still standing by the MI5 justification for the Iraqi invasion are we Magic?
_____________--
Lets get the nitpicking out of the way sorry about MI6 vs MI5
O.K mea culpa
Well you seem to be ok with worldwide restrictions on Israel. Has Israel been on the U.N Security council? Is the red star recognized equally with the red crescent by the IRC, do regional entities allow Israel membership, the fact that Israeli leaders are threatened with arrest by overeaching Europeans judges while Iranain thugs like Achmediajiad and others can claim diplomatic imunity.
Complain about this comment
I can understand that there are plenty of people who can't tell a difference between, say, al-Qaida and Quds. Or Hezbollah and Hamas.
Or KGB and FSB.
But British subjects who cannot tell a difference between MI5 and MI6?
Complain about this comment
Magic – I am not a fan of Israel (government), I think members of its leadership have committed acts that they should be brought to justice for. Then again I am equally not a fan of the Palestinian authorities, since they are little more than terrorists and thugs in the main. As for Iran the same goes for its government, especially its egotist president, though other than holocaust denial I am not sure what action he has taken which would require him to be put on trial.
Do I hate Israelis, no I have worked with more than a few, I don’t necessarily agree with their political viewpoint, then again the same goes for many of the Brits I work with. Do I hate the Palestinians, no the average citizen of the Occupied Territories I actually feel generally sorry for, they get treated as second class citizens for being born in the wrong place and the wrong racial group. As for Iranians, like Palestinians, I never have never worked with any but the general rank and file seem nice enough people. I do know an Iraqi, his family suffered terribly during the first Gulf War up to the point that his mother starved to death. They didn’t support Saddam, for one thing they were wealthy Christians, but that’s sometimes what happens when your country starts wars.
Meerkat – Does not surprise me, this is from the MI5 website: “The Security Service (MI5) is responsible for protecting the United Kingdom against threats to national security”. While this comes from the MI6 one: “As Britain's secret service, SIS provides the British Government with a global covert capability to promote and defend the national security and economic well-being of the United Kingdom.”
The SIS (the actual name of MI6) states one of its objectives is the monitoring the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Complain about this comment
156. powermeerkat wrote:
"I can understand that there are plenty of people who can't tell a difference between, say, al-Qaida and Quds."
There were alot who couldn't tell the different between IRAQ and Al-Qaeda as well!
It appears the common letter "Q" was not a very good reason to go to war.
Complain about this comment
ref #157
, David Murrell wrote:
Magic – I am not a fan of Israel (government), I think members of its leadership have committed acts that they should be brought to justice for.
_____________
That you equate a democratic goverment with a terrorist group shows your bias. There is nothing that Israel has done that is a crime, unless the Israeli people want to put their leaders on trial for not being more assertive in defense of their nation.
Complain about this comment
Magic – Sorry then the Israeli government (via the Kahan Commission) who found Ariel Sharon (11th Prime Minister) responsible for the Sabra & Shatila massacre share a similar bias. I suppose the massacre of 328 to 3,500 civilians is okay since they were ‘only’ Palestinians. Ariel Sharon should have faced more criticism and judgement for allowing the massacre to take place.
In any case I take no issue with the charge that I am biased against the State of Israel, I am just as biased against Islamic organisations and governments that use religion and ethnicity as a basis of rule and discrimination. Actually you can count my bias against any organisation or government that uses religion as a basis of action against others.
Complain about this comment
ref #160
No Sharon was found negligible for not doing enough to stop the deaths, an entirely different situation.
But you have refuse to address the double standards aggainst Israel and the fact that Palestinians and Arab states refuse to make any concessions.
Say like turning over terrorists given sanctuary in their countires. Have Nazarallah brought to Israel as the war criminal he is.
Complain about this comment
Magic – I don’t have to address any double standards that may exist. I do not like how any of the Arab, Persian or Jewish states are run, all of them have a tendency to ignore international opinion, and to treat people not of their chosen religion and/or ideology as lesser citizens. Not all Palestinians are jihadist Islamic extremists, not all Palestinians are even Muslim, yet even the Christian Palestinians are treated with them same disregard by Israel. I have heard stories from non-Palestinian Christians as well who get treated badly, say for instance over water rights. Israel is a theocratic state, I have little respect for any theocratic state including the Christian ones, even a democratic one.
Complain about this comment
Fluffytale, There is an art to discuss isralian occupation issue..To the point and with no room for your opponent to drag you into the useless discussion...Each israeli move should be seen in the context of situation that has occured in the recent past...Now, the recent past is,
abbas saying he will not stand in the next election and even more important, him saying he will take unilaterly the statehood question to the UN...if he takes this to UN, countries would have to openly show their loyalities...america will veto it, and loose the fasade of being an earnet mediator..Israel will either have to accept the state or bring back its forces to gaza and west bank..So, it opted for something which it has done before, freezing of settlements mumbo jumbo...this will help americans and EU to put pressure on Abbas to stand for elections, and stop him from taking the question to UN..This is only purpose of the once again promise of freezing of settlements..
Complain about this comment
colonelartist said:
I have written nothing wrong in this post.it was a reply and an extension to the post 134, Post 134 is an imagery of the third world by a western and my post was a reality of a third worlder about the first world.
Why don't you try again and I answer if I can understand what your point is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Golden words dont get repeated..I wrote what I wrote..too bad for you, that the words couldnt reach you.But, if you are an american, tell me, how do you justify the slavery and the slave trade of your ancestors..
Complain about this comment
Has Israel been on the U.N Security council? Is the red star recognized equally with the red crescent by the IRC, do regional entities allow Israel membership, the fact that Israeli leaders are threatened with arrest by overeaching Europeans judges while Iranain thugs like Achmediajiad and others can claim diplomatic imunity.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact the israeli leaders are threatened with arrest is due to their occupation and what they do to palestinians...It wasnt Ahemdi who killed thousands of palestinians in refugee camps, it was Sharon rip van winkle who used druz to kill them...As far as Ahemdi is concerned, he was one of the only two student leaders who oppossed the hostage taking of americans staff in Iran...No one likes to mention it though..
Complain about this comment
129 dominick I would add that the original sexed up Brit report on the weapons said a mall "may" tat was taken as positive.
that is the same problem we have here so often. someone says may be wrong and someone else craps on about how it is not wrong for three days.
GW and Dick just read it "their way"
back to my 'Words mean something' issues with many americans self absorbed version of communication.
I would add I hold him personally responsible as the president. and think he should be tried (GWB).
as with the certain UC CEO.
But america is arranged that the top are more protected, as is commoon in democratic states.
(and non democratic states)
Complain about this comment
Baron
" Bush's tactics in the initial part of the war proved to be quite effective"
you mean the bit where he let the SAS do the work?
Colonel. the reason Obama cannot bring about the change you want is because some like you and maybe me make them turkeys in america feel like they just want to kill someone.
I know they are crazy and mad.
Have no doubt of it.
that is why it is best to allow those few that are earnest for peace to do some work.
they can't do it if the wrongs are screaming "I'm scared "the whole time.
Complain about this comment
141.
Well, she did serve in the senate, she was the top canidate for the democratic nomination and she was involved in Bill Clinton's decisions from the beginning.
Actually, she has quite a lot more experience than Obama. Also, if you count making a decision worth something is did quite a lot more of that. Check out Obama's voting record, he voted 'present' more often than saying yes or no. It seems he's angling for the same thing here.
Not sure how you think I'm a bit fake? What is my logic troubles you?"
------------------------------------------------
Yep yous a fake.
LOL---- "logic"
SHE VOTED FOR THE WAR TO GET VOTES
What part of unacceptable do you not understand?
What part of self centred cow did you miss?
What decisions.
Abstension is a perfectly rightous responce to politics one is not happy with.
nor obstructive enought o say no.
Thjat is what we need in america. but from both sides. we get it from Obama. we didn't get it from Hillery.
Then there is the sale of every industry to china that the "clintons" presided over.
tehn there was the lack of effort on Global warming.
There were alot of reasons Hillery proved to be unsuitable. her claims of "experience" were false she didn't get shot at by snipers.
And here is the biggest deal.
That you missed it doesn't surprise me.
She opened the xenophobic racism up.
She made those racists that had kept quiet jump up and say" she's just like me" she played it and played it hard.
Her campaign started the birthers.
they started the Hussain comments.
She tried to use the racism of voters to get her place.
Actively tried.
What "logic" do you have?
Obama has not managed to do what he wanted so she would have been better?
do you think the republicans would have picked Sara if Hillery was the Dem choice?
probably not. too obvious , even for them.
Do you think I would have gone out to vote for Her.
Sure as hell not.
Not if the GOP had picked almost anyone over Palin.
She too used racism to get where she is.
They both lost as a result.
VVVvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
"Well, she did serve in the senate, she was the top canidate for the democratic nomination and she was involved in Bill Clinton's decisions from the beginning.
Actually, she has quite a lot more experience than Obama. Also, if you count making a decision worth something is did quite a lot more of that."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
She was shooed into the senate, she did little. maybe she would have been better voting "present" than "sure lets trash america".
her decisions with bill are only hers if they worked out if they failed it was bills fault, but she screwed up the healthcare bill way back then.
Please do try to back your point up with an example of her great decision making.
See you don't try. you say Obama is bad, Hillery is good.
I at least tell you WHY I think she was crap.
The clintons KILLED the american economy.
They were DAMN lucky there was a tech surge while they were in.
but even that proved a bit frothy.
Complain about this comment
148 Why would she have made a better VP?
What has Biden done that is so wrong. wht has she done so right.
she wears pant suits. Who cares.
Why.
It is hard to follow your reasoning if there is none seanspa.
Complain about this comment
Gherkin
LOL
"If you mock Palin's qualification how can you support Obama's when her resume was superior."
OK gherkin is it that you do not understand what a resume is or what superior means?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
PS will someone tell this stupid program that I am not a new member;)
I've always been one.
Complain about this comment
Obama being President of USA 2009 is commited to change America in accordence with American public opinion, for which he has been elected.CHANGE aimed at replacing old imperialistic behaviours with true democratic values in world politics. His remarkable victory is the result of resentment against Bush's barbaric wars against Iraq and Afghanistan. Sending more Army to Afghanistan mean adding more fuel to the fire and continue further Bush's policy of deaths and destructions in this region. I, being a trible, in FATA, am an eye wittness of this thirty years long war,in this region. Afghanistan is completely destroyed while Pakistan is now on the track and the region is being intentionally pushed in to the hands of war lords. Here in this region every one is of the view that USA and Alqaida-Taliban are the two faces of the same coin and both are responsible for these thirty years long wars in this region. Thirty years back in FATA and Afghanistan only 303 rifle was a major weapon, owned by few influential, pro British elders in different areas while for rest of the vast majority it was just a dream. Today, with the blessings of this, civilized West, particularly USA and UK and in the East, the then USSR, made this region and its people, a battle front, in their war, for their specific global interests. Today after thirty years, young generation has been left with only one option,either live with hunger and humiliation or join these warlords to get huge dollars. Today, here wars and killings, is routine problem and main lucrative business. Presently thousands of miscreants are associated with this death merchandise therefore anti US forces in this region have put huge resources at their disposal and the region has been made a bleeding wound for the allied forces in Afghanistan.In such a situation sending more Army to Afghanistan mean pushing more deeply in quagmire. I hope Obama understand this reality therefore he is hesitant in following the foot steps of Bush. Reports regarding back channel diplomacy between USA and Alqaida-Taliban is a ray of hope for us all trible in FATA.Reconciliation between the two might put an end to our three decades long war of the big ones in World Politics. two
Complain about this comment
Stu,
No, you've got it wrong. It's all about the common letters 'IRA'
Complain about this comment
It now seems that the US government is seeking the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines.
Something to be thankful for.
Complain about this comment
There seems to be a cozy clique of posters on this site who will tolerate no disagreement with any of Obama's decisions, policies, or actions, even from those who in general support and voted for Obama. Some in this clique appear to be British citizens living in the UK and it is odd that they wish to deny Americans living in the US the right to have differences with their own President. There is no discernible difference between those who would insist that all walk and speak in lockstep with Obama and those who labeled as unpatriotic the opponents of Bush's policies. Demanding absolute conformity with any political leader is ridiculous. Viciously attacking those who do not conform to the mindset of the clique is thoroughly obnoxious.
Complain about this comment
What I dont understand is that the same obama had no problem with time when he forced the pakistani military to go to war in south waziristan at a very unsuitable time without taking into consideration that men in pakistani army also have families who also dont want their sons, and fathers to die, while he takes Budha like thinking style to decide how and when he should send his own soldiers. And whats more disgusting and it is digusting that not once he or anyone from or within usa have thanked or appreciated the efforts of 30.000 pakistani soldiers who are fighting to make situation easy for the american troops..NATO and america goes all emotional hyper at the thought of sending a few hundred or a few thousand soldiers to war which was started by them, and everyone is pretending that pakistani soldiers and young officers who are dying is something that doesnt concern them..The un-written un-spoken ally of NATO whose soldiers have made the most sacrifce in this war is the pakistani army and its about time that people acknowldge this fact.
Complain about this comment
175. At 10:18pm on 26 Nov 2009, dceilar wrote:
It now seems that the US government is seeking the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines.
Something to be thankful for.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
She is the wife of the husband who tried to twist arafat's arms into signing the worse deal for the palestinians, and when arafat refused, threatened to shift american embassy to Jerusalam..It would have been better that she had kept quiet because her statement is full of lies, if I can decode that the present once again jewish offer to freeze settlement is because they along with america, wants abbas to be re-elected, dont want him to take the state question to UN...
Complain about this comment
#178 colonel
Agreed about Hillary. HRC recently praised Israel for its joke of a settlement freeze a few weeks back as an 'unprecedented' move by them. However, as far as I know it is the first time a high ranking representative of the US government has acknowledged the goal of a viable Palestinian state based on the 1967 lines.
It seems Israel is now beginning to pay the price for biting the hand that feeds it.
Complain about this comment
Here's a good artcle by Daniel Levy that discusses this latest change in US mid-east policy.
. . the new language came in Secretary Clinton's description of what American expects the outcome of negotiations to be - for an "independent and viable [Palestinian] state based on the 1967 lines". Senator Mitchell quoted Clinton in repeating the call for a Palestinian state "based on the 67 lines."
Complain about this comment
Agreed about Hillary. HRC recently praised Israel for its joke of a settlement freeze a few weeks back as an 'unprecedented' move by them. However, as far as I know it is the first time a high ranking representative of the US government has acknowledged the goal of a viable Palestinian state based on the 1967 lines.
It seems Israel is now beginning to pay the price for biting the hand that feeds it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its pathetic that it took 15 odd years for the self proclaimed mediator to mention for the first time a viable independent state based on 67 lines..What was the mediater trying to mediate if it didnt even know or what one side wanted..Her statement is not worth commenting..it should be ignored instead of being praised that after 15 yrs finally the mediatar realises the other party's demand..I think the appropriate response of decent and dignified people at her awakeing should be disgust,because she by saying this has simply acknowldged the fact that americans had no idea what palestinians were saying, and yet, these americans act as first class mediatars..
Complain about this comment
176 wow baroness. You been reading here long?
No forget it.
How cozy is your clique?
Complain about this comment
PS no body is saying don't question Obama. they are saying stop repeating the old lies and get wise enough to see when you as a voter are being manipulated. By the right with a pile of rubbish.
Oh sorry YOU didn't get enough quick enough did YOU.
Sure he is not getting very far very quick, but then in one year he has done more positive things than the last 8 years put togeather. But don't worry You can undo it by rushing with childlike impatience.
SO baroness what would you do differently?
As if we haven't heard it before.
Complain about this comment
Sorry enjoy Your turkey.
Complain about this comment
Demanding absolute conformity with any political leader is ridiculous.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you acknowldge the fact that when americans were united behind bush to go to war against afghanistan, they were collectively being ridiculous? The answer should be in YES or NO. No, yes, but...or No,but..
Complain about this comment
colonelartist said:
Golden words dont get repeated..I wrote what I wrote..too bad for you, that the words couldnt reach you.But, if you are an american, tell me, how do you justify the slavery and the slave trade of your ancestors.
Okay, I now understand where you are coming from - "where you are coming from" is sort of an idiom and unless English is your first language you probably won't understand the meaning of it.
Complain about this comment
Dceiler. yes it is good that she is showing she can follow orders if they are laid out clear enough to her.;)
It is good news that they are showing a bit of push back
and to the critics of Obama.
He did good. he waited he gave them enough rope and they hung themselves.
Keep complaining but don't forget. He who givith the rope can cause the choke.
Obama has shown more political and diplomatic skill than any of hte other contenders.
stop moaning try thinking.
But you don't trust him. Fine.
who do you trust.
Show us the options that are better. than a guy who has just played Netyenyahoo like the fiddle he is.
;)
Agreed colonel.About the pakistani soldiers. we went there and just made it worse for them.
;( sorry to them.
Complain about this comment
PS no body is saying don't question Obama. they are saying stop repeating the old lies and get wise enough to see when you as a voter are being manipulated. By the right with a pile of rubbish.
Oh sorry YOU didn't get enough quick enough did YOU.
Sure he is not getting very far very quick, but then in one year he has done more positive things than the last 8 years put togeather. But don't worry You can undo it by rushing with childlike impatience.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
When it comes to the forgein policy related to the war against terror, he has done more than undone thing..He has sent more drones than bush, violating its own ally's soverinty. He is responsible for extending the war into pakistan. He has created both the leader and opposition leader in afghanistan, from the discarded noerthern alliance..To the americans he might seem to be far sighted and someone who thinks a lot before deciding someting, but to an outsider like me, he is just his sightness is relative to bush's..and he seems to be a slow thinker..a sort of mentally challanged person, as oppossed to bush who was impulsive and a risk taker..As a rule, impulsive risk takers are better than slow thinkers..
Complain about this comment
Okay, I now understand where you are coming from - "where you are coming from" is sort of an idiom and unless English is your first language you probably won't understand the meaning of it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can try to teach me every idioms in english language but you would never see the those golden words ever again...You didnt answer my question..I didnt ask you to teach me idions in english..I have plenty of idioms from my own language plus a few more languages..
Complain about this comment
yep colonel.
you just like some freaks here.
Sure drones are crap. but then so is invading.The war was already in pakistan. It wasn't extended.
you fib as much as the rightwing loonies(and them independs)
I can tell you that america soldiers HAVE "not" crossed the border for several years now.
Complain about this comment
israel wants abbas as the statless president of palestinians, Abbas said he wouldnt play the game anymore, after israel gave go ahead signel to more settlments both in west bank and jerusalam..so, they conviently froze some settlments in the westbank...Note, its in the west bank, not jerusalam....Every tom ,dick and harry palestinian and Hilary knows that within these ten months israel as it has done in the past, will create a situation and start building those frozen settlements..Right now, all israel needs is time to finish those settlements in jerusalam, in 10 months time they will have done it, and then they will focus on the forzoen settlemts in westbank..This has been the modus operandi of israel ever since they promised to not build anymore settlements back in in early 90s..the so called oslo agreement..And to be noted all this time every prime minister who has ruled israel, excpet those few yrs shortly after 9/11..have been making the same promise which hilary has just awoken too..
Complain about this comment
colonel.
the borders at 67.
you would NEVER have got Hillery or Bush or Mc Cain to go for that. NEVER.
You forget as many do in politics that the game IS two sided. Until that changes you have a simple choice.
A or B.
In our case we can decide who A and B are.
Sure Obama is more aggressive in Pakistan.
was, but at the same time he less aggressive in other areas that we really need to back away from.
hell Clinton and the GOP were all for ratcheting the stakes with Russia.
as a rule Impulsive people are impulsive.
that is as close as you get to it there.
Deliberation is not a bad thing.
Complain about this comment
182: Yes.
183: Case in point to my #176.
184: I'm a vegetarian.
185: Yes. But not all were united behind Bush. Some of us said it was a grievous mistake to attack a country that had not attacked us but our voices were drowned out by those seeking revenge at any cost.
Complain about this comment
Sure drones are crap. but then so is invading.The war was already in pakistan. It wasn't extended.
you fib as much as the rightwing loonies(and them independs)
I can tell you that america soldiers HAVE "not" crossed the border for several years now.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, you are wrong, it wasnt in pakistan..it came after 2003, and those were just minor skirmishes, the war, the two wars first in swat and now in south waziristan came after Obama...They have not crossed the borders because then Pakistani military would have to fight with the american soldiers..And, those fighting against pakistani army, had openly said that if that happened, they would stop fighting against pakistani army and start fighting with them against the americans..See, actually, those so called militants are the gaurdians of pakistan northern borders..they have always had that role..thats why the country never had to worry about its northern frontiers..Obama has created this war in pakistan..the pakistani prime minister have already told his people that pakistan military cannot fight against american military..so he has submitted to allowing the drones..It was a choice between two evils and he chose the lesser of the two..No matter how obama or his citiziens try to wriggle out of this, the people who are pitched against each other, the taliban and military and the people whose areas are being used as battlefield, agree on one thing, that its the war imposed on them by usa..and by usa they dont mean the landscape but the people who govern it..they have nothing against the landscape of usa.
Complain about this comment
Yes. But not all were united behind Bush. Some of us said it was a grievous mistake to attack a country that had not attacked us but our voices were drowned out by those seeking revenge at any cost.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I said, no yes and but, or a No, but...simple yes or no..For years the americans have been twisting muslims arms into answering them in "yes" or No, and now its your turn..I hope you do realise how difficult it is to answer in just yes or no, to even slightly complicated matters..
Complain about this comment
Obama is given the nobel peace prize for his vision of peace, and hilary is praised for her realization that palestinian should be given a state on 67 borders...its the joke of the 21st century..Such things can be appreciated in the west..but in the rest of the world, people question the sanity of those who praise such things and those who say such things..
Complain about this comment
If wishes were horses....but we live in hope. Sadly, the track record provides scant encouragement.
;-(
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Peace
Complain about this comment
195: Just because someone twists your arm does not mean I have to let you twist mine or that I should have to play your game.
Complain about this comment
thought it was you bere. pretty obvious.
And real funny considering YOU formed the clique
Complain about this comment
So " baroness"
how would you change things?
LOL colonel.
I think some were chased over the border.
but either way I say leave the drones alone. You know that.
but there is a lot more happening in the USA and world than just the drone question.
I have said several time how I think they are illegal.
I brought up targeted assassinations as a crime.
sure, but compared to what would have happened with Mc CAin, Palin.
or Hillery (you just Know she was going to have leiberman as VP) would make hiim look like a softy.
In fact that is the criticisms of him in the USA.
That war in Pakistan is the same war as over the border.
Both were wrong but started by all.(nato)
You guys forget. we have only two choices and they both HAVE to be american;(
Complain about this comment
PS baroness been calling people "Gentile "recently.
still not accepting that to many it is offensive?
Complain about this comment
Kid not make it home for T day.;(.hmmmm
Complain about this comment
ref #171
It's not lying when you call out the Palestinians for choosing to be ruled by terrorists.
THE PALESTINIANS DO NOT WANT PEACE AND DO NOT DESERVE A STATE.
Complain about this comment
ref 179-181
Israel ignore our pathetic excuse for a Presiident, he is a disgrace.
We will be rid of him in 3 years and 2 months and will have a responsible leader who recognize that Israel's current borders are fair.
Complain about this comment
Israel has neither orders nor a constitution.
Complain about this comment
199: Oh my. I formed a clique of think-alike speak-alikes who tolerate no dissent? That is very funny. As for obvious, with some people it is necessary, as subtlety goes right over their heads.
201: I know how to use a dictionary.
202: We do not celebrate Thanksgiving. Some people choose not to take part in the collective celebration of meaningless externally-prescribed "holidays" but rather independently choose celebrations of their own that have personal meaning. This is not something easily understood by the general public, most of whom are afraid not to join in. See response to 199.
Oh well, that's enough of that. Sometimes one is tempted to try something new to see if it really is no contest, but it quickly becomes a bore. To quote the prince of purple prose: "Ta ta, y'all."
Complain about this comment
There are some interesting things coming out of the London Iraq Inquiry. Worth looking at.
Complain about this comment
lol bere.
PS that's what your kids tell you.
So where are they
Complain about this comment
squirrellist.
I hear the old diplomat made some interesting comments;)
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS