One out, all out?
In the interests of fair dealing, I have to say the UK Ministry of Defence disputes my suggestion that British troops will be among the last to leave Afghanistan. They say that what Dr Liam Fox meant was that Nato allies should come to Helmand province and help the British fight.
What the UK defence secretary actually said was:
"The bottom line is that, because we are in one of the most difficult parts of Afghanistan, and sometimes I think we think that is the only part of Afghanistan, the likelihood is that will be one of the last parts to transition over to Afghan security charge, and I think that we, together with the Americans, need to ensure that we have done what we have done already, is to have a fully integrated mission and part of a genuine coalition."
My source's interpretation of the latter half of this sentence is that we all should be the last to leave. There is no suggestion that the UK should go, to be completely replaced by US or other Nato forces.
Given my original question was whether British troops would stay as long as US combat troops, all this rather suggests, via a very circuitous route of Dr Fox's reply and diplomatic interpretation, that the simple answer is "yes".
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
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~31~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
This is a good example why links to source documents are advisable. Follow the link in my post #8 in the previous thread to find a link to a transcript of Mr. Fox's address.
Complain about this comment
Hold on, didnt someone a few days ago said that british troops will withdraw in five years time? If that is still correct that NATO will pull out in 2015...
Complain about this comment
From the lord high executioner or whatever;
"The bottom line is that, because we are in one of the most difficult parts of Afghanistan, and sometimes I think we think that is the only part of Afghanistan, the likelihood is that will be one of the last parts to transition over to Afghan security charge..."
The British army should look at their time in Afghanistan as good practice for what they'll find when they get back to Britain with South Asians and Sharia law taking over and all. When they return, they'll feel right at home like they had never left Afghanistan. At that time I might just start calling it Britanistan.
Complain about this comment
Isn't the US withdrawal date in 2011 anyway?
Complain about this comment
Ref. 4 ninetofivegrind:
"Isn't the US withdrawal date in 2011 anyway?"
Yep, and the American people will have a commander in chief in 2012 who will withdraw our forces post haste if it hasn't been accomplished already. The mood of the country is America, come home.
Complain about this comment
4. At 00:15am on 01 Jul 2010, ninetofivegrind wrote:
"Isn't the US withdrawal date in 2011 anyway?"
Sigh.....
Just look at it as the theme for the next few seasons' docudrama 'The Big Pullout' - What will it take to pull the war out of the fire - how many plot complications, firefights, hi-drama summit meetings, assassinations, firings, and heroic GIs will it take to get us out with 'honor'?
Look for the season starring J-Lo as the charismatic Pashtun-speaking Officer bent on big promotions and international reconciliation.
It's not over until it's last week's news. Keep your eye on the rear-view mirror.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
It just goes to show the British are our true friends and allies, cause' they are sticking with us. Thank you, GB! ;)
But Camereon is his own man. He is definitely not the same as Brown...
Complain about this comment
It is really disappointing how they redesigned Wonder Woman. Now she looks just like any other regular female.
I miss the old Wonder Woman, who wore the stars and stripes.
We will have to create a new American Princess.
One that wears the stars and stripes with pride.
Complain about this comment
6 KScurmudgeon:
"Look for the season starring J-Lo as the charismatic Pashtun-speaking Officer bent on big promotions and international reconciliation."
Maybe Ms Lo will also release an accompanying movie soundtrack entitled "reconciliation across the nation"?
Complain about this comment
Lucy, Lucy, Lucy;
"We will have to create a new American Princess.
One that wears the stars and stripes with pride."
We already have. Lady Gaga.
Complain about this comment
Mark: '"Given my original question was whether British troops would stay as long as US combat troops, all this rather suggests, via a very circuitous route of Dr Fox's reply and diplomatic interpretation, that the simple answer is "yes"."
I strongly doubted that it would be anything other than "yes" all along. If British troops were to withdraw before ours, and as a result American troops were to be unable to cope with both our work load as well as that of the British, then the entire delicate opporation could bust apart at the seams and the last decade's worth of fighting will appear to have been for nothing. We simply can't risk that. Not with how unpopular (in both countries) the war is now; not with the disproportionate (when compared to other countries') numbers of British and American forces being killed and the high levels of resentment that inevitably and, in my opinion, justifyably accompany it. And just in case risking that disaster isn't enough of a reason, the troops leaving at different times would surely put an inormous strain on US-UK relations, a strain which, given what the BP oil spill has done to America's reputation not only in the British press, but amung the British people, I don't think, nay, I highly doubt we would be able to endure. And despite all the talk of "bully boy of the schoolyard," "we're America's poodle" and "you would be speaking German if it weren't for us," the simple fact is, that our respective interests are so dependent on our cooperation, that I don't think we would be able to pursue, protect and defend them in the world very well, if at all, without one another's help. So if for no other reason than that most basic of necessities, that of protecting the national interest, it behooves us to have a strong working relationship.
I just await (and fear) the highly likely blowback from the British people now about "how this is just yet another example, as if we needed one, of the fact that when America says "jump" Britain says "how high?"
Complain about this comment
ninetofivegrind (#4): "Isn't the US withdrawal date in 2011 anyway?"
No. How many times must this be explained before everybody understands it?
In July, 2011, the US intends to begin withdrawal of forces while turning over security responsibilities to the Afghanistan government forces. There is no stated policy on the rate of withdrawal or when disengagement might be complete. These depend on conditions on the ground.
Complain about this comment
12 GH1618:
ninetofivegrind (#4): "Isn't the US withdrawal date in 2011 anyway?"
No. How many times must this be explained before everybody understands it?
____________________________________
Err, calm down love and reach for your meds.....I was being sarcastic.
Complain about this comment
12. At 03:26am on 01 Jul 2010, GH1618 wrote:
"I just await (and fear) the highly likely blowback from the British people now about "how this is just yet another example, as if we needed one, of the fact that when America says "jump" Britain says "how high?""
That may be preferable to '...when Brussels says "jump"... ,or '...when Paris says...'
Are you willing to trade a distant friend for those too close cousins? You know their troubles all too well.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
The decision to stay in Afghanistan till the bitter end is noble but fraught with difficulties. Afghanistan is a quagmire. Will the British government and its citizens be able to stomach the sure loss of young British lives? If the answer is yes, then the war could be won. But if the Taliban are allowed to regroup, the British and the Americans could be in deep trouble. There is so much uncertainty. Time is of essence!
Complain about this comment
I would like to know when you (yes you) started to believe politicians !
Complain about this comment
'"Given my original question was whether British troops would stay as long as US combat troops, all this rather suggests, via a very circuitous route of Dr Fox's reply and diplomatic interpretation, that the simple answer is "yes"."
Once again a politician uses many words when one will do. *sigh*
Do the British stick by their allies? Yes.
Should we now proceed with more difficult questions involving something like the Pope attending mass or a bear heading towards the local woods with some urgency?
Complain about this comment
For the year plus prior to the invasion of Iraq, I did what a citizen could do to prevent a fraud of a war. I spent most of my disposable income on the right candidates and causes, rejoined organizations, and wrote letters. When the war began I was deeply saddened but recognized the reality of my nation's decision.
Some years later when Karen Hughes rejoined a politically faultering White House to 'help', she made a trip to Iraq. Press reports indicating she had experienced a rude awakening there preceeded her return. On television, I saw her step from a helicopter on the White House lawn as a lone national correspondent approached her, asking what she had learned from her trip.
Hughes had a straight-backed military bearing as she grabbed some small luggage from the copter, then turned to the microphone being held before her. The contortions of her face matched the tears in her eyes. She finally responded to the effect: 'When I was a little girl, I always wanted to believe my country would do what was right', and several similar sentences, before quickly turning and walking away as she appeared on the verge of open sobs. At the time, I thought to myself with great bitterness: 'Well, Ms. Hughes, now that you're no longer a little girl, what do you think of what you've done.' Still, that moment has stuck in my mind for a long time. As awkward and superficially non-responsive as her response was, it was sincere- that's why I remember it.
While I would never advocate launching a war on anyone's uninformed hubris, I do know what she meant, and I recognize where we in fact are regardless.
I'm glad Obama has announced July 2011 for the begining of a transfer in Afghanistan, I'm glad Cameron has declared Britain will be out in five years, and I'm glad the media is putting the focus and heat on this issue. I feel anything that will expedite whatever good we can do is welcome. I also realize, no matter what, we will be in Afghanistan in large numbers for at least two years, and, I can even see the potential for some of the ideals from those like Karen Hughes to occur.
Complain about this comment
One out, all out.
Not quite. The Americans will never leave Afghanistan any more than they have left Iraq or Japan.
Re the UK Ministry of Defence disputing your statement that British troops will be among the last to leave Afghanistan, all I can say to this you're right.
If Fox meant that Nato allies should come to Helmand province and help the British fight that’s what he should have said, which of course is not what he said.
Liam Fox: "I think that we, together with the Americans, need to ensure that we have done what we have done already, is to have a fully integrated mission and part of a genuine coalition."
All this rather suggests to me that the UK will be in Afghanistan as long as the Americans are there. i.e. Until the US pulls the troops leaving behind "trainers" and "contractors", as it has done in Iraq.
The Liam Fox policy is the reason that most foreign governments, while shaking the hand of UK diplomats, listening to what the UK has to say, cannot see past the huge shadow of the United States. Foreign Governments seem to think (and with good cause) that when you deal with the UK, you are dealing with the US.
Now let's see how British "Liam Fox" policy coincides with the British electorate.
A poll by YouGov Plc last week found 25% wanted all troops to be withdrawn immediately.
Another 42% wanted most soldiers should be pulled out soon (within the year) and the rest wanted the soldiers out within the next year or so.
I see plenty of cowtowing to the US; I do not see representation of the British people who elected The Coalition Government and who predominanty want the troops home within the year or right now.
Complain about this comment
When will the Afghan army start to fight? One would think that 10 years would be sufficient to develop an army. The Afghan government will let everyone else fight as long as they can. The tribal warlords seem to have the title "warlord" in name only. So many Afghan men brandishing arms, yet unwilling to use them. Never walk into a sand pit without a plan on how to get out.
Complain about this comment
Wow.
First Thought:
I really appreciate that ya'll have been committed to working and supporting efforts consistently in this... operation.
Second Thought:
Holy Crap! Can we at least facilitate with some back-up out there? Wouldn't supplemental support help?
Third Thought:
@ Mr. Mardell -- Dude. I can't imagine what it's like having to write for the Euro 'Bubble' while working/living in our 'Bubble'. Thanks for the 'clarification'. I hope ya'll really enjoy the Fireworks on Sunday Night. DC's show on the 4th is usually pretty impressive.
Although, since the 4th of July celebrates the signing that took place here in Philadelphia, you should really come up here and check out our show sometime.
(sry. couldn't help it. had to brag.)
Anywho - Blessings of Peace to you and yours. What a mess.
Complain about this comment
CNC - China Xinhua News Network Corporation - said it would offer "a better view of China to its international audiences" and enable "more voices to be heard by the rest of the world".
"It will broadcast news reports in a timely way and objectively, and be a new source of information for global audiences," said Xinhua's President Li Congjun at a launch ceremony in Beijing.
It seems BBC got itself a competitor in broadcasting timely and objective news.
And that Al-Jazeera won't be the only alternative to its underpaid broadcasters and even North America correspondents. ;)
Complain about this comment
Ref. 4 ninetofivegrind:
"Isn't the US withdrawal date in 2011 anyway?"
Yep, and the American people will have a commander in chief in 2012 who will withdraw our forces post haste if it hasn't been accomplished already. The mood of the country is America, come home.
AndyPost, you seem to assume that Barack Hussein is going to remain our Commander-in-Chief after November 2012.
Please, kindly re-read Murphy's Laws.
Complain about this comment
"It is really disappointing how they redesigned Wonder Woman. Now she looks just like any other regular female."
Lucy, are you referring to Anne Foley, as redesigned by SVR? :-)))
Complain about this comment
MAII: "We will have to create a new American Princess."
Michelle, ma belle? :)
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
Lucy Honey - I TOTALLY wanted to be Lynda Carter's Wonder Woman when I grew up! Of course... for all ya'll know, maybe 'Philly-Mom' actually IS a Super-Strong Amazonian Princess Immigrant with American Truth and Justice Attitude -- Hmmm...? [I hear that cloaking technology could get us an 'invisible plane'. Now we need a Golden Lasso!]
@ MAII:
Sry Honey, but Lady Gaga may be a Wonder and may be a Woman (I guess), but that don't make her no Wonder Woman. There's more to Wonder Woman than the sequined super-suit, honey. Shame on you.
Complain about this comment
KScurmudgeon (#14), you have incorrectly attributed some other person's remarks to me in your post #14.
Complain about this comment
Andy: Hmmm, that sounds vaguely familiar. Wasn't the 2008 election supposed to accomplish much of the same?
Lucy: Wearing the stars and stripes as clothing goes against the proper treatment of the flag. Unfortunately, we tend to be a little more concerned with appearing patriot than actually being patriotic, so it's a rule that isn't often followed.
Complain about this comment
When going gets tough, the tough withdraws...
Complain about this comment
Ref. 29, Protocol417:
"Andy: Hmmm, that sounds vaguely familiar. Wasn't the 2008 election supposed to accomplish much of the same?"
No, not really. He promised to pull out Iraq, but Obama's proposal for Afghanistan was to increase the commitment of troops to the area in an attempt to improve security and then pull out. Unfortunately, it does not appear that the Afghans are the match of the Iraqis when it comes to being able to form a stable democratic government. If that is indeed the case, Americans will be in favor of abandoning Afghanistan rather than staying there indefinitely. Our faith in our ability to change the world is flagging, and we're keenly aware now of our tenuous grip on our burgeoning deficit. The war in Afghanistan is nothing if not expensive.
GH is correct in that the 2011 date was intended only to be the beginning of the withdrawal, but that's not what the country seemed to hear. The People are expecting the war to be wound down by the end of 2011. If that doesn't happen, the country will find a President who will do so in 2012.
The recent uptick in casualties along with soldiers' complaints about not being allowed to win the war are bringing back unpleasant memories of Vietnam (even though the comparison is a stretch in my opinion), and Americans are simply not going to allow that nightmare to happen again.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 23, powermeerkat:
"AndyPost, you seem to assume that Barack Hussein is going to remain our Commander-in-Chief after November 2012."
No, I don't think that follows.
My stipulation is that Americans want to withdraw from Aghanistan and will vote that way. I'm not sure the President is committed to that. I'm not even sure the GOP is.
And no, I don't know if Obama will be re-elected.
Complain about this comment
# 23 Power Hussein Meer
"AndyPost, you seem to assume that Barack Hussein is going to remain our Commander-in-Chief after November 2012.
Please, kindly re-read Murphy's Laws"
1. I see no evidence that AndyPost makes any such assumption. Obama's first term lasts till the next POTUS election. [In fact I assume it lasts till the new President, whether Obama or otherwise, is sworn in in '13.] Again, I see no evidence that AP thinks he can predict the result of said election. Anyone who thinks they can well over 2 years in advance is clearly deluding themself.
2. Any chance you will acquire the courtesy, before or indeed after Nov '12, of describing your President - assuming you are American - by his correct name?
3. AFAIK the best known Murphy's Law is something along the lines of 'What can go wrong will go wrong - the toast always lands butter side down.' This law would certainly explain the election of George Walker as President, the rise of Sarah Heath to de facto leader of the Reps, the rise of the Teabaggers, the financial crisis, Iraq, Afghanistan - the list is endless...
Complain about this comment
Ref. 23, powermeerkat:
"Please, kindly re-read Murphy's Laws."
Ok, but there's only one of them:
Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong.
How does that apply?
Complain about this comment
Afghanistan is a pit of despair as is much of the Middle East. It's funny, the Middle East used to be one of the most open and educated places, now it's one of the most backward. We should train the Afghan army as best we can while we are there.
Complain about this comment
Realistically, to "transition to Afghan charge" will probably take a full generation. Certainly one cannot expect the same groups that have been exposed by the WSJ loading three billion plus in US currency of diverted 'aid' onto transport planes departing Kabul & bound for safe banking havens to take "charge" of anything.
They have been hopelessly compromised.
Nato cannot afford to be there for another generation, either.
Ergo, a transition force of some kind will be needed. It should be lower-cost than Nato, more efficient (less inclined to lavish monetary rewards: that, in fact, has been one of the biggest flaws in the US-led strategy of recent years) and quicker to introduce modern educational standards & principles (i.e., move locals away from "traditionalist" mindsets and towards what is basically assumed & in evidence as a common standard of functionality, at the UN GA level of 2010; that means full implementation of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, safeguarding religious & other freedoms, actual equality for women, protections for children, due process of court systems, etc.)
There has to be a period of custodianship. We have had that before, post-WW2 in the defeated powers that had instigated the aggression. There is good reason for that. And it works.
It would be foolish, having expended so much money & human resources to get as far as Nato has, to then allow the mess to slide back into savagery. There has to be an architecture for peace, development & law enforcement. It was embraced for Yugoslavia after the break-up into sovereign regions -- and that was in Europe.
Something similar will be needed here, and it is time to plan for it.
Complain about this comment
Andy Post (#31): "The People are expecting the war to be wound down by the end of 2011. If that doesn't happen, the country will find a President who will do so in 2012."
I agree with you that the People want results by election season 2012, but am reluctant to make any predictions about the next general election. If the situation in Afghanistan is in good shape, with the US presence reduced to a minor role with minimal casualties, I expect Obama will be reelected easily. More likely, I think, is that the situation will be ambiguous, neither resolved nor out of control. In that case, who knows?
Complain about this comment
KScurmudgeon #14: '"That may be preferable to '...when Brussels says "jump"... ,or '...when Paris says...'"
Most definitely. At least in my opinion. But we don't know how the majority of the British people feel about their country's relationship with others, particularly ours. And at the end of the day, all democracies reflect, or at least should reflect the will of their peple. Hence my fear that the British people will demand (without entirely thinking it through) that their leaders distance their country from us as well as completely withdraw from the European Union, leaving it virtually isolated in the world. It would undoubtedly do untold damage to it, damage which I, for one, don't wish to see it suffer.
"Are you willing to trade a distant friend for those too close cousins? You know their troubles all too well."
Absolutely not. But I'm just one person, and I'm not British. You should really be asking Britons these questions. It is their reaction that I fear the most.
But for what its worth, I don't consider Brussles and Paris truely relyable friends. They are close friends, sure, but unconditional? Of course not. There are too many competeing interests in Brussles to please (the most powerfull of which tend at times to enjoy working against us) and Paris has hurt us too many times in the past for us to unconditionally trust them.
If you think my fear is somewhat paranoid, just look at what Paul Reynolds, a highly educated political and international relations annalist, claims to have "observed" about Britain's role in the world.
On Afghanistan, he says that "The UK is only there because the US is. While Britain has a voice, it is not a determining voice and not a "distinctive" one either."
First of all, the UK is there because after one of its closest allies, the US, was attacked on 9/11 killing 3000 people, 61 (I believe) of whom were British citizens, its leaders, out of their forsight and generosity, decided to commit the UK in joining its friend in combating the entity that they realized seaks to attack not only their friend, but all countries that don't share that entity's twisted phelosophy. Not because the US said "jump" and the UK replyed "how high?" like a brainless, spineless idiot as Mr. Reynolds incinuates. Regarding Britain's voice in this whole process, I would really love to know how Mr. Reynolds came to this conclusion, because based off what I've seen - Prime Minister Cameron announcing that he will work to have UK troops fully withdrawn from the country by 2015 and the flurry of activity, reports of splits between Downing Street and the White House and defensive reactions from both sides to those reports, feaverish discussions on the topic between President and Prime Minister at their first-ever face-to-face meeting, and hurried and intense face-to-face meetings between Defence Secritary Robert Gates and the Secritary of State for Defence LiamFox (four in four weeks, to be precise) - I highly doubt, that if Britain really had no distinctive voice, let alone a voice at all, that any of this, much less all of it, would have happened. If the US saw the UK as a mere prop to be positioned the way it saw fit, chances are we would have tryed to bully and/or cajole the British into staying, and if and when that failed we would have just simply tryed to muttle through on our own with our troops the best we could. We would not have wasted our time with meetings, nigociations and presenting a united front if Britain truely didn't have a voice.
On Iran, he continues: "Britain is part of a three-nation EU negotiating team over Iran's nuclear activities and this threesome is joined by the US, Russia and China."
The world is working together to deal with Iran because that is the only proven way in which to get Iran to listen to anyone. Iran trys to divide countries and pit them against each other whenever possible. And if the US had normalised relations with Iran (as the UK does,) then most likely the "big three," as it is afectionately known, wouldn't have to, and wouldn't be doing the majority of the heavy diplomatic lifting. The reason Britain is part of the threesome is because there is strength in numbers. That - and the above mentioned piculiar Iranian tendencies - is also why the US is working with them, along with China and Russia. It is also why the US has chosen to handle the North Korean crisis along side China, Russia, Japan and South Korea as aposed to on its own.
Mr. Reynolds concludes: "There is no place for a "distinctly British" view anymore than there is for a French or German view. They matter only if they speak as one."
Clearly he is at least somewhat ignorant of the timultuous relationship between the US and France since our founding, for if he wasn't he would know that one of those countries can, and certainly does have a "distinctive" view on international affairs, and as such makes its presence felt in the world on a regular basis.
If Camebridge and Oxford educated highly respectable journalists hold these views of their country and its place in the world, there surely isn't much hope for objectivists amung the British people.
Paul Reynolds' entire opinion piece is here if anyone is interested.
Complain about this comment
#3 "The British army should look at their time in Afghanistan as good practice for what they'll find when they get back to Britain with South Asians and Sharia law taking over and all. When they return, they'll feel right at home like they had never left Afghanistan. At that time I might just start calling it Britanistan."
Muslim population of UK - 3%
Number of significant attacks by Muslim extremists on British soil during the past decade - One.
Complain about this comment
Ref 6, KScurmudgeon
"...how many plot complications, firefights, hi-drama summit meetings, assassinations, firings, and heroic GIs will it take to get us out with 'honor'?"
I would not be surprised if we all have to endure a lovefest showing GIs helping Afghans rebuild their houses, teaching small children how to read, sipping tea together, exchanging gifts, and lots of smiling faces during the next several months. After that, we will declare victory and bring our troops home.
Our NATO partners will bring theirs home when we tell them it is OK to do so.
Complain about this comment
The question that you should be asking is why the obbession of training afghanistan army? They dont have any other infrastrucutre in place, why this skewed focus on just one thing? The country whose president doesnt even control the whole city of Kabul should have an army? what a pathetic reason to stay while the leaders find out victorious way to withdraw..Just ask your military how they select "soldiers or the officers" in army...You will find such a pathetic recruiment policy that you will all understand where the actual problem lies.
Complain about this comment
The U.S. government is snapping up Russian-made helicopters to form the core of Afghanistan's fledgling air force, a strategy that is drawing flak from members of Congress who want to force the Afghans to fly American choppers instead.
In a turnabout from the Cold War, when the CIA gave Stinger missiles to Afghan rebels to shoot down Soviet helicopters, the Pentagon has spent $648 million to buy or refurbish 31 Russian Mi-17 transport helicopters for the Afghan National Army Air Corps. The Defense Department is seeking to buy 10 more of the Mi-17s next year, and had planned to buy dozens more over the next decade.
The spectacle of using U.S. taxpayer dollars to buy Russian military products is proving a difficult sell in Congress. Some legislators say that the Pentagon never considered alternatives to the Mi-17, an aircraft it purchased for use in Iraq and Pakistan, and that a lack of competition has enabled Russian defense contractors to gouge on prices.
"The Mi-17 program either has uncoordinated oversight or simply none at all," said Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.), who along with Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) has pushed the Pentagon to reconsider its purchase plans. "The results have led to massive waste, cost overruns, schedule delays, safety concerns and major delivery problems."
U.S. and Afghan military officials who favor the Mi-17, which was designed for use in Afghanistan, acknowledge that it might seem odd for the Pentagon to invest in Russian military products. But they said that changing helicopter models would throw a wrench into the effort to train Afghan pilots, none of whom can fly U.S.-built choppers.
"If people come and fly in Afghanistan with the Mi-17, they will understand why that aircraft is so important to the future for Afghanistan," said Brig. Gen. Michael R. Boera, the U.S. Air Force general in charge of rebuilding the Afghan air corps. "We've got to get beyond the fact that it's Russian. . . . It works well in Afghanistan."
http://iraq-war.ru/article/227572
Complain about this comment
re.#41. At 8:26pm on 01 Jul 2010, colonelartist wrote:
"The question that you should be asking is why the obbession of training afghanistan army? They dont have any other infrastrucutre in place, why this skewed focus on just one thing?"
For a couple reasons: first, because no one wants to see Afghanistan become another Somalia when we leave where the central government falls apart and the country becomes a lawless region of chaos; and second, because American politicians want an insurance policy against being held accountable for "losing Afghanistan" in the event that the Taliban return to power after we pull our troops out. If we leave behind a reasonably credible national army they can point to it and say "See? We didn't lose Afghanistan, they did."
Complain about this comment
SaintDominick (#40): "Our NATO partners will bring theirs home when we tell them it is OK to do so.
"
I don't know where you get a cockamamie idea like that. Some, e.g. Canada, have already announced their intention to withdraw from Afghanistan, and there is nothing that we can do to prevent it.
Complain about this comment
Honestly speaking, ruling americans and the brits is the most easiest job in the whole world...the people are so gullible and superficial that since no one goes beyond the ideas floated by leaders that the most dictatorial dictator would have no need for his dictatorship qualities...
Complain about this comment
re.#37. At 6:31pm on 01 Jul 2010, GH1618 wrote:
Andy Post (#31): "The People are expecting the war to be wound down by the end of 2011. If that doesn't happen, the country will find a President who will do so in 2012."
I agree with you that the People want results by election season 2012, but am reluctant to make any predictions about the next general election. If the situation in Afghanistan is in good shape, with the US presence reduced to a minor role with minimal casualties, I expect Obama will be reelected easily. More likely, I think, is that the situation will be ambiguous, neither resolved nor out of control. In that case, who knows?
-------------
I have to disagree. If the war in Afghanistan is going badly it can cost the president re-election but success there won't win him re-election. The deciding issues will be the economy and his domestic policies.
Complain about this comment
Here's a link to an interesting article on the subject of Canadian involvement in, and withdrawal from, other conflicts:
http://www.canada.com/news/Quick+Afghanistan+withdrawal+character+Canada+Experts/2916716/story.html
Complain about this comment
re. #42. At 8:33pm on 01 Jul 2010, colonelartist wrote:
"The U.S. government is snapping up Russian-made helicopters to form the core of Afghanistan's fledgling air force, a strategy that is drawing flak from members of Congress who want to force the Afghans to fly American choppers instead."
I can see why Congress would be irritated, especially those whose districts build helicopters, but in this case I think the government knows what it's doing. The Mi-17 is reliable, proven, and designed to be easily maintained. Furthermore, spare parts are much more readily available and affordable in the region than those for American helicopters. The lower cost means the Afghans will be able to afford to keep more of them flying when American subsidies run out.
It may not be the politically correct decision but it makes good military sense.
Complain about this comment
For a couple reasons: first, because no one wants to see Afghanistan become another Somalia when we leave where the central government falls apart and the country becomes a lawless region of chaos; and second, because American politicians want an insurance policy against being held accountable for "losing Afghanistan" in the event that the Taliban return to power after we pull our troops out. If we leave behind a reasonably credible national army they can point to it and say "See? We didn't lose Afghanistan, they did."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afghanistan is Afghanistan, its not somalia, not usa and not any other country...And it will never be like this country or like that country..This might come as a shock to you, but during its heydays when it had a so called central government, king and then his cousin as president, the center had just power in the center.....Taliban ruled the rest...just as they pleased..And thats what your government is trying to do, after all these years of killing..but its too scared to tell you openly, the reason I dont know.
Complain about this comment
Anyway dont you people feel that you are genuinly pathetic? the same people who provided stingers to shoot down russian helicopters designed specifically for russian occupation in afghanistan, are now buy those helicopters for afghanistani army to kill its own people?? The westerners think that their freedom of speech is limitless, but in reality its their unshamefull attitude that is limitless..If you had to kill the same people whom russia was killing, if you use the same argument against them that russians were using, and if you are giving them the same helicopters that russians had used....What was the whole drama of fighting a proxy war against russia? Why didnt you just let them finish off the job? You created your own problems by not supporting russians...And now your whole nation, united under one G-d is pondering ways of withdrawal in a false and pretence victorious way...
Complain about this comment
I can see why Congress would be irritated, especially those whose districts build helicopters, but in this case I think the government knows what it's doing. The Mi-17 is reliable, proven, and designed to be easily maintained. Furthermore, spare parts are much more readily available and affordable in the region than those for American helicopters. The lower cost means the Afghans will be able to afford to keep more of them flying when American subsidies run out.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
You dont even know what that helicopter means in afghanistan and for afghanistani people? the whole world cannot stand the nazi symbol after 70 yrs, and here are you quite comfortable in dishing out praises for that helicopter....We know what it is capable of....it was used in afghanistan...
Complain about this comment
All: This week I listened to a brief interview with a newsman who's been embedded with a group of American soldiers in an Afghanistan area for a year. He's returned now, and is releasing a book on his experiences. He brought out a couple of interesting points in the interview:
1. When the US initially defeated the Taliban, the approval by the Afghani people was around 90%.
2. The US forces were grossly undermanned and undersupplied (even well before the Iraq buildup), and the support among the Afghanis dribbled away because the Taliban were able to re-establish themselves, and were able to make it clear to the average Afghani that they, and not the US, were going to execute real power (by executing those that opposed them). Now the Afghanis don't trust the US to protect them from the Taliban.
That last point was reinforced by a general message from a Marine commander who has served in theater. He said the Afghanis get all kinds of feedback (beheadings, etc.) from the Taliban about who's who, and what's what. Unless the US is ready to step up to the plate and really be what they must be (a conquering power), the Afghanis aren't going to trust us.
Finally, in my job I've been privileged to listen to a number of soldiers and Marines who have returned from both Iraq and Afghanistan. Out of those conversations and other communications two themes have indirectly emerged:
a. The grunts at the sharp end of the stick are almost-uniformly trying as hard as they possibly can to be successful and to do the right things in an honorable way. They don't like anything that cheapens them or their commitment.
b. We as a nation have let them down by trying to do this on the cheap. That may be astounding considering the huge amount of cash that's been spent to date, but I believe it's nonetheless true. It appears to me that there's so much inertia, organizational friction, and bureaucracy in place throughout the DoD and the Federal government that by the time resources actually make it through the pipeline to the grunts who need them, they are pitifully small. I'm not including in this the propensity for some folks to game the system or commit outright fraud...I'm just referring to the incredible costs of the army of civil servants, contractors, and Congressional staffers that are involved with the war effort. The same thing is true, of course, of almost every other Federal endeavor.
This isn't an argument for less government, or more government, or any other such nonsense. It's just an observation that we have allowed our governing institutions to be so encrusted with less-than-essential details that doing anything is hard, and doing anything hard is nearly impossible. This effort falls in the latter category.
Part of our "way ahead" in Afghanistan, and everywhere else, is to face this, and to figure out to what extent the perfect is being the enemy of the good, and above all to have the courage to cut away those items that are important but aren't absolutely necessary, as well as the unessential details of essential items. With our debt in the trillions, we really don't have a choice any longer.
Regards,
Arclight
Complain about this comment
re. #44. At 8:46pm on 01 Jul 2010, GH1618 wrote:
SaintDominick (#40): "Our NATO partners will bring theirs home when we tell them it is OK to do so.
"
I don't know where you get a cockamamie idea like that. Some, e.g. Canada, have already announced their intention to withdraw from Afghanistan, and there is nothing that we can do to prevent it.
---------------------------
The Canadian forces performed well in Afghanistan and they will be missed. (Except by the Air Force but that was an accident.)
Complain about this comment
re.# 49. At 9:04pm on 01 Jul 2010, colonelartist wrote:
For a couple reasons: first, because no one wants to see Afghanistan become another Somalia when we leave where the central government falls apart and the country becomes a lawless region of chaos; and second, because American politicians want an insurance policy against being held accountable for "losing Afghanistan" in the event that the Taliban return to power after we pull our troops out. If we leave behind a reasonably credible national army they can point to it and say "See? We didn't lose Afghanistan, they did."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afghanistan is Afghanistan, its not somalia, not usa and not any other country...And it will never be like this country or like that country..This might come as a shock to you, but during its heydays when it had a so called central government, king and then his cousin as president, the center had just power in the center.....Taliban ruled the rest...just as they pleased..And thats what your government is trying to do, after all these years of killing..but its too scared to tell you openly, the reason I dont know.
__________________
Gosh, Afghanistan is Afghanistan: wow, I never knew. Thanks for letting me know. I thought it was the fifty-first state.
The central government never ruled the whole country? Why, you're right, it is shocking to hear that a country ruled by warlords and tribalism for the last three thousand years with brief exceptions under invaders like Alexander the Great and the Mongols would not be under the firm control of a unified central government. Serves them right for not letting the British annex them and make them into proper country.
Please, do enlighten us as to what our government isn't telling us, I love a good conspiracy theory.
Complain about this comment
Arclight
Just remember, the journalist whom you mentioned is an american, embedded with american forces...The number of soldiers you talked to were all americans....Dare you to go and talk to couple of taliban and then post your generous comments...the support for americans dwindled before the war, exactly at the moment when usa allied itself with the northern allaince...No, matter how you and yours can justify their alliance with northern alliance, the afghans had welcomed taliban when they overthrew them...And you can just imagine the contempt afghans had for those people that they even welcomed taliban...and what do the great liberators do? Side with the northen alliance and bring them back to power...
Complain about this comment
The central government never ruled the whole country? Why, you're right, it is shocking to hear that a country ruled by warlords and tribalism for the last three thousand years with brief exceptions under invaders like Alexander the Great and the Mongols would not be under the firm control of a unified central government. Serves them right for not letting the British annex them and make them into proper country.
Please, do enlighten us as to what our government isn't telling us, I love a good conspiracy theory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No need to go all the way back to Alexander, In your hyper knee jerk reaction time, you overlooked that I mentioned, the king and his cousin president, any tom dick and harry whose country has occupied for 9 yrs and who himself writes about afghanistan should have by now atleast read some history of that country...or is it americans united proffession to go in the bussiness of ignorance...And by history I am not saying you should start from alexander, just after ww2 and up until 77 or 73 would suffice..
Complain about this comment
31. At 5:44pm on 01 Jul 2010, Andy Post wrote:
Ref. 29, Protocol417:
"...Unfortunately, it does not appear that the Afghans are the match of the Iraqis when it comes to being able to form a stable democratic government."
I doubt that Afghanistan ever had a stable, powerful central government [except when occasionally imposed from ruthless outsiders like Tamurlane or the Quarizem-if then]. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for one now. What they have is tribalism, warlordism and/or regionalism. And if that's what they want we should not impose another system on them
We should get another grand Jirga together, we should tell them that Afghanistan belongs to the Afghan peoples. We don't want your country, but we will come back again if you let terrorists like Al Qaida use your teritory to attack us.
In accordance with your own customs [Pashtunwalli] do not help our enemies and we will not be your enemy. We suggest that you make Afghanistan a federation, but that is for you to decide. We are leaving soon. We are willing to help you, but you must decide what is best for yourselves.
Salaam [Inshalla] and good bye.
Complain about this comment
In accordance with your own customs [Pashtunwalli] do not help our enemies and we will not be your enemy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
And since when have the americans become pathans? or tribesmen or muslims?
Complain about this comment
The colonel's friends strike a blow against western imperialism.
Complain about this comment
58, colonelartist.
We are delusionists. And it is a delusion that we will win in Afghanistan.
Complain about this comment
53. At 9:26pm on 01 Jul 2010, Scott0962 wrote:
"(Except by the Air Force but that was an accident.)"
____________
A lot of people thought it was criminal negligence causing death, and felt the case should have been prosecuted accordingly.
Complain about this comment
We are delusionists. And it is a delusion that we will win in Afghanistan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since when did mission enduring freedom become a matter of win or loose...the only slogan about winning was raised, with regards to "win hearts and minds" and everyone seems to be all quiet about that defeat...No wonder so much focus on military victory...
Complain about this comment
Time to refresh some memories..
The massacre at the Qissa Khawani Bazaar (the Storytellers Market) in Peshawar, British India (modern day Pakistan) on April 23, 1930 was a defining moment in the non-violent struggle to drive the British out of India. It was the first major confrontation between British troops and non-violent demonstrators in the then peaceful city—some estimates at the time put the death toll from the shooting at nearly 400 dead.[1] The gunning down of unarmed people triggered protests across the subcontinent and catapulted the newly formed Khudai Khidmatgar movement onto the National scene.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qissa_Khwani_bazaar_massacre
Complain about this comment
Protocol, it is in support of our country to wear stars and stripes. I feel much pride when I wear the stars and stripes or when I see other Americans wear stars and stripes. Or see the stickers on the backs of people's cars with American emblems. It brings us all together, even though we are all very different.
MAII, I would never in a million years call Lady Gaga an American Princess because she often covers her face. In all honesty, it is not as much fun to watch someone sing and dance with their face covered, because you cannot see their expressions. I like Lady Gaga's music, but I prefer Britney Spears or Madonna ahead of Gaga.
Philly Mom, Linda Carter is awesome. She really is the perfect Wonder Woman.
Complain about this comment
And why this war against the pathans?
Complain about this comment
I have to admit it is a wonderful feeling to finally have a job.
When I didn't have a job, I felt lost and confused. Okay, maybe I am still a little lost and confused. But that's part of the 20's, right?
Do you draw or paint, colonial artist? Do you have a creative streak?
Complain about this comment
47. At 9:01pm on 01 Jul 2010, GH1618 wrote:
"Here's a link to an interesting article on the subject of Canadian involvement in, and withdrawal from, other conflicts:
http://www.canada.com/news/Quick+Afghanistan+withdrawal+character+Canada+Experts/2916716/story.html"
____________
The Dutch are leaving as well.
The leaders of both major political parties would like the forces to stay longer in Afghanistan. There are good military and diplomatic reasons why this makes sense. But it is political suicide to say it.
So there have been trial balloon suggestions of troops remaining in a non-combat role as trainers and mentors for the Afghan army.
However public opinion will not wear it.
Why?
The troops have been there almost ten years.
They are getting killed on a mission that lacks the resources to achieve anything useful; that seems to lack any clear objective; that seems to lack any clear plan for achieving whatever the objective is; and that seems never ending.
Ten years, many deaths, for what?
To end up as protectors of the Kandahar fiefdom of Hamid Karzai's brother?
This, for certain, is not what they were sent there to do.
It seems unlikely that public opinion can be turned on this issue, and even more unlikely that it can be turned (or progress made in the war) without the removal of Hamid Karzai (and his brother).
If this war can be "won", somebody needs to show how, and it's getting very late in the day.
Complain about this comment
60. At 10:39pm on 01 Jul 2010, allmymarbles wrote:
"We are delusionists. And it is a delusion that we will win in Afghanistan."
____________
Some will no doubt read this comment merely as a challenge to redefine the meaning of the word "win".
Complain about this comment
So nothing from Mr. Mardell on the immigration speech by Obama?
Not surprised...
Complain about this comment
68, Interestedforeigner.
"Some will no doubt read this comment merely as a challenge to redefine the meaning of the word 'win.'"
The semanticists can amuse themselves if they like, but "win" is the opposite of "lose."
Complain about this comment
RE 58. At 10:04pm on 01 Jul 2010, colonelartist wrote:
In accordance with your own customs [Pashtunwalli] do not help our enemies and we will not be your enemy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
And since when have the americans become pathans? or tribesmen or muslims?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
My dear Col., please give me a straight answer. Do you have thorough knowledge of the "Pashtunwalli" or not? Does it not say that:
"The friend of my enemy is my enemy."
Does it not say that "If you harm me, my family, or my tribe we demand vengeance in blood or blood money."
If so, in their own terms, the Pashtuns have brought down blood feud on themselves by being friends of Al Qaida, have they not?
If we want to get along and share the planet in peace, we must understand and respect each other and try to respect those who are different from ourselves, not so? The Holy Q'uran, Bible and Talmud all require that we be our brothers' keeper do they not?
AND while it is not scripture is it not true that one should not do unto others what one would not have others do unto oneself.
AND before you post the obvious, the reason for the injunction is obvious from Afghanistan to India to Kashmir to Pakistan to Palestine back through revenge and counter revenge to Cain and Abel. It has to stop somewhere and pointing the finger and saying, "You started it, no you started it, no you did, did not, you did.....etc., ad infinitum will not solve anything, just keep the bodies coming.
Salaam u aleikum [Inshallah].
Complain about this comment
70. At 00:03am on 02 Jul 2010, allmymarbles wrote:
"The semanticists can amuse themselves if they like, but "win" is the opposite of "lose.""
____________
From what I've seen here and elsewhere, there are those who will find no great difficulty in turning both terms upside-down; making "win" and "lose" mean the same thing; or simply giving them meanings that bear no relationship to any reality with which we are familiar.
Complain about this comment
re. 64. LucyJ:
There is a thing called flag etiquette. It governs how and where the flag is flown. The flag should be taken down at night, for example, except at certain military monuments like the Iwo Jimo memorial. The flag should never touch the ground. It should be folded in a certain way. When a flag is old and taken out of service, it should be burned, not thrown in the trash. Flying the flag upside down on a ship is a signal of distress. In the 60s, antiwar protesters were criticized for apparel that included the stars and stripes. It's interesting to see the super-patriots of the present day doing the things that the left was criticized for 40 years ago.
Complain about this comment
66. At 11:39pm on 01 Jul 2010, LucyJ wrote:
"Do you have a creative streak?"
____________
Thought that question might already have been answered by his postings here.
------------
[[p.s., Congratulations on finding a job. Not always easy nowadays. ]]
Complain about this comment
re. 51. colonelartist:
You dont even know what that helicopter means in afghanistan and for afghanistani people?
Are you thinking perhaps of the Mi-24 rather than the Mi-17?
Complain about this comment
As far as who leaves and when, it's important to remember that the original invasion of Afghanistan was a US invasion. Canada, the Netherlands, and the rest of NATO came later, as part of the UN-sanctioned stabilization effort. In other words, it was a US mess that others volunteered to help us with. It remains a US-led effort.
Nations engage in wars in pursuit of their own national interests. No one in the US should expect another country to sacrifice its own young people in the pursuit of US goals, especially if those goals seem murky or unattainable. If the US expects it allies to stay in Afghanistan, we need to make a case for why it's in those other countries' interest and present a believable plan for how we are going to accomplish it.
Would Americans sit still for their sons, daughters, brothers, and sisters dying for Canadian or Dutch interests if we didn't think it was vital to our security? We have a hard enough time sending our young people out to die in our own interests.
Complain about this comment
re. 66. LucyJ:
I have to admit it is a wonderful feeling to finally have a job.
When I didn't have a job, I felt lost and confused. Okay, maybe I am still a little lost and confused. But that's part of the 20's, right?
No Lucy, it's part of the 20s to feel invincible and immortal. What you're feeling is a recession. I got out of college in the early 70s when another recession was happening. I felt the same way. But the up side is that when you feel insecure you are more careful with your money. Not a bad habit. I have a son who got out of college a year ago who is going through the same thing and I hope he's learning that habit. I've survived several economic downturns because of the habit of frugality. Start saving now. Think about what is really important to you and spend your money from your new job on that and that alone. The next rainy day will come eventually, and you want to be prepared for it.
And congratulations on getting the job.
Complain about this comment
28. At 4:38pm on 01 Jul 2010, GH1618 wrote:
KScurmudgeon (#14), you have incorrectly attributed some other person's remarks to me in your post #14.
------------------------------
Please accept my apologies - that attribution belonged to Pursuit of Love, just above your post.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
52. At 9:24pm on 01 Jul 2010, arclightt wrote:
"This isn't an argument for less government, or more government, or any other such nonsense. It's just an observation that we have allowed our governing institutions to be so encrusted with less-than-essential details that doing anything is hard, and doing anything hard is nearly impossible. This effort falls in the latter category."
That is us in a nutshell. Too much civilization, too much process, too many bureaucrats. The reckless brilliance that built us as a nation and a world power was - well - reckless. Not concerned with counting the cost, especially in advance. There were great costs to it, now all mercifully forgotten in the after glow of glory.
Now we concern ourselves with PTSD, environmental and collateral damage, protocol and unnumbered layers of administration, and with budgets.
Great empires always come to this in the end - There was a great Persian empire once, the heir of a very ancient glory, that was swept away in a fortnight by a hot desert wind from the south.
KScurmudgeon
once a Byzantine scholar
now just full of Byzantine thoughts
Complain about this comment
timohio (#76): "Nations engage in wars in pursuit of their own national interests. No one in the US should expect another country to sacrifice its own young people in the pursuit of US goals, especially if those goals seem murky or unattainable."
Yes, but the intervention in Afghanistan does not involve only US interests. The 9/11 attacks were seen to fall under the mutual defense provisions of the NATO alliance. It is in the interest of all members of NATO to assist in the defense of any member. If not, then they should not be in NATO. I expect most NATO members would want the US to come to their defense if attacked, therefore they have a strong incentive to join in the defense of the US when attacked.
The problem is determining when a NATO obligation has been fulfilled, in a conflict which will not come to a tidy conclusion.
Complain about this comment
80. At 04:03am on 02 Jul 2010, GH1618 wrote:
"It is in the interest of all members of NATO to assist in the defense of any member."
"If not, then they should not be in NATO. I expect most NATO members would want the US to come to their defense if attacked, therefore they have a strong incentive to join in the defense of the US when attacked."
"The problem is determining when a NATO obligation has been fulfilled, in a conflict which will not come to a tidy conclusion."
____________
It seems to me that it is neither a matter of interest, nor of incentive, but, as in your last sentence, one of obligation, to defend other NATO members.
And, as you say, it is difficult to assess when that obligation ends, or, in this case more precisely, what the obligation means on a continuing basis.
Against which threat is the continuing deployment of troops justified?
What happens when the objectives become plastic?
Does a country meet its obligations by deploying troops with so many conditions on the rules of engagement that it actually doesn't participate in the fighting?
Does a country meet its obligations merely by taking purely defensive steps in improving, e.g., airport security, so that event like the September 11, 2001 bombings can never continue?
Or is the obligation only fully discharged when Osama bin Laden is hauled into court and brought to justice?
------------
The thing is, NATO was constructed in the context of fighting a land war in the North European plain against armour and infantry formations of the Red Army.
It seems unlikely that:
anybody envisaged NATO as existing for the purpose of hunting down wanted fugitives somewhere in mountainous country in south central Asia, and along the way involving itself in a civil war in which NATO's goals and objectives are hardly in any way allied with the goals and objectives of either side;
that NATO would end up being allied with, and find itself propping up, a bunch of undemocratic, unsavory, deeply corrupt, thugs, warlords and drug lords (often the same thing); and
in that effort, obtaining most of its supplies through country sympathetic to the differently-but-at-least-equally-unsavory butchers it is fighting against, and paying people who are probably also in the employ of its enemies to transport those supplies.
NATO was not designed for this, and the situation raises very difficult questions about NATO's purpose and future.
Complain about this comment
Mark, Mark, Mark
The U.K. to their credit will be there to the bitter end! Every place I have been in the US Military, the only one you could count on to be alongside was of course, "Jolly Ol' England"! Who, What, Where, When and Why are not important. Mother England and Rebel Kid are joined at the hip...
Complain about this comment
At 5:07pm on 01 Jul 2010, colonelartist wrote:
When going gets tough, the tough withdraws...
Is that why so many al-Qaida and Taliban types have withdrawn from Afghanistan to much friendlier Pakistan (mostly NWFP)? ;)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------PREDATOR-2 (the sequel) soon to be shown in every town of Waziristan!
Complain about this comment
Andy Post wrote: Ref. 23, powermeerkat:
"AndyPost, you seem to assume that Barack Hussein is going to remain our Commander-in-Chief after November 2012."
"No, I don't think that follows.
My stipulation is that Americans want to withdraw from Aghanistan and will vote that way. I'm not sure the President is committed to that. I'm not even sure the GOP is.
And no, I don't know if Obama will be re-elected.".
Andy, many Americans (from both main parties) want us to withdraw from Germany, Italy and similar places in Europe ASAP.
[For the record: I'm one of them.]
Complain about this comment
Vietnam ended as the U.S was the last to conclude a "no-win" situation. I don't know if the "government" in Kabul can even meet the passion of South Korea. But we appear to be headed for a "Case-Church Amendment" resulting in withdrawal and perceived defeat. The only difference is this go-round a Democrat is in Charge!
Lesson being, no U.S. party will trump the hard liners of foreign roots, On the other hand, when allowed to carry and swing the "Big Stick", others might appreciate and fall in line with your way of thinking. To keep them from "using your stick", first takes a unified front, then a clear endgame!
Complain about this comment
powermeerkat:
"Please, kindly re-read Murphy's Laws."
AndyPost: Ok, but there's only one of them.
Nope: there's a whole decalogue; ask anybody in any major US company frequently having coffee in its Xerox room - they'll make you a copy.
[the list of Murphy's Laws has been circulating for decades; I believe even SVR agents from NJ have managed to steal a copy. And apply them. :)]
BTW. the same applies to Parkinson Laws: many people assume there's only one (about advancing until one reaches a level of his/her incompetence upon which one retains a position in which he/she demonstrated it amply).
Incorrectly.
regards,
Complain about this comment
Re #38 PursuitOfLove wrote:
"If Cambridge and Oxford educated highly respectable journalists hold these views..."
I remember views of highly educated members of both: Cambridge Five and Oxford Circle, and I'm not in the least surprised.
Complain about this comment
Re #39 "Number of significant attacks by Muslim extremists on British soil during the past decade - One."
Number of significant attacks by Muslim extremists on American soil during the past decade - One."
In both cases not for the lack of their trying, though;
rather thanks to much better policing in both U.K. and U.S. and much closer cooperation of their respective special services.
[MI5 and FBI; M6 and CIA, etc.]
Complain about this comment
colonelartist quotes:"If people come and fly in Afghanistan with the Mi-17, they will understand why that aircraft is so important to the future for Afghanistan," said Brig. Gen. Michael R. Boera, the U.S. Air Force general in charge of rebuilding the Afghan air corps. "We've got to get beyond the fact that it's Russian. . . . It works well in Afghanistan."
USAF has bought quite a few Soviet/Russian MiG-29 fighters many years ago. They work well in U.S. :-)
[USAF instructors from Nellis AFB, fly them, according to Soviet/Russian tactical manuals, against F-16 American (and even some Israeli) pilots in simulated air combats. Those MiGs have even orginal Russian logos. :)]
And during the Soviet-Afghan War we've supplied Afghan mujaheddins
(using your ISI's good offices) with quite a few thou of Soviet AK-47s.
They worked well in Afghanistan.
[particularly since 7.62 mm ammo for them was readily available from any captured Soviet garrison. :)]
Complain about this comment
Re #46 Scott wrote:
"If the war in Afghanistan is going badly it can cost the president re-election but success there won't win him re-election. The deciding issues will be the economy and his domestic policies."
Agree. Afghanistan will not become Obama's Vietnam.
Although Tonk..er... Mexican Gulf Incident may. ;)
Complain about this comment
colonel write: "you [U.S.] created your own problems by not supporting russians" [during their war in Afghanistan].
Perhaps we should have also supported WWII Soviet plans to "liberate" Europe all the way to Lisbon?
[Then, we would most certainly not have had any EU-created problems :) ]
Complain about this comment
Re #52. Arclight, IMHO - an excellent post.
"First, let's kill all the micromanagers"
[With apologies to the Bard]
Complain about this comment
Scott wrote: "The Canadian forces performed well in Afghanistan and they will be missed. (Except by the Air Force but that was an accident.)"
Scott, I don't think USAF, let alone Afghan villagers will miss German air controllers/target designators - when they're gone.
BTW. Spain withdrew its soldies from Afghanistan long time ago.
Yes, there was a retaliation for that act of weakness.
But NOT by the U.S. :(
[no, I'm not referring to Spain using Russian planes to evacuate them]
Complain about this comment
Lucy wrote:
"Philly Mom, Linda Carter is awesome. She really is the perfect Wonder Woman."
Oh, really? And I always thought it's Nancy Pelosi.
Especially after her plastic surgery.
[but than I'm a male]
BTW. What do you have against Hillary?
Complain about this comment
#93,
Should I find it sad or funny that you apparently can't tell the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan?
Spain withdrew from Iraq, not Afghanistan. If the 'retaliation' you're referring to, are the Madrid-bombings, you are kind of confused about when and why they did that. Also, you do realize that the Iraq invasion was never popular with the Spanish public, right? As in, Aznar kind of ran in down their throats. Obviously Zapatero, if elected, would withdraw them.
Complain about this comment
Re #95
I am not confused sufficiently not to notice that quite a few Spaniards (when you talk to them) miss Aznar these days and wish they never heard of Cobbler.
[with 40% unemployment among Spaniards between 17 and 25]
BTW. Make no mistake about it: I felt awful about Madrid train station bombing.
And the crash of a Russian plane carrying Spanish soldiers back home. :(
P.S. Some claim that Italians also have troops in Afghanistan. Still.
Although I've failed to notice what difference do they make.
As I said earlier: We should have gotten out of NATO in 1990.
Or in A.D. 2000 at the latest.
To avoid promulgating a pure fiction. Alas! :(
Complain about this comment
# 96, don't confuse talking with some pro-Aznar Spaniards with a widespread nostalgia for his way of running the government. Furthermore, it's sort of silly to suggest that it's Zapatero's government that can actually influence the economic regime sufficiently to make a huge dent in that. Even if Aznar had kept on in power, the situation wouldn't have been dramatically different. The economic meltdown wasn't the result of Zapatero's economic policies. The economy is not run on a national basis, and hasn't been for decades. That's a far bigger fiction than NATO.
P.S. It's Aznar's own fault that he got an election drubbing after the bombings, seriously, blaming E.T.A. when he knew it wasn't E.T.A. that did it, for political gain. Bad choice.
Complain about this comment
Re #97
Understood; I'm fully aware of a role of regional Spanish governments.
But you're not suggesting that current Spain's economic woes can be blamed on U.S.?
Or that Basque separatists' attacks can?
Complain about this comment
What are you, colonel, doing there in democratic Pakistan, not run, unlike Afghanistan, by Talibs?
Attacks on Ahmadis were not bloody and barbaric enough?
Now you have to take on Sufis as well? :-(((
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/south_asia/10483453.stm
Complain about this comment
Nato should send more Polish troops into Afghanistan.
They know how to fight.
Trouble is the last time they pursued an insurgent they managed to kill 18 civilians, women and children among them, and let the insurgent escape but it still is an improvement over some of the other ISAf achievements.
At least they don't drop bombs on civilian population -- because they don't have an airforce per se and there's a lot to be said for that.
Complain about this comment
# 98,
Not the U.S. specifically no, as I said, national governments are not exactly powerful enough to influence the situation thoroughly at this point. Economy is international and global, governments are national and local. Seeing as how interconnected we are, it's not going to be enough to be just one government taking one measure. The financial crisis originated partly in the U.S., but it's something that originates far earlier than that. Thatcher wasn't an American either, you know. ;) Nor do I blame 'The U.K.' as an entity for Thatcher. That would be fictious and rather obscures things more than it clarifies.
It's just not all that helpful to put things in caricatural perspectives with Mr. Baguette, Miss Tea and Uncle Sam playing some sort of a 'role' in that way.
Complain about this comment
Re #100
Looks like those eleven arrests really hurt.
And it looks like only a beginning :)
My friendly advice?
"Run, do not walk, to the nearest exit"
["this message required by law"]
Complain about this comment
Ref 44, GH1618
"I don't know where you get a cockamamie idea like that. Some, e.g. Canada, have already announced their intention to withdraw from Afghanistan, and there is nothing that we can do to prevent it."
We have two distinct and separate "partners" in our adventures in Iraq and Afghanidstan. One involves countries like the UK and Canada who joined us willingly because of the relationship we have with them and those who succumbed to our "you are with us or you are against us" dictum...and the subsequent fear of retaliation.
The first will remain with us for as long as they wish, the second will stay until they decide that it is safe to cut and run without eliciting our ire. Most NATO countries participating - reluctantly - in our crusade are not doing so because they think our actions are appropiate or because they like us, they are there because we exerted tremendous pressure to do so.
Regarding training of Afghan military and police forces I would say that if we have not succeeded after more than 8 years of training we might as well give up. Most importantly, judging by the ability of the Afghan people to repel the Russians, and their ability to fight us to a draw I would say our training is either an unnecessary hindrance or an excuse to prolong our presence in countries where we are not welcomed.
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
Obama has set an exit date of July 2011. Nothing like telling the enemy your plans. The US media has broadcast all of our military plans since the start of the war; therefore, there should be no surprises.
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
ref #27
Why must comics be P.C
In the Superman movie, the wrtier said he thought the American Way(the classic Superman man line) was controversial and archachic
Now Wonder Woman has lost the stars and stripes
What next is Batman going to read criminals thier Miranda rights?
Complain about this comment
@55 (ca): You may be completely correct about the relative affections of the Afghan people. I won't comment about that.
My focus was on the fact that we didn't properly count the costs before we sent our forces into the field, and as a result failed to support them properly. It's the same stupid behavior that we've exhibited since either 1965 or 1950, depending on your measure.
It's PLAYING at war, and it does the following:
a. It wastes people, especially the innocent.
b. It achieves no lasting objectives.
c. It desensitizes people to war, which makes it MORE likely.
I've argued that there's a time and a place for war. There's also a WAY for war, and it doesn't allow for a population at war to continue its peacetime life as if nothing is going on. If war is that convenient, and that painless, and that easy, then both we and our government are grossly misdirected in our behavior, IMHO.
@89 (pmk): "And during the Soviet-Afghan War we've supplied Afghan mujaheddins (using your ISI's good offices) with quite a few thou of Soviet AK-47s.
They worked well in Afghanistan."
They work well virtually anywhere, as opposed to the early M-16. The M-16 was made with finely-machined parts and very tight tolerances...tolerances so fine that at least the early models would jam incessently. The AK-47, on the other hand, was built with loose tolerances. It would rattle like an old truck when fired, but fire it would...in every location from the desert heat to the snowy cold.
Good engineering is just good engineering, regardless of who does it, and it shows up in every country in the world.
@66 (lj): Congratulations on finding a job! That's always a wonderful experience, no matter how many times you do it.
The advice about saving money is sound. If you have access to a 401K savings plan, put as much as you possibly can into it; if you can put the maximum, do so. I had a lead engineer who gave me that advice back when the program was created in 1982 or so...best financial advice I ever got.
Saving does one other thing: it keeps you from buying a lot of junk which you have to get rid of later.
Now you can officially grumble about taxes like the rest of us (grin).
@79 (KsC): "The reckless brilliance that built us as a nation and a world power was - well - reckless. Not concerned with counting the cost, especially in advance. There were great costs to it, now all mercifully forgotten in the after glow of glory."
We were reckless? Not necessarily. We didn't count costs with anywhere near the precision we do today, but we also knew (as we do not know today) that all of life involves costs and risks, and we accepted those things as just part of life. We also knew, unlike today, how and when to differentiate between those things measured in dollars and cents, and those that aren't.
"That is us in a nutshell. Too much civilization, too much process, too many bureaucrats."
Yes, but we can always choose to be different. That's not a big gov't program...it's each one of us choosing a different path day by day, over and over, until the new path becomes as normal as the risk-averse, sterile, empty existence that too many of us practice. It's the same path, by the way, that Jesus trod, and treads now.
@All: I found the comments from the general I referred to before. It was actually the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Here's the link, for those who are curious: http://www.jcs.mil/newsarticle.aspx?ID=142
Regards (and for those of us in the US, Happy 4th),
Arclight
Complain about this comment
ref #97
Leo_Naphta wrote:
# 96, don't confuse talking with some pro-Aznar Spaniards with a widespread nostalgia for his way of running the government. Furthermore, it's sort of silly to suggest that it's Zapatero's government that can actually influence the economic regime sufficiently to make a huge dent in that. Even if Aznar had kept on in power, the situation wouldn't have been dramatically different. The economic meltdown wasn't the result of Zapatero's economic policies. The economy is not run on a national basis, and hasn't been for decades. That's a far bigger fiction than NATO.
P.S. It's Aznar's own fault that he got an election drubbing after the bombings, seriously, blaming E.T.A. when he knew it wasn't E.T.A. that did it, for political gain. Bad choice.
_____________
Don't forget that terrorist appeaser Zapatero also violated Spanish law by campaigning on this issue after the deadline.
Complain about this comment
Magic,
Weren’t Superman and Wonder Woman illegal aliens living in the US under false identities and fake immigration papers with a self imposed mandate to do whatever they felt like in the US. Ignore US law and influence US policy even though nobody ever voted for them.. Sounds familiar, perhaps the Russians arrested for spying are really super heroes
Complain about this comment
Re #107 "Now Wonder Woman has lost the stars and stripes"
Are you referring to Anna Chapman? ;)
Complain about this comment
re. #56. At 9:49pm on 01 Jul 2010, colonelartist wrote:
"No need to go all the way back to Alexander, In your hyper knee jerk reaction time, you overlooked that I mentioned, the king and his cousin president, any tom dick and harry whose country has occupied for 9 yrs and who himself writes about afghanistan should have by now atleast read some history of that country...or is it americans united proffession to go in the bussiness of ignorance...And by history I am not saying you should start from alexander, just after ww2 and up until 77 or 73 would suffice.."
I disagree. You cannot understand what shapes and forms the character of a people and a nation by studying only a few decades of their history. Can you understand Germany by only studying the Nazi years? Or everything about the French by only looking at the post WWII decades? Certainly a study of recent politics is useful but so is knowing that the people of Afghanistan have been conquered over and over in their long history and each time the conquerer's writ extended as far as his soldiers and faded the moment they left an area. They understood guerilla warfare long before the word guerilla was invented, you don't think that's something worth knowing about them if one is fighting there? The Taliban didn't sudedenly spring from the earth in the 70s when the Soviets invaded, they were raised in a culture and with a history that helped form their character, we need to understand that to understand what motivates them.
Complain about this comment
re. #81. At 05:18am on 02 Jul 2010, Interestedforeigner wrote:
80. At 04:03am on 02 Jul 2010, GH1618 wrote:
"It seems unlikely that:
anybody envisaged NATO as existing for the purpose of hunting down wanted fugitives somewhere in mountainous country in south central Asia, and along the way involving itself in a civil war in which NATO's goals and objectives are hardly in any way allied with the goals and objectives of either side;
that NATO would end up being allied with, and find itself propping up, a bunch of undemocratic, unsavory, deeply corrupt, thugs, warlords and drug lords (often the same thing)..."
On the contrary, the member nations of NATO have long experience of dealing with unsavory regimes, warlords, thugs and drug lords. They weren't a bunch of pure virgins when they signed on to the NATO treaty, they'd been around the block. What they didn't anticipate was fighting someone other than the Soviet Union or Warsaw Pact nations in a guerilla war.
NATO is already effectively dying. The old guard in Europe sees it as an encumbrance that ties them too closely to American foreign policy, and Amercans frankly wonder what the threat is that we're spending so much to keep Europe safe from and why they can't do it themselves now that their economies are long since recovered from the devastation of WWII. The only real enthusiasts are the new members from former Warsaw Pact countries who are anxious to cement alliances to keep from being swallowed by the bear again.
By picking and choosing whether and under what conditions their troops will fight when called upon the European members have set the precedent that NATO is not a unified force ready to respond as one to agression but instead a very loose alliance which can be divided through careful manipulation. NATO may be militarily powerful but politically it's as sturdy as an eggshell.
Complain about this comment
strontiumdog007 wrote:
Magic,
Weren’t Superman and Wonder Woman illegal aliens living in the US under false identities and fake immigration papers with a self imposed mandate to do whatever they felt like in the US. Ignore US law and influence US policy even though nobody ever voted for them.. Sounds familiar, perhaps the Russians arrested for spying are really super heroes
____________________
Case rested. Bringing PC into it. Although I would point out that Clark Kent is the legal son of the Kent Family, Americans from Kansas. Wonder Woman has diplomatic immunity because she is a princess of Thymascaria.
Complain about this comment
InterestedForeigner (#81), I agree with all that. Stateless terror groups such as al Qaeda don't fit well into the scheme contemplated by the founders of NATO (and other related things such as the Geneva Conventions), so NATO has had to adapt to the new reality.
I would say that the obligation of mutual defense ends when the threat to a member nation ends. It doesn't matter if bin Laden is captured or killed or not, or if other al Qaeda members survive, if they no longer present a threat sufficiently serious as to require military assistance to defeat it. There is no tidy boundary at which this happens, but I would say we are close to that now. The action gradually morphs into police work instead of warfare. The problem is to establish an Afghanistani security force sufficient to keep it that way.
Complain about this comment
KScurmudgeon #78. . .
I noticed that too, but realized - based off of the quote you copyed and posted - that you meant to address your post #14 to me. No harm done.
That being said, do you have any thoughts regarding my response at #38?
Complain about this comment
the "Pashtunwalli" or not? Does it not say that:
"The friend of my enemy is my enemy."
Does it not say that "If you harm me, my family, or my tribe we demand vengeance in blood or blood money."
If so, in their own terms, the Pashtuns have brought down blood feud on themselves by being friends of Al Qaida, have they not?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I repeat, since when did americans turn into pathans, that they start practicing pathans laws? The same laws also say that if a friend ask you for refuge, you give it to him, it actually says, if someone, anyone, comes to you and ask you to protect him, then you do it....Ben laden asked them to be protected, he used his tribal card and told them that he helped them, now its their turn to help him....If americans had come to them before ben laden, they had helped you...because its what is required of them by their law...They dont bend their laws, unlike americans to suit their purposes...I suggest you stick to americans law, and narratives,you will find plenty of reasons to do what your doing in afghanistan....If they dont fight back, americans will twist and turn their laws, just as you have done...
Complain about this comment
There is only one true "Murphy's Law" (attributed to Capt. Edward A. Murphy of the U. S. Air Force), but there are many related corollaries and laws in the same vein contributed by others, which account for the lists of so-called "Murphy's Laws."
http://www.murphys-laws.com/murphy/murphy-true.html
Today, it is not generally understood in its original sense, which was as a guide to good engineering rather than as an expression of futility.
Complain about this comment
I disagree. You cannot understand what shapes and forms the character of a people and a nation by studying only a few decades of their history. Can you understand Germany by only studying the Nazi years? Or everything about the French by only looking at the post WWII decades?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. I can...Infact by studing german nazi era, you can understand the whole mindset of west..Just look at yourself or study your own people the things which motivated them to this war, are the exact things which motivate taliban to fight back...The difference is that you are fighting an offensive war in the name of protection of your values, and they are fighting a defensive in the name of protecting their values...Ask the indians, and they will start counting the number of times pathans have conquered them...and ask them the times they remained there, and they will say, zero...Then ask them why they conqurered india, and they will tell you that everytime the muslim population cried for help the pathans came, but not otherwise...However a pathan lives or has lived his life, he will never invade any other country, will never take the first step to fight with any other nation...
Complain about this comment
SaintDominick #103: '"We have two distinct and separate "partners" in our adventures in Iraq and Afghanidstan. One involves countries like the UK and Canada who joined us willingly because of the relationship we have with them and those who succumbed to our "you are with us or you are against us" dictum...and the subsequent fear of retaliation. The first will remain with us for as long as they wish, the second will stay until they decide that it is safe to cut and run without eliciting our ire. Most NATO countries participating - reluctantly - in our crusade are not doing so because they think our actions are appropiate or because they like us, they are there because we exerted tremendous pressure to do so."
But, you see? We shouldn't (and probably wouldn't if it weren't for our incredibly short sighted, reactive and selfish bellicosity) have two "partners" in our "crusades." If our allies around the world really were our allies - and us theirs - if we really mutually cared about one another's happyness and prosperity, then not only would we have not needed to even think of invoking the "with us or against us" dictum, but they would have willingly joined us because they will have realized that their interests and concerns are our own, and as such not join us out of fear of what we might do if they didn't, but a mutual desire to thwart the threat of terrorism that so ruthlessly hurt us on 9/11. I knew that our presumptuous bellicosity would only serve to harden international feelings towards and cause (as if we needed it) even more people to, at the very least, strongly dislike us. Its just a shame that Bush didn't have that same forsight.
Complain about this comment
Certainly a study of recent politics is useful but so is knowing that the people of Afghanistan have been conquered over and over in their long history and each time the conquerer's writ extended as far as his soldiers and faded the moment they left an area. They understood guerilla warfare long before the word guerilla was invented, you don't think that's something worth knowing about them if one is fighting there?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem with you folks is that, your mindset,although you like to inject the word, peace in every sentence is driven by forced victory or conquests, thats why you revolve around alexander and the rest of pathetic invaders like britian , usa and america....If you had paid close attention to muslim invasion of afghanistan, you would not be talking about withdrawl startegy 24/7. The muslims invaded the entire country, and the people didnt even know that they were being invaded and changed..The point of departure between you and muslim invaders was that they studied the afghan cluture before hand, and when they came, they emphasized on what was common between them and the afghans, they never told them that their laws or their culture was anyway superior to them, they didnt tell them that they came there to liberate them...they simply told them that they came because they found the similiarities...And this how Afghanistan was won,Just the only time.
Complain about this comment
On one side you have brtian as your allies, on the other side you have northern allies...Fine combination...I wonder what will happen if northern allies decided to pull out of thie alliance, and tell usa that it is withdrawing all its forces....I think its time the war lords of northern alliance should also start setting the date for withdrawl.Only then usa will stop talking about this training the army hokus pokus..
Complain about this comment
And in the meantime Pakistan seems to be returning to its roots, as BBC has put it, with majority Muslim sects slaughtering minority Muslim sects. With total impunity.
At this rate pretty soon Afghanistan will start looking like a boy scout camp in comparison.
Complain about this comment
A reporter asked Mr. Powell at the State Department yesterday what message he would like to deliver to the Taliban.
Choosing his words carefully, he replied: "The message is: To the extent that you are providing havens, support, encouragement and other resources to organizations such as the organization headed by Mr. Osama bin Laden, that is attacking civilization, that is killing innocent people you cannot separate your activities from the activity of these perpetrators.
"And in our response we will have to take into account not only the perpetrators, but those who provide haven, support, inspiration, financial and other assets to the perpetrators," Mr. Powell said.
Mr. Powell went further and warned that "I would give this message to any other regime and any other country that might be doing similar things."
He was careful to say that no final proof existed that bin Laden was responsible for Tuesday's attacks.
"We have not yet identified Osama bin Laden as the direct perpetrator, but the evidence -- we have a lot of evidence -- is mounting which will allow us to determine in the near future who it is," he said. "But he certainly is the leader of that kind of organization."
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20010915-894141.htm
This shows how pathetic americans were on sept 15th 2001....the whole natiion united as one, behind Bush, who was under G-d.
Complain about this comment
And in the meantime Pakistan seems to be returning to its roots, as BBC has put it, with majority Muslim sects slaughtering minority Muslim sects. With total impunity.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And this comes from BBC, whose own forces slaughtered thousands in iraq, and afghanistan and are still slaughtering the muslims...
Complain about this comment
Petraeus is building an advanced aircraft while it is in flight, while it is being designed, and while it is being shot at. And such a plane can never be built, and that which can never be built is just a scam...You have had plenty of scams, from housing schemmes to hedge funds, you are used to such things..No one will ask the right questions, because the americans operate through the mind set of "but, what if it happened! Its like telling a bunch of kids that they will turn into monkeys if they ventured outside the house, they would want to, to just to see if they actually turn into monkeys, but some kid would always say "but if what if we did! and that will always stop them from wandering off..You can always rely on that kid and go wherever you like for as long as you like..
Complain about this comment
One out, all out?
****
Well, it can become "no one out" at any time.
China, Russia (with its Central Asian friends) Iran and Pakistan completely surround Afghanistan.
Should they in unison decide to close their borders and the airspace, the ISAF will have to stay there for ever or actually for as long as they manage to survive.
Let's face it -- that won't be long will it?
Complain about this comment
I disagree with you Colonelartist. The Muslims went into Afghanistan and made the people convert to Islam, they weren't as diplomatic as you seem to think. You know what is pathetic, flying planes into office buildings or beating women to a pulp for some made up crime.
Complain about this comment
76, timohio.
"Would Americans sit still for their sons, daughters, brothers, and sisters dying for Canadian or Dutch interests if we didn't think it was vital to our security? We have a hard enough time sending our young people out to die in our own interests."
We are not sending our young people out to die. They are sending themselves. Everyone seems to forget that ours is volunteer army. I don't like to see any young people dying, especially for such a pointless cause, but these are not draftees sent to war against their will. To put it in the most realistic terms, they are mercenaries.
Complain about this comment
I disagree with you Colonelartist. The Muslims went into Afghanistan and made the people convert to Islam, they weren't as diplomatic as you seem to think. You know what is pathetic, flying planes into office buildings or beating women to a pulp for some made up crime.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can disagree all you want, but trtuh is the truth..Genius, they werent diplomatic because they didnt have to , they brought with them people like the people like the sufi whoses shrine powerkeet mentioned in one of his pathetic post.. You are the invaders over there, and you will want to think that everyone in afghanistan invaded the way you have done...thats how you justify your act...But you conviently forget that the only force that invaded and change the whole society's religon managed to do this by using a simple startegy honestly and as they said they wouls, wining the hearts and minds....
Complain about this comment
usa, like ussr, like britian , like mongols like alexander is just an invader, have come to afghanistan because of self interest....And none of them when they left, claimed that they were defeated....all of them withdrew with claiming victory....
Complain about this comment
115. At 4:59pm on 02 Jul 2010, GH1618 wrote:
"... so NATO has had to adapt to the new reality."
"I would say that the obligation of mutual defense ends when the threat to a member nation ends."
"... if they no longer present a threat sufficiently serious as to require military assistance to defeat it. There is no tidy boundary..."
"... The action gradually morphs into police work instead of warfare. The problem is to establish an Afghanistani security force sufficient to keep it that way."
____________
There is an issue of the will of various members to adapt. They have diverse interests and some "allies" can be very trying.
"Sufficiently serious".
That's just it. How does one define sufficiently serious?
Clearly different allies have different ideas both about the seriousness of various threats, the probability of those threats materializing, and the steps that are appropriate to counter the threats. No tidy boundary, indeed.
I have thought for quite some time that the Al Queda problem is a police investigation problem, and that the armed forces are not particularly suitable for this role.
As for the Afghan security forces, well, that's another can of worms.
I don't see that primarily as a training problem, or a skills problem. Those things could be solved. It seems to me that the much bigger problem, which hamstrings every effort to fix the police or beef up the army, is a political problem where we are a taking on, for example, the heroin production industry and an entire culture of corruption, on top of fighting off the Taliban, on top of trying to find ObL, and all the baggage that goes with trying to deal with the government of Pakistan and the government of Afghanistan. Much, much tougher problem to solve.
Complain about this comment
ref #131
The muslims invaded the entire country, and the people didnt even know that they were being invaded and changed..The point of departure between you and muslim invaders was that they studied the afghan cluture before hand, and when they came, they emphasized on what was common between them and the afghans, they never told them that their laws or their culture was anyway superior to them, they didnt tell them that they came there to liberate them...they simply told them that they came because they found the similiarities...And this how Afghanistan was won,Just the only time.
_________________
If the Tailban thugs who ruled Afghanastan without the consent of the people did not harbor of terrorist group Afghanastan would not have been invaded or more acuratly liberated. I am sick of hearing this bs excuse from some in the moslem world and apologists like you that you must give sancutary to fellow moslems. It allows the PM of Lebanon to give safe haven to Nazarallah a war criminal.
Complain about this comment
128, Tiger80.
Man's inhumanity to man is not ethnically or religiously determined. Let us not forget the Inquisition or the extermination policy of the Germans. And as for present-day Moslems, they are just the same as the vast majority of homo sapiens. They want roofs over their heads, food on the table, and a good life for their children. To use a violent few to categorize a people is to unthinkingly swallow the propaganda of our government.
Complain about this comment
ref #130
...But you conviently forget that the only force that invaded and change the whole society's religon managed to do this by using a simple startegy honestly and as they said they wouls, wining the hearts and minds....
___________
No they ruled through terror like the Buirmese and North Koreans do. chopping off hands stoning and whipping women is not winning hearts and minds.
Every polls says the people were overwhelming aginst the barbaric war crime rule known as Sharia Law.
Complain about this comment
113. At 4:52pm on 02 Jul 2010, Scott0962 wrote:
"On the contrary, the member nations of NATO have long experience of dealing with unsavory regimes, ...."
[[Indeed they do, but as you say ... ]]
"... What they didn't anticipate was fighting someone other than the Soviet Union or Warsaw Pact nations in a guerilla war."
NATO was designed for total mobilisation of the population to fight WWIII in Europe against old fashioned regular forces. It wasn't designed for endless, drip fed, out-of-area, low level asymmetric warfare.
Complain about this comment
ref #134
allmymarbles wrote:
128, Tiger80.
Man's inhumanity to man is not ethnically or religiously determined. Let us not forget the Inquisition or the extermination policy of the Germans. And as for present-day Moslems, they are just the same as the vast majority of homo sapiens. They want roofs over their heads, food on the table, and a good life for their children. To use a violent few to categorize a people is to unthinkingly swallow the propaganda of our government.
_______________
Thats true but for the last 100 years the one religion who has been misused for terrorism and persecutions of others is almost always Islam.
And t0o many prominent leaders in moslem majority countries refuse to speak out against it when it happens especially to Jews, but also Hindus, Christians and Gays
Complain about this comment
No they ruled through terror like the Buirmese and North Koreans do. chopping off hands stoning and whipping women is not winning hearts and minds.
Every polls says the people were overwhelming aginst the barbaric war crime rule known as Sharia Law.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The hearts and minds were won centuries ago...and yet everyone is against the invaders... To them.america is another invader, like mongols or alexander...Here today, gone tomorrow...
Complain about this comment
I agree with you allmymarbles, I have nothing against Muslims. It's the extremists that I have a problem with. There are all sorts, al quaeda, taliban, kkk, drug cartels, people like Tim Mcveigh. I personally don't think Osama is alive anymore and hasn't been for some time.
Complain about this comment
If the Tailban thugs who ruled Afghanastan without the consent of the people did not harbor of terrorist group Afghanastan would not have been invaded or more acuratly liberated. I am sick of hearing this bs excuse from some in the moslem world and apologists like you that you must give sancutary to fellow moslems. It allows the PM of Lebanon to give safe haven to Nazarallah a war criminal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonsense, ben laden lured usa to come to afghanistan before the actual date...The usa panicked and had to quickly gather the allies , unprepared and unplanned invasion leads to disorganised and long war, a lesson he learnt while working with cia...The situastion was ideal, a dumb born again christian surrounded by fanatic hyper amphbians....you tease them with a stick and they jerk violently the next second.
Complain about this comment
139, Tiger80.
"I personally don't think Osama is alive anymore and hasn't been for some time."
Does it really matter?
Complain about this comment
141, allmymarbles
Probably not.
Complain about this comment
It allows the PM of Lebanon to give safe haven to Nazarallah a war criminal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A war criminal? Ask the the people of lebanon and they will tell you, how his people fought against israel....they single handed defended lebanon against the war criminals who attacked them...You would though like to see that lebanon starts fighting its own defenders in south, would you not? like your president obama and his former president have made pakistan to fight its defenders in the north...
Complain about this comment
Does it really matter?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. because the war in afghanistan was started because of him...it wasnt the people of afghanistan who asked you to come and fight for him...
Complain about this comment
138, colonelartist.
I only know sharia law in bits and pieces, so am no expert. But I have lived in the Middle East, and had to resort to the law twice. One time it had to do with a sum owed for a project my partners and I had completed. It took less than one week to get paid and the attorney took only 10 per cent, and the costs were paid by him. Mostl remarkably the person we sued was a prince. The second time had to do with a problem with a landlord. The authorities settled it the same day I made the complaint One interesting aspect of Sharia law has to do with accidents whereby one person is killed and the other isn't. The uninjured pays a sum to the to the deceased's family. They are considered to both be party to the accident (no criminality involved).
Complain about this comment
I also agree with MagicKirin that more moderate Muslims need to speak out against terrorism and persection.
Complain about this comment
Sorry about the typo persecution. I need to get to work lol.
Complain about this comment
146, Tiger80.
Even those Moslems who do not engage in terrorism or approve it, share the Middle Eastern attitude that the Middle Eastern peoples are being victimized by the West. So speaking out would be seen by other Moslems as support for U.S. policy. It makes for an awkward situation.
Complain about this comment
ref #143
colonelartist wrote:
It allows the PM of Lebanon to give safe haven to Nazarallah a war criminal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A war criminal? Ask the the people of lebanon and they will tell you, how his people fought against israel....they single handed defended lebanon against the war criminals who attacked them...You would though like to see that lebanon starts fighting its own defenders in south, would you not? like your president obama and his former president have made pakistan to fight its defenders in the north...
______________
Why don't you ask the Lebanese people how they liked their country being used as a missle platform and Hezbollah fighters hiding behind woman and childrens.
Nazrallah was responsible for the death of the Lebanese during the terrorist attacks and Lebanon should have arrested him.
Complain about this comment
ref #148
allmymarbles wrote:
146, Tiger80.
Even those Moslems who do not engage in terrorism or approve it, share the Middle Eastern attitude that the Middle Eastern peoples are being victimized by the West. So speaking out would be seen by other Moslems as support for U.S. policy. It makes for an awkward situation.
_______________
An attitude leaders do nothing to addressed. The people in the Middle East are victimized by Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and other islamic terrorists groups far more than the west or Israel
Complain about this comment
Why don't you ask the Lebanese people how they liked their country being used as a missle platform and Hezbollah fighters hiding behind woman and childrens.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The west and their "hiding behind women and children" discovery...Genius, those who raised this slogan did because they were killing the women and children, and when it was discovered, they came up with this fantastic argument...You are officially an israelian trapped in an english or american body...
Complain about this comment
Even those Moslems who do not engage in terrorism or approve it, share the Middle Eastern attitude that the Middle Eastern peoples are being victimized by the West. So speaking out would be seen by other Moslems as support for U.S. policy. It makes for an awkward situation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The day your leaders, anyone, speak against ttis bloody campaign is the day you should expect muslims to say what you want them to say....Everytime people say this, it reminds me of bush and condaliza trying to force arafat into calling a few tens of isralians killed , as a massacre....It was so pathetic...As if arafat's words were supposed to be the final words...Your leaders have done and said so pathetic things and you have echoed them as well, that you should consider your total lack of long term memory as a gift...
Complain about this comment
Andway the reality is, a person who promised closure of guantanamobay within one year of his presidence, gives you more promises? and people insread of telling him to fulfil his first promise and then promise something else, just become hyper and actually start discussing the pros and cons of withdrawl...The american nation, collectively suffering from alzeimer but united under one G-d,
Complain about this comment
Terrorists are not only arrogant, they are also extremely selfish people. The only humans they value are themselves. This is why Islamic terrorists try to harm others, because their own lives have amounted to nothing more than a figment of their imagination that if they kill others, they will have many virgins.
Terrorists are basically the lowest lifeforms on Earth and possibly beyond...
Complain about this comment
The terrorists like to hide behind women and children. This shows the true character of the terrorists- they are cowards 100%.
Only a cowardly person would hide behind women and children.
The reason why terrorists are so against people from the West is because we respect and love our women and children. This is shown by our laws, which includes laws against slavery, laws against abuse, ect.
Complain about this comment
Thank you to all the people who said Congratulations on your new job. I appreciate it. We all could use a little good news here and there. I will continue to pray and hope for the unemployed in USA and beyond to find jobs, too, especially because I used to be one of them. But I don't take it for granted and I know there are no guarantees. I will try to save up money for a rainy day, and so on. Thanks for the advice.
Complain about this comment
An attitude leaders do nothing to addressed. The people in the Middle East are victimized by Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and other islamic terrorists groups far more than the west or Israel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take a look at your own history, full of kings and queens and lords and dukes killing each other and each other surfs...Look at american history, full of killing of indian tribes, black slaves, mexicans, each other...Look at europe's history full of killing of these people and that, and when all of you saw more world outside your borders, you collectively kill people in far of countries...You cannot compare the centuries of killings yours have done and still doing to Hamas or hezbollah, they are collectively much much much younger...
Complain about this comment
Some on this website have called Americans gullible. And maybe some of us are. But this is because many of us have good hearts. Contrary to what deceptive lies the terrorists will tell you, many Americans are just nice people. But often the nice people do not get the headlines, so people do not hear about them as often. They do exist and they are real.
It makes me think of the famous Anne Frank quote. Despite the fact that she and her family were being persecuted for their race and religion, she wrote in her diary that she still believed that people are really good at heart. It is amazing that someone so young, who could easily have went deeply negative, instead reached for the positive, doing the best that she could. Anne Frank was a truly amazing, inspirational person and her words live on. When I was in high school, we did a play straight from her diary. I have never forgotten her powerful words.
Complain about this comment
This is shown by our laws, which includes laws against slavery, laws against abuse,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, this takes the cakes, laws against slavery....First they got free labour which they abused and when the machines were introduced and plantation ownwers were quickly found out that machines can make them richer quickly and slaves were becoming redudent, they decided to free them and made a law against it....I would have let you make proud of this one if the slaverly law had been passed at the height of slavery...You first abuse the people, then give them some other name and want the world to learn from you? Bathiests were called everything else, but bathists for so many years, killed, driven out of their own countries, forced to fight for themselves, and then petraeus brought them back and gave them some new name...No wonder Dostum has a video tape about american soldiers involvemnt in the killings of hundereds of surrendring taliban....It will hard for you to shake him off from your alliance..or try to label him as something else once you consider him as redundent...
Complain about this comment
The terrorists like to hide behind women and children. This shows the true character of the terrorists- they are cowards 100%.
Only a cowardly person would hide behind women and children.
The reason why terrorists are so against people from the West is because we respect and love our women and children. This is shown by our laws, which includes laws against slavery, laws against abuse, ect.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dont do a george shultz....You can use your emotions in many other positive causes..
Complain about this comment
colonelartist wrote:
An attitude leaders do nothing to addressed. The people in the Middle East are victimized by Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and other islamic terrorists groups far more than the west or Israel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take a look at your own history, full of kings and queens and lords and dukes killing each other and each other surfs...Look at american history, full of killing of indian tribes, black slaves, mexicans, each other...Look at europe's history full of killing of these people and that, and when all of you saw more world outside your borders, you collectively kill people in far of countries...You cannot compare the centuries of killings yours have done and still doing to Hamas or hezbollah, they are collectively much much much younger...
Yeah, but all those things you named from America and Europe happened a long time ago, way before people like me were even born. We have banned such things now. Hamas and Hezbollah are in the modern-day present.
The whole thing with India and the caste system is old school, even though India is this up and coming power. I feel sorry for the people at the bottom of the caste.
Complain about this comment
Now, this takes the cakes, laws against slavery....First they got free labour which they abused and when the machines were introduced and plantation ownwers were quickly found out that machines can make them richer quickly and slaves were becoming redudent, they decided to free them and made a law against it....I would have let you make proud of this one if the slaverly law had been passed at the height of slavery...You first abuse the people, then give them some other name and want the world to learn from you? Bathiests were called everything else, but bathists for so many years, killed, driven out of their own countries, forced to fight for themselves, and then petraeus brought them back and gave them some new name...No wonder Dostum has a video tape about american soldiers involvemnt in the killings of hundereds of surrendring taliban....It will hard for you to shake him off from your alliance..or try to label him as something else once you consider him as redundent...
colonial artist, you are living in the past. Maybe it time to join modern world. Do not blame people for their ancestors.
Does the Sharia law includes laws against abusing or harming women and children?
Complain about this comment
No one has to be a terrorist if they don't want to.
Complain about this comment
http://www.pakistannews.net/story/653301
11,000 Afghan bound NATO containers with goods worth 220 bln go missing' in Pak
I think you should unitedly pray to your G-d that the missing containers didnt have any serious kind of weapons...and hope that they just had the luxury goods for your soldiers, like alcohol and more alcohol...Rumors say that over the last two years, the price of alcohol went drastically down...
Complain about this comment
According to the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) these containers were imported to provide equipments to the international forces in Afghanistan and contained weapons, liquor, military uniforms and other prohibited and non-prohibited materials,
http://www.pakistannews.net/story/653301
Now you all know why petraeus is having difficulties in training the afghan army, no uniform , no weapons....The american military doesnt even notice that they have not been receiving their containers...And now you should also know why the NATO containers are routinely set on fire in pakistan, and the blame quickly given to taliban....Its soviet afghan, war and american sending weapons all over again... deja vu.
Complain about this comment
re. 80. GH1618:
Yes, but the intervention in Afghanistan does not involve only US interests.
The NATO treaty states that signatories will come to the aid of a member state that is attacked. That covers the initial invasion of Afghanistan, but it doesn't cover the present situation. The Taliban didn't attack the US, al Qaeda did. For that matter, it was al Qaeda that attacked Britain, too, not the Taliban.
Complain about this comment
ref #151
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/special-reports/photos-that-damn-hezbollah/story-e6frf7r6-1111112144002
It's not hiding behind the argument it is the cowardly Hezbollah who hide behind women and children.
Time for Lebanon to pay war reperations to Israel
Complain about this comment
re. 129. allmymarbles:
We are not sending our young people out to die. They are sending themselves. Everyone seems to forget that ours is volunteer army.
Marbles, that is sophistry. I've come to expect better from you.
Especially in the middle of a recession, people join the military for all sorts of reasons. One of them is patriotism, certainly, but the lack of other opportunities is certainly a factor. And once they are in the military, do you think soldiers take a vote on where they will fight? A workers' collective? No, they go where they are sent.
Complain about this comment
The terrorists love to blame everyone else for their problems. It is very difficult for them to "man up." In fact, they often do things based on emotion without reason.
The West is not perfect and we will never be perfect. However, we don't go around blaming others for everything, because we are decent people. Our arguments have emotion, too, but they also contain facts and reason.
Complain about this comment
re. 159. colonelartist:
Now, this takes the cakes, laws against slavery....First they got free labour which they abused and when the machines were introduced and plantation ownwers were quickly found out that machines can make them richer quickly and slaves were becoming redudent, they decided to free them and made a law against it.
I'm not sure what country you had in mind with this rant, but in the US we fought a very bloody civil war partly over slavery. There had been a long period of agitation against slavery in the northern states before the war. At the end of that war slavery was abolished.
Complain about this comment
We are not sending our young people out to die. They are sending themselves. Everyone seems to forget that ours is volunteer army.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are sending them to die, otherwise you would not send them, volunteers or draftees...Syria has compulsory 2 or 3 yrs military, does it mean its sending them to die? and if so, where?
Complain about this comment
I'm not sure what country you had in mind with this rant, but in the US we fought a very bloody civil war partly over slavery. There had been a long period of agitation against slavery in the northern states before the war. At the end of that war slavery was abolished.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The industrious north..against the cotton rich south who bought cheaper products from europe than north, the trade, and you know the rest, its .....its your history....slavery would have ended in a few yrs, it was just an excuse...you know the kind of excuses you make now, freeing afghans and iraqis and all that stuff...
Complain about this comment
137. At 8:24pm on 02 Jul 2010, MagicKirin wrote:
ref #134 allmymarbles RE: 128, Tiger80.
“Thats true but for the last 100 years the one religion who has been misused for terrorism and persecutions of others is almost always Islam.
And t0o many prominent leaders in moslem majority countries refuse to speak out against it when it happens especially to Jews, but also Hindus, Christians and Gays.”
Good try, but it is not just Muslims. Christians do bad things as well:
Example 1: Orthodox “Christian” Serbs raping and slaughtering innocent Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo.
Example 2: So called African “Christians” using barbaric punishments, even death against non-Christians and gays.
Example 3: So called “Christian” Cypriot Greeks persecuting Muslim Turkish Cypriots.
Example 4: Buddhist Singhalese killing innocent Hindu Tamils and vice versa. [I admit that the last one is possibly more ethnic than religious.]
So at the very least the second most prone to violence religion is the Greek Orthodox, right?
Complain about this comment
154, Lucy3.
You have to define terrorism. Is invading a sovereign nation terrorism? Is securing oil through force terrorism? Is forcing poverty on a nation through sanctions terrorism?
Complain about this comment
marbles,
You have to define sovereign. Is invading a nation harboring terrorists who killed thousands of your citizens and who want to kill you and your allies terrorism? Is forcing poverty on a nation that wants to kill you and your allies terrorism?
Complain about this comment
Attacking terrorists who want to kill you is not terrorism.
It is called self-defense.
Complain about this comment
ref #173
Good try, but it is not just Muslims. Christians do bad things as well:
Example 1: Orthodox “Christian” Serbs raping and slaughtering innocent Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo.
Example 2: So called African “Christians” using barbaric punishments, even death against non-Christians and gays.
Example 3: So called “Christian” Cypriot Greeks persecuting Muslim Turkish Cypriots.
Example 4: Buddhist Singhalese killing innocent Hindu Tamils and vice versa. [I admit that the last one is possibly more ethnic than religious.]
So at the very least the second most prone to violence religion is the Greek Orthodox, right?
______________
Not even close to the terror and death caused by islamic based groups and countries.
Also most Green Orthodox leaders and buddhist denounce when their religion is used as justification.
Most moslem leaders refuse to
Complain about this comment
re. #121. At 5:42pm on 02 Jul 2010, colonelartist wrote:
Certainly a study of recent politics is useful but so is knowing that the people of Afghanistan have been conquered over and over in their long history and each time the conquerer's writ extended as far as his soldiers and faded the moment they left an area. They understood guerilla warfare long before the word guerilla was invented, you don't think that's something worth knowing about them if one is fighting there?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem with you folks is that, your mindset,although you like to inject the word, peace in every sentence is driven by forced victory or conquests, thats why you revolve around alexander and the rest of pathetic invaders like britian , usa and america....If you had paid close attention to muslim invasion of afghanistan, you would not be talking about withdrawl startegy 24/7. The muslims invaded the entire country, and the people didnt even know that they were being invaded and changed..The point of departure between you and muslim invaders was that they studied the afghan cluture before hand, and when they came, they emphasized on what was common between them and the afghans, they never told them that their laws or their culture was anyway superior to them, they didnt tell them that they came there to liberate them...they simply told them that they came because they found the similiarities...And this how Afghanistan was won,Just the only time.
---------------------------
Afghanistan was peacefully converted to Islam?
Anyone who can use Google can look up the history of Afghanistan and find that Islam was brought there by invading Arab armies, not peaceful missionaries. It's likely that people there converted for the same reason conquered people did in the rest of the caliphate, not because of any cultural similarities with their new Arab masters but because Muslims got preferential treatment, especially in the matter of taxes.
Complain about this comment
LucyJ said:
The West is not perfect and we will never be perfect. However, we don't go around blaming others for everything, because we are decent people. Our arguments have emotion, too, but they also contain facts and reason.
Your problem Lucy is your facts and reason are all based on your perception of the world through your John Wayne filters. A 1000/1 you have never lived in another culture, particularly a so-called 3rd world country. You should give it a try, your opinions I'm sure would change significantly if you did. Hint: people living else where don't want to be Americans.. they like who and what they are.
Complain about this comment
175, Lucy3.
You are in error. It was determined, without a doubt, that Iraq had nothing to do with the attack on America. And as for Afghanistan, our intentions were in evidence long before the attack. But it is nice to use be able to use the inflammatory word "terrorism" as an excuse for our aggression. In the pipe was Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Syria. Our lack of success in Afghanistan may put the rest of our plans on hold.
Complain about this comment
172, colonelartist.
Most people refuse to acknowledge that the civil war had its basis in economics. Yes, slavery was on its way out in any case.
Complain about this comment
Oh, my.
And now we are arguing about which religion is most beastly. That's sure to lead to thoughtful and enlightened comment ...
Maybe religious extremism (usually under the adjective "fundamentalist") is the problem, whatever specific name it gives itself?
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
Ref. 181, allmymarbles:
"Most people refuse to acknowledge that the civil war had its basis in economics. Yes, slavery was on its way out in any case."
Yes, but the difference in the economies of North and South had everything to do with slavery. You can't separate the two. The creation of new states to the west as free states threatened to tip the balance of power in the country so far to the North that the southern states feared they'd lose the power of self-determination. That was the impetus behind their attempt to secede.
The industrial revolution would have surely done slavery in, but no one could foresee that in 1860. The South was fighting to preserve slavery as it was, and that was because it worked well for them economically. There was no abolitionist movement to speak of in the South.
Complain about this comment
182, Interested foreigner.
"Maybe religious extremism (usually under the adjective "fundamentalist") is the problem, whatever specific name it gives itself?"
And maybe religion is merely a cover for a naked lust for power.
Complain about this comment
183, powermeerkat.
Inspired giant leap. Very funny. Thanks.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 174, allmymarbles :
"You have to define terrorism. Is invading a sovereign nation terrorism? Is securing oil through force terrorism? Is forcing poverty on a nation through sanctions terrorism?"
No, no, and no. Those would be warfare, warfare, and mild siege warfare.
There is no really good definition of terrorism, but it seems to rest on a perception of cowardice or dishonor, stemming from attacking without displaying allegiance in some manner, through flags, emblems, uniforms, etc. Spies and those caught engaging in military activity out of uniform are hanged for the same reason.
It can't simply be defined as an attempt to strike fear in hearts of the enemy. Otherwise, you'd have to consider all forms of warfare terrorism, and that would render the term meaningless.
I would hasten to say that terrorism pales in comparison to warfare when it comes to lives and property destroyed. Moreover, unlike warfare, it has never proved to be a winning strategy. On the contrary, it invariably leads to the destruction of those who engage in it, sadly along with those innocents who live around them.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 171, colonelartist:
"We are not sending our young people out to die. They are sending themselves. Everyone seems to forget that ours is volunteer army.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are sending them to die, otherwise you would not send them, volunteers or draftees..."
Agreed. Their volunteer status is irrelevant. We are sending our countrymen into harm's way. They would not do it if we did not ask them to.
Complain about this comment
187, Andy Post.
Terrorism is in the perception of those being attacked. We may think of ourselves as grand guys spreading freedom and democracy. Our enemies (sorry, the people we are liberating) see it differently.
Complain about this comment
This link offers some thoughts on the defination of terrorism that may be of interest:
http://www.chomsky.info/talks/20100323.htm
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
ref #190 and 191
Discounting Chomsky and his analysis is now against house rules.
I posted a rebuttel pointing how Chomsky supports terrorism against the U.S Europe and Israel.
Also that he is held in low regard by most of MIT and it gets removed.
Complain about this comment
I've had the pleasure of meeting the man several times, he doesn't support terrorism against anyone.
Complain about this comment
Lost all your marbles;
"Terrorism is in the perception of those being attacked."
Terrorism is the deliberate targeting of civilians to terrify them into demanding their government comply with the political demands of the terrorists in order to avoid more attacks on them.
Perhaps living in New York City the way I understand you said you do, if it is attacked again by al Qaeda or some other terrorist group and you are injured in it or someone close to you is injured or killed in it, your perception of it will be the same as that of most other Americans and you will end your little word games that try to justify the crimes being committed by people who claim to represent true Islam.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
US Defense Secretary Robert Gates has ordered a tightening of the rules covering the US military's dealings with the media.
And rightly so. Otherwise glowing opionions of many US officers about their Commander-in-Chief expressed in unauthorized interviews granted to Penthouse, Hustler, Rolling Stoned and similar quality publications - could be misconstrued as a hand-me-down Pentagon-ordered pro-Obama propaganda.
Complain about this comment
Re #192
Noam Chomsky is great.
IMHO a stand-up comedian Noam is much funnier than even Comical Ali.
Complain about this comment
185. At 06:43am on 03 Jul 2010, allmymarbles wrote:
"And maybe religion is merely a cover for a naked lust for power."
_______________
No, I'm not quite that gloomy about religion.
All societies have "religion" of one kind or another, and all have witch-doctors, shamans, seers, prophets, priests, holy men, etc.
In general religions seem to have their origins in "explaining" the unknown in a society's quest for survival; to explain our origins; to carry forward the accumulated customs of a society (even when the society has long forgotten why it has those customs, or long after they no longer make sense); to answer deeper philosophical questions for which answers are unknowable - "Where did we come from", "Does life have a greater meaning." At some level, human beings, and societies, seek inner meaning.
The ostensible ability to interpret the will of the Gods for the rulers of a society gave religious advisers access to power in virtually every society from the earliest hunter-gatherer tribes to the most sophisticated present day pluralistic democracies.
We see this even today when we have a governing cabinet. The members of that cabinet are its "ministers". We have an entire system of law where the King delegated authority over the court system to his clerics.
Of course, failure to read the auguries correctly might be distinctly, and rapidly, career limiting.
Therefore, religion expands into education (because smarter, better informed people are likely to get it right more often), and into law. The power of knowledge often tempts religious leaders to try to monopolize and control knowledge, and, often, to attempt to control what people are allowed to think. This has led, historically, to very great evils. This feature of religion is seen in almost every religion, almost everywhere, to this day. When this happens, religion departs from serving God.
The "explaining the unknown" and the early monopoly on education also leads religion to branch out into the caring professions - most importantly medicine, but also education, the care and protection of orphans, the care and protection of the poor, and so on.
Over time, these studies eventually lead to science (i.e., scienter = knowledge), and the light of this knowledge pushes back the boundaries of "the unknown", and thereby undermines the very thing that gave the "holy men" their power and influence in the first place.
While recognizing the power of religion to do great evil, it also has the power to do great good. Some of our notions of morality and our cultural taboos are simply wacky - as can be seen be looking at taboos that have gone out of fashion, or by cross-cultural comparisons. But religions sometimes teach other values - courage, selflessness, forbearance, generosity, empathy, strength of character, honesty and fidelity.
---------------
Religion and government should be kept far, far apart.
But that does not mean that people should not hold religious views.
I abhor religious extremism, because in my view it almost always leads to evil.
But I would not want Christianity to be judged on the basis of the deeds of Torquemada, or the rantings of the late Jim Jones, or the rantings of others who are still with us.
I would not want Islam to be judged on the basis of the acts of Osama bin Laden, or the people who think that Pakistan is going to prosper by having young boys waste their lives by memorizing verses of the Koran all day.
Nor would I want to judge Judaism on the basis of the outrageous conduct of the "settler" movement, or on the parasites who believe that young boys should waste their lives by memorizing verses of the Torah all day.
This is just plain evil.
These people, ultimately, preach hate.
And when they do that, they are no longer following a path of enlightenment.
Complain about this comment
ref #193
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=11&x_article=1151
Here is one example of Chomsky's support of a terrorist group.
Complain about this comment
It's an example of something alright.
Complain about this comment
Anyone who can use Google can look up the history of Afghanistan and find that Islam was brought there by invading Arab armies, not peaceful missionaries.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You really somehow believe that arabs, the dwellers of deserts could somehow manage to do which alexander or any other invaders couldnt acheive....Somehow the desert dwellers were better in guerila warfare?
Complain about this comment
The South was fighting to preserve slavery as it was, and that was because it worked well for them economically. There was no abolitionist movement to speak of in the South.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slavery was just an excuse, just as spread of communism to divide south and north korea and in vietnam, wmd in iraq, ben laden and taliban in afghanistan....the southern states didnt need the north, they were getting better fair trade deals by england....they decided to breakaway from the union....that was the reason....without slavery, unionists couldnt go to war against the break away confederations of southern states....It was like kosovo breaking away from serbia.its like kashmir trying to break away from india, its like chechnya trying to break away from russia...
Complain about this comment
And I do not want to judge democracy on the bases of adventures the hijackers of democracy are conducting in its name.....
Complain about this comment
Well Mark I find it refreshing that even the when asked a simple question like yes or no. That journalists have to act like a fortune teller with a crystal ball to sift thru the extraneous political doublespeak of the career political elite that deem us to stupid to be pulled the correct way of the governments decision. To put it simply, they have invented a new language, that always gives the government portrayal of being in touch with the common people. Or as I say Bulldung.
I cannot speak for the British, as I am American. I can speak for myself as an American and say get the US forces out of Afghanistan, Iraq, and everywhere else. Come home and man our own borders, fix our own mounting problems here. Kick this Marxist Obama, and his stooges out of office in the Congress and Senate, in forthcoming elections.
Or perhaps now that Gates and the government have come up with new rules to determine what a commander/military offical can say in public? What General McCrystal did may have been inappropriate, but he didn't betray any military secrets? McCrystal, I believe was frustated at what shallow, disinterested, empty suits that now power the Obama administration and had the courage to speak out. McCrystal knew where it would lead. I wonder now with these new rules that commanders will be jailed instead of just being fired or resign for disagreeing with Stalin/ opps, I mean Obama. The next courageous individual may spend his life in jail for showing disloyalty. I mean after all what is this but freedom to follow our convictions and speak out, he paid the price. Apparently the Obama administration must consider him a traitor now. So now the rules will be rewritten to punish this lack of confidence of a disfunctional, detached group of officials.
Well I threw my census paper in the trash, I told the census taker (the one that was trained and hired 3 times) nothing, except, I did tell him have a nice day. I have applied for my permit to carry, now the second amendment is more important as progressive liberal Marxists strip more rights and demonize the majority of Americans beliefs. Well I guess because of my military service I will be judged by my association with people like McCrystal, law abiding citizens who still follow a Constitution that is continuing to have holes poked in it everyday by Obama and his sycophants. Well General save me a spot in the reeducation camp, you won't be alone for failing to have confidence in these fools.
Complain about this comment
ref #199
But I would not want Christianity to be judged on the basis of the deeds of Torquemada, or the rantings of the late Jim Jones, or the rantings of others who are still with us.
I would not want Islam to be judged on the basis of the acts of Osama bin Laden, or the people who think that Pakistan is going to prosper by having young boys waste their lives by memorizing verses of the Koran all day.
Nor would I want to judge Judaism on the basis of the outrageous conduct of the "settler" movement, or on the parasites who believe that young boys should waste their lives by memorizing verses of the Torah all day.
______________
But most leaders of christian majority countries will condemn anyone who uses Christanity as a basic for a terrorist or violent act.
Israel is the only majority Jewish state, but leaders in the U.S who are Jews would condemn a terrorist acts in the name of Judiasm but since the Ingun there have not been any despite what the arabphiles would propgandize.
It is the moslem states who fail to condemn sufficently.
Complain about this comment
"200. At 1:32pm on 03 Jul 2010, MagicKirin wrote:
ref #193
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=11&x_article=1151
Here is one example of Chomsky's support of a terrorist group".
Noam Chomsky is a very dangerous individual... very dangerous indeed.
He's dangerous because he -- almost single-handedly -- gives the US a human(-like) face.
I personally think he is a CIA agent and this is exactly his mission -- to show that there is "opposition" in America, that people are "free" to openly disagree with the authorities there, that there's freedom of academic debate in America when in reality theres nothing like that.
Complain about this comment
Go Germany!!!!! :)
Germany really does have a phenomenal soccer aka football team. They are going strong this year. I will definitely root for them all the way...
Maybe it will be Germany vs. the Netherlands!
Glad Paris and her friend were let go!
(after her friend maybe paying a fine)
Is marijuana really that big of a deal in South Africa?
You would think there would be other things to worry about besides socialites, their friends and marijuana!
Complain about this comment
208. At 5:01pm on 03 Jul 2010, LucyJ wrote:
Go Germany!!!!! :)
Germany really does have a phenomenal soccer aka football team. They are going strong this year. I will definitely root for them all the way...
Maybe it will be Germany vs. the Netherlands!
Glad Paris and her friend were let go!
(after her friend maybe paying a fine)
Is marijuana really that big of a deal in South Africa?
You would think there would be other things to worry about besides socialites, their friends and marijuana!
***
I could suggest something better for Paris to smoke than marijuana ))))
Complain about this comment
199, Interestedforeigner.
When I said "maybe religion is merely a cover for a naked lust for power" I was looking to the political arena.
Complain about this comment
People have already mentioned Israel on here, so here goes. What would be so bad about Palestinians being integrated into Israel. They could worship how they wanted plus be a citizen of Israel and have a chance for a better life. That would be far better than to be under Hamas rule.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 203, colonelartist:
"they were getting better fair trade deals by england....they decided to breakaway from the union....that was the reason..."
There are many different viewpoints as to the cause of the American Civil War put forth by respected scholars across the world.
That's not one of them.
You certainly have a creative mind, though.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 208, LucyJ:
"Germany really does have a phenomenal soccer aka football team. They are going strong this year."
Indeed, but I wouldn't count out Spain or the Netherlands just yet. Lots of good soccer to come.
Complain about this comment
ref #207
Like Jimmy Carter and other terrorist apologists Chomsky refuses to debate the opposition.
Alan Dershowtitz had totaly debunked him as have other scholars.
Chomsky would glad to see the end of Israel, please arrest him if goes on the flottila of hate
Complain about this comment
Rats dont know if they will print 211, it was a good idea though.
Complain about this comment
ref #211
Tiger80 wrote:
People have already mentioned Israel on here, so here goes. What would be so bad about Palestinians being integrated into Israel. They could worship how they wanted plus be a citizen of Israel and have a chance for a better life. That would be far better than to be under Hamas rule.
_________________
Just finished a DVD on the the early days of Israel after Israel heroicly defeated the larger and better armed Arab armies, Ben Gurieon invited those Moslems living in area won in the war to come back. they refused.
Complain about this comment
To MagicKirin #206
RE: Muslims condemning terrorism
Have you any links to statistics that show how many Muslims condemn terrorism? How many non-Muslims condemn terrorism?
Complain about this comment
It was impressive how many goals Germany scored. Sure, defense is important, but if you can't score, you can't win.
But you are right, Andy, that you never know.
I still don't understand why Palestine did not take the deal offered by Israel in the 90's with Bill Clinton mediating???
It was an opportunity for peace, but Palestine turned it down.
Complain about this comment
There are many different viewpoints as to the cause of the American Civil War put forth by respected scholars across the world.
That's not one of them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, then now you know that its the reason....And ever since then, where ever america has ventured out, its always because they want to dictate other countries who they should trade....Your civil war about south trading with england the ex empire, which was giving fair deals and cheap products in return for cotton...they couldnt stop all this, unless without the "free the slaves"....
Complain about this comment
Ref 205 AmericanGrizzly-
"Well I threw my census paper in the trash, I told the census taker (the one that was trained and hired 3 times) nothing, except, I did tell him have a nice day. I have applied for my permit to carry, now the second amendment is more important as progressive liberal Marxists strip more rights and demonize the majority of Americans beliefs."
So you don't support the First Article of the U.S. Constitution by not participating in the Census; but you embrace the Second Amendment so you can carry a firearm?
Do you pick and choose what parts of the Constitution are valid; then accuse the Government of not following the whole?
American Grizzly, indeed. More like an ill-informed, sunshine patriot.
Complain about this comment
210. At 6:46pm on 03 Jul 2010, allmymarbles wrote:
"When I said "maybe religion is merely a cover for a naked lust for power" I was looking to the political arena."
---------------
Quite.
And those who do it most then deny that they are meddling in politics.
Complain about this comment
@MagicKirin
Sounds like an interesting vid.
Complain about this comment
MAII said:
Terrorism is the deliberate targeting of civilians to terrify them into demanding their government comply with the political demands of the terrorists in order to avoid more attacks on them.
Remind you of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, ol' philosopher king?
Complain about this comment
read this article on where moslems leaders fail to condemn terrorism and the inhumanity of sharia law
http://minx.cc/?post=101712
Complain about this comment
re. 181. allmymarbles:
172, colonelartist.
Yes, slavery was on its way out in any case.
Where do you get that idea? A mechanical cotton picker didn't come into general use until the end of the 19th/beginning of the 20th century. Agriculture in the South was still heavily dependent on human labor well into the 20th century. And even if work in the fields became mechanized, I doubt that Southern slave owners would have on their own given up domestic slaves.
And the dispute over slavery had been festering since independence. Do you know about the controversy over admitting Texas to the Union as a slave-holding state? Bleeding Kansas? Abolitionist sentiment was very strong in many parts of the North before the start of the war. Townspeople in Oberlin, Ohio threatened to lynch a pair of slave hunters who had captured a runaway slave. In upstate New York there were marches and rallies against slavery.
Even if you can say in retrospect that slavery was on the way out, it was certainly not apparent at the time of the war. Confederate soldiers thought they were fighting for states' rights; many northern soldiers thought they were fighting to preserve the union. A minority at the beginning of the war thought they were fighting to end slavery. That perception grew towards the end of the war. You can see this in contemporary diaries and letters.
Complain about this comment
sheep in wolf's clothing;
There is not the slightest trace of doubt that nuclear weapons are the ultimate weapons of terror. So terrifying they not only threaten to kill large numbers of people but to wipe out all traces that they ever existed. In fact to wipe out the entire human race. President Eisenhower proposed worldwide nuclear disarmament with intrusive inspections to assure compliance but the USSR refused. And so the war to build the most terrifying arsenals of these weapons began in earnest. We live with that legacy today even though the USSR doesn't exist anymore and neither Russia nor America has any rational reason to fear the other. But much of both arsenals still exists and probably some of it always will. Even from the grave, the spectre of Communism haunts the world.
Complain about this comment
Happy 234th Birthday America. Let me be the first to say it here. The shining hope of the world whose light of freedom blinds and frightens the mightiest to the lowliest tyrant and would be tyrant even in the deepest recesses of the most remote mountain caves and of course all across Europe.
Complain about this comment
re. 223. wolfvorkian:
Remind you of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, ol' philosopher king?
That's a bit simplistic and ignores the whole context of WWII. All sides targeted civilians in that war. The Japanese did it up close and personal in Nanking. The fascists and Nazis started out in Spain and continued during the invasion of Poland, the Low Countries, France, and certainly Russia and in bombing campaigns against Britain. Britain did the same with bombing attacks against residential neighborhoods of German cities and the firebombing of Hamburg. The Americans made a big show of not going after civilians with their "pinpoint" bombing, but ended up carpet bombing German cities as well. The rationale (if one can accept a rationale for targeting civilians) was that industrial production of military hardware was dependent on civilian labor, making civilian workers legitimate targets. I'm certainly not defending any of this, but you have to judge these events in their context. By the standards of the time Hiroshima and Nagasaki were as legitimate a target as Guernica, London or Berlin.
Today the US does not deliberately target civilians. I'm not happy at all with the phrase "collateral damage" and I think there should be investigation of the casual use of bombs and missles against "high value targets" in urban environments during the first part of the Iraq war. But now our troops are restricted in the use of air strikes even when they are taking fire. Al Qaeda, the Bathist insurgent groups, and the Taliban, in contrast, deliberately target large numbers of civilians with car bombs and suicide bombers. There isn't even a fig leaf of justification of them as military targets. Roadside bombs against military convoys are another matter. I don't see in that case that there is much difference between a bomb dropped out of an airplane and one exploded with a cell phone.
Complain about this comment
timohio;
"Today the US does not deliberately target civilians."
That is probably not an accurate statement. American nuclear weapons almost certainly target Russian and Chinese cities just as Russia's and China's target American cities. The only rule of war is that there are no rules. (Russia, China, and many other nations like Iran also probably have large secret stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons which are also terrorist weapons.)
The idea that the Geneva conventions will protect Americans taken captive by an enemy from torture is entirely bogus, especially today when our enemies have no regard for any human life including those civilians they control or would control. The restraint shown by the US in combat is a dangerous concession to the enemy who fully exploits it. For example, Saddam Hussein placed his anti-aircraft guns on the roofs of high rise apartment buildings so taking them out would kill many civilians living in them. He used his command and control center as a bomb shelter as well. The enemy is only too glad for martyrs to use as propaganda to get new recruits or for political purposes in Western democracies. It took the Israelis a long time to come to terms with the fact that if they didn't inflict civilian casualties in taking out bomb plot masterminds because they surrounded themselves with women and children, their own civilians would die as a consequence and so they accept the necessity. America hasn't learned that lesson yet but in time it will and it will learn it the hard way through bitter experience just as Israel did. It's time to at the very least rewrite the Geneva conventions or to scrap them altogether as unapplicable due to the nature of warfare in the 21st century.
Complain about this comment
211. At 7:08pm on 03 Jul 2010, Tiger80 wrote:
"People have already mentioned Israel on here, so here goes. What would be so bad about Palestinians being integrated into Israel. They could worship how they wanted plus be a citizen of Israel and have a chance for a better life. That would be far better than to be under Hamas rule."
An interesting question. Human nature being what it is, however, don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen.
They have been subjected to propaganda and terrorizing acts for generations; that they can't see what would be better for them isn't so amazing.
Just look at the large number of propagandized Americans [by FOX, Limbaugh, etc.] who think medical insurance reform is Socialism and bad, and simultaneously think social security , medicare and medicare is good [and NOT socialist!].
How many criticize President Obama for being a socialist, and simultaneousely criticize him for being the friend and bailer-out of banks and big business [maybe they don't really know what socialism means!]? More likely they are just stupid sheep following the pied pipers of GOP/FOX self-interest.
Maybe these are the same unthinking dolts who want as little government and as low taxation as possible, and then expect instant government action when something like the BP oil spill happens.
I don't trust our government either, but for logical and consistent reasons. Most importantly because it has been corrupted by the special interests that the dolts think are better and more caring and more efficient than the government at managing things like health care, environmental protection, etc!
So it CAN happen here, in the west, the USA, [it already happened in Germany in the 20s and 30s]. Propagandistic nut-cases leading the sheep, lemminglike, over a cliff, for their own warped and egomaniacal purposes.
Complain about this comment
226. At 11:54pm on 03 Jul 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote
possibly his most amazingly to the point and inarguably true statement.
What's up with that!?
Complain about this comment
May I wish all contributors from the United States a Happy Independence Day!
GOD BLESS AMERICA!
Complain about this comment
Our flag is still here and so are we!!!
I love you, USA!!!
Happy July 4th!!!
Happy Independence Day!!!!! :)
Complain about this comment
While it is admirable that the Brits would hang in there until the Yanks pull out. That maybe for a long time. The new general is alot more savy than McChyrstral was. And that is presuming that BHO will still be president. Hill may have overtaken him by that time or Jeb Bush may run. The US Senate Foreign Relations Council may have a thing to say about the final strategy for Afghanistan. To the Brits, we thank you for your courage, bravery, honor and service but I am afraid that Afghanistan is a sinking ship with a corrupt government and a weak kneed ally in Washington. Protect you own first.
Complain about this comment
227. At 00:01am on 04 Jul 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
Happy 234th Birthday America. Let me be the first to say it here. The shining hope of the world whose light of freedom blinds and frightens the mightiest to the lowliest tyrant and would be tyrant even in the deepest recesses of the most remote mountain caves and of course all across Europe.
---------------------
Gen. Augusto Pinochet
The Shah of Iran
Saddam Hussein
Noriega
Fulgencio Batista
Just a short list of friendly tyrants that have been on America’s payroll.
“whose light of freedom blinds and frightens the mightiest to the lowliest tyrant and would be tyrant”
…unless there’s something in it for the US of A, then they have nothing to fear…
Complain about this comment
"Yes, slavery was on its way out in any case." - colonelartist
"A mechanical cotton picker didn't come into general use until the end of the 19th/beginning of the 20th century. Agriculture in the South was still heavily dependent on human labor well into the 20th century. And even if work in the fields became mechanized, I doubt that Southern slave owners would have on their own given up domestic slaves." - timohio
Actually, both of y'all may very well be right. What we know is that after the civil war, the south's limited industrial economy was in ruins, and the plantation system was overturned. The Sharecropper system resolved the labor problem by splitting up plantations into individual plots farmed by poor whites and emancipated slaves, and it filled the void left by the destruction of southern industry during the war; this may well have delayed southern industrialization until the 20th century, except in the case of Atlanta.
Now let’s imagine that the civil war occurred, but the South won. Could a victorious Confederacy have held on to slavery as a viable economic system? I'm not so sure it could have. What is certain is that cotton would not be the cash crop that it had been because the North's blockade had forced Europeans to look elsewhere for cotton. The outcome of that alternate history is anybody's guess, but it might have mirrored the history of South Africa.
Regardless, slavery is dead, and there are millions of proud southerners displaying the Stars and Stripes today with pride.
Happy 4th of July!
Complain about this comment
"Gen. Augusto Pinochet
The Shah of Iran"
Both saviours of their respective countries.
Unlike Commies who preceded the first and almost succeded in converting Chile into another diabetic Cuba.
And Iranian ayatollahs (in dirty nappies on their empty skulls) who followed the second, and made a once flourishing, rapidily modernizing country into a Dark Age Sharia-based caliphate.
[and international terrorism sponsor]
Oh, the gutter level the perennial America-haters sink to...
[Particularly on the Fourth of July.]
But then, what else is new?
Complain about this comment
Re #236 BienvenueEnLouisiana
Happy 4th of July!
And don't you worry!
Lord Browne [of BP notoriety] won't be allowed to rule over you again.
Complain about this comment
'Lebanon's leading Shia Muslim cleric, seen as a key figure in the founding of militant group Hezbollah, has died aged 74, hospital sources have said.
Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah was regarded as Hezbollah's spiritual guide after the group was founded in 1982[...]
An implacable critic of the US, he had a wide following among Shias and backed the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran.' [BBC News]
My deepest condolences to all perennial America haters here.
Complain about this comment
allmymarbles wrote:
183, powermeerkat.
Inspired giant leap. Very funny. Thanks.
One small step for meerkat.
One giant leap for...Mr. Taliban. :)
Complain about this comment
You might like this variation too:
http://www.thenation.com/article/day-o-afghan-calypso
happy fourth
Complain about this comment
Happy July 4th, lets celebrate the freedom in the U.S and the many contributions our country has given the world.
Complain about this comment
Re.#241
Fine. But where's the video? :(
[bombers usually fly during the day so there should not have been be a problem with that?]
FYI: US pilots usually don't yell 'shalom'.
Although some 101 Airborne's paras still yell: "Geronimo!" when jumping out.
I've seen some chalk signs on some of them bombs, but they usually read something like "Hi, there!", "Greetings from Wisconsin!" or (if a pilot or a loader was a woman):
"From Madam to Saddam".
[I know, I know, that's that darn rhyme thing.
So how' bout "soon your caves will turn to graves!"?]
regards!
Complain about this comment
To MagicKirin #224
RE: Muslims condemning terrorism
In summary:
You don't have any links to statistics that show how many Muslims condemn terrorism and how many non-Muslims condemn terrorism.
You have no comparative statistical evidence, you're just guessing.
Complain about this comment
Re 242 " Happy July 4th, lets celebrate the freedom in the U.S and the many contributions our country has given the world."
On a hot and humid day I can't think of a single American contribution more useful and more appreciated than modern air conditioning.
Although its inventor, Willis Haviland Carter, was from Angola.
[Angola, NY, though. :) ]
P.S. Not that I think less of a contribution of Mr. Roy Jacuzzi.
Complain about this comment
Winky Dink;
This is one more example of half truths, distortions, and outright lies those who hate America spout of endlessly. During the war to save the world from the prospect of perpetual enslavement by by the tyranny of communism, the US of necessity had to make deals with brutal dictators as a practical measure. It was a war much of the rest of the world including most of Western Europe was ambivalent towards. In practical terms, the US fought it almost alone. In fact many in Western Europe had hoped it would become part of the Soviet empire and now that it is gone, they are busily costructing their own EUSSR. You can see it is going bankrupt already for exactly the same reasons the USSR went bankrupt. Yes, we supported those dictators up to a point including turning a blind eye to their crimes against their own people. Manuel Noriega wound up in an American prison in Florida and for all I know he is still there.
Complain about this comment
ref #244
, _marko wrote:
To MagicKirin #224
RE: Muslims condemning terrorism
In summary:
You don't have any links to statistics that show how many Muslims condemn terrorism and how many non-Muslims condemn terrorism.
You have no comparative statistical evidence, you're just guessing.
_____________
Not guessing the majority of terrorism today is based on an extremist islamic justification show me the last time an arab country other than Egypt condemned terrorist attacks against Israel.
Case rested.
Complain about this comment
ref #239
powermeerkat wrote:
'Lebanon's leading Shia Muslim cleric, seen as a key figure in the founding of militant group Hezbollah, has died aged 74, hospital sources have said.
Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah was regarded as Hezbollah's spiritual guide after the group was founded in 1982[...]
An implacable critic of the US, he had a wide following among Shias and backed the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran.' [BBC News]
My deepest condolences to all perennial America haters here.
_____________
Jim Muir of the BBC can't even call him a terrorist, the fatherst he would go is the U.S regarded him as a terrorist.
He was a terrorist like every member of Hezbollah and the Lebanese, Syria and Iraninan dictatorships
Complain about this comment
237. At 09:55am on 04 Jul 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
"Gen. Augusto Pinochet
The Shah of Iran"
Both saviours of their respective countries.
Unlike Commies who preceded the first and almost succeded in converting Chile into another diabetic Cuba.
And Iranian ayatollahs (in dirty nappies on their empty skulls) who followed the second, and made a once flourishing, rapidily modernizing country into a Dark Age Sharia-based caliphate.
[and international terrorism sponsor]
Oh, the gutter level the perennial America-haters sink to...
[Particularly on the Fourth of July.]
But then, what else is new?
-------------------------
Pinochet was a brutal US backed dictator who ran an un-democratic military junta and murdered and tortured thousands of people, including women and children. The shah was a corrupt and hedonistic foreign puppet who replaced an established democracy. It was this outside meddling that legitimized the revolution and transformed Iran into the thorn in America’s side that we see today (kind of fitting, isn’t it?).
Of course to people like you, the installation of these anti-democracy regimes that destroyed the lives of thousands of innocent people was justified to further your agenda.
Happy birthday America. May you continue to undermine global democracies when it suites your interests…
Complain about this comment
Now let’s imagine that the civil war occurred, but the South won. Could a victorious Confederacy have held on to slavery as a viable economic system? I'm not so sure it could have. What is certain is that cotton would not be the cash crop that it had been because the North's blockade had forced Europeans to look elsewhere for cotton. The outcome of that alternate history is anybody's guess, but it might have mirrored the history of South Africa.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lets stop comparing reality with "if that would have happen or if this would have happen". People who do this do a great disservice to context in which things happen...How do you know if usa would be usa, if south had won? what The war was started in the name of slavery because the north had no other reason to go to war against south, which as i wrote was doing more fair deals with ex-empire than its northern part..If it was about slavery. the blacks would have been totally free, not segregated for another 100 and plus years...Or the north was against slavery but pro-racist..
Complain about this comment
As I recall it was the British who were ultimately responsible for the overthrow the leader of Iran prior to the Shah coming to power. Britain was in Iran for their oil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran
"In 1951, after the assassination of prime minister Ali Razmara, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, was elected prime minister by a parliamentary vote which was then ratified by the Shah. As prime minister, Mossadegh became enormously popular in Iran after he nationalized Iran's petroleum industry and oil reserves. In response, the British government, headed by Winston Churchill, embargoed Iranian oil and successfully enlisted the United States to join in a plot to depose the democratically elected government of Mossadegh, and in 1953 President Dwight D. Eisenhower authorized Operation Ajax. The operation was successful, and Mossadegh was arrested on 19 August 1953. The coup was the first time the US had openly overthrown an elected, civil government"
FDR is famously supposed to have said about Anastasio Samoza Garcia the dictator of Nicaragua "He may be a son of a bitch but he's our son of a bitch." Some dispute he actually said that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anastasio_Somoza_Garc%C3%ADa
Complain about this comment
colon artist;
Had the Confederacy won the Civil War, the US could not have come to Britain's rescue 50 years later and pulled its cookies out of the fire for the first but hardly the last time. World War I might still be going on to this very day. A pleasant thought since in that event, World War II would never have happened.
Complain about this comment
220. At 8:36pm on 03 Jul 2010, publiusdetroit wrote:
So you don't support the First Article of the U.S. Constitution by not participating in the Census; but you embrace the Second Amendment so you can carry a firearm?
Do you pick and choose what parts of the Constitution are valid; then accuse the Government of not following the whole?
American Grizzly, indeed. More like an ill-informed, sunshine patriot.
Enumeration, yeah I gave them the number, but not all the information, that Obamanists/government absolutists want, like I am sure you gave him publius as you Obamanist's love to kneel before the Messiah/Rockstar. So go ahead and bleet.
Complain about this comment
ref #249
With all the shah's faults the people of Iran especially woman were far more free than under the war criminal Khomeni and his sucessors.
Iran ever had normal relations with Israel.
Now you have a worldwide sponsor of terrorism
Which was better?
Complain about this comment
Had the elected Chancellor of Germany Adolf Hitler been overthrown by outside forces such as Britain or France, World War II would never have happened and millions of lives would have been saved. Just because someone is elected even in a free and fair election, it does not mean that government will survive in the real world if it is perceived to be a threat to other nations. Who is to say whether or not that is right or wrong as the example of Hitler demonstrates. This is one more aspect of the farce called "international law." Nations do what is in their own perceived best self interest and sometimes that means forcibly bringing about an end to an elected government in another country. In the case of getting rid of Allende, that was the right thing for America to do. Too bad it wasn't smart enough to get rid of Castro early on also. It was a failure of President Kennedy to enforce the Monroe Doctrine that brought the world to the brink of WWIII and the end of human life on earth.
Complain about this comment
Well now that the enumeration is complete, the doctored numbers of unemployment are starting to rise again as they are laid off. I can only wonder know with Obama admin/Gates new laws, if casualty figures along with cost will also be altered by the Obama admin? I mean after financial reform takes over main street type operations, if deemed by the Messiah's (holier than thou Obama) admin. So now Obama can sign more documents behind closed door. Pakistan needs more money, so whip out that pen Barack. As our fine young people build your vision of Afghanistan with blood and money from future generation probably not even born yet.
Complain about this comment
colon artist;
Had the Confederacy won the Civil War, the US could not have come to Britain's rescue 50 years later and pulled its cookies out of the fire for the first but hardly the last time. World War I might still be going on to this very day. A pleasant thought since in that event, World War II would never have happened.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, I guess you havent learnt a lesson from the sacking of Mccrystel...He started of by calling afghanistan "chaosistan" and ended up calling calling of his own names...If people had checked him instead of quoting his "chaosistan" he wouldnt have come this far....He learnt it the hard way that name calling is accepted as long as its restricted to his enemies...If americans had set things in persepective with respect to real cause of their own civil war, they wouldnt have to go on adventures against other people on false premises...especially where you always inject this "bringing freedom to people"...Your reason for war with one another was not any way different than your wars with other countries, power and economics...
Complain about this comment
254. At 3:28pm on 04 Jul 2010, MagicKirin wrote:
ref #249
With all the shah's faults the people of Iran especially woman were far more free than under the war criminal Khomeni and his sucessors.
Iran ever had normal relations with Israel.
Now you have a worldwide sponsor of terrorism
Which was better?
-------------------
How about the democratic government which preceded the Shah? I’m no fan of revolutionary Iran and its policies. The fact remains that it was the placement of the Shah that encouraged this revolution and the current state of affairs. As much as the West complains about today’s Iran, it was the West that was responsible for creating it in the first place.
Complain about this comment
i wonder if i'll be allowed to post a little July 4 joke?
Here it goes anyway.
Q: Why did the Americans install Liberty on separate island?
A: So it couldn't spread beyond it. )))
Complain about this comment
colon artist;
I'd never heard the term chaostan but it seems entirely fitting and accurately descriptive of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
One of the drawbacks of civilian control of the military by political apointees is that people totally unsuited for military command can take charge. That seems to be the case in this administration just as it was in the last one. This one sided slavish obedience to ill conceived and totally inadequate so called international law has caused American military planners to fight with both hands tied behind their backs. The Clinton Administration had no such reservations. It attacked Serbia without direct provocation and without the approval of the UN. That it restricted its targeting to the prior approval of all NATO countries was IMO a bad mistake. Considering how much is at stake not just for America but for the entire world in the war against Islamic terrorism, there seems to be a very dangerous ambivalence about it. I suppose it may take a few more 9-11s to wake the world up...if there still is a world left in the aftermath.
Complain about this comment
Ref 253 AmericanGrizzly-
"Enumeration, yeah I gave them the number, but not all the information, that Obamanists/government absolutists want, like I am sure you gave him publius as you Obamanist's love to kneel before the Messiah/Rockstar. So go ahead and bleet."
So why didn't you just fill in the enumeration and return the form with only that information?
Well-informed, adult U.S. citizens know that the ten-year census is mandated in Article I of the U.S. Constitution for determining representation in the House of Representatives, and for the distribution of tax dollars. The Census is a law of the land. The Census is a requirement of the Legislature, not the Administration. The current Administration fulfilled its obligation to the Legislature, just as previous Administrations have done, by administering the Census for the Legislature.
Additional Census workers must be hired because there are people, such as yourself, who choose not to freely fulfill their obligation as a citizen by contributing the census count of their household. You caused "big government" to become bigger. You cost the rest of us taxpayers more money because you would not enter a number on a simple form and return the form.
Are you lonesome? Did you need someone come visit you?
BTW. I do not believe in Messiahs, nor do I worship Rock Stars.
Complain about this comment
To #247 MagicKirin
Show me the links to "statistics that show how many Muslims condemn terrorism and how many non-Muslims condemn terrorism."
You have not.
People may assume that you're making things up if you do not provide evidence for this statement.
In the absence of a link showing this statistical comparison you are just guessing.
You have many cases. What about resting this particular one by providing the link to the data?
Complain about this comment
"So why didn't you just fill in the enumeration and return the form with only that information? " 261. At 4:30pm on 04 Jul 2010, publiusdetroit wrote:
Why did the government bother to include all those questions, which they retain for umpteen years? Bleet, bleet, get back in line publiusdetroit. Bah, if the Obama admin can't understand enumeration, and twits like you accept it then they have already won. Bleet on you twit.
Complain about this comment
Here in the UK,we celebrate Trafalgar day 21st oct,Waterloo 18th June,
Battle of Britain 15th sept, 4th of July? 4th of July? who did we beat on
the 4th of July??..
Happy holiday to all American contributors & readers.
Complain about this comment
With people like publiusdetroit we wouldn't be celebrating this day. Kowtow to the Obamanist vision of the Constitution. SO happy 4th of July.
Complain about this comment
This one sided slavish obedience to ill conceived and totally inadequate so called international law has caused American military planners to fight with both hands tied behind their backs. The Clinton Administration had no such reservations. It attacked Serbia without direct provocation and without the approval of the UN.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not sure bush went to UN to get its approval to attack afghanistan, as far as I recall, he said he didnt need UN's approval....Its a NATO project from the vvery begining.
Complain about this comment
Scotch-git #232. . .
Thank You!! And right back at you! That is unless you're British, and in that case just thank you (I know, I know, you tend not to celebrate our independence day over there...LOL) or Canadian, which in that case a belated Happy Canada day which you celebrated last Thursday, July 1st!!
Same Happy Canada day goes for all Canadian contributers!!
In serious news, it appears as though we're continuing on with the previous administration's plans to build the contravercial missile shield in eastern Europe. Will the Democrats ever stand firm against the Republicans? We don't need to do this!!
Complain about this comment
ref #262
_marko wrote:
To #247 MagicKirin
Show me the links to "statistics that show how many Muslims condemn terrorism and how many non-Muslims condemn terrorism."
You have not.
People may assume that you're making things up if you do not provide evidence for this statement.
In the absence of a link showing this statistical comparison you are just guessing.
You have many cases. What about resting this particular one by providing the link to the data?
_______________
It is self evident just like Hitler was evil and Israel was attacked in thr 6 day war.
You need to prove otherwise
Complain about this comment
242. At 12:09pm on 04 Jul 2010, MagicKirin wrote:
Happy July 4th, lets celebrate the freedom in the U.S and the many contributions our country has given the world.
I will drink to that,but who was the unsung total hero who invented
gin & tonic complete with ice & lemon??.
Complain about this comment
Well not as well versed on British holiday celebrations. I did cross the channel when I was a lot younger and saw bonfires. It was for Guy Fawkes day. I don't know if this is an offical holiday. But I still have the pin somewhere that was given to me by a British friend. I quote the pin." Guy Fawkes the only man to enter parliment with honest intentions." Great tongue in cheek humor there. While in the Army I drank with British and Canadian soldiers in Canada in celebration of the fourth, many years ago, while in training there jointly with them. Always glad to have either those respected soldiers with us in times of trouble. Funny how we all change each other with association. Hopefully the good values stick.
Complain about this comment
I enjoy the opportunity to peek through the strange (but interesting!) prism "colonelartist" uses to view his world. But if he had any genuine insight, wouldn't he be a generalartist by now?
Let's face it: colonels are tuppence a bushel in his part of the world, and the generals are the ones that get to wear the really nice hats.
Complain about this comment
Ref 263 AmericanGrizzly-
"Why did the government bother to include all those questions, which they retain for umpteen years?"
Here is a link which explains why each of the 10 questions on the 'short' Census form were being asked. You will note that at least 6 of the questions have been on Census forms since 1970. Two go back as far as 1790. The first asks for the number of people in the household, of course this has been asked since the first Census. Of the other 4: three are asked to insure accuracy of the overall Census count; another asks for a telephone number to contact if questions arise (so that the additional expense of transportation to the source can be saved).
The U.S. Government, as well as State governments, have retained the information gained from the very first Census all the way to this date. It is not something new from the current Administration. The former Census data has great historic and economic value. Census data is also available to the public. I have used Census data in tracing my family tree. It is an invaluable tool.
The questions asked on the Census form are at the request of the Legislature, not the Administration. Previous Census questions asked the occupation of a person; how much land was held by the person; how many slaves were held...
This Census short form required much less personal information than many previous.
Ref 265 AmericanGrizzly-
"With people like publiusdetroit we wouldn't be celebrating this day."
My family gave their merchant ships to the Revolutionary Navy. We fought in the Revolutionary Army and Navy. We have founded towns in the Colony of New Amsterdam, which became the Colony and State of New York, as well as founding towns in the State of Michigan. We are recorded in the very first Census of The United States of America, and each subsequent Census.
How about your family? Are they immigrants? Or did they give up their livelihood and blood to create this Nation?
Complain about this comment
To MagicKirin #268
So you can't provide the stats and it's obvious because you can quote other unrelated things that are obvious too!
The onus is on you to provide evidence when you make an assertion.
Why do you think you haven't been able to find this link to comparative statistical data?
Complain about this comment
Marko-
Assertions made by MagicKirin can be verified at the Kirin Library located on the campus of the University of Magic found in the great State of Illusion.
Complain about this comment
274. At 7:36pm on 04 Jul 2010, publiusdetroit wrote:
"...found in the great State of Illusion."
____________
That's the one near Indiana.
There's another one in the great state of Delusion, near Mississippi.
Got it from the French - part of the Delusiona Purchase.
Complain about this comment
Interestedforeigner-
The library on the State of Delusion campus is only open to students majoring in fallacy, studying for their PHD [Piled High and Deep].
Complain about this comment
A big day of celebration in England is Saint Swithin's Day. Another is Boxing Day. That's the day they celebrate putting their mother-in-law in a box and burying her or something like that. I know it has to do with putting something or other in a box. Why they make a big deal about that is beyond me but then who ever could understand them? Except for Christmas and New Year's, I think that's about it.
Complain about this comment
ref #273-276
You refused to read the earlier link?
http://minx.cc/?post=101712
sorry you can't argue that Lebanon harbors a terror group called Hezbollah.
Complain about this comment
Let's face it: colonels are tuppence a bushel in his part of the world, and the generals are the ones that get to wear the really nice hats.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
It should have occured to you that I am not interessted in really nice hats. I was a student of a maderssa which taught the teachings of the most wisest man in the whole world,Mullah Nasirudin.
One day an illiterate man came to Mullah Nasruddin with a letter he had received.
Mullah Nasruddin, please read this letter to me. Mullah Nasruddin looked at the letter, but could not make out a single word. So he told the man.
I am sorry, but I cannot read this. The man cried:
For shame, Mullah Nasruddin ! You must be ashamed before the turban you wear (i.e. the sign of education)
Mullah Nasruddin removed the turban from his own head and placed it on the head of the illiterate man, said:
There, now you wear the turban. If it gives some knowledge, read the letter yourself.
Complain about this comment
277. MassiveA**II:
Who would have thought it...MAII combining xenophobia and ignorance into a post and confusing it for humor?
Complain about this comment
I hate to be the one to break it to you colon artist but I think a guy who has your Mullah Nasruddin beat hands down is Mullah Medulla Oblongata. He can read anything.
Complain about this comment
"It should have occured to you that I am not interessted in really nice hats. I was a student of a maderssa ..."
____________
Ah, there's the problem. Wrong type of schooling. No eventual promotion to Major General possible:
...
I am the very model of a modern Major-General
I've information vegetable, animal, and mineral
I know the kings of England, and I quote the fights historical
From Marathon to Waterloo, in order categorical
...
I'm very well acquainted, too, with matters mathematical
I understand equations, both the simple and quadratical
About binomial theorem I'm teeming with a lot o' news
With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse
...
I'm very good at integral and differential calculus
I know the scientific names of beings animalculous
In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral
I am the very model of a modern Major-General
...
In fact, when I know what is meant by "mamelon" and "ravelin"
When I can tell at sight a Mauser rifle from a javelin
When such affairs as sorties and surprises I'm more wary at
And when I know precisely what is meant by "commissariat"
When I have learnt what progress has been made in modern gunnery
When I know more of tactics than a novice in a nunnery
In short, when I've a smattering of elemental strategy
You'll say a better Major-General had never sat a gee
For my military knowledge, though I'm plucky and adventury
Has only been brought down to the beginning of the century
But still, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral
I am the very model of a modern Major-General
But still, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral
He is the very model of a modern Major-General
Complain about this comment
"There's another one in the great state of Delusion, near Mississippi.
Got it from the French-part of the Delusiona Purchase."
-Interestedforeigner
"The library on the State of Delusion campus is only open to students majoring in fallacy, studying for their PHD [Piled High and Deep]."
- publiusdetroit
Hey! What's with your uncalled-for swipe at Louisiana; we are hardly delusional down here. Keep your own delusions to yourselves jerks.
Complain about this comment
283. At 01:14am on 05 Jul 2010, BienvenueEnLouisiana wrote:
No offense intended.
Louisiana is in the real world. The places Publius and I are referring to are in the magic kingdom, so to speak.
Complain about this comment
283 Bienvenue
Further to that. Should have looked in the atlas first.
It appears that the State of Delusion is on the Potomac nestled between Maryland and Virginia.
Complain about this comment
Ref 283 BienvenueEnLouisiana-
"Hey! What's with your uncalled-for swipe at Louisiana; we are hardly delusional down here."
Please pardon me for any misunderstanding. It may help you to learn that everything at the University of Magic is nothing more than an illusion. There is no reality nor fact. They do not know how to make a good gumbo at the U of M, so it certainly should not be mistaken for any institute of higher learning in the Great State of Louisiana.
Complain about this comment
277 MAII Wrote,
A big day of celebration in England is Saint Swithin's Day. Another is Boxing Day.
_____________________
Also dont forget Battle of Britain day 25th Sept,when Britain fought and won its own deliverance from the enemy without the assistance of the US.
After which of course they came in to help Britain free the European Continent.
Complain about this comment
No worries...I forgive y'all. Have a wonderful 4th of July!
Complain about this comment
IF I'm afraid your efforts are wasted. Few if any here probably ever even heard of G&S.
Emps;
"Also dont forget Battle of Britain day 25th Sept,when Britain fought and won its own deliverance from the enemy without the assistance of the US."
Wasn't that the Luftwaffe using the UK as targets for a turkey shoot? While it was true the UK did not lose the war then and there, was not forced to surrender, it was hardly a difinitive battle. Between the Battle of the Atlantic and many other battles, it was a long time after the Battle of Britain before Germany was defeated. Had Germany not attacked the USSR and the US not entered WWII, it is virtually certain Britain would have lost.
Complain about this comment
" How about your family? Are they immigrants? Or did they give up their livelihood and blood to create this Nation?"publiusdetroit
No they were pioneers, and native Americans, which your relatives probably, enslaved, raped and murdered. I don't think they did a census to show who was butchered. But I do have some other bloodlines in me. Maybe your related to skip gates, give him some of your dna. But I don't need a census, as my family has excellent documents. But happy 4th anyway. I had a great two days, shot with friends, barby, and numerous other fun with friends and family. So if your done blowing your own horn and bleeting have a nice day.
Complain about this comment
289 MAII Wrote
Wasn't that the Luftwaffe using the UK as targets for a turkey shoot? While it was true the UK did not lose the war then and there, was not forced to surrender, it was hardly a difinitive battle.
Of course it was a difinative battle.the luftwaffe was literally destroyed. All further conflict was confined to the Continent since Germany conceded that no further invasion of Britain was possible.
Complain about this comment
Mulla Nasiruddin always mounted his donkey facing its tail when he rode it into the village to buy his morning bread hot from the stones in the baker's oven. One day the baker asked: "Mulla, why do you always ride your donkey facing its behind? Is it to honor the Prophet in some way?" To which Mulla Nasiruddin replied "I ride this way because it is the only hope for catching a glimplse of the accomplishments of Islam -- all of which are behind us."
And #289: don't worry about how many or how few know G&S: the ones that matter do. Instead, worry about the fact that fully one quarter of our countrymen don't know who we sought our independence FROM in 1776. Now THAT'S a fact worthy of colonel -- soon to be promoted, we hope -- artist!
Complain about this comment
Ref 290 AmericanGrizzly-
Glad to hear you enjoyed the Independence Day holiday. Up the Revolution! Down the British!
Complain about this comment
268 MagicKirin:
"It is self evident just like Hitler was evil and Israel was attacked in thr 6 day war."
_____________________________
Err, Israel launched a preemptive strike on June 5, 1967 in what is now called the '6 day war'.
Do you understand the difference between being attacked and a preemptive attack? Do you also understand the meaning of "self evident"?
Complain about this comment
294, ninetofivegrind.
"Do you understand the difference between being attacked and a preemptive attack? Do you also understand the meaning of 'self evident'?"
I don't think it is fair of you to direct such a difficult question to a genetically disadvantaged Martian/Israeli hybrid.
Complain about this comment
Emps wrote:
"Also dont forget Battle of Britain day 25th Sept,when Britain fought and won its own deliverance from the enemy without the assistance of the US."
574 non-British pilots flew with the RAF, inlcuding seven Americans.
And are you sure no aid made it to Britain before Lend-Lease?
"After which of course they came in to help Britain free the European Continent."
America was helping Britain long before it formally entered the war.
Britain could not have done anything meaningful on its own against the European continent. Germany had grown too powerful. That was the reality of the situation.
Complain about this comment
publiusdetroit wrote:
"So you don't support the First Article of the U.S. Constitution by not participating in the Census; but you embrace the Second Amendment so you can carry a firearm?"
Do you also support the identification and tracking of illegal immigrants in America?
"Do you pick and choose what parts of the Constitution are valid; then accuse the Government of not following the whole?"
In regards to the Constitution and illegal immigration "the government" is most certainly not "following the whole."
"American Grizzly, indeed. More like an ill-informed, sunshine patriot."
What does his patriotism have to do with you thinking he is "ill-informed?" Would you have mentioned his patriotism if you thought he was well-informed?
Complain about this comment
those minimizing the threat of islamic facism. Look at Today's article in AP about intimidation in Indonesia. This supposidly secular state is allowing religous thugs to bully and terrorize christians because they are afraid that some might find another religion more to their liking.
You would never see that permitted in the U.S or Israel.
Complain about this comment
Somewhere between 5 and 9 years old;
"Do you understand the difference between being attacked and a preemptive attack?"
Yes, it's the difference between winning and losing. The Egyptian air force was destroyed on the ground while the pilots were eating breakfast. Had the Israelis waited to be attacked first, there's a real possibility they'd have lost. That is what we did in Iraq in 2003 with excellent results. It's what we should have done many other times such as in Afghanistan and Japan. It's what Britain and France should have done in 1934 against Nazi Germany. It's what we should be doing to Iran and North Korea now. Some never learn the lessons of history.
Complain about this comment
Well July fourth has come and gone and now it is July fifth, the day many of us will celebrate our nation's independence although an ordinary workday for Brits and not a single "happy birthday" from our Euronic guest who hosts this blog site.
Perhaps he is sore that the rebelious colonists are no longer the property of the mother country now that he's had time to inspect it. Or perhaps he's out partying enjoying BBQ, beer, and fireworks and is exhausted from yesterday preparing for more of it today. Or perhaps someone mistook him for a Redcoat :-)
Complain about this comment
289. At 04:02am on 05 Jul 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
IF I'm afraid your efforts are wasted. Few if any here probably ever even heard of G&S.
____________
And I didn't cite G&S because I figured it was so notoriously well known.
Complain about this comment
289. At 04:02am on 05 Jul 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"Wasn't that the Luftwaffe using the UK as targets for a turkey shoot?"
____________
I believe it was a chicken, not a turkey. The turkey shoot was in the Marianas. If I'm not mistaken the reference was to wringing the chicken's neck, as in:
"Some chicken. Some neck."
And no, I am not giving the citation for that one, either.
Complain about this comment
296. At 08:34am on 05 Jul 2010, AllenT2 wrote:
Emps wrote:
"Also dont forget Battle of Britain day 25th Sept,when Britain fought and won its own deliverance from the enemy without the assistance of the US."
(True,Early warning system,Hawker Hurricane, Supermarine Spitfire & Rolls
Royce merlin all British, sorry about that)
574 non-British pilots flew with the RAF, inlcuding seven Americans.
(True,Mostly, Canadian, Australian, New zeal-anders,South Africa, Irish the other 2000 or so British,sorry about that as well)
"And are you sure no aid made it to Britain before Lend-Lease?"
(Yep)
"After which of course they came in to help Britain free the European Continent."
(True & thanks)
"America was helping Britain long before it formally entered the war".
(True & thanks,I owe my freedom to this fact)
"Britain could not have done anything meaningful on its own against the European continent. Germany had grown too powerful. That was the reality of the situation".
(True & America will only truly know the Horror of our the situation back
then,when it takes on a Country more power-full that its self with conventional weapons, twice in 20 years & with out knowing the out come.Losing its civilians on the 9/11 scale, due to air raids, night after, night,after night,after night,after night,after night,after night.....)
Complain about this comment
those minimizing the threat of islamic facism. Look at Today's article in AP about intimidation in Indonesia. This supposidly secular state is allowing religous thugs to bully and terrorize christians because they are afraid that some might find another religion more to their liking.
You would never see that permitted in the U.S or Israel.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, that takes the cake...where do you put your O rileys and the like, who have nothing else to do but to talk against islam and muslims fotr the past 9 and half years...And when that old woman, helen thomas or something like that tells the settlers to go back from where they have come from, she was forced to retire, apologise and her book project went down the drain...
Complain about this comment
289. At 04:02am on 05 Jul 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
Wasn't that (The Battle of Britain) the Luftwaffe using the UK as targets for a turkey shoot? While it was true the UK did not lose the war then and there, was not forced to surrender, it was hardly a difinitive battle.
------------------
The Battle of Britain prevented Hitler from achieving air superiority over north western Europe, thus prevented him from invading the British Isles. If Britain hadn't survived, resistance against the Germans and Italians would've collapsed in North Africa. Hitler would've had a straight shot to both Alexandria, the Suez Canal and eventually the oilfields of the Middle East.
I'd call that definitive...
Complain about this comment
I hate to be the one to break it to you colon artist but I think a guy who has your Mullah Nasruddin beat hands down is Mullah Medulla Oblongata. He can read anything.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
For people like you, my mentor has this;
A neighbour called on Nasrudin. ‘Mulla, I want to borrow your donkey.’ ‘I am sorry,’ said the Mullah, ‘but I have already lent it out.’ As soon as he had spoken, the donkey brayed. The sound came from Nasruding’s stable. ‘But Mulla, I can hear the donkey, in here!’ As he shut the door in the man’s face, Nasrudin said, with dignity: ‘A man who believes the word of a donkey in preference to my word does not deserve to be lent anything.’
People who believe in lies do not deserve to be told truth...
Complain about this comment
299. At 11:22am on 05 Jul 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
Somewhere between 5 and 9 years old;
"Do you understand the difference between being attacked and a preemptive attack?"
Yes, it's the difference between winning and losing. The Egyptian air force was destroyed on the ground while the pilots were eating breakfast. Had the Israelis waited to be attacked first, there's a real possibility they'd have lost. That is what we did in Iraq in 2003 with excellent results. It's what we should have done many other times such as in Afghanistan and Japan. It's what Britain and France should have done in 1934 against Nazi Germany. It's what we should be doing to Iran and North Korea now. Some never learn the lessons of history.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------Marky to get the scale right,its China you must attack.To coin a Dylan song",Now you don`t talk so loud,now you don`t seem so proud",that is unless you are an paper tiger...
Complain about this comment
Ref 297 AllenT2-
"Do you also support the identification and tracking of illegal immigrants in America?"
The topic being discussed was the U.S. Census, not illegal immigrants. It is not the purpose, nor the responsibility of the Census to identify and track illegal immigrants. That is the responsibility of the Department of Immigration and Naturalization.
"In regards to the Constitution and illegal immigration "the government" is most certainly not "following the whole."
The U.S. Constitution does not specifically address immigration, illegal or otherwise. There is no 'Immigration' Amendment. You are confusing Acts of Congress, legislated law, with Constitutional law. There is a difference. If you do not know that difference, then you need to make yourself a well-informed citizen by studying the Constitution and the workings of U.S. Government.
"What does his patriotism have to do with you thinking he is "ill-informed?" Would you have mentioned his patriotism if you thought he was well-informed?"
No. I would not have used the term, patriot. I would have complimented him on being a well-informed citizen.
Complain about this comment
Ah, there's the problem. Wrong type of schooling. No eventual promotion to Major General possible:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have travelled longitudely and latitudely across the earth, I talk to the enemeis as I talk friends, I have gone to my favourite maderassea, then when to christian ceminaries both the sects, and graduated with flying colors..went to some other religious schools and just for one spent a lot of time in the famous so called seculat universities...Colonel is the rank i like, just in the middle, not too low and too high. Have some under your command you can give orders to and have some commanding officers , you can make fun off....just the kind of rank where you can tell the junior officer when he comes to you in a panic to inform you that the corps commander is on a surprise vist, "so, what should I do, climb up a tree?" within the hearing range of the visiting commander..
Complain about this comment
ref #304
colonelartist wrote:
those minimizing the threat of islamic facism. Look at Today's article in AP about intimidation in Indonesia. This supposidly secular state is allowing religous thugs to bully and terrorize christians because they are afraid that some might find another religion more to their liking.
You would never see that permitted in the U.S or Israel.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, that takes the cake...where do you put your O rileys and the like, who have nothing else to do but to talk against islam and muslims fotr the past 9 and half years...And when that old woman, helen thomas or something like that tells the settlers to go back from where they have come from, she was forced to retire, apologise and her book project went down the drain...
_______________
You obviously know nothing about Fox or O'rielly except propoganda. Give me evidence of any working for Fox leading thugs to physically intimidate anyone practicing the moslem(or any other) faith. Youcan't. That is what the Indonesian goverment allows. The Factor speaks against terrorost supporting moslems groups like CAIR and question why mainstream moslems here or around the world
don't condenm terrorism against non moslems.
As far as Thomas her vile hatread of Jews was excused because of her age just like the late Klansman Robert Byrd.
Complain about this comment
The Battle of Britain prevented Hitler from achieving air superiority over north western Europe, thus prevented him from invading the British Isles. If Britain hadn't survived, resistance against the Germans and Italians would've collapsed in North Africa. Hitler would've had a straight shot to both Alexandria, the Suez Canal and eventually the oilfields of the Middle East.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, you got the oil fields...Here is a fairest proposition anyone can give you, why doest the west do a mass exodus from west to the oil fields areas and let those people migrate to the west...In this way you will have what you want, and they will have what you think they want..
Complain about this comment
It is time to for Obama to put pressure on Turjkey and force them to acknowledfe their fault in the conflict with Israel.
It is entirely the Turkey's PM's fault for this crisis not he threatans to break off relations
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/10505386.stm
It is time for Obama to put the screws to Turkey instead of a democratic non xenophobic allie
Complain about this comment
No. I would not have used the term, patriot. I would have complimented him on being a well-informed citizen.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
And who made you incharge of labeling your citizens into various categories?
Complain about this comment
uke of wails, America owns much of China. A nice piece of America's GNI comes from China's GDP. Much more equity in value to us than the 800 biillion dollars the American government owes the Chinese. Why would we attack ourselves? It is you in Europe they threaten, not us. Do you want to attack them? Then you do it. I'll bet it will be all you can do to hold on to the Malvinas in the next battle with Argentina :-)
Complain about this comment
311. At 3:38pm on 05 Jul 2010, colonelartist
"'The Battle of Britain prevented Hitler from achieving air superiority over north western Europe, thus prevented him from invading the British Isles. If Britain hadn't survived, resistance against the Germans and Italians would've collapsed in North Africa. Hitler would've had a straight shot to both Alexandria, the Suez Canal and eventually the oilfields of the Middle East.'
----------------------------------------------------------
So, you got the oil fields...Here is a fairest proposition anyone can give you, why doest the west do a mass exodus from west to the oil fields areas and let those people migrate to the west...In this way you will have what you want, and they will have what you think they want.."
----------------------
My earlier explanation was simply a statement of historical fact, with no intention to justify or explain the moral ramifications of the West's relationship with Middle Eastern oil.
Stop trying to find conflict where there is none.
Complain about this comment
colon artist;
Whew you had me scared for a moment. When I read your story I thought you were going to tell me that the braying came from the bedroom and the Mullah said that's no jackass, that's my wife. Glad it worked out. Your Mullah Noodullah seems like a very stingy man and a clever liar. I like that in a Mullah. Do you think all Mullahs are like that? What about Mullah Omar is he a clever liar? What about the Ayatollahs, are they clever liars too? How about the one who runs Iran, do you think he is lying when he tells us it is anti-Islamic to have nuclear weapons and his government isn't trying to build one? What do you think all of those Russian scientists in Iran are doing there?
Complain about this comment
You obviously know nothing about Fox or O'rielly except propoganda. Give me evidence of any working for Fox leading thugs to physically intimidate anyone practicing the moslem(or any other) faith. Youcan't. That is what the Indonesian goverment allows. The Factor speaks against terrorost supporting moslems groups like CAIR and question why mainstream moslems here or around the world
don't condenm terrorism against non moslems.
As far as Thomas her vile hatread of Jews was excused because of her age just like the late Klansman Robert Byrd.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
So how would you define the vile that oozes from the likes of Rileys? A peaceful vile? you have soldiers aka legalised army of terrorists, killing the muslims, and you have likes of Rileys who not only ooze out the vile, but label all those few who are against this terrorism, as the supporters of terrorists, then you get, what you have got...Her vile hatered was just a comment, given by her to a fellow citizen about what she thought about the people outside of her country, something rileys frequently do..infact, they have gotten rich on this.....In your country, its considered okay to bash islam and muslims as you please...You incite the hatered against the muslims so generously and everywhere that it seems to be a part of your consititution... She was asked about her opinion, and she gave her opinion...but she and Mccrsytal both had to pay for speaking what they thought...Both of them punished and silenced and made to apologise just because the pathan in them just woke up...
Complain about this comment
Nasrudin nearly fell into a pool. A man whom he knew slightly was near and saved him. Every time he met Nasrudin after that he would remind him of the service which he had performed. When this had happened several times Nasrudin took him to the water, jumped in, stood with his head just above water and shouted: ‘Now I am as wet as I would have been if you had not saved me! Leave me alone.’
This is what europe should do everytime americans remind them how they helped europe to get rid of hitler..
Complain about this comment
My earlier explanation was simply a statement of historical fact, with no intention to justify or explain the moral ramifications of the West's relationship with Middle Eastern oil.
Stop trying to find conflict where there is none.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didnt made the conflict, Conflict was made between yours and hitler..You got the oil, and after a brief oil embargo on oil to the west in 70s, the west by pretending to be afraid of unknown threats (hitler is gone so they have to rely on invisible threats) have occupied politically and military all the areas which produce oil...YOu like the oil but you dont want people who have the right to use it, to use this oil, you want it all for yourselves...What have you given in return to those people? Nothing...I dont know if its because you have nothing to give or its because of your greedy nature..
Complain about this comment
colon artist;
I agree with you, if anyone is going to kill Muslims, it should be other Muslims. And they have proven that they are so much more efficient at it than we are. Why hardly a day goes by where somewhere whether it's in Pakistan or Afghanistan or Sudan or Iraq or Iran we don't have a spectacle of them killing each other in notable numbers that makes it on to the headlines of our news. Carry on.
Complain about this comment
#278 MagicKirin
RE links to "statistics that show how many Muslims condemn terrorism and how many non-Muslims condemn terrorism."
I couldn't find the %figures of condemnation in your link. Perhaps you can quote the relevant section from the article which appears to be an opinion piece rather than any kind of study.
Why are you pretending that the link you provided contains this comparative statistical data?
Complain about this comment
309. At 3:30pm on 05 Jul 2010, colonelartist wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I have traveled longitudinally and latitudinally across the earth, I talk to the enemies as I talk friends, I have gone to my favourite maderassea, then when to Christian seminaries both the sects, and graduated with flying colors..went to some other religious schools ..."
------------
Both sects?
Hmm. Christianity has at least a dozen major sects. Not clear to which two were you referring?
You have our condolences for your the many years of torture through which you have suffered. Perhaps better fortune awaits.
------------
In any case, you seem not to have caught the reference, and therefore to have missed the rather light-hearted point of the posting.
The reference was to the delightfully funny and very well known (or so I had thought) "Major General's Song" from the well loved Gilbert & Sullivan 1879 Operetta "Pirates of Penzance".
It may be that your favourite "maderassea" did not teach music and dance to quite that extent. "Penzance" is performed relatively frequently, as are two other G&S Operettas, "HMS Pinafore" and "The Mikado". "Penzance" is a lively and enjoyable work. You might give it a try some time.
Complain about this comment
It is time to for Obama to put pressure on Turjkey and force them to acknowledfe their fault in the conflict with Israel.
It is entirely the Turkey's PM's fault for this crisis not he threatans to break off relations
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those scared, frightened for their lives , well equipped idf soldiers somehow, in a miraculous manner managed to kill only the turkish citizens...They were scared, but not too scared to shoot to kill only the non-white looking aid workers...Now, what are the chances of happening this else where, its only happens in israel and with idf..When people were reporting deaths on that aid ship, I was wondering, and I quote, "hmm, and none of those killed would be whites"
Complain about this comment
316. At 4:05pm on 05 Jul 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
And how will you know whether the answer is truthful?
Complain about this comment
ref #317
So how would you define the vile that oozes from the likes of Rileys? A peaceful vile? you have soldiers aka legalised army of terrorists, killing the muslims, and you have likes of Rileys who not only ooze out the vile, but label all those few who are against this terrorism, as the supporters of terrorists, then you get, what you have got...Her vile hatered was just a comment, given by her to a fellow citizen about what she thought about the people outside of her country, something rileys frequently do..infact, they have gotten rich on this.....In your country, its considered okay to bash islam and muslims as you please...
_____________
You obviously know nothing about this country, one of the most tolerant and progressive in the history of civilization.
and you obviously have never watched Fox.
Complain about this comment
ref #323
Those scared, frightened for their lives , well equipped idf soldiers somehow, in a miraculous manner managed to kill only the turkish citizens...They were scared, but not too scared to shoot to kill only the non-white looking aid workers...Now, what are the chances of happening this else where, its only happens in israel and with idf..When people were reporting deaths on that aid ship, I was wondering, and I quote, "hmm, and none of those killed would be whites"
_____________
they were not aid workers they were part of a terrorist support group. Their spokesman Greta Berlen said before the voyage they wanted a confrontation.
If they want to deliver aid they should have agreed to the Israeli inspection.
A few years ago when the current PM was elected he tried to assuage fears he would be repsectful of other people. his true intolerance has come out and if he is gong to be disruptive he Turkey should be kicked out of Nato
Attaturk was right governing by islamic philosophy is not compatible with democracy or mordern thought.
Complain about this comment
Hmm. Christianity has at least a dozen major sects. Not clear to which two were you referring?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To me christianity has two sects, the sect I am afraid of and the sect I am not afraid of, the rest of the sects are just this and that...Who has the time to listen to gilbert and sullivan, when there is plenty of entertainment all free, in the real world...Entertainment, if its not pure entertainment is a pirate copy of reality...And I for one, am against pirate copies...I saw plenty of music and dance in the secular so called universties...I can talk to a mullah the way I can talk to the priest or as they call themselves in instituions, brother tom or father harry..and i can talk to an ignorant (as I do here) as comfortably as I talk to someone who actually knows more than me (which is almost non existant..
Complain about this comment
colon artist;
" well equipped idf soldiers somehow, in a miraculous manner managed to kill only the turkish citizens...They were scared, but not too scared to shoot to kill only the non-white looking aid workers.."
Those were the only ones on board who were trusted enough to carry guns.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
IF #324
"And how will you know whether the answer is truthful?"
Excellent question. If he tells me himslef then he might be telling the truth unless I discover he is actually a mullah himself in which case I'd have to assume he is lying unless he's a very poor one. It's like a sheet of paper that says on one side that everything on the opposite side is a lie and on the other side says everything on the opposite side is the truth. A connundrum inside an enigma wrapped in a riddle. It has no answer. There is no way to know. Both the question and the answer were pointless...except that I knew it all along. That was my intention. It's going to be around 100 degrees outside where I live today. I have a lot of time to kill and I decided to waste some of it here :0)
Complain about this comment
You obviously know nothing about this country, one of the most tolerant and progressive in the history of civilization.
and you obviously have never watched Fox.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. The tolarance and progression oozes out of riley and his likes every day...Go to every muslim country and you will find Fox news, they would ban aljazeera and other private channels of their own, but they never ban Fox..Its a great channel to recurit the so called terrorists..
Complain about this comment
One would think that anyone who considers himself to be a well-informed person would understand the basic functions of the comma and semicolon, as well as quotation marks and capitalization, and be able to use them correctly.
Complain about this comment
they were not aid workers they were part of a terrorist support group. Their spokesman Greta Berlen said before the voyage they wanted a confrontation.
If they want to deliver aid they should have agreed to the Israeli inspection.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, aid workers are never aid workers, they are always the terrorists, thats why taliban regularly target the aid agencies and kidnap aid workers..Thats why Iraqis targeted the UN headquarter in I believe it was august 2003 when UN decided to go there in pretext of aid after allowing the occupation to happen..The world had difficulties in accepting this fact when taliban or the iraqis targeted the aid workers, Now, I am sure no one will create a hoopla if aid workers are attacked...I have no problem in accepting isralien point of view that those aid workers were terrorists, if the world accepts that all aid workers, all kind of aid be it political or monetry, is an act of terrorism..No, pick and choose...Consistent..I have never given any aid to any aid agency and I will never ever give in future..Because organized aid agencies are all terrorists..However at this present age, where only islamic charities are labelled as terrorists, therefore I cannot be neutral as I cannot pick and choose according to what suits my view points,the jews charities always giving aid, so do the copyrighted aid organizations including that of UN, to me that doesnt make sense..So I have declared state of emergency on my personal point of view, and consider the aid to gaza as aid, nothing more and nothing less...Sue me if you can.
Complain about this comment
"And how will you know whether the answer is truthful?"
Excellent question. If he tells me himslef then he might be telling the truth unless I discover he is actually a mullah himself in which case I'd have to assume he is lying unless he's a very poor one. It's like a sheet of paper that says on one side that everything on the opposite side is a lie and on the other side says everything on the opposite side is the truth. A connundrum inside an enigma wrapped in a riddle. It has no answer. There is no way to know. Both the question and the answer were pointless...except that I knew it all along. That was my intention. It's going to be around 100 degrees outside where I live today. I have a lot of time to kill and I decided to waste some of it here :0)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a very typical conversation between the westerners, when they meet someone from east, these days a muslim, they want to reach the bottom of the things, want to know the absolute truth, while they go with the flow with their politicians..without bothering to enthusaitically chasing the truth...So, its the weather's fault that you dont chase after the truth from your politicians..."no time to grind the leaders so they can give a staright answer, the weather is too good"
Complain about this comment
One would think that anyone who considers himself to be a well-informed person would understand the basic functions of the comma and semicolon, as well as quotation marks and capitalization, and be able to use them correctly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was waiting for some genius like you to come and show his Einsteinship by pointing something to do with my killing your queen's english..The two christin sect schools I went to taught me all the complexity of this language and much more...But, when the language isnt mine, so its not..However whenever I go to meet the brothers and fathers of the instituions I went to, I speak perfect and when I correspond with them, I write perfect..It just happens, I think because of fear with repepect to the sect and I am afraid, and out of fondness when it comes to the sect I am not afraid of..
Complain about this comment
327. At 5:19pm on 05 Jul 2010, colonelartist wrote:
"To me christianity has two sects, the sect I am afraid of and the sect I am not afraid of, ..."
____________
Ah. If I understand your comment then I would conclude that each of Islam and Judaism also have these same two sects. Such is the greatness of God, perhaps.
Complain about this comment
329. At 5:23pm on 05 Jul 2010, you wrote:
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, it did not. It was an answer, and the question should also be removed because it broke the rule, all i did was to carry on the breakage..
Complain about this comment
Ah. If I understand your comment then I would conclude that each of Islam and Judaism also have these same two sects. Such is the greatness of God, perhaps.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can conclude whatever you want to conclude, my conclusion is based on my expearnces..Atleast I had the expeanrce, unlike you, who base his conclusion on what others tell you they believe...
Complain about this comment
colon artist;
They don't ban al jazeera here. Heck they don't even ban BBC and that's fifty times worse.
I don't have to try hard to get to the bottom of what politicians are about or what someone from the east is about, my instincts have served me well. I invariably have both accurately sized up within the first thirty seconds. The rest just serves to confirm my initial impression. For the politicians I just assume the worst and multiply by fifty. For someone from the....
Complain about this comment
I think it was Noel Coward who wrote "Only mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the noonday sun."
Complain about this comment
I don't have to try hard to get to the bottom of what politicians are about or what someone from the east is about, my instincts have served me well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
People who rely on their instincts, dont let themselves be irrational fears....Whether you admit it or not, but technology together with the western obession to somehow control the futur, has led them away from their instincts or the guts feelings, the evolution in your side of the world has taken a left turn from its orginal path..In the east, the intellect and gut insticts are still integrated...the thing you think is instinct is actually your brain telling you, nothing to do with the instints. The western society reacts in an amphbian way, step on a crocodile's tail and he will instantly react, and it thinks just through brain, short circut those brain cells and it fuses...
Complain about this comment
ref #331
As I said you have not watch Fox.
Liberals on a regular basis
Juan williams
Ellis Hennigan
Kristen Powers
alan colmes
Dr Lamont Hill
You are just so used to propoganda television that only take a pro palestinian/terrorist or pro leftist dictator bent you can recognize moderation
Complain about this comment
Colonelartist, I was referring to those whose first, or only, language is English. I realize my remark was imprecise, but isn't it a touch paranoid to jump automatically to the conclusion that it was directed personally at you? In fact, I paid no attention whatsoever to your grammar and usage because it is obvious your first language is not English.
Complain about this comment
Colonelartist, I was referring to those whose first, or only, language is English. I realize my remark was imprecise, but isn't it a touch paranoid to jump automatically to the conclusion that it was directed personally at you? In fact, I paid no attention whatsoever to your grammar and usage because it is obvious your first language is not English.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was not paranoia, but coincidence..I was actually reading one of my post, and wondering why no one has pointed out for killing the queen's english or amerikish..
Complain about this comment
As I said you have not watch Fox.
Liberals on a regular basis
Juan williams
Ellis Hennigan
Kristen Powers
alan colmes
Dr Lamont Hill
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
They all look the same, and say the same, some use one set of words whom you call liberals others use other sets of words, you call conservatives, on the tv screens in the muslim countries, they are all the same...convey the same message.
Complain about this comment
ref #345
colonelartist wrote:
As I said you have not watch Fox.
Liberals on a regular basis
Juan williams
Ellis Hennigan
Kristen Powers
alan colmes
Dr Lamont Hill
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
They all look the same, and say the same, some use one set of words whom you call liberals others use other sets of words, you call conservatives, on the tv screens in the muslim countries, they are all the same...convey the same message.
________
Colonist rules: everyone is the same and wrong unless:
they argree Islam is the only religion of peace
terrorism against Jews is acceptible
The U.S does nothing good
That a worldwide caliphate would be a good thing
Complain about this comment
Colonist rules: everyone is the same and wrong unless:
they argree Islam is the only religion of peace
terrorism against Jews is acceptible
The U.S does nothing good
That a worldwide caliphate would be a good thing
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do they have to talk about islam in the first place, they have enough issues of their own...they can support the jews all they want and plus some more, but not at the cost of palestinians and the muslims..when usa does something good they can talk all they want to, but they dont have to sit and lie about it, and the worldwise caliphate would be a good thing, any tom dick and harry should know this, alliances and cooperations are always good, if not, you wouldnt have NATO, or ISAF or EU..
Complain about this comment
ref 347
the worldwise caliphate would be a good thing, any tom dick and harry should know this, alliances and cooperations are always good, if not, you wouldnt have NATO, or ISAF or EU..
____________
To all women, gays, atheists non moslems Colonist thinks a worldwide caliphate would be a good thing.
How many woman want to wear Burkhas
How many want to obey the rules of inolerant Sharia
How many want to go back to the 12th century?
Complain about this comment
338. At 6:44pm on 05 Jul 2010, colonelartist wrote:
"You can conclude whatever you want to conclude, my conclusion is based on my expearnces..Atleast I had the expeanrce, unlike you, who base his conclusion on what others tell you they believe..."
____________
And up to now I had thought that religious Republicans were the ones who had the most trouble grasping ironic meaning.
Again, such, apparently, is the subtle greatness of God.
Complain about this comment
To all women, gays, atheists non moslems Colonist thinks a worldwide caliphate would be a good thing.
How many woman want to wear Burkhas
How many want to obey the rules of inolerant Sharia
How many want to go back to the 12th century?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To EU, its own laws, to caliphate its own....if west can ally and make and cooperate then, they shouldnt allow others not to make alliances...Do you ever find any muslim, even me, talking about alliances? its because we know that the strengh of a pack lies in a wolf and strengh of wolf is in its pack...
Complain about this comment
ref #350To EU, its own laws, to caliphate its own....if west can ally and make and cooperate then, they shouldnt allow others not to make alliances...Do you ever find any muslim, even me, talking about alliances? its because we know that the strengh of a pack lies in a wolf and strengh of wolf is in its pack...
The difference in the Calphate not all are eqaul under the law or do you think womanwant to listen to stone age metal defectives like the Ayatollahs or follws law of intolerance like Sharia.
As I stated earlier islamic law is not compatible with the modern world
Complain about this comment
colon artist, you reject Western technology and the Western civilization that gave rise to it. Do you renounce, disavow, and not use its benefits? Do you avoid all of its comforts, conveniences, and other advantages such as cell phones, personal computers, television, modern medicine, air conditioning, central heating, indoor plumbing, automotive vehicles as well? Clearly not or you wouldn't be here. So you want to be free to pick and choose which parts of it you accept and which parts you reject. It doesn't work that way, the whole thing comes as a pacakage deal. Most in the Muslim world accept it, desire it, rejoice in it, and want more of it. It is ironic that al Qaeda uses twenty-first century technology including cell phones, laptop computers, and the internet to try to revert the world back to the eleventh century. The only question that remains are who and how many will die in what is obviously going to be a doomed and violent effort towards that end.
Complain about this comment
The difference in the Calphate not all are eqaul under the law or do you think womanwant to listen to stone age metal defectives like the Ayatollahs or follws law of intolerance like Sharia.
As I stated earlier islamic law is not compatible with the modern world
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I said, to you your laws and to muslims theirs..The real difference is that there is no caliphate and you folks are scared of it, there is an alliance in europe and alliance of europe with usa, and muslims do not even think its something they shouldnt have...
Complain about this comment
colon artist;
Islam is in a state of internal conflict and has a stark choice to make. It can reconcile itself to coexist peacefully with the non Muslim world, adopt its technology, much of its culture, and adapt to the the way the rest of the world wants the twenty-first century unfold, or it can continue to resist and violently confront the other four fifths of humanity that is not and does not want to be Muslim and wants no part of Islamic doctrine ruling its life. If it chooses the latter, it faces a prolonged period of death, destruction, and agony and it will be seen by others as a pariah to be shunned, isolated, and quarrantined because it is simply to dangerous to engage and try to integrate with the rest of us.
Complain about this comment
Magic Kirin made a good point about Indonesia.
Was reading about how the Islamics there treated the Christians.
Would write more, but on this website it would likely be censored, despite the fact that they are facts.
As a female and as a Christian, I am incredibly beyond grateful to be in good ole' USA, where I am not hounded for my gender nor beliefs.
MK is right that Islamic laws or Sharia laws are only right for the Muslims and Islamic countries.
Complain about this comment
ref #353
And I said, to you your laws and to muslims theirs..The real difference is that there is no caliphate and you folks are scared of it, there is an alliance in europe and alliance of europe with usa, and muslims do not even think its something they shouldnt have...
________________
We see how opposition to primitive moslems laws is treated with violence.
Sharia law is a War Crime just like Nazism
Complain about this comment
ref #353
Yes we are scared of the threat of a world or a major power run as a Caliphate we should just as we scared by the threat of a Nazi regime.
Here is the difference I can criticize or even insult President Obama and that is my right and I could not be arrested or charged.
If I did the same in Iran to the ayatollahs who do not rule by the consent of the people I would be killed.
Because islamic governce is by defintion intolerant of opposition
Complain about this comment
353. At 10:37pm on 05 Jul 2010, colonelartist wrote:
"And I said, to you your laws and to muslims theirs..."
____________
This is, in essence, the same false logic upon which Southerners justified their "peculiar institution" of slavery.
It is a completely false parallel:
What about the rights of non-muslims in those countries?
Is a country to have one set of laws for Muslims, and another set of laws for Christians, and another set of laws for Hindus, and another set of laws for Jews, and perhaps no law at all for atheists?
Or are the laws of one religion to be imposed upon those who do not share that religion, such that those who do not share that religion, or who may follow no religion, are thereby second class citizens in their own land?
Or do we decree that everyone must have the same religion?
Is it not, however, the antithesis of religion when we try to tell people what they must believe, when they do not believe it? Does that not make a mockery of "belief"?
And if people do not believe in the religion, or believe something else, or interpret religious texts differently, then does God give us the right to compel these other people to bend to our will by force of arms? Was the Spanish Inquisition right after all?
Was it right to expel the Moors from Spain? Was it right to expel the Hugenots from France? When the Ulster Loyalists called for us to "Burn Them Out", should we have done it? Is that what God wanted us to do?
Was it right, then, to murder six million Jews? Is that a view you consider defensible? It is certainly one you have expressed here before.
Is that where justice lies? It that what God teaches us is right?
Does God tell us that our interpretation of his will is right, and theirs is wrong? Who determines which interpretation of God's will is correct? Or does our interpretation become correct merely by virtue of the fact that we can impose it with fire and sword upon others?
And is it right that in imposing our interpretation, that we should break God's most basic prohibition on behaviour? Why should I be permitted to impose my laws on you, simply because I say that my views are the word of God?
Should we go and re-fight the Thirty Years' War, this time on a global scale, just so that lesson, learned in blood by Europeans, can be re-taught?
At the end of the day, religious belief is neither an adequate nor an appropriate basis for a system of law. The Europeans spent the best part of 500 years learning the limits of religion as a basis for systems of law, at an enormous cost in blood. That is what gave rise to the Reformation, and it is why modern nation states developed out of the Age of Reason.
The "law" of this religion, or the "law" of that religion, is a nonsensical basis for rationale government. Indeed, by definition, it isn't "rational" government at all, but rather government that is, ultimately, based on ignorance, superstition and prejudice. All it amounts to is a humbug rationalization for the denial of basic human rights to tens of millions (indeed, hundreds of millions) of people.
Nations that have learned this lesson tend, by and large, to be prosperous and to provide fairly high levels of social justice and individual liberty to their populations.
Nations that have failed to learn this lesson include many of the World's poorest and most badly run countries, as well as many of its greatest tyrannies.
The contrast is stark.
Millions and millions of human beings have voted with their feet on that subject. Millions more would do the same if they had half a chance.
"And I said, to you your laws and to Muslims theirs..."
What total rot.
Complain about this comment
LucyJ;
"MK is right that Islamic laws or Sharia laws are only right for the Muslims and Islamic countries."
NO! Sharia law isn't right for anyone. It is cruel, inhuman, and barbaric. It is a direct violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that all Moslem nations signed up to. It is an anachronism that reverts to a notion of society over 1000 years old. It should be banned in all civilized societies and anyone who goes to a nation where it is operative should be warned that the do so at their own peril.
By allowing Sharia law courts to operate in its own country, Britain has betrayed its own sovereignty over itself and is in very real danger of losing its identity as a civilized society. It is on the road to becoming Britanistan, a part of Eurabia.
Complain about this comment
If you are not Islamic, it is a good idea to live in a different country than the ones with the Sharia law.
Complain about this comment
358 Interestedforeigner:
WOW! I like it.
Complain about this comment
355. At 11:25pm on 05 Jul 2010, LucyJ wrote:
"MK is right that Islamic laws or Sharia laws are only right for the Muslims and Islamic countries."
____________
Disagree.
Legal systems based on religion aren't right for any country.
They are at root based upon a profound denial of human rights.
A century and a half ago some countries still allowed slavery, and justified it as being part of their society, culture and laws.
We do not now say of slavery "that is their country, they can do as they please." On the contrary, we now regard slavery as abhorrent no matter where and no matter when.
The same kinds of facile rationales are trotted out to justify or excuse governments based on imposing a religious code on everybody by law.
This is a profound denial of some of the most basic of human rights:
the right to freedom of belief;
the right to freedom of conscience;
the right to freedom of association; and
the right to freedom of speech.
Depending on the religion and the religious code, it can also be a denial of
freedom from arbitrary arrest or imprisonment;
freedom from arbitrary search or seizure;
equal rights before the law for men and women; and
the rights of fundamental justice.
Either we hold these rights and freedoms dear, or we do not.
There is no substitute for the rule of law by and with the consent of the people, and all the civil rights that go along with it.
And just as we recognize that slavery is never justifiable or excusable, the denial of basic human rights that is part-and-parcel of government based on religion is never justifiable, whether in our own country, or in any other.
We tolerate the existence of religion-based governments for the same reason we tolerated the existence of Stalin: we know it's wrong, but as a practical matter there is little we can do about it other than wait for the collapse.
Nonetheless, government based on religion is, per se, a violation of human rights.
Complain about this comment
IF 358
You make a very good point.
Let's also remember, when we set out to 'bomb them back to the stone-age', it shouldn't come as any surprise the traumatized nation may emerge in a back-ward condition - I think through history this condition has arisen in cultures of all faiths.
It's also worth remembering that democracy is a government design to express the will of its people. The will of other peoples may not be consonant with our own, and we should be honest enough with ourselves to admit our claims of 'exporting democracy' are about as false as the logic that would have us believe it were even possible.
Complain about this comment
I know its different obviously, but I look at it as being similar to a gang or a rough neighborhood. As a white person, I know there are some parts of Chicago and other cities in which not to go into. It is simply not safe. Because the rough neighborhoods in our cities in USA are like this, then I can't even imagine the other countries. But it is about street smarts. You go to another country, you need country smarts.
Countries with Sharia law remind me of rough neighborhoods in Chicago.
Because I am white and Christian, I avoid both.
There's just some places you don't go.
Those "hikers" in Iraq/Iran who are now stuck in Iranian jail?
Ridiculous.
Who goes hiking in a war zone?
Complain about this comment
360. At 02:48am on 06 Jul 2010, LucyJ wrote:
"If you are not Islamic, it is a good idea to live in a different country than the ones with the Sharia law."
____________
But hold on. Not all believers in Islam believe in Sharia. Only a relatively small minority do, and even of those, there are different degrees of strictness and harshness of what various groups consider Sharia to mean.
Should the minority be able to for everyone else to do what they say?
To force them to move to another country?
Should I, or anybody else, be able to tell you "These are my religious beliefs. You do not agree with them, so you must leave the country"?
------------
And if you were hounded out, and no other country would take you legally, what would you do? You may not really have the option of picking up and moving that easily.
Maybe you have no money.
Maybe it is against the law for you to leave the house unless guarded by a male relative.
Maybe you don't speak any other language.
Maybe you have no access to a passport.
Maybe you have no formal schooling, and so you can't read or write.
Maybe it is against the law for women to drive a car, so you don't know how to do that, and you probably don't have access to a car anyway.
So you're going to spend the rest of your life wearing a black bag every time you leave your house.
Or, somehow, you're going to bribe somebody to smuggle you out so you can live as an illegal alien in some other country. And there's a fair chance that the people to whom you are paying the bribe are going to sell you into an unpleasant life when you get there, anyway.
Complain about this comment
So what if the people vote on an important issue and the judge tells them their votes don't count because they are unconstitutional?
For example, the gay marriage ban in Cali. The people of Cali voted to strike down gay marriage. Now there is a lawsuit against the people of Cali by special interest groups. The Cali people voted. So how could a judge declare people's votes unconstitutional?
If the people's votes don't count, then we cannot really call ourselves a democracy. Because that would mean that it doesn't matter what the people want. It is what the judge decides. What happens when the people are overruled?
Do we not have the right to vote how we want?
SO what if someone wants to vote for someone based on their age, gender or race? Don't we have the right to vote for who we want for whatever reasons we want?
Complain about this comment
If gay marriage was passed federally, how could we deny the freedom to marry to everyone else, including brothers and sisters, cousins and relatives, multiple wives, marriages to animals, child marriage, ect.?
If the USA is to be a Democracy, the people must vote on important issues. If the people are denied the right to vote or the people's votes don't count or are overruled, then that means we are not a Democracy.
The South wanted slavery a long time ago. Slavery clearly is wrong. This is why the war broke out. Both sides disagreed. The North won.
What happens when human rights clashes with religion?
The Bible says gay marriage is wrong, which is why I am against it.
Does my Christian beliefs mean my vote can be overruled?
Are Christian beliefs now unconstitutional, despite the fact that mostly Christians founded our country?
Complain about this comment
IF wrote: Not all believers in Islam believe in Sharia.
And no, not all Muslims are terrorists.
Just that majority of present day terrorists happen to be believers in the "the great religion of peace".
"Oh, Canada!" :(((
Complain about this comment
MAII wrote: "By allowing Sharia law courts to operate in its own country, Britain has betrayed its own sovereignty over itself and is in very real danger of losing its identity as a civilized society. It is on the road to becoming Britanistan, a part of Eurabia."
I think this gives us quite a clear insight into this person's mind. Where did you read this valuable piece of information MAII, Republican Fundamentalist Weekly?
Every comment you make is ill-considered and reactionary, and the majority are frighteningly inaccurate. Honestly, is this what you believe? Is that what some of your media (FoxNews?) is telling you? Good lord, You should be embarrassed, but I know to expect abuse.
Complain about this comment
366 & 367.
Lucy raises important questions in a democracy about the protection of the rights of individuals and minorities against the will of the majority.
This deserves a response, but it is going to have to wait until the end of the day, or perhaps until tomorrow.
In the meantime, no, your Christian beliefs are not "unconstitutional". On the contrary, the Constitution stands as a bulwark to protect your right to hold those beliefs, or to hold no beliefs at all.
At the same time it stands as protection that others (i.e., the state) cannot impose religious beliefs upon you, and you can not impose (i.e., through the state) your religious beliefs upon other.
This is an very wise part of the Constitution, and America could not have come together without it.
Complain about this comment
It is a completely false parallel:
What about the rights of non-muslims in those countries?
Is a country to have one set of laws for Muslims, and another set of laws for Christians, and another set of laws for Hindus, and another set of laws for Jews, and perhaps no law at all for atheists?
Or are the laws of one religion to be imposed upon those who do not share that religion, such that those who do not share that religion, or who may follow no religion, are thereby second class citizens in their own land?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Show me a country where minorities arent satisfied with the laws of the majority? Even in your beloved countries of the west, the minorities regularly complain about it, its for northing prisons in usa are filled with minorities...or do you really still believe in the racist socioal darwinism that somehow blacks commited more crimes than whites..Yes, a country should have one set of laws for muslims and other sets of laws for christians and whatever other minorities are...You dont want christians to have more than one wife, just because they live in an islamic state, now do you? its against their religon.If I was a non muslim living in a muslim country, I wouldnt want to pay zakat, I wouldnt want to join the army to defend the country, I would want to pay a certain amount of tax so that the state could protect me..The non muslims in muslim countries are as much a second class citizens as non whites are in the west..
Complain about this comment
Here is the difference I can criticize or even insult President Obama and that is my right and I could not be arrested or charged.
If I did the same in Iran to the ayatollahs who do not rule by the consent of the people I would be killed.
Because islamic governce is by defintion intolerant of opposition
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have just copied and pasted what I said about you folks three weeks ago...The only difference is that I gave you the example of north korea and you have come up with Iran...As far as your pathetic attempt to equate sharia with nazism is concerned, then your fears are as baseless as they were about WMD, if you are really afraid of nazism then you should have been scared of democracy, it was the democracy, the will of the people which brought hitler and his philosophy of nazism into power, not sharia laws.. you have no qualm against democracy, the system that is the only cause for nazism, but seems to be proud of what it can do..
128. At 9:27pm on 23 Jun 2010, you wrote:
..its not that mcchrystle woke up one day or that his lack of sleep made him say all those words he said about those people..He was asked and he replied, just like that once beloved reporter in the white house..Obomba was happy that she resigned too...i guess now americans will defend the propoganda in which they live, by saying that that unlike north koreans we dont kill whoever speaks against the government's policy, we just make them resgin...
Complain about this comment
Colonelartist, I believe the minorities are happy with the laws in the UK. They may not be happy with the policing of the laws, and they may not be happy with the social conditions that mean minorities are over-represented in the prison system, but that does not equate to being unhappy with the law.
Complain about this comment
Colonelartist, I believe the minorities are happy with the laws in the UK. They may not be happy with the policing of the laws, and they may not be happy with the social conditions that mean minorities are over-represented in the prison system, but that does not equate to being unhappy with the law.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And that goes for the minorities in the islamic countries,now try to able explain this to your fellow westerners..They start with sharia law and end up talking about social issues...
Complain about this comment
#367 LucyJ:
"If gay marriage was passed federally, how could we deny the freedom to marry to everyone else, including brothers and sisters, cousins and relatives, multiple wives, marriages to animals, child marriage, ect.?"
You're of course free to disapprove of gay marriage but you might want to come up with a better argument than that if you want to convince others to agree with you.
I, for one, see no contradiction with allowing marriage between two unrelated, unmarried adults of the same gender while still disallowing marriage between people who share one or more parents, or are already married to someone else, or to something incapable of understanding the significance of what they are doing or to someone under a minimum age of maturity.
"Are Christian beliefs now unconstitutional, despite the fact that mostly Christians founded our country?"
They may have been Christians but I was under the impression that your country was founded on the principle of freedom of religion rather than as a specifically Christian country.
Complain about this comment
They may have been Christians but I was under the impression that your country was founded on the principle of freedom of religion rather than as a specifically Christian country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
They dont know why their country was liberated, who liberated them, what reasons they used to start the rebellion against the empire, they dont know what the real reasons were of their civil war....fast forward, they dont know why iraq was invaded, dont know why afghanistan was invaded, dont know how to withdraw, all they know is just fight, and thats what they have been doing and are doing and will be doing unless they are stopped..
Complain about this comment
Chunk.. (#375): "They may have been Christians but I was under the impression that your country was founded on the principle of freedom of religion rather than as a specifically Christian country."
You are correct. Although John Adams and most of the founding fathers were Christians of one sort of another, the United States is formally secular. Here is a link to a summary of the religion views of John Adams:
http://www.adherents.com/people/pa/John_Adams.html
Here is a quotation from the above linked document which is sometimes attributed to Adams, but which seems to have been written by Joel Barlow during the Washington presidency:
"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion ..." (from the Treaty of Peace and Friendship with Tripoli, ratified during the presidency of John Adams)
Complain about this comment
296 AllenT2 Wrote
America was helping Britain long before it formally entered the war.
Yes,helping "for prophet". Lend Lease..Marshal Plan.Britain had to buy US help and yes are still paying for it. Example: had to allow Fords to manufacture cars in England,then a multitude of US commercial enterprises where allowed in, and allowed to swallow up or put out of business with ruthless capitalism established and proud British businesses.
Consequently the fabric of British culture is being "americanised". Who knows,with a German takeover the UK may have retained what was.
Complain about this comment
128. At 9:27pm on 23 Jun 2010, you wrote:
..its not that mcchrystle woke up one day or that his lack of sleep made him say all those words he said about those people..He was asked and he replied, just like that once beloved reporter in the white house..Obomba was happy that she resigned too...i guess now americans will defend the propoganda in which they live, by saying that that unlike north koreans we dont kill whoever speaks against the government's policy, we just make them resgin...
*****************
Correction..I did not write this
Complain about this comment
What does it say on our money?
Under God.
Not under Allah. Not under Buddha. Not under Wicca.
Under God.
What does it say in our Pledge of Allegience?
One Nation, under God.
God Bless America.
Even Great Britain has God Save the Queen.
Not Allah Save the Queen. Not Buddha save the Queen. Not Wicca Save the Queen.
If the federal court did rule that gay couple could get married, then cousins and brothers and sisters are next. Then, multiple wives and partners. Then child brides. Basically, special interest groups are trying to take away all our morals and values.
I rest my case.
Complain about this comment
Typical offensive blather from LucyJ (post #380). The use of "God" in what is known as "ceremonial deism" in such places as on US currency is non-specific to any religion, so includes both Christian and Muslim (or any other religion) concepts of God. Buddhists do not consider the Buddha to be God, so this has no relevance.
Complain about this comment
349. At 9:23pm on 05 Jul 2010, Interestedforeigner
Aye, matey, strike while the irony is hot!
Complain about this comment
Some ultraliberals believe that only ultraliberals should be allowed to speak their mind. If someone has another point of view, it is hard for some ultraliberals to acknowledge that we do not all feel the same. Some ultraliberals think they are better than everyone else and that only they deserve the right to speak.
In USA, anyone can speak their mind. Its called freedom of speech.
You do not have to like what the other person is saying. However, you have to accept that every person has the right to freedom of speech.
Maybe I don't like things other people say sometimes, (Attorney General Holder, Rev. Wright) but I accept it because it is freedom of speech.
Again, you do not have to like what I say, but you have to accept that I have just as much of a right as you to speak freely.
Complain about this comment
I was going to make a long response to Lucy's comments at 366 and 367, but there is not time left in the day. Maybe the place to start is by enrolling in a course in US Constitutional Law at a reasonably reputable law school.
The following interspersed comments start from the basic cornerstone of US law, the Constitution of the United States. All law in the US flows from, and is subordinate to, that document.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land; it is the yardstick against which all other laws are tested. No statute can overrule the Constitution, and no statue can trench upon rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
The Constitution can be changed by voters, but because it is the cornerstone of American law it cannot be changed very easily. Nonetheless, with enough votes, and ratification of enough states, the voters can, if they are sufficiently determined, overturn freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from arbitrary arrest; freedom from arbitrary search and seizure ...
In the meantime, Constitutionally guaranteed rights cannot be overturned by either a state legislature or by voters in a referendum
Thus:
366. At 04:41am on 06 Jul 2010, LucyJ wrote:
"For example, the gay marriage ban in Cali. The people of Cali voted to strike down gay marriage. Now there is a lawsuit against the people of Cali by special interest groups. The Cali people voted. So how could a judge declare people's votes unconstitutional?"
[[It is not their votes that are unconstitutional. It is the measures that are proposed for enactment. If those measures impinge upon Constitutionally guaranteed rights, or breach provisions of the Constitution in any way, they are unconstitutional whether they have been passed by the legislature, or whether they have been passed in referenda. It makes no difference. Neither the Legislature, nor the voters can overrule the Constitution by the passage of an ordinary statute.]]
"If the people's votes don't count, then we cannot really call ourselves a democracy. Because that would mean that it doesn't matter what the people want. It is what the judge decides. What happens when the people are overruled?"
[[People's votes do count. Part of what voters agreed was that the Constitution would be the supreme law of the land. And that takes priority, unless voters and their elected representatives change the Constitution. That's how we prevent mob rule.]]
"Do we not have the right to vote how we want?"
SO what if someone wants to vote for someone based on their age, gender or race? Don't we have the right to vote for who we want for whatever reasons we want?
[[ Yes, ultimately, you do. But no matter what, unless voters follow the defined process for amending the Constitution, if you vote in favour of an unconstitutional measure, it is still unconstitutional. ]]
367. At 04:53am on 06 Jul 2010, LucyJ wrote:
"If gay marriage was passed federally, how could we deny the freedom to marry to everyone else, including brothers and sisters, cousins and relatives, multiple wives, marriages to animals, child marriage, ect.?"
[[That is the public policy can of worms opened by the decision to permit gay marriage. It clearly brings into question, for example, the right of the state to prohibit polygamy between consenting adults absent deceit or coercion.
There are substantive economic issues here, however, and to the extent that gays are financially disadvantaged, a law that prevents even as much as civil unions is likely to give rise to substantive injustice in terms of the tax treatment of individuals and couples. No matter how you feel about the definition of the word "marriage", it is starkly and manifestly unjust to deny people equal benefit of the law in terms of taxes and benefits. ]]
"If the USA is to be a Democracy, the people must vote on important issues. If the people are denied the right to vote or the people's votes don't count or are overruled, then that means we are not a Democracy."
[[No, it doesn't. It means that people voted for something inconsistent with the Constitution. If they don't like that, then, as noted above, they can, ultimately, amend the Constitution.]]
------------
"What happens when human rights clashes with religion?"
[[ Freedom of Religion guarantees you the right to worship in your own faith. It does not allow you or anyone else to impose your religion, or its system of beliefs, on others through the machinery of the state. The state cannot ever deprive any citizen of their human rights other than in accordance with law, and one individual's religious beliefs can never provide a basis for depriving his neighbour of human rights.]]
"The Bible says gay marriage is wrong, which is why I am against it.
Does my Christian beliefs mean my vote can be overruled?"
[[You can vote however you may please, but religious belief cannot form a basis for state action contrary to the Constitution. If that is unacceptable, then you need to amend the Constitution.]]
"Are Christian beliefs now unconstitutional, despite the fact that mostly Christians founded our country?"
[[As noted far above, no, Christian beliefs are not unconstitutional, rather, you right to worship according to your own beliefs is guaranteed by the Constitution. Those beliefs, however, cannot drive state action.]]
[[We should all be thankful for this.
You may think this is wrong, because you want to ban gay marriage. But the same constitutional safeguards apply to prevent other people from voting to keep women from receiving schooling, voting to provide alternate supposedly "separate-but-equal" public services for black children, and so on. Do you really want you neighbours to be able to vote to force you to wear a black bag outside all day long, and require that you be guarded by your male relatives at all times?
It is this that prevents your neighbours from voting to have you stoned to death or burnt at the stake, or to be compelled to wear a black cloth bag every time you venture out of your house and to live your life as little better than a chattel of your male relatives.]]
Complain about this comment
Lucy: "Even Great Britain has God Save the Queen."
And we have "In God we trust".
On our greenbacks, whose value vis-vis mighty euro is increasing.
[although I don't think it has anything to do with faith]
Complain about this comment
128. At 9:27pm on 23 Jun 2010, you wrote:
..its not that mcchrystle woke up one day or that his lack of sleep made him say all those words he said about those people..He was asked and he replied, just like that once beloved reporter in the white house..Obomba was happy that she resigned too...i guess now americans will defend the propoganda in which they live, by saying that that unlike north koreans we dont kill whoever speaks against the government's policy, we just make them resgin...
*****************
Correction..I did not write this
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Genius Emp, who would think that you wrote this, I wrote it on 23 june, long before MagicKirin wrote the post below....if you had bothered to put the posts in context, you wouuld have to make the correction....I guess, people here, keep on writing new posts without bothering to remember what they or other posters wrote previously...
357. At 00:35am on 06 Jul 2010, MagicKirin wrote:
ref #353
Yes we are scared of the threat of a world or a major power run as a Caliphate we should just as we scared by the threat of a Nazi regime.
Here is the difference I can criticize or even insult President Obama and that is my right and I could not be arrested or charged.
If I did the same in Iran to the ayatollahs who do not rule by the consent of the people I would be killed.
Complain about this comment
Marriage is a religous tradition, the so called political separatists took it right from the bible...If you dont believe in bible or church or any other religon, you dont have to get married at all...Ask your politicians to give every couple or family living toghether without the cermony to give them the same rights as the married couple with family have....the whole issue would be solved for your society...You can live like your ancestors of stone age or copper age or cave age, live with anyone for as long or short you want to...
Complain about this comment
And I suggest to the americans and everyone else, who currently boast that they are united and that they dont have any internal issues on which they can behave in a manner that muslims are doing, "muslims killing muslims" and all that stuff they ooze against islam, which infact are mere social issues, to start praying and to stop messing in other countries in the name of freedom, to start praying that they never be occupied, because the occupying forces will have an easy job in dividing you all in no time...and then you will see and expearnce what you now point your fingures at disgustingly...
Complain about this comment
"What happens when human rights clashes with religion?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every religon teaches human rights, so the myth about clashes between human rights with religon is based on false presmises...Religon clashes with the human impulses..The first mistake or evil act of UN was to make this hokus pokus international human right charter...UN is just UN, it was founded to solve the conflicts not create conflicts..
Complain about this comment
380. At 01:41am on 07 Jul 2010, LucyJ wrote:
"What does it say on our money?
Under God."
"Not under Allah. Not under Buddha. Not under Wicca."
"Under God."
"What does it say in our Pledge of Allegience?
One Nation, under God."
[[ Be that as it may, Gary has already provided the definitive response to this comment at 381, above. I would simply add that neither the inscription on the currency nor the "Pledge of Allegiance" is the basis of US law. The constitution of the United States is the basis of US law, and its only mention of religion is a prohibition on state religion. This was a wise choice that has served the United States extremely well. ]]
"The Bible says gay marriage is wrong, which is why I am against it.
Does my Christian beliefs mean my vote can be overruled?"
"If the federal court did rule that gay couple could get married, then cousins and brothers and sisters are next. Then, multiple wives and partners. Then child brides. Basically, special interest groups are trying to take away all our morals and values."
----------
"Do we not have the right to vote how we want?"
"SO what if someone wants to vote for someone based on their age, gender or race? Don't we have the right to vote for who we want for whatever reasons we want?"
------------
[[ Well, yes, you can vote however you please.
But you might want to ask yourself why you beleive that age, gender, race, or religious belief is a sufficient basis to make a public policy choice.
The founders of the United States believed, above all, in government based on reason.
Public policy based on reason can be probed and challenged by enlightened public discussion between men and women of goodwill.
To vote on the basis of religious belief "because the Bible tell me so" is simply an abnegation of the fundamental concept at the root of American democracy. That is not reason. It is unthinking dogma.
Sure, the Constitution guarantees you the right to do that, if you want. But aren't you even a bit ashamed to admit that in public? That you have no actual logical basis or reason that can be rationally supported and defended in the marketplace of ideas?
In a democracy where statutes reflect public policy, it is indefensible that a law can be enacted on the basis of religious beliefs and imposed on other citizens who do not share those beliefs. That simply cannot be an adequate basis to justify the public effort and expense of bringing the machinery of the state to bear.
----------
What about our "morals and values", about which you express concern?
Morality is an extremely slippery and dangerous basis for public policy - according to the morality of some, for you to kiss your boyfriend on the beach merits the intervention of the state to administer corporal punishment. For others you should not be allowed to go out in public showing bare arms. According to others, every strand of a woman's hair should be covered. According to others your entire body should be covered. Of course these requirements do not apply to men.
And if you fail to meet their views on "morality" it is perfectly acceptable that you be flogged with a rattan stick across the legs and back (Rattan cane = more or less a hockey stick with half buried staples. It will cause bleeding for sure, and may often cause permanent disfigurement and injury.)
160 years ago people in Sourthern states complained about the lack of morality of Northerners who refused to enforce the fugitive slave laws. Were those northerners not immorally coluding with those who would steal a man's property? Is not theft, or, really, conversion of property, immoral?
How about breach of promise of marriage? Is that not immoral?
Good heavens, even Abraham Lincoln sought to go back on a promise of marriage by making a formal marriage proposal that was so unattractive that no woman would accept it.
Do we still consider "breach of promise of marriage" to be an offense sufficient to justify the intervention of the state? If you get to the alter and decide not to do it, should the state fine or imprison you for backing out?
How about failing to pay the bride price, or failing to deliver the promised dowry? Immoral? A fair number of women are burned to death in "cooking fires" each year when this happens. Does that kind of morality suit you?
There is a very good film entitled "Le Retour de Martin Guerre". It stars Gerard Depardieu and Nathalie Baye. A woman is abandoned by her husband. He goes off to war. For eight years she hears not a word from him, not even whether he is alive or dead. How long must she wait? When do his rights over her end? What is the underlying morality of the era in which the story is set (the 13th century)? Do we have the same morality today?
Keep in mind that the situation in "Martin Guerre" is exactly the situation of Benjamin Franklin, who lived with his common law wife Deborah Reed for 40(?) odd years and had two(?) children by her. Were they "living in sin"? Was it immoral? Should they have been subject to the intervention of the state by way of fine or imprisonment?
(Apparently people in Franklin's time were not as hung up on "morality" as we seem to be.)
Should abortion be against the law? A generation ago a lot of people thoughts so, in many countries many people still do. They justify their views on the basis of religious belief, and on the basis of their "morals". But other people hold very strong moral views that abortion should be universally available to all women as each one may see fit. Should one group's view of "morality" prevail over the other? On what logical basis?
I am reminded of the then-scandalous book "Peyton Place". Scandalous and immoral? Well that didn't seem to stop an awful lot of people from buying the book, and the TV show was the most watched of its day.
In many of the examples above, some of us consider the kinds of "morality" on display to be utterly lacking in any kind of morality at all.
------------
The point is that your neighbour's morality may not be the same as yours, and you may not wish it imposed upon you. In your view your neighbour's "morality" may be utterly lacking in any concept of rational justice or fairness. And, as the examples above may have demonstrated, notions of morality change fairly substantially over time.
What we come to recognize, eventually, is that "morality", without some logical underpinning, is simply not an adequate basis for the formation of public policy. On the contrary, it may often work great injustice.
At the end of the day, the state has no business attempting to legislate morality. As one previous Minister of Justice put it, as between consenting adults, "The government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation."
------------
What do we do instead?
By and large, from about 1830 onward, the principle has gradually taken hold in the English speaking world, if not elsewhere, that government intervention by statute and by consequent enforcement, is not justified other than to prevent or correct actual, demonstrable harm, and we do not invoke the powers of the state over citizens unless there is a rational, logically defensible basis for doing so.
"The Bible tells me so" or "It's in the Koran" simply do not even begin to meet that standard.
In a democracy based upon reason and the rule of law, to say "I am against (or for)" this policy or that policy because "it says so in the Bible" is simply to abdicate your responsibilities as a citizen.
Don't you have a higher duty to your country than that?
Complain about this comment
colonelartist:
I can see you're on a bit of a tear here, and have probably been driven to it by the nature of some comments, but I wanted to let you know that while I don't accept "fundamentalist" approaches to either faiths or governments, I do appreciate the good nature, wit, and even inconvenient truths you bring to your posts.
Complain about this comment
"The Bible tells me so" or "It's in the Koran" simply do not even begin to meet that standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When it is in Koran, it is in Koran...No, ifs and buts...If someone wants to know why is it in koran, then he has to start thinking....and it usually leads back to what is in koran..When people can blindfoldlig believe in rumsfeld's philosophy of known known and known unkowns and unkowns known, then people can easily believe in the knowns of the unkwown of koran..Whether you like it or not, but its forbidden in islam via koran which is the word of the creator, who knows the unknown, so is eating meat of dead animals or sick or injured or the pig or those animals who eat meat...However, alcohol which everyone generously assumes is forbidden, is not...its a recommendation....to have more then one wives is a permission, not a recommendation, Jihad becomes an obligation under certain conditions and is permitted in other circumstances, provided all other measures have been sincerly exausted....
Complain about this comment
By and large, from about 1830 onward, the principle has gradually taken hold in the English speaking world, if not elsewhere, that government intervention by statute and by consequent enforcement, is not justified other than to prevent or correct actual, demonstrable harm, and we do not invoke the powers of the state over citizens unless there is a rational, logically defensible basis for doing so.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
And fastward 2001 and onwards...When there are no honest checks and balances, a twisting of the little fingure and become the strangling of throat and you get what you have got...Bottom line is, the church still controls its worshipers, the politicians still control the citizens, and the royals still control the serfs...And some countries, the so called democratic ones have all these three fully intact...and cooperates with each other...Each controlling their worshippers, citizens and serfs...this is called according to me, meta-cooperation among the high powers...
Complain about this comment
Further to Lucy at 380.
As a rather timely example, when you move away from a system of law based on reason, to one based on religious dogma, an example of what you may end up with as a substitute is the incoherent gibberish posted at 392, 393.
Which would you rather have?
Complain about this comment
As a rather timely example, when you move away from a system of law based on reason, to one based on religious dogma, an example of what you may end up with as a substitute is the incoherent gibberish posted at 392, 393.
Which would you rather have?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Was it the dogma or the reason that led you to attack afghanistan, and iraq? you all wonderfully reasoned to invade both countries....the collective reasoning of the non believers united as one nation under G-d....
Complain about this comment
InterestedForeigner (#394): "... the incoherent gibberish posted at 392, 393."
Perhaps the "colonel" doesn't adhere to the recommendation about alcohol.
Complain about this comment
386. At 2:50pm on 07 Jul 2010, colonelartist wrote:
128. At 9:27pm on 23 Jun 2010, you wrote:
..its not that mcchrystle woke up one day or that his lack of sleep made him say all those words he said about those people..He was asked and he replied, just like that once beloved reporter in the white house..Obomba was happy that she resigned too...i guess now americans will defend the propoganda in which they live, by saying that that unlike north koreans we dont kill whoever speaks against the government's policy, we just make them resgin...
*****************
Correction..I did not write this
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Genius Emp, who would think that you wrote this, I wrote it on 23 june, long before MagicKirin wrote the post below....if you had bothered to put the posts in context, you wouuld have to make the correction....I guess, people here, keep on writing new posts without bothering to remember what they or other posters wrote previously...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It reads "you" on my screen that word means "me..myself".
I say i did not write that comment,it stands. I dont know what ur talking about. Salutation isnt necessary,no need to call me genious.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps the "colonel" doesn't adhere to the recommendation about alcohol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The colonel is scared of spending even one second in hell...Life after death I am only afraid of that...Life before death I am only afraid of chruch of england...Genius, that small explaination was for your benefits , just a small illustration, that islam is not just any other religon..it is for the people who reflect and can reflect, but also for those who do not reflect and wont reflect...unlike your thinker, writer philosopher the guy whom you quote "I think therefore I am" little did he reflect on that .....There are millions and millions who dont think but still are...
Complain about this comment
It reads "you" on my screen that word means "me..myself".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It reads "you" on my screen and finally I know that "you" means emps....they say Einstein had some problems of this sort....He was ein-stein, you seem to be zweistein ....
Complain about this comment
380 LucyJ:
"What does it say on our money?
Under God.
Not under Allah. Not under Buddha. Not under Wicca.
Under God."
_______________________________
Lucy, Allah = God. It's the same thing, both religions are monotheistic (they believe in one God/Allah). It's just that the people from Arab geographies have the audacity to not speak English exclusively and have their own language, inconveniently it's called 'Arabic' and in that language they call God 'Allah'.
You happen to have been born in the US so you are taught your God is the the true God and your equivalent in the Arab world (let's call her 'FatimaJ') thinks Allah is the one true God.
In reality it's just a set of unproven beliefs that unbelievably people have been killing each other over for thousands of years and before the Christian God vs. the Moslem's God (i.e. same God vs. same God but with different title) it was the Roman Gods vs. the Greek Gods and Egyptian Gods vs. the Persian Gods etc, etc...
Complain about this comment
To Int. For.
Are we really a country of laws?
I have trusted in our laws for years, although I do believe that marijuana should be legalized or decriminalized. What harm is there from a simple little natural plant made by God?
But now things have changed.
Some say "Oh, Reagan gave citizenship to illegals. So why can't Obama?"
Reagan gave citizenship to only about three million, when our economy was decent. Reagan also believed that ketchup was a vegetable.
Ironically, Reagan was born and raised in Illinois.
Now it is not three million. It is tens of millions upon millions of illegals entering our country and demanding citizenship.
Our President, under pressure from foreign powers, is bowing to their demands. He wants to give the tens of millions of people in our country illegally citizenship. He wants to reward foreign criminals.
Here, it's alright. You can have our country.
Ha ha! The states are powerless.
If our own President does not believe that foreigners have to follow the laws, then why should we?
Complain about this comment
There's nothing like hearing words about the "False Prophet."
Also known as the "Great Deciever."
Complain about this comment
"The colonel is scared of spending even one second in hell..."
[[Don't worry, it can't be any worse than attending a madrassa or a seminary, and you've already survived that.]]
"Life before death I am only afraid of chruch of england..."
[[ Afraid of the C of E?
Obviously you lack Scots ancestors, otherwise you'd be more concerned about arriving at Heaven and finding the place run by Presbyterians: hard beds, cold water for showers, cold oatmeal (forget about cinnamon or brown sugar), the whole place cold, draughty and damp. No shortage of fire & brimstone, though... ]]
Complain about this comment
401. At 00:20am on 08 Jul 2010, LucyJ wrote:
Are we really a country of laws?
[[Very much so.]]
I have trusted in our laws for years, although I do believe that marijuana should be legalized or decriminalized. What harm is there from a simple little natural plant made by God?
[[Well we've certainly had plenty of problems with tobacco, and the same comment could be made about another "simple little natural plant", the poppy, from which opiates are made.]]
"But now things have changed."
"Some say "Oh, Reagan gave citizenship to illegals. So why can't Obama?"
Reagan gave citizenship to only about three million, when our economy was decent. Reagan also believed that ketchup was a vegetable.
Ironically, Reagan was born and raised in Illinois."
"Now it is not three million. It is tens of millions upon millions of illegals entering our country and demanding citizenship."
[[Not sure that they're demanding citizenship. They are clearly looking for jobs, though. It isn't "tens of millions". The estimates vary but the best guess seems to be about 11 million. That sounds like a lot, but against the backdrop of a population of 310 million, it really isn't all that many.]]
"Our President, under pressure from foreign powers, is bowing to their demands. He wants to give the tens of millions of people in our country illegally citizenship. He wants to reward foreign criminals."
[[No, that's not true. He isn't bowing to anybody's demands. He, like President GW Bush, Senator McCain, and others before them - including President Reagan, as you point out - is simply struggling with finding a practical solution to a difficult problem.]]
Here, it's alright. You can have our country.
Ha ha! The states are powerless.
[[Well, its that thing about the Constitution being the foundation law of the country.
One thing President Obama has done better than any other President in my lifetime is to stand up for the Constitution of the United States - and he does it when doing it is extremely unpopular. That is exactly when defending and protecting the Constitution of the United States is most important. Anybody can do it when it's easy or popular. He's doing it, like Atticus Finch, when the mob is baying for blood.
Good for him. It is his duty. That's what the Presidential Oath of Office is about. ]]
"If our own President does not believe that foreigners have to follow the laws, then why should we?"
[[No, that's not true. The President does not believe that foreigners do not have to obey the law. The President has not actually laid out any policy. He seems to be waiting for the Senate.
But you can bet that both the President and the Senate are going to try to come up with a solution that brings illegal aliens out of the black economy and into the legitimate economy where they can be regulated and taxed, and where they can cross the border in both directions without having to bribe people and without having to live in fear. That would eliminate many, many evils, and much really violent and dangerous criminal activity. Any solution that fails to do those things is simply a waste of time, in my opinion.]]
Complain about this comment
In other words, open border and amnesty???
Thanks, but no thanks.
Complain about this comment
405. At 03:33am on 08 Jul 2010, LucyJ wrote:
"In other words, open border and amnesty???"
"Thanks, but no thanks."
__________
No.
Devote appropriate resources to patrolling the border.
At the same time, try temporary work permits that do not give a right of permanent residency, i.e., everybody knows, going in, that this is a right to temporary presence in the US to work for X; that require a sponsor (which may be an employer, but that can give rise to abuses, too), that require periodic renewal, e.g., once a year; that require accurate information on address of (temporary) residence in the US and permanent address in the country of origin; name and address of employer, and so on. Make it easy to stick to the rules, so that nobody has an incentive not to. If they don't stick to the rules, the permit is canceled.
This would sharply reduce the parasitic costs of illegal immigration, and reduce the force that drives most of the real criminality. It would also make sure that "guest" workers' wages and benefits are properly taxed and it would go some distance to preventing the guest workers from being so vulnerable to abuse. This would tend to see that a higher proportion of the economic benefits of these workers being in America would flow to the American economy more generally.
The number of these permits has to be realistic, and they have to be relatively easy to obtain or it won't work. What you are trying to do is to remove or to reduce the pressures that provide the enormous economic opportunities to the people smugglers. Those guys, and all the violence and criminal behaviour they drive, are who and what you most want to put out of business. You want to dry up their market.
But the people on temporary permits are not going to be part of the stream that leads to immigration on a permanent basis. If people want to do that, then they need to go back home and apply in the normal course like everybody else.
Complain about this comment
Imagine that.
There I was posting about the foolishness of attempting to legislate religion or morals, and the government of Iran comes along quite helpfully with about as ridiculous an example as you could wish for:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10527088.stm
"The imposition of headscarves is deeply resented by more liberal-minded women. Now the government is tightening up on men's hair as well."
"The Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance has published a guide to men's hairstyles. Short, neat hair is approved; ponytails are definitely not."
Ah, those zany, madcap mullahs in the Majlis.
It's like some kind of bad 1960's musical, and if it weren't in the news, you'd swear somebody had made it up as self-parody.
Classic. Absolutely classic.
Complain about this comment
Iran takes away people's satellite dishes all the time.
Iran also bans people from having cats and dogs in their homes.
Complain about this comment
Gosh. Twice in one day. How obliging.
Once again the Government of Iran outdoes itself in showing the world why religious belief is not an appropriate basis for penal statutes, and why religion and government should be kept far, far, apart:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10565103.stm
Complain about this comment
The only thing worse than Iran is President Obama encouraging the Muslims to take our NASA techonology.
Complain about this comment
410 - Lucy J.
As Russia & China have shown, NASA hasn't done anything that other countries cannot do, given the time and willingness. We have no further use for NASA technology, so we might as well give it to others as a goodwill gesture. They can easily enough work it out for themselves.
Complain about this comment
I am reminded of what my brother was like before he found Jesus and stopped using weed. He had erratic conversations, thought he was making sense or propounding great insight when he was talking nonsense. He would switch topics and go off on a complete non sequitur. Then there were the occasional belligerence, paranoia and inability to follow a line of reasoning. I would suggest that our resident potheads get off the weed. Finding Jesus might help, but being a secularist I won’t make that a recommendation.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS