An unadorned speech, but not one lacking in strategy
President Barack Obama announced the end of the end of the Iraq war without much fanfare or fuss. Rhetorical flourishes might have been out of place in any case, but this was unadorned with soaring words though not lacking in strategy.
It was the second time he has made such an address to the American people from the Oval Office. Behind the obvious headlines what messages did he pack into his 18 minutes of prime time?
He lavished praise on the troops. He was in "awe" of the sacrifice of these "brave Americans", their families bore a "heroic burden", and they are "the steel in our ship of state." He promised the veterans would not be forgotten. This is the sort of stuff that makes America feel good about itself. It is vital for Mr Obama to counter the charges of the right that he doesn't value the military and he won't do himself any harm by laying it on with a trowel.
Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq were wars without end. Not only was combat in Iraq over, all US troops would leave at the end of next year. In Afghanistan the "transition" would begin next July. The pace would be determined by conditions on the ground but it would happen because "open-ended war serves neither our interests nor the Afghan people".
In part this is a message to his own supporters that he is not going to be cowed by the generals and at some point he will be in a position to say the Afghan war is over too. But it is also a message to American people as a whole, who are tired of war.
He said that he had telephoned President Bush before the speech. He had no words of praise for the surge. It was no secret that they disagreed about the war, "yet no one could doubt President Bush's support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security."
Slightly cheeky this. It prompts questions about whose policies really threatened and damaged America. But he is making the point that it can be patriotic to oppose wars as well as to support them. It is a message to right wing republicans that liberals should not have to put up with accusations of being un-American for thinking differently about the world.
The US intends to sustain and strengthen its leadership of the world. But this could not only be through military action alone. It was through economic strength, example and hopes. That was as close as Mr Obama came to articulating some sort of foreign policy doctrine, but for most of the world it is more like platitude than philosophy.
The wars have strained America. Strength and influence abroad are based in prosperity at home and the US had spent more than $1 trillion on war, which has "short changed" investment in America. Two-fifths of his speech was spent promising to revitalise the America economy, and this he would make his central responsibility and mission.
The White House is constantly trying to turn the media's attention to the economy. It is where most Americans want him to focus. This is his most important message. If he can not turn it in to reality then things will get very sticky on the home front.
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~30~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
In a post from his organization just now, I received this:
Tonight marks the end of the American combat mission in Iraq.
As a candidate for this office, I pledged to end this war responsibly. And, as President, that is what I am doing.
Since I became Commander-in-Chief, we've brought home nearly 100,000 U.S. troops. We've closed or turned over to Iraq hundreds of our bases.
-----------------------
It is what he said he would do, and it is what he did.
Look for more of the same quiet competence and thoroughness.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
Well the war in Iraq cost plenty in treasure (never mind the lives lost and injuried). The stimulus recovery act cost more than the war. Guess what we got screwed both ways.
Complain about this comment
While I've appreciated the BBC's reporting on the war in Iraq, I have to say, the past few days have been overflowing with a certain smug sarcasim that borders on unprofessional. I was no supporter of this war. However, I would expect the staff at the BBC to keep their personal views and feeling out of their reporting of this important event... hard as it may be. Get it together Mark... and the BBC. Stop putting quotes around every word that does not appeal to you. Very tacky.
Complain about this comment
Also the Democrats voted to go into Iraq. Put the numbers up. It just wasn't one party! It is the same political elites of both, out of touch with reality, and its public. No real leadership, just politicians on a perpetual campaign trail, that goes on, and on, and on. "The party move a left, is now party move a right, and the beards have all grown longer overnight." The Who
Complain about this comment
The President, for whom I have great and still growing respect, has asked me to "turn the page" on my visceral loathing for the whole neoconservative crowd that created, packaged and sold the Iraq war (and just happened to use George Bush as an easily-controlled front man for a few years).
I can only say: I'll try. My mind tells me that the President is right, and that there's a constructive path that needs to be followed now. But my gut still churns at what was done to my country during the Bush years.
Complain about this comment
"Also the Democrats voted to go into Iraq. Put the numbers up. It just wasn't one party!"
You're right, but you failed to mention the reason everyone rallied around George Bush... that reason was the blatant lie about WMDs... why do people forget WHY democrats supported going to war... ?
Complain about this comment
If civil war breaks out in Iraq, especially if there is outside support for various factions from the region such as from Iran, Syria, even Saudi Arabia, Obama's policy will be a shambles and McCain will have been proven right.
The trillion dollars the war in Iraq cost when the size of the US economy and the time over which that money was spent is taken into consideration, 7 years is not that much, hardly much more than 1% of GDP. Had the cold war lasted, we'd have spent more in that time on new strategic weapons. The cost of the war has absolutely nothing to do with the current economic crisis it just wasn't that much money.
Mr. Mardell, you probably weren't in the US in 2003 but you should know that while there was much protest and uproar in Europe at the time of the invasion, there was great support for it here from both Republicans and Democrats as well as from the public at large. Opinion turned against the war because of how it turned out, not because it was fought in the first place. There is no doubt of this and both records of the debates in both houses of Congress and widely reported public polls at the time prove it.
Complain about this comment
1 KScurmudgeon,
"It is what he said he would do, and it is what he did."
"Look for more of the same quiet competence and thoroughness."
Actually, it is what the Status of Forces Agreement between the U.S. and Iraq said should be done. Which, by the way, was negotiated by Bush not Obama. Obama has followed that agreement and you are giving him credit as if he was the instrument of it's creation. He has done nothing in Iraq accept allow the situation to play out as orchestrated by Bush.
Complain about this comment
Just a slight correction to Mr. MarcusAureliusII - whether or not Mr. Mardell was in the USA in 2003, I was. I was one of hundreds of thousands of people marching in the streets, protesting the unlawful invasion of Iraq. We were opposed to it from the start. We did not change our opinion later on. We never believed that the ends would justify the means.
It is common now to claim that there was near-universal support in the USA for the invasion of Iraq. There was not. Those of us who labored long and hard to stop the invasion from its inception resent being so casually air-brushed out of history.
Complain about this comment
6. Lee,
"You're right, but you failed to mention the reason everyone rallied around George Bush... that reason was the blatant lie about WMDs... why do people forget WHY democrats supported going to war..."
Perhaps because people remember what democrats said between 1998 and 2003 regarding Saddam having WMD's. Clinton, Gore, Biden, Albright, Berger, Pelosi, Waxman, Kennedy, Kerry.... All publicly stated Saddam was a threat to the interests of the U.S., had WMD's, and would continue to develop them if left un-checked. The lie is the attempt by democrats to act as if Bush misled them with false information. They were singing the WMD song before Bush ever became President.
Complain about this comment
Obama can declare what he wants but there are still 50,000 armed troops in Iraq. Pray tell, what will be America's next great misadventure? Why not store the trucks and jeeps in Israel so they can be used against Iran? We're tired of your tyranny. The American people are done and won't show up to your next war. Israel will have to hire their own mercenaries.
Complain about this comment
7. At 04:12am on 01 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
'If civil war breaks out in Iraq, especially if there is outside support for various factions from the region such as from Iran, Syria, even Saudi Arabia, Obama's policy will be a shambles and McCain will have been proven right.'
'If' all our troops are out of Iraq at the end of 2011, and our ground troops in Afghanistan are leaving that theater in a responsible way, will you understand the force of leadership?
Obama said he was not an advocate of extending our influence by war, and that he had no use for dumb wars.
As such, he made careful, not hasty plans for both Iraq and Afghanistan (I am reminded the agreement with Iraq was made under Bush, but it was fulfilled by BHO), declared that we were not interested in staying in either country (on borrowed money, spending lives on someone else's affairs), and set both short term and long term goals to finish the business responsibly and leave them to govern themselves.
This is good news.
This is what you can expect.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
The war has obviously not been good for the US as a nation so 2 points:
1. How about the BBC actually doing some useful reporting and telling us who this was has benefited? - i.e. naming the Security/construction/oil companies and how much they have made and their connections to the individuals responsible for starting this war.
2. How about bringing in laws or constituional safeguards to prevent leaders from taking a country into war for fallacious reasons? There seems to be no accountability when surely there must be.
Complain about this comment
Emperor Marcus AureliusII,
That's because the American and British public were lied to. If only they knew then what they know now. The outcome would have been very different. Hundreds of thousands of American and British troops wouldn't have missing limbs, head and psychological trauma not to mention over 400,000 Iraqi's who have lost their husbands,sons, daughters and parents.
What did we really accomplish there other than pay back for George Bush? The sins of the father are vested on the son or however the saying goes.
Complain about this comment
13. At 05:00am on 01 Sep 2010, theMightyAndyGray wrote:
"2. How about bringing in laws or constituional safeguards to prevent leaders from taking a country into war for fallacious reasons? There seems to be no accountability when surely there must be."
Let me refer you to Arclightt's suggestion in #9 in the 'Some mistakes' blog.
KSc
Complain about this comment
Drew a blank;
"I was one of hundreds of thousands of people marching in the streets, protesting the unlawful invasion of Iraq."
In a country of 300 million, a few hundred thousand is a tiny minority. The war clearly was legal under US law. Whether or not it was illegal under the farce of so called international law could hardly matter less to me but since it was the end result of countless violations of the truce agreement ending hostilities in 1991, it probably was illegal under the UN blue rag.
Complain about this comment
KerSmudge;
"'If' all our troops are out of Iraq at the end of 2011, and our ground troops in Afghanistan are leaving that theater in a responsible way, will you understand the force of leadership?"
If the people who call themselves al Qaeda including their leaders who now enjoy sanctuary in Pakistan and the people who call themselves the Taleban who gave them sanctuary in Afghanistan and now in Pakistan are not eliminated as a threat to the United States before it leaves the region, I would not characterize our government as displaying leadership, I'd find the term traitors more appropriate.
It is an unqualified disgrace that the most lavishly trained and equipped fighting force that ever was that ought to be most powerful and effective military the world has ever seen cannot hunt down and kill a band of lightly armed irregulars hiding in caves in 9 years. Our military leaders both civilian and in the military have demonstrated that they are utterly incompetent and ineffective. I'd get rid of the lot of them and find out what in hell is being taught at those fancy military colleges they are trained in. We should put an end to them teaching the sociology of nation building and get them back to learning the art of finding and killing the enemy with the tools we give them.
Complain about this comment
17. At 05:27am on 01 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"If the people who call themselves al Qaeda including their leaders who now enjoy sanctuary in Pakistan and the people who call themselves the Taleban who gave them sanctuary in Afghanistan and now in Pakistan are not eliminated as a threat to the United States before it leaves the region, I would not characterize our government as displaying leadership, I'd find the term traitors more appropriate."
----------------------------
Someone posted to another thread that bin Laden was in Tahiti. I know I would be if I were in his shoes.
'Smudge
Complain about this comment
With regard to the speech, maybe he is taking a cue form Mr. Bernanke. Barnanke's statements this week were received with some relief, and got an upswing that day on Wall Street (if that is the financial barometer).
Bernanke was credited with being accurate, without spin.
Obama was understated. He spoke softly for the most part: no heroic rhetoric, made subtle references to Bush's involvement, stayed seated, kept all things in balance, said it like it was.
It's up to the Iraqis. It is really up to the Afghans. We have better things to do than babysit corrupt regimes.
Isn't this what everybody wants (Dick Cheney and a couple of folks here excepted)?
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
MarcusAureliusII and KScurmudgeon:
I left the US in 2003, from Simi Valley, that WASP bastion in California. People there overwhelmingly supported both wars and they vilified the French and Germans for not joining in the Iraq war party. That is what I remember as my plane left LAX on 1Jul03.
The Bush-Blair war propaganda machine was in full stride back then. But we had not quite recovered from the 2001 crash and tech sector unemployment was still edging close to 20%. I knew at the time that we couldn't afford *both* wars. However, Bush needed a distraction from those woes and Iraq seemed ready-made.
You both also forget the sleight-of-hand that Bush played, keeping both wars off of the "books", at a trillion dollars EACH! Add that to the trillion dollar emergency bail-out funding (2008) and you then have three trillion dollars of the current deficit.
This is aside from the fact that the Afghanistan mission would already be completed had the troops for Iraq been sent to Afghanistan instead.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The BBC have an interesting line, they give the Democrats a total pass for supporting the Iraq war, yet attack the Conservative Party in the UK for supporting it.
The BBC double standards are what we do.
Complain about this comment
5. At 03:44am on 01 Sep 2010, Curt Carpenter wrote:
"The President, for whom I have great and still growing respect, has asked me to "turn the page" on my visceral loathing for the whole neoconservative crowd that created, packaged and sold the Iraq war (and just happened to use George Bush as an easily-controlled front man for a few years)."
"I can only say: I'll try. My mind tells me that the President is right, and that there's a constructive path that needs to be followed now. But my gut still churns at what was done to my country during the Bush years."
Have an antacid and enjoy the fun as your Hero turns this country into the People's Republic Of North America.
Complain about this comment
The speech was low keyed, dignified and objective. The fact that the President acknowledged the resolve and patriotism of his predecessor and
called for unity at home highlights the the divisiveness that exists in the USA today and acknowledges the negative effects of that divisiviness on our society, our economy and the future of our country.
His decision was, indeed, consistent with his pledge to get us out of Iraq, but it was also in line with the terms of the Status of Forces Agreement negotiated by former President Bush.
The fact that this war should have never been fought and that the justifications used were based on lies is something for historians to ponder upon. At this point in time what we should be worrying about is the state of our economy, the dismal job situation in the USA, our decaying infrastructure, the horrible state of our education system (which is in part due to societal issues rather than just bad teachers or bad schools), our recurring deficits, mounting debt, and the fact that we do not have the money needed to truly stimulate the economy and get things rolling.
Sadly, the trillion dollars spent in our crusades thus far is just the tip of the iceberg. With almost half of our troops claiming disability, the cost of this war is going to be much higher than what was spent already and what we spent in the stimulus package (less than $800B).
Hopefully his next speech will be focused on things of greater importance to the American people and to the future of our country.
Complain about this comment
Salamander;
"You both also forget the sleight-of-hand that Bush played, keeping both wars off of the "books""
You can put it any way you want but the facts were clear. The cost of the war was not paid for out of the regular defense budget. Congress apppropriated other funds for it, funding it could have cut off at any time if it wanted to end US participation in the war. The fact that it didn't only proves that whatever it said for its political public face when push came to shove they supported the war as a body right down to this very day. There is no such thing as off the books. Unlike European budget scams organizations like the OMB and GAO watch every penney spent by the federal government and so do citizen watchdog organizations. Some details like exactly what the CIA spends its money on and (unique exception how much it gets) may not be made clear and the budget is enormous and complex but it is public. BTW when was the last time the EU's books were audited? What about the British Parliament's?
The sentiments expressed by those you encountered in Simi Valley were echoed all across America. And Congress including Bush's opponents had access to every last bit of national security information the administration had and came to the same conclusion. This is not Europe and it is not run like Europe.
Complain about this comment
"Two-fifths of his speech was spent promising to revitalise the America economy, and this he would make his central responsibility and mission."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11144293
:)
Complain about this comment
Ref 23, Gordon
"The BBC have an interesting line, they give the Democrats a total pass for supporting the Iraq war, yet attack the Conservative Party in the UK for supporting it."
I am a Democrat and I am not going to make excuses for the way democrats behaved when the invasion of Iraq was being debated, but I think it is important to remember the political climate that existed in the USA in those days. Most Americans were convinced that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11, we believed Iraq posed a tremendous threat on our national security, and we were determine to teach the Islamic world an object lesson after 9/11. Even a hint of hesitation of disagreement was labeled as nothing short of treason. Not surprisingly, the Dems rolled over and agreed to whatever President Bush and the Republican controlled Congress proposed. Embarrassing? Absolutely! Surprising? Not really.
I don't feel qualified to offer an opinion regarding the BBC's alleged attacks against conservatives in the UK, but just about everything I have heard on this subject has been criticism of Tony Blair's complicity who, if I am not mistaken, was the leader of the Labour party not the Tories...
Complain about this comment
President Obama's speech was riddled with ommission, half truths, and distortions that taken in total add up to a tapestry of lies.
"The US has paid a huge price to put the future of Iraq in the hands of its people,"
Had he gotten his way from the beginning, the fate of Iraqis would still be under the rule of a mass murdering megalomaniacal sociopath and his two psychopathic murdering sons. The Middle East would look just like it did ten years ago. Had he gotten his way by now the sanctions would have been lifted and Saddam Hussein would have had WMDs and most likely would have found their way into the hands of terrorists who would have used them against the United States in the United States. The overwhelming majority of Americans and Congress supported the war. What they didn't support was the ineffectiveness at the way it was fought after Saddam Hussein's regime was eliminated. There was no good reason why the US had to suffer losses for years and in effect lose the war any more than it had to lose in Vietnam.
The cost of the war in both financial cost and American casualties has been blown way out of proportion to what it actually was. 4500 dead, about 30,000 seriously wounded and another 30,000 not seriously wounded is about what we suffer every five weeks on America's highways month after month, year after year and we don't make such a big deal of it. A trillion dollars spread out over 7 years is around 1% of GDP, less than we saved on not having to build more modern strategic weapons as the result of the cold war ending. There is no connection between the problems of the American economy and the war, it was only a minor impact. Instead the reaons were the export of jobs, companies, and entire industries and the sub prime catastrophe in the context of deregulation of the financial markets, a blunder both major political parties, four presidents, and most of the economists at the Treasury and the Fed foolishly endorsed
Complain about this comment
Slamlander wrote:
"I left the US in 2003, from Simi Valley, that WASP bastion in California. People there overwhelmingly supported both wars and they vilified the French and Germans for not joining in the Iraq war party."
That's a bunch of nonsense. Americans didn't have a problem with a country that didn't want to participate in Iraq. Many countries didn't and remained on good terms with America.
Many Americans had a problem with France and Germany, and some other countries, because they actively and continuously attacked America in front of and behind its back and tried their best to harm as much as possible America's government and image throughout the world.
Friends and allies don't do that, even if they disagree.
Iraq was a convenient excuse to express what they truly felt and still feel about America. It also spoke loudly about their power hungry thirst for an imposed wannabe, like America but supposedly better, European superstate on the people of Europe. Just look at how they spoke to and acted towards smaller EU hopeful states with all their arrogance and threats as they tried to support America in their own way. It was disgusting.
Friends and allies don't do that, even if they disagree.
"That is what I remember as my plane left LAX on 1Jul03."
I guess you missed the Nazi references towards America's government by Germany's government, huh?
Complain about this comment
"Two-fifths of his speech was spent promising to revitalise the America economy, and this he would make his central responsibility and mission."
http://declineofanation.blogspot.com/2009/12/obamas-lavish-personal-spending.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1300852/Spanish-police-close-public-beach-Michelle-Obamas-250k-Spanish-holiday.html
Complain about this comment
The true cost of that War was was paid for by those who now,only have a smiling photograph,to remind of the potential that is now lost forever.
May be they are lucky,some will be fighting that war all their lives..
But what slow panic,
Gouged these chasms round their fretted sockets?
Ever from their hair and through their hand palms
Misery swelters.
These are men whose minds the Dead have ravished.
Mental Cases by Wilfred Owen.
Complain about this comment
"But it is also a message to American people as a whole, who are tired of war."
Aw, poor them. You'd imagine that it was their country that was invaded and left in ruins. But that's americans for you - poor, poor us*. Iraqis? Who? Never heard of 'em.
*How ironic that the United States of America is generally referred to as "US".
Complain about this comment
Ref# 31 Allen T2
Must have been a good speech. Everyone is talking about the manoevrings necessary to acheive the withdrawal and how the tone of this speech was so much more presidential than Bush's Mission Accomplished effort and you have to dredge up some half baked overspending accusations to make up your weekly allocation of Obama criticism.
By the way, how much more do you think it costs to land a president on an aircraft carrier for this kind of speech compared to just using the oval office?
Complain about this comment
Obama announces the end of the Iraq war ?50000 troops still on the ground,of course they are just there to assist!!Another half truth from the coward in the white house.I wonder now that the violence is escalating how long it is going to be before we have to ship men and equipment back to support them.
#28
SaintDominick the reason the reason the BBC attacks the conservatives in England (even though it was a labor government that got the UK into the war) is because the BBC is another vast weight around the necks of the English tax payers neck,thus conservatives usually cut their budgets.
Complain about this comment
#25
Obama care costs are going to make the cost of the Iraq war a needle in a haystack,and your going to love it,wait till you have to wait several months for an MRI if the local authorities approve it that is.You think your health care is expensive now wait till the people at the DMV,or post office start running it.The icing on the cake will be our elected officials and federal employees will be exempt and still getting private health coverage.
Because some are more equal then others.To borrow a line from George Orwell
Complain about this comment
HabitualHero wrote:
"But it is also a message to American people as a whole, who are tired of war."
Aw, poor them. You'd imagine that it was their country that was invaded and left in ruins. But that's americans for you - poor, poor us*. Iraqis? Who? Never heard of 'em.
*How ironic that the United States of America is generally referred to as "US".
________________________________________________________________________
Nah, much more to do with something coincidentally supporting your sarcasm.
And if you are British, or any other type of European, it would be "ironic" for one who has directly and greatly benefited from a similar military intervention to try and criticize its application somewhere else.
Complain about this comment
30. At 12:09pm on 01 Sep 2010, AllenT2 wrote:
...
Many Americans had a problem with France and Germany, and some other countries, because they actively and continuously attacked America in front of and behind its back and tried their best to harm as much as possible America's government and image throughout the world.
-------------------------
Often times, your best friends and allies are precisely the ones that tell you what you don't want to hear -- especially when they think you're about to make a terrible and tragic mistake. And reasonable people, I think, have enough mental agility to reject the "your either with us or against us" line and can recognize the value in both honest support and honest criticism.
24. At 10:40am on 01 Sep 2010, filthy macnasty wrote:
Have an antacid and enjoy the fun as your Hero turns this country into the People's Republic Of North America.
-------------------------------
It may have escaped your notice, but the United States -is- a people's republic. Or at least that was the idea going into 1787. I'll grant you that there was considerable erosion of the ideal 2001 - 2009 -- but nothing that can't be repaired if we work at it.
Complain about this comment
PartTimeDon wrote:
"Must have been a good speech. Everyone is talking about the manoevrings necessary to acheive the withdrawal and how the tone of this speech was so much more presidential than Bush's Mission Accomplished effort"
Who is "everyone?" Don't you, or can't you, think for yourself?
"and you have to dredge up some half baked overspending accusations to make up your weekly allocation of Obama criticism."
LOL.
"Dredge up?"
So it doesn't happen anymore?
"Half baked?"
So it's not true?
"By the way, how much more do you think it costs to land a president on an aircraft carrier for this kind of speech compared to just using the oval office?"
Very little to nothing out of the ordinary for normal carrier operations considering that the plane that landed on that carrier was carrier based. And most certainly a very tiny fraction of Mrs. Obama's most recent plane ride.
I also doubt her trip to Spain had any kind of motivating and thankful expressions of appreciation to America and its military. :)
Complain about this comment
And in the meantime:
"A senior Swedish prosecutor has ordered the reopening of a rape investigation into Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.
Public Prosecutions Director Marianne Ny said there was "reason to believe a crime has been committed" and that the crime was classified as rape." - BBC News reports.
Assange is to some posters here the most reliable source on US military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Great choice! Congratulations!
Complain about this comment
17. At 05:27am on 01 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"It is an unqualified disgrace that the most lavishly trained and equipped fighting force that ever was that ought to be most powerful and effective military the world has ever seen cannot hunt down and kill a band of lightly armed irregulars hiding in caves in 9 years. Our military leaders both civilian and in the military have demonstrated that they are utterly incompetent and ineffective."
__________
It is not without precedent.
Black Jack Pershing never did catch Pancho Villa.
Nobody ever caught up with Idi Amin
It took forever to catch Radovan Karadzic
They still haven't arrested Ratko Mladic
Or Omar Bashir
Sometimes, as with Jefferson Davis in 1865, and Louis Riel in 1870, for example, they don't actually want to catch the guys.
And then there were all those folks who found refuge in South America after the war, or the trucks full of French Foreign Legionnaires in Algeria who were always singing in German.
In all of this, it seems to me that armies are not the correct tools for chasing fugitives in caves, in Londonistan, in Tahiti, or even in Brampton or Newark. That is essentially police work, and ought to be handed over to people who are trained in investigation and detective work.
Complain about this comment
Ref 36, crash
"Obama care costs are going to make the cost of the Iraq war a needle in a haystack,and your going to love it,wait till you have to wait several months for an MRI if the local authorities approve it that is.You think your health care is expensive now wait till the people at the DMV,or post office start running it."
Healthcare reform is likely to mitigate the out of control healthcare costs in the USA. In any case, I would much rather pay for something that would benefit my family, neighbors, friends and the American people in general than waste a trillion dollars in medieval crusades.
(1) the healthcare "reform" legislation leave the insurance industry on the driver's seat. The DMV, Post Office and all other government institutions are not administering healthcare. Doctors, hospitals, labs, pharmaceuticals and the insurance industry are, the same way they did before. (2) Healthcare reform attempts to control the escalating costs of healthcare in the USA and will end the "subsidies" being paid to the insurance industry through MEDICARE and make it more difficult for service providers to commit fraud. (3) I think it is incredible that people continue to object to the end of inhumane insurance practices such as the pre-existing condition clause, caps, lack of portability and other egregious practices that are nothing short of an embarrassment for a progressive society such as ours.
(4) Healthcare reform will provide access to preventive maintenance, including tests such as CT-scans, MRIs, X-Rays, etc to millions of Americans whose only hope was emergency care at an ER.
The only problem with the healthcare reform legislation is that it didn't go far enough, it should have included universal healthcare.
Regarding delays, I had to wait almost a month for my insurance company to approve the removal of a kidney and malignant tumor. My wife had to wait one week for the insurance company to approve a CT-scan to determine the cause of bleeding, and she had to wait two weeks to have physical therapy approved.
Yes, the rich and those fortunate enough to have a Cadillac insurance plan do have access to some of the best doctors and medical facilities in the world, but the average Joe does not. I believe that's an example of the societal gap that President Obama alluded to last night.
Complain about this comment
"Someone posted to another thread that bin Laden was in Tahiti."
If Usama had had any brains he would have been in Bora Bora.
Unfortunately (for him) he's probably still somewhere in Tora Bora region.
Although, to feel safer, on the Pakistani side, to which US special forces have no access.
Complain about this comment
Re # 19 [Obama] "stayed seated".
And he will remain seated till the end of 2012.
I grant you that.
Complain about this comment
Ref 35, crash
"Obama announces the end of the Iraq war ?50000 troops still on the ground,of course they are just there to assist!!Another half truth from the coward in the white house"
What the President announced was the end of combat operations. He acknowledged the presence of remaining US troops, which will be used to provide additional training and logistics support to the Iraqi military as well as protection to diplomats in the Green Zone, until they too withdraw next year, at which time the Iraqis will be responsible for their own future. He also reiterated our unequivocal support to the Iraqi government.
Compare what he is doing and said to the Iran-Contra scandal, the Lebanon cut and run, the valiant invasion of Grenada, our support to death squads in El Salvador and Nicaragua and what you will find is a dignified withdrawal, an acknowledgment that while the original motives may not have been something to be proud of, the Iraqi people are now in a position to decide what is best for them without fear of retribution from a despotic regime.
Complain about this comment
To theMightyAndyGray #13
"How about bringing in laws or constituional safeguards to prevent leaders from taking a country into war for fallacious reasons? There seems to be no accountability when surely there must be."
If there was valid rationale behind the war, it would be possible to list the valid general conditions necessary for war or military action prior to beginning one. The absence of these criteria or principles show that the necessary conditions are actually marketing slogans.
It should also be possible to define what the end of a war is, so determining whether the war had ended would be revealed by consulting the prior definition. No definition exists because again it is all military marketing.
Blind support is a bit like proclaiming that coca-cola is the best drink in the world, effective in making more people drink it but disregarding whether it is a accurate analysis of its goodness in producing beneficial results to recipients.
Complain about this comment
Ref 43, powermeerkat
"Although, to feel safer, on the Pakistani side, to which US special forces have no access."
Our drones do and have. Unfortunately, our spooks have not found him yet. I would not be surprised if he is in Yemen or Somalia...
Complain about this comment
"Many Americans had a problem with France and Germany, and some other countries, because they actively and continuously attacked America in front of and behind its back and tried their best to harm as much as possible America's government and image throughout the world.
Friends and allies don't do that, even if they disagree"
And that's why many Americans question continued U.S. membership in NATO.
Thinking it should be replaced, on the U.S.'s part, by a coalition of the WILLING, and bilateral military agreements with countries which participated in such in the past (Australia, Canada, Japan, S. Korea, etc.)and are willing to actively participate in similar ones.
Interestingly many a country of "New Europe" sees more benefits in close ties with the U.S., than with EUSSR.
At least as far as their national security is concerned.
What do they know that countries of "Old Europe", deprived of benefits of a liberation by the Red Army (thanks to U.S. forces) - don't?
Complain about this comment
Ref 17, MarcusAureliusII
"It is an unqualified disgrace that the most lavishly trained and equipped fighting force that ever was that ought to be most powerful and effective military the world has ever seen cannot hunt down and kill a band of lightly armed irregulars hiding in caves in 9 years. Our military leaders both civilian and in the military have demonstrated that they are utterly incompetent and ineffective."
The reason is precisely because we are using a huge military force to hunt down a handful of terrorists. The strategy is simply wrong.
If we had relied on spies, informants, and well place drones or missiles OBL would have been history by now.
Complain about this comment
SD wrote: " Yes, the rich and those fortunate enough to have a Cadillac insurance plan do have access to some of the best doctors and medical facilities in the world, but the average Joe does not. I believe that's an example of the societal gap that President Obama alluded to last night."
And what's Mr. Obama's family health plan like?
What does it cover? How much does it cost? And WHOM?
Complain about this comment
Ref 19, KScurmudgeon
"Isn't this what everybody wants (Dick Cheney and a couple of folks here excepted)?"
It is what all of us should want, but the same forces that demonized healthcare and financial reform will also criticize the withdrawal of US forces from the Persian Gulf region for the same reasons: money.
These crusades have cost the American people a lot of money, but make no mistake they have been a Godsend to some of our corporations and their shareholders. They are the ones our troops are really fighting for, they may not realize it, but they are.
Complain about this comment
Saint Dominick wrote: Ref 43, powermeerkat
"Although, to feel safer, on the Pakistani side, to which US special forces have no access."
Our drones do and have. Unfortunately, our spooks have not found him yet. I would not be surprised if he is in Yemen or Somalia...
The current generation of our UAVs cannot fly into dark caves withouth carshing, let alone finding their prey. Yet.
Perhaps when the next one is is made more similar to bats...
As for Yemen... Usama's family is orginally from Yemen, and as far as we know, they didn't want to go back, having it so good in Saudi Arabia.
[ibn Laden is not exactly a beggar's sonny; nor is he exactly poor himself. Like most radicals of this world. [cf. e.g., Castro Bros]
Complain about this comment
Was Obama's address to the nation "an unadorned speech 'with' strategy?" Actually it was the U.S. face-saving course on Iraq that I call "Iraq Domestic Consumption Face-Saving Exit 101." Sure it was nice to gloss over a George Bush blunter with words of "American heroism and sacrifices at "a mission unaccomplished." How about bragging on "fulfilling his campaign promise to end the Iraq war that he reminded us he opposed?" Why he heaped praise on George Bush for starting the Iraq a war to eliminate "Iraq's non-existed Weapons of Mass Destruction?" Why did he leave out of his speech the fact that we turned Iraq into a mess 7.5 years ago; it is still a mess 7.5 years later; millions of Iraqi refugees still in Jordan, Syria and elsewhere are terrified to return, and the U.S. "mission in Iraq is considered accomplished" when we leave Iraq in a state of quasi-civil war?
Fact check: George Bush used the WMD pretext to depose Saddam Hussein and use Iraq as the first Domino in subverting the anti-Western regimes in Syria and Iran in succession. As soon as the U.S. invaded Iraq, it started building 40 massive military bases for the aforesaid purpose. But when Saddam Hussein's "Sunnis" turned Iraq into a Moon landscape with "car bombs craters," the U.S. put all the Sunnis in its payroll to pacify them, and started planning "a face-saving" way out. The U.S. knew that it couldn't trust the Sunnis who had lost their political power, nor the Shites whose paramount religious leader Moqtada El Sadr is virulently anti-American, and is hiding in Iran until the U.S. is fully out of Iraq.
Iraq as the first Domino to subvert anti-American regimes in Middle East has failed miserably. Obama dressed that failure as "a democratic success" of the U.S. effort in Iraq. He will need that phony argument next summer when he will have to dress Afghanistan in a democratic garb, and start withdrawing the U.S. troops from there too claiming "democratic success" for the Afghans as well. Obama is already working in formulating that U.S. face-saving course as an address to the nation which will be called: "Afghan Domestic Consumption Face-Saving Exit 101." In 1974 Richard Nixon called the U.S. retreat from Vietnam “Vietnamization.” Obama’s speech last night was about “Iraqization.” And the “Afghanization” is already heating up in a slow cooker.
I received two e-mail reminders from the White House not to miss Obama's speech. I didn't. Did I buy the “Iraqization" as a success? Of course not! Do I see the upcoming “Afghanization" crafted with massive CIA bribes - as it was widely reported last week, as another success in the making? Of course not. Ernest Hemingway had this aphorism about wars: "In a modern war.... you will die like a dog for no good reason." Can, then, national speeches gloss over those failures? Of course not! Nikos Retsos, retired professor
Complain about this comment
It's a bit frightening to think that Obama will turn his focus on the economy. Can't he just leave us alone?
Complain about this comment
"But he is making the point that it can be patriotic to oppose wars as well as to support them. It is a message to right wing republicans that liberals should not have to put up with accusations of being un-American for thinking differently about the world."
For a decade, I've seen signs that read "SUPPORT OUR TROOPS: Bring Them Home".
Might does not make right.
It is possible to be strong and be wrong.
It is also possible for bad things to happen to good people.
I am very proud to be an American, even though I think that my country has made some rather painful mistakes.
And I am very proud of our troops, even though the nightmarish mess of war has caused countless scars on the bodies and minds of people on all fronts.
How to heal?
Move forward with honesty, with integrity, and work towards reconciliation for the greater good of all.
Complain about this comment
Quick Note:
Improving the economy isn't just about having a rich and powerful country.
It's about the health and wellness of the people who live here.
Historically, whenever a nation 'de-militarizes' and brings troops home, there's a significant dip in the economy as huge numbers of people come home to a nation that can't provide jobs and resources fast enough to help folks feed their families.
On one hand, these next years could be devastating for US.
On the other hand, this is an incredible opportunity for the USA to create new industry, to rebuild a strained economy, to build and to grow.
I'm banking on the latter.
Complain about this comment
Slamlander #21:
Preach It, Honey.
Is Simi so unseemly? Personally, I escaped Pasadena/Altadena (Rodney King's home town) and headed to the greater Boston area in July 2001... just in time for hell. You know, it's weird, but before I left Cali I had a chat with a friend who was freaked out about GWB's "election". I told my friend to chill 'cause GWB couldn't be that bad for our nation, so long as we didn't do anything stupid like to go war...
Ooops. Sorry folks. My bad. I might've spoken that one into being.
See, when we're at war, the President actually has some power to effect decisions... er... that is... to be 'The Decider'.
*backs-away-slowly-from-computer-and-gets-more-coffee*
Complain about this comment
43, 47, 49, 52 PMK and St. D.
Yes, it would help if intelligence were better. But in my previous posting I forgot to mention that there have been a lot of people looking for Jimmy Hoffa for a long time, too, and without any greater success.
I think that finding individuals who are on the run, particularly in areas where the ability to investigate is poor, isn't as easy as some might believe.
For example, I understand that the Pakistani city of Quetta is chock full of folks whose arrest might be highly beneficial. Yet, seemingly, sending the local police to pop round and pick them up is not the straight-forward task that might be wished.
Complain about this comment
10. rodidog:
"Perhaps because people remember what democrats said between 1998 and 2003 regarding Saddam having WMD's. Clinton, Gore, Biden, Albright, Berger, Pelosi, Waxman, Kennedy, Kerry.... "
*************
Democrats have simply erased their earlier positions on Saddam and Iraq. There was a speech given by Gore way back excoriating Bush Sr. for daring to leave Iraq with Saddam in power. On and on he went about the dangers Saddam posed and how irresponsible it was to leave him in power. It was one of his more passionate performances.
That democrats came out in full campaign mode against the war after polling on it should tell you something.
Democrats have since invested a lot in their anti-war stance. It won them the election. What we are seeing now is Obama delicately balancing their investment in that anti-war position (a major political differentiator) with the reality of fighting those wars. In other words, he has to live with what democrats created.
It's not too unlike the situation democrats created with the economy. During the election, Obama and democrats went to great lengths telling Americans how bad things were for them. Now, Americans are down in the dumps (with real cause, this time) and Obama foolishly tried to tell them things are good.
And not unlike the efforts made to encourage Bush loathing (another political winner). Unfortunately, people are not as likely to want to hear about Bush, so the loathers have to stew in their own anger.
We'll probably have to wait an entire generation before the Bush hatred subsides. Democrats created a monster that we're all stuck with.
Complain about this comment
"The White House is constantly trying to turn the media's attention to the economy".
++++
On a positive note, let me say that the American economy will never have a meaningful growth again -- until after another catastrophic event, like a world war, that is.
Look at it soberly -- there is simply no reason for it to grow -- America's resources are exhausted, there are no major new inventions or innovations in the pipeline that could drive growth (like the internet and the mobile communications did in the late 1980s through the early 2000s), there are also no new political and economic growth-promoting concepts to exploit (like globalization which was initially put forward and promoted solely because in its earlier stages it exclusively favored the American economy but there's an ongoing rebound now).
See, the American economy will simply NOT grow. It's also becoming more and more difficult to fool international people to invest in the American economy.
But the American economy has to grow to accommodate its ballooning growing population. It has to grow at least by 9 percent per year just to stave off impoverishment.
Between the rock of no foreseeable future growth and the hard place of badly needing economic growth, America is now also an "EU", only in its case the letters stand for the Estados Unidos.
Complain about this comment
49 SaintDominik,
"The reason is precisely because we are using a huge military force to hunt down a handful of terrorists. The strategy is simply wrong."
I think you're right on the mark. But your argument seems to fly in the face of those who suggested Iraq was a distraction from the war in Afghanistan. I never thought it was. IMO, the correct strategy was the one initially employed in Afghanistan. Which was using CIA operatives and elite units in conjunction with Afghan's to hunt and kill the terrorists.
"If we had relied on spies, informants, and well place drones or missiles OBL would have been history by now."
Clinton missed several opportunities to get OBL using that exact strategy. Bush missed his chance at Tora Bora. Perhaps Obama will have better success.
Complain about this comment
# 3 cirvine11 wrote:
"While I've appreciated the BBC's reporting on the war in Iraq, I have to say, the past few days have been overflowing with a certain smug sarcasim that borders on unprofessional. I was no supporter of this war. However, I would expect the staff at the BBC to keep their personal views and feeling out of their reporting of this important event... hard as it may be. Get it together Mark... and the BBC. Stop putting quotes around every word that does not appeal to you. Very tacky."
I have reread Mr Mardell's posting.
As far as I can see, he has put quotation marks around.....quotations.
That is what they are intended for.
The clue is in the name.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 27, AllenT2:
"http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11144293"
Irrelevant. The redecoration of the Oval Office was done without expense to taxpayers.
Complain about this comment
At 2:45pm on 01 Sep 2010, tina wrote:
It's a bit frightening to think that Obama will turn his focus on the economy. Can't he just leave us alone?
If you have any savings/sound investments which can be relied on till January 2013 you should be O.K.
Complain about this comment
54 AndreaNY,
"Democrats have simply erased their earlier positions on Saddam and Iraq."
Their collective amnesia and Bush lied us into this war rhetoric is an amazing, if not nauseating, thing to watch. As I said in an earlier blog, democrats were singing the WMD song long before Bush was even President. They will now claim credit for success in Iraq after declaring the war lost.
"It's not too unlike the situation democrats created with the economy. During the election, Obama and democrats went to great lengths telling Americans how bad things were for them."
Exactly right. Democrats are now stuck in a recession they thought would be over by now. They were supposed to be backing in the glow of admiration for righting the ship of state and are confused about what went wrong.
Complain about this comment
ref #40
, powermeerkat wrote:
And in the meantime:
"A senior Swedish prosecutor has ordered the reopening of a rape investigation into Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.
Public Prosecutions Director Marianne Ny said there was "reason to believe a crime has been committed" and that the crime was classified as rape." - BBC News reports.
Assange is to some posters here the most reliable source on US military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Great choice! Congratulations!
________________-
Any Afghan information source killed by the Taliban due to Wikileaks, the blood is on Julian Asange's hands.
He is a supporter of terrorism weather he believes it or not.
Complain about this comment
65. At 5:19pm on 01 Sep 2010, rodidog wrote:
Exactly right. Democrats are now stuck in a recession they thought would be over by now. They were supposed to be backing in the glow of admiration for righting the ship of state and are confused about what went wrong.
+++++++
Anyone would be stuck in a recession at this juncture -- the Democrats or the Republicans.
In fact, there's not that much difference between them -- they are just two wings of one and the same party of those forever in power in America, the whole circus with the change-over between the Dems and the Reps is to confuse the American people and to overload their fragile thought processes, thereby ensuring total submission to the perpetuated ruling regime.
It's the market forces, stupid. It's capitalism at work. And if the economy has to contract, it WILL contract no matter who's in power, which party, and no matter what they do or don't do. Currently there are just no fundamentals for economic growth in the Estados Unidos.
Complain about this comment
It is what he said he would do, and it is what he did.
Look for more of the same quiet competence and thoroughness.
KScurmudgeon
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just as the economy or the war wasnt his, the withsrawl of the troops wasnt his, but unlike war and economy he takes credit for it...the agreement to withdraw americans troops was signed between the government of iraq and america in 2008...Once that was acheived, no one really cared if iraq gets a new government or not..if their refugees come back or not, if people get water, electricity or securitty or not..
Complain about this comment
65. rodidog:
"Democrats are now stuck in a recession they thought would be over by now."
***********
And their usual playbook isn't working any longer. The views they pushed of the rich and corporations (ex., evil, greedy, etc.) is now a problem for them. They cannot get out of this mess without doing something to gain the confidence of investors -- those same people they've been demonizing for a while now.
Complain about this comment
I was no supporter of this war. However, I would expect the staff at the BBC to keep their personal views and feeling out of their reporting of this important event..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you were "no supporter" of this war, then there sohuld never be "however" or "but" after your clarification. That is, if you didnt support this war because of your own principles, "However" if you became a non supporter of this war as reaction to other people or political parties, than your "however" is acceptable...
Complain about this comment
Any Afghan information source killed by the Taliban due to Wikileaks, the blood is on Julian Asange's hands.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very good, now you have given the west who buy information from the afghans, and then liquidate them in case they start to name the name, another person to blame for the mysterious deaths the informants die..
Complain about this comment
AllenT2
"Very little to nothing out of the ordinary for normal carrier operations considering that the plane that landed on that carrier was carrier based. And most certainly a very tiny fraction of Mrs. Obama's most recent plane ride.
I also doubt her trip to Spain had any kind of motivating and thankful expressions of appreciation to America and its military. :)"
_____________
Let's out this in persepective. The first lady (who can't travel on a commercial airliner) flies to Spain and you're outraged.
The former president diverted the operations of an entire carrier fleet - which will have resulted in days of operations being suspended while the carrier ensures it is in safe water, the fleet positions itself to ensure the carrier is as safe as possible, scores of presidential staff and journalists are ferried to the carrier, other shipping is diverted and the 1000+ crew of the carrier are scrutinised for any conceivable threat - and you're happy to let that slide.
I'm sure the sailors got a tremendous morale boost, but let's not pretend that it was anything other than a re-election stunt on the taxpayer's nickel with some insulting triumphalist overtones to offend Afghan civilians thrown in to boot.
I agree the Michelle Obama holiday is in poor taste given the message her husband is trying to send out, however, I'll worry about it when the cost equates to the 77(!) trips Bush made to Crawford during his 2 terms.
Complain about this comment
Obama is turning his focus to the economy? Time to buy gold.
Complain about this comment
Assange is to some posters here the most reliable source on US military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, the thing is , if he has the information right from pentagon, then he is the most religable source...Atleast, he had the decency to not publish mmuch more information because he said it would really really truely harm american forces and their supporters...Unlike blair, he has not waited for some time to pass, and then admitt that he actually is a very very religous person with weakeness for booze. No wonder he kept on giving a religious twist to everything happened after the crime he committed to take his country to wars which had nothing to do with his country..The difference between blair and Aasange is that blair will make some millions by selling his book..and Aasange got a rape case for posting neutral and objective information..
Complain about this comment
re. # 49. At 2:08pm on 01 Sep 2010, SaintDominick wrote:
Ref 17, MarcusAureliusII
"It is an unqualified disgrace that the most lavishly trained and equipped fighting force that ever was that ought to be most powerful and effective military the world has ever seen cannot hunt down and kill a band of lightly armed irregulars hiding in caves in 9 years. Our military leaders both civilian and in the military have demonstrated that they are utterly incompetent and ineffective."
The reason is precisely because we are using a huge military force to hunt down a handful of terrorists. The strategy is simply wrong.
If we had relied on spies, informants, and well place drones or missiles OBL would have been history by now.
---------------
You're both wrong. Our military is quite capable of finding Osma Bin Laden if allowed to make the most effective use of the considerable resources at it's command. That however would require a large number of American boots on the ground inside Pakistan which is where our best intelligence puts him in order to cordon off the area and slowly tighten the net until our troops find him. It is our political leadership that has made the decision not to make full use of the military to go after Bin Laden in that manner but instead to rely on spies, drones and satellites and basically hope we get lucky.
Unfortunately, spies and informants are hard to come by in a region where strangers are greeted with suspicion and loyalty to the tribe and clan is paramount. Satellites and drones are useful but can only do so much and as we have killed off Al Qaida leaders one by one it would be presumptuous to think they haven't been learning and adapting to our tactics and capabilities. And then there is the connection between Pakistan's intelligence agency and the Taliban, it's almost a certainty that any effort to cooperate with Paksistan's security forces in capturing Bin Laden would lead to his being tipped off to our plans.
Pakistan is not a stable or reliable ally and it's clear that our political leadership has made the decision, and they may very well be correct, that it is better for our long term interests to avoid sending American troops into the frontier areas after Bin Laden and further de-stabilize an already shaky but nominally friendly regime that happpens to possess nuclear weapons.
Time is on our side. Bin Laden and his cadre have to do everything right every day to avoid detection, we only have to get lucky once to nail him.
Complain about this comment
re. #66. At 5:37pm on 01 Sep 2010, MagicKirin wrote:
"He is a supporter of terrorism weather he believes it or not."
Terrorism weather? I had no idea people were taking climate change so seriously.
Complain about this comment
It is our political leadership that has made the decision not to make full use of the military to go after Bin Laden in that manner but instead to rely on spies, drones and satellites and basically hope we get lucky.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Genius, finding ben laden, the way it was being done prior to occupation had been more fruitful....Now, the question you should ask yourself is, was ben laden just used as an excuse to topple taliban, a coup, or the reason was to get physically closer to iran...usa was so close to getting ben laden if bush had accepted taliban's offer to give him to a third country or to his home country. And since it refused, it proves that usa was not interested in him..he was to be used just as an excuse..
Complain about this comment
The reason is precisely because we are using a huge military force to hunt down a handful of terrorists. The strategy is simply wrong.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The strategy is, the more the merrier, atleast they are having fun..so the strategy is correct. The difference between the low civilization and higher one is, that the higher ones say the things said by the lower ones about 7 to 8 yrs after. They need to reboot their brains and minds, in order to catch up with the minds of lower civilians.
Complain about this comment
Pakistan is not a stable or reliable ally and it's clear that our political leadership has made the decision,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
That country has been there for you since its conception..Name anyother country which has done anything like pakistan? From U-2 scandel to the present support and everything that happened in-between..the only country which allows its citizens to be whisked away by american agents.which tortures its own citizens, because the civilized civilian doesnt believe in torturing by itself..the only country that allowed its soil to be used by usa to carry its proxy war in afghanistan, and was forced to give safe havens to the american backed mujaheds, the country which only gets visits of demoractic presidents from usa to visit it, when its ruled by the general dictators..the country that doesnt even make the americans pass their custons when they enter the country..However, usa custom can and asks its military personals to get off planes because some ignorant passanger feels threatened by them in the aircraft..Which of the favours of pakistan will you deny? Pakistan is the most beneficial country for the usa..It seems like it was created to just serve the americans..
Complain about this comment
67 Norman Conquest,
"Anyone would be stuck in a recession at this juncture -- the Democrats or the Republicans."
I can't say your wrong. I can say that democrats made a big mistake thinking their stimulus solved the problem and that attacking corporations and the wealthy would score points without affecting future investment. Foolish timing in my opinion.
----------------------
"In fact, there's not that much difference between them -- they are just two wings of one and the same party of those forever in power in America, the whole circus with the change-over between the Dems and the Reps is to confuse the American people and to overload their fragile thought processes, thereby ensuring total submission to the perpetuated ruling regime."
Don't kid yourself. While the mechanics seem similar, the content of each party is quite different.
----------------
"It's the market forces, stupid. It's capitalism at work. And if the economy has to contract, it WILL contract no matter who's in power, which party, and no matter what they do or don't do. Currently there are just no fundamentals for economic growth in the Estados Unidos."
Yes. It's called supply and demand theory. The problem with the economy though is a lack of credit and faith in debt accumulation. Simply put, there is not enough money chasing after goods and services because there is no money. Democrats have not reacted well to this "recession" because they misinterpreted the reasons behind it. They have exasperated the problem with poor policy decisions while creating an atmosphere resulting in low confidence and uncertainty.
Complain about this comment
65 AndreaNY,
"And their usual playbook isn't working any longer. The views they pushed of the rich and corporations (ex., evil, greedy, etc.) is now a problem for them. They cannot get out of this mess without doing something to gain the confidence of investors -- those same people they've been demonizing for a while now."
I was watching Hardball last night. They were talking about how Obama and democrats are losing Wall Street donors along with their base supporters. One of the panelist actually said they should let Wall Street go and stick with their base. They have no clue of the consequences of their actions.
Complain about this comment
80. At 10:33pm on 01 Sep 2010, rodidog wrote:
Yes. It's called supply and demand theory. The problem with the economy though is a lack of credit and faith in debt accumulation. Simply put, there is not enough money chasing after goods and services because there is no money. Democrats have not reacted well to this "recession" because they misinterpreted the reasons behind it. They have exasperated the problem with poor policy decisions while creating an atmosphere resulting in low confidence and uncertainty.
++++
But this explanation and your attack on the Democrats is also just a theory (and rather less well-established than the supply & demand one).
Nobody can know for sure if what you say is true or not. And there is no way to put it to the test either.
In a capitalist "market" economy nobody knows and nobody can know what will happen in the future or what the causes are of what is happening at any given point in time. Only in hindsight may some claim to have been right but even those are never sure at the time.
I personally think it's all down to the fundamentals... and they are not looking good at the moment.
Complain about this comment
Ref 50, powermeerkat
President Obama has the same healthcare benefits enjoyed by his predecessors and, most likely, by his successors. Are you suggesting Barack Obama and his family should not enjoy the same benefits and privileges afforded to all other Presidents?
The point I made in my earlier post is that universal healthcare would have made preventive medicine available to ALL Americans, in contrast with the system that exists today which affords outstanding healthcare treatment to those who can afford to pay high insurance premiums and leaves behind those who can not pay for them.
Universal healthcare would have also reduced the burden that medical insurance costs represents for American corporations, and would have allowed us to compete on a plain level field against other industrialized nations. Instead, our corporations have a 20% albatross hanging around their necks while foreign companies take advantage of government provided healthcare to sell their products and services at a lower price.
Complain about this comment
79. At 9:39pm on 01 Sep 2010, colonelartist wrote:
Pakistan is not a stable or reliable ally,
------------------------------------------
Insinuating that Pakistan is perfidious,is just not cricket!..
Complain about this comment
Ref 65, rodidog
"Democrats are now stuck in a recession they thought would be over by now."
President Obama said from the outset that it would take a long time to solve the economic problems that began in mid 2007. There may be some optimistic or delusional souls on both sides of the aisle, but the truth is that our economic problems - and particularly the job situation - will be with us for years to come.
Government programs may mitigate the effects of the migration of semi-skilled jobs overseas, but it will only prolong the inevitable. The only thing that can help us overcome the dismal job outlook is a resurgence of construction and a sudden focus on technical education, which is unlikely.
Complain about this comment
re. #77. At 8:39pm on 01 Sep 2010, colonelartist wrote:
It is our political leadership that has made the decision not to make full use of the military to go after Bin Laden in that manner but instead to rely on spies, drones and satellites and basically hope we get lucky.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Genius, finding ben laden, the way it was being done prior to occupation had been more fruitful....Now, the question you should ask yourself is, was ben laden just used as an excuse to topple taliban, a coup, or the reason was to get physically closer to iran...usa was so close to getting ben laden if bush had accepted taliban's offer to give him to a third country or to his home country. And since it refused, it proves that usa was not interested in him..he was to be used just as an excuse..
----------
Where do you come up with your version of history? Is there a book of historical misfacts or do you make it up as you go along?
According to you what is the real reason we invaded Afghanistan? Was it for all the oil they don't produce or to control the opium production? Please don't tell me it was to get closer to Iran, Iran has a coastline and the Marines will feel teribly insulted if you insinuate we were planning to invade Iran but didn't think we could do it from the sea. Or was that we invaded Iraq, so we could drive our tanks to Iran? Which raises the question why have we pulled our combat units out of Iraq if we were planning to invade Iran?
Complain about this comment
79. At 9:39pm on 01 Sep 2010, colonelartist wrote:
"Which of the favours of pakistan will you deny? Pakistan is the most beneficial country for the usa..It seems like it was created to just serve the americans.."
I assume you have the video of the American ambassador shaking hands with Jinnah and Mountbatten before they signed the agreement to create an independent Pakistan just to give the Americans a tool in the region? That would certainly explain why India was so cool towards us for all those years.
Complain about this comment
re. 84. At 10:57pm on 01 Sep 2010, ukwales wrote:
79. At 9:39pm on 01 Sep 2010, colonelartist wrote:
Pakistan is not a stable or reliable ally,
------------------------------------------
Insinuating that Pakistan is perfidious,is just not cricket!..
-----------
If you'll go back and read #75 you'll see the curmudgeonly colonel was quoting me. I'm an American so I know nothing about cricket but if you're implying that my statement unfairly insinuated that the nation of Pakistan is conniving and treacherous that is not what I meant. Pakistan is unstable, it's numerous coups, militant insurgencies and support of terrorist groups such as those responible for the Mumbai massacre make that abundantly clear. As for reliable, as I noted in my earlier post Pakistan's military intelligence service was instrumental in creating the Taleban and still maintains links with them, we would be foolish to regard them with the same degree of trust that for example we give to our NATO allies. Pakistan didn't jump up after 9-11 and volunteer to help us, President Bush had to do a lot of arm twisting to gain what support they've given us.
Besides, isn't one of our closest allies sometimes referred to as "perfidious Albion"?
Complain about this comment
"An unadorned speech, but not one lacking in strategy"
The strategy is obvious. "The economy is in dire straits because of the blunders of the previous government controlled by the party opposite. I refer the right honorable genetlemen to the reply I gave some moments ago."
That kind of hooey may fly for ten years in the British House of Commons during PMQT but it wears rather thin very quickly here. No amount of political fancy footwork or pandering to patriotism can deflect the blame most Americans place squarely on President Obama's shoulders for the economy not recovering. Growing the economy was job one from day one for him and he didn't do it. The voters will have their revenge in two months time as the "Party in Power" gets its report card from the American voters. It holds every promise to be a bloodletting for incumbants of both parties but especially the Democrats. That's what the speech was really about. It won't work.
Complain about this comment
82 Norman Conquest,
"But this explanation and your attack on the Democrats is also just a theory (and rather less well-established than the supply & demand one)."
"Nobody can know for sure if what you say is true or not. And there is no way to put it to the test either."
Why do you think Bush and Obama have rushed to save the financial sector? It had nothing to do with supply and demand or saving their pals on Wall Street. It had everything to do with zero trust in accumulated debt and fear of lending additional credit. This caused the entire economy to seize up and go into a tail spin. While we may have delayed or prevented a depression, the problem is still about the velocity of money in the system. There is just not enough money anymore because we lost trillions in investment dollars. It will take years for that wealth to come back into the market.
As I said earlier, democrats are exasperating the problem by creating an atmosphere of uncertainty with health care, cap-n-trade, talk of tax increases, and the use of class warfare. Investors and companies must be able to know the rules in order to project future trends and have an reasonable expectation of what the return on their investments will be. What they're hearing from democrats is more regulation and more taxes which equals more overhead and less profit at a time when they are struggling to keep their doors open. If doing business is not worth the risk, or hassle, they will put their money elsewhere.
Complain about this comment
Ref 90, rod
"As I said earlier, democrats are exasperating the problem by creating an atmosphere of uncertainty with health care, cap-n-trade, talk of tax increases, and the use of class warfare."
I believe the opposite is true, the strategy used by Republicans to discredit the Obama agenda since he was inaugurated has created a climate of uncertainty that, not surprisingly, has resulted in lack of consumer confidence and the subsequent impact on economic recovery.
Complain about this comment
85 SaintDominick,
"President Obama said from the outset that it would take a long time to solve the economic problems that began in mid 2007. There may be some optimistic or delusional souls on both sides of the aisle, but the truth is that our economic problems - and particularly the job situation - will be with us for years to come."
Unfortunately, I have to agree. Although, I do think Obama believed the stimulus would work to stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment. The stimulus was important because it do some good things by helping state budgets, the unemployed, and creating (funding)some infrastructure projects. But it was short term and failed to really kick start a lasting recovery.
-------------------
Government programs may mitigate the effects of the migration of semi-skilled jobs overseas, but it will only prolong the inevitable. The only thing that can help us overcome the dismal job outlook is a resurgence of construction and a sudden focus on technical education, which is unlikely.
Again, I agree. But we need money to fund those projects.
Complain about this comment
88. At 00:17am on 02 Sep 2010, Scott0962 wrote:
re. 84. At 10:57pm on 01 Sep 2010, ukwales wrote:
------------------------------------------
""Insinuating that Pakistan is perfidious,is just not cricket!...""
-----------
"I'm an American so I know nothing about cricket but if you're implying that my statement unfairly insinuated that the nation of Pakistan is conniving and treacherous that is not what I meant...."
____________
UKW was making a joke. Here's the background:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11131267
Now you can get back to hitting them for six.
Just make sure you don't get caught lbw next time.
Complain about this comment
38. At 1:25pm on 01 Sep 2010, Curt Carpenter wrote:
(snipped)
"24. At 10:40am on 01 Sep 2010, filthy macnasty wrote:
Have an antacid and enjoy the fun as your Hero turns this country into the People's Republic Of North America.
-------------------------------
It may have escaped your notice, but the United States -is- a people's republic. Or at least that was the idea going into 1787. I'll grant you that there was considerable erosion of the ideal 2001 - 2009 -- but nothing that can't be repaired if we work at it."
Clever. You know what I meant.
Your dating is in error - the erosion began a hundred years ago.
Complain about this comment
94. At 02:37am on 02 Sep 2010, filthy macnasty wrote:
38. At 1:25pm on 01 Sep 2010, Curt Carpenter wrote:
(snipped)
"24. At 10:40am on 01 Sep 2010, filthy macnasty wrote:
Have an antacid and enjoy the fun as your Hero turns this country into the People's Republic Of North America."
-------------------------------
"It may have escaped your notice, but the United States -is- a people's republic. Or at least that was the idea going into 1787. I'll grant you that there was considerable erosion of the ideal 2001 - 2009 -- but nothing that can't be repaired if we work at it."
"Clever. You know what I meant."
"Your dating is in error - the erosion began a hundred years ago."
____________
____________
People's Republic Of North America, eh?
Some appear to believe that Manifest Destiny is alive and well. "54-40 or fight" and all that. Would that make us more PRONA to violins?
On that note, maybe its time for a new string.
Complain about this comment
94. At 02:37am on 02 Sep 2010, filthy macnasty wrote:
...
Clever. You know what I meant.
Your dating is in error - the erosion began a hundred years ago.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you. Yes, I knew what you meant, and continue to be saddened by the fact that your comment was apparently an example of the best the American right can muster anymore. You all desperately need to find another William F. Buckley or -somebody- with a little originality and wit. The Becks and Palins are destroying you -- and I sincerely believe that the country -needs- a constructive conservative voice that can offer something better than variations on old Barry Goldwater rhetoric.
As to one hundred years ago: an interesting observation. American non-imperial imperialism has just found its legs under Teddy Roosevelt, and the Great White Fleet has just returned from it's around-the-globe cruise to project American power. Taft is in the driver's seat in reaction to T.R. -- and soon the whole stew will give us Wilson and WWI. Yes, I think I know what you mean...
Complain about this comment
@85 (StD): "President Obama said from the outset that it would take a long time to solve the economic problems that began in mid 2007. There may be some optimistic or delusional souls on both sides of the aisle, but the truth is that our economic problems - and particularly the job situation - will be with us for years to come."
I don't think anyone here, or anywhere else, has really started to appreciate this idea.
The GAO has pegged our 75-year accumulated debt, counting all those unfunded obligations to SS/Medicare/Medicaid, at over $60 trillion dollars. That's spelled with a T, not an M or a B. Obama's medical changes have not moved these figures significantly; what's been reduced in these three programs has pretty much been just moved over to the new entitlements. Net result isn't much of a move.
It's already been reported that we can't tax our way out of this, as much as the Ds would like to believe it, and we can't grow our way out of this, as much as the Rs would like to believe it. Time for us to grow up, admit that both are true, and face the fact that we are going to have to CUT SPENDING as well as doing both of those things if we hope to resolve this.
It's also time to stop playing with the figures in order to make the tax-only / tax-mostly and grow-only/grow-mostly positions more palatable. Time to unmask both of them for what they are: ideological nonsense.
The level of sacrifice necessary to correct this is going to be significant (i.e. our future plans will probably be permanently altered). The duration? I honestly believe that nobody posting here will be alive to see the resolution. Even if we started wholeheartedly today, we aren't going to be able to change this picture significantly in anything under a very long time without seriously or completely dismantling the debt drivers, and who's got the stomach for that? Answer: Nobody, so don't kid yourselves.
How willing are those of us who are citizens of the US to sacrifice significantly for a future we absolutely will not live to see? Our fathers did that on the soil of Europe and Asia. Who are today's patriots?
It's late here at the office and I figured I'd peek in for a bit before hitting the road. G'night, all...
Arclight
Complain about this comment
96 Curt Carpenter,
"Taft is in the driver's seat in reaction to T.R."
What reaction? I admit to being a bit rusty on the subject, but I seem to recall T.R. refusing to run for a third term and endorsing Taft.
Complain about this comment
98. At 03:37am on 02 Sep 2010, rodidog wrote:
...
What reaction? I admit to being a bit rusty on the subject, but I seem to recall T.R. refusing to run for a third term and endorsing Taft.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Republican- reaction, my friend! Abandoned by his own party!
And then, four years later, two words: Bull Moose!
By God, those were the days. Men were real men, women were women, you could buy a good five cent cigar, smoke it --at the bar-- in your favorite saloon, and spit -- yes, spit -- into a conveniently placed basin near your stool.
I know this because things were still sort of like that in Western Montana when I was a boy, before the copper played out.
Oh the nostalgia!
Complain about this comment
99. Curt
Thank you.
And he beat out LaFollette for the nomination.
Complain about this comment
99 CurtCarpenter,
"-Republican- reaction, my friend! Abandoned by his own party!"
You are confusing the 1908 election for the 1912 election. Otherwise you got it right. The party bosses gave Taft the nomination in 1912 over TR even though TR won the primaries.
Btw, what part of Montana are you in? I use to go up to Kalispell and Whitefish fairly often, great place!
Complain about this comment
88. At 00:17am on 02 Sep 2010, Scott0962 wrote:
re. 84. At 10:57pm on 01 Sep 2010, ukwales wrote:
79. At 9:39pm on 01 Sep 2010, colonelartist wrote:
Pakistan is not a stable or reliable ally,
------------------------------------------
Insinuating that Pakistan is perfidious,is just not cricket!..
-----------
If you'll go back and read #75 you'll see the curmudgeonly colonel was quoting me. I'm an American so I know nothing about cricket but if you're implying that my statement unfairly insinuated that the nation of Pakistan is conniving and treacherous that is not what I meant. Pakistan is unstable, it's numerous coups, militant insurgencies and support of terrorist groups such as those responible for the Mumbai massacre make that abundantly clear. As for reliable, as I noted in my earlier post Pakistan's military intelligence service was instrumental in creating the Taleban and still maintains links with them, we would be foolish to regard them with the same degree of trust that for example we give to our NATO allies. Pakistan didn't jump up after 9-11 and volunteer to help us, President Bush had to do a lot of arm twisting to gain what support they've given us.
Besides, isn't one of our closest allies sometimes referred to as "perfidious Albion"?
-----------------------
Sorry Scott,I was taking a pop at colonelartist,Interestedforeigner caught my drift,British humor can at times be obscure.Some times I find
more interesting than the actual thread,interaction between different
nationality's humor,sayings,quips I find fascinating.Misunderstandings
can arise & an international incident en-sews on this blog,which for me adds to this rich tapestry we call life...
Complain about this comment
Curt Carpenter wrote:
"Often times, your best friends and allies are precisely the ones that tell you what you don't want to hear -- especially when they think you're about to make a terrible and tragic mistake. And reasonable people, I think, have enough mental agility to reject the "your either with us or against us" line and can recognize the value in both honest support and honest criticism."
What does that have to do with what I said? Here I will repeat it: because they actively and continuously attacked America in front of and behind its back and tried their best to harm as much as possible America's government and image throughout the world.
You need to read more carefully. No reasonable person would consider that behavior as coming from "best friends." If you do then you have a strange idea of what a friend is.
"It may have escaped your notice, but the United States -is- a people's republic. Or at least that was the idea going into 1787. I'll grant you that there was considerable erosion of the ideal 2001 - 2009 -- but nothing that can't be repaired if we work at it."
It was also a "people's republic" when Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus. :)
Complain about this comment
Andy Post wrote:
"Irrelevant. The redecoration of the Oval Office was done without expense to taxpayers."
Boy, you really don't get it.
Complain about this comment
PartTimeDon wrote:
"Let's out this in persepective. The first lady (who can't travel on a commercial airliner)"
Who says?
"flies to Spain and you're outraged."
It really is that simple for you?
"The former president diverted the operations of an entire carrier fleet - which will have resulted in days of operations being suspended while the carrier ensures it is in safe water, the fleet positions itself to ensure the carrier is as safe as possible, scores of presidential staff and journalists are ferried to the carrier, other shipping is diverted and the 1000+ crew of the carrier are scrutinised for any conceivable threat - and you're happy to let that slide."
Sorry, but a carrier is always considered to be in "safe water." It was also off the coast of California on its way back to San Diego after being out to sea for ten months and in the Iraq and Afghanistan combat theaters. You have no idea what you are talking about.
There are also over 3000 crew members on a typical American super-carrier. :)
"I'm sure the sailors got a tremendous morale boost, but let's not pretend that it was anything other than a re-election stunt on the taxpayer's nickel with some insulting triumphalist overtones to offend Afghan civilians thrown in to boot."
The "sailors?" He spoke to all of America's troops and the rest of the country.
Your claim of a "re-election stunt" would assume that somehow Bush didn't care for his troops and his country. No reasonable person could disprove what was so obvious.
And why would any reasonable Afghan that values freedom and democracy be offended by seeing the Taliban destroyed? The same people that murder anyone in the most horrific ways that do not believe in exactly what they believe in. The same people that torment, torture and execute homosexuals, woman and children.
"I agree the Michelle Obama holiday is in poor taste given the message her husband is trying to send out,"
So if you accept that then why question my negative feelings towards it? My feelings are the same as yours!
"however, I'll worry about it when the cost equates to the 77(!) trips Bush made to Crawford during his 2 terms."
Ah I see. So you can in good conscience justify committing a wrong just so long as someone else is doing it? Does that make sense?
Complain about this comment
Mark wrote: "...he is making the point that it can be patriotic to oppose wars as well as to support them. It is a message to right wing republicans that liberals should not have to put up with accusations of being un-American for thinking differently about the world."
Certainly it can be patriotic, Mark, but you are not coupling history here.
In the late 1960s-early 1970s, the political left denigrated not only the efforts of the US government in Vietnam, but the soldiers themselves. Many of them have never owned that error, or apologized for it, or else have tried to sweep it under the rug. Many on the right have never forgotten that, or forgiven that.
When someone on the left views a potential war action today, many of them inevitably view it through that Vietnam lens, and react emotionally rather than with reason. When someone on the right sees someone on the left oppose a war action, many of them inevitably view it through the same lens, and react emotionally rather than with reason as well.
I don't think many folks really appreciate just how long a shadow that time casts over our society, even now. The largest generation in our population (the Baby Boomers) came of age during that period of time, and the things they did and experienced then were foundational to their attitudes today, and the attitudes they have passed to their children. Our inability to get along with each other, our inability to govern ourselves, our unwillingness to be governed, and our vicious partisanship can all be traced to a great degree right back to those foundational experiences, and to the great divisions in the land at that time.
To the extent that there is a "left" and a "right", both are equally trapped here. Both of them are absolutely certain of their inherent moral superiority, both of them are thoroughly committed to beating the other side into submission, if not to out-and-out destruction, and both of them are completely blind to their own faults, or dismiss them as being nowhere near as bad as "those other unmentionables".
Too many of our folks will go to their graves still (consciously or unconsciously) blindly reliving and regurgitating the hatreds they learned during those days, rather than realizing that they are replaying old attitudes and old actions over and over and over. It's long past time for them to realize that the conclusions about themselves, about human nature, and about life that seemed so correct in those heady days are overripe for a thorough re-examination. If they have the courage to really do the re-examination, they'll find that much of what they were so certain about is wrong, wrong, wrong. They've got to then be man / woman enough to admit it, and to begin to make right, and do right, what they have thus far made and done wrong. It takes courage and a steady commitment; I know this from personal experience.
To come full circle: The Vietnam era doesn't excuse the political right from automatically leveling charges against the left of being unpatriotic. It also doesn't excuse the political left from automatically blaming the United States for things like 9/11 (which some of them did in 2001).
Arclight
Complain about this comment
ref #99
A little history, TR was not abdonded by the Republicans. He served his Presidency and retired.
He then decided to come back and left the Republicans when they chose Taft as the nominee.
Complain about this comment
101. At 05:10am on 02 Sep 2010, rodidog wrote:
You are confusing the 1908 election for the 1912 election. Otherwise you got it right. The party bosses gave Taft the nomination in 1912 over TR even though TR won the primaries.
Btw, what part of Montana are you in? I use to go up to Kalispell and Whitefish fairly often, great place!
--------------------------------------------------------------
My general confusion anymore is massive, so you're probably correct about my 1908/1912 error. My apologies.
Hard to believe, isn't it, that the Wright brothers were just then learning how to fly?
Sadly, my time in Montana was limited to very early youth, when my civil engineer father was going to school (Bozeman) and working on the dam projects. I DID get carried into the odd saloon though, and it's amazing what an impression it made on me. I was in my teens before I realized that bananas didn't actually grow on pine trees (tied there with string == for my discovery -- by the saloon keeper).
Complain about this comment
103. At 08:44am on 02 Sep 2010, AllenT2 wrote:
...
What does that have to do with what I said? Here I will repeat it: because they actively and continuously attacked America in front of and behind its back and tried their best to harm as much as possible America's government and image throughout the world.
You need to read more carefully. No reasonable person would consider that behavior as coming from "best friends." If you do then you have a strange idea of what a friend is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Then I will have to live with having a strange idea of what a friend is
(never mind "best" -- different issue).
My recollection is that the French (and the EU in general) were telling us that we needed to slow down and THINK about what we were doing: that we needed to let the UN do its work (again!) before engaging in a mass, state-sponsored homicide.
And as it turned out, the French, Germans and our other true friends in the EU were right. Perhaps because they knew the true cost of "war" better than we do (especially when it's bought on credit and conducted by less than 1% of the people).
Sorry if you don't LIKE that fact, but there it is.
In my experience, having somebody tell me the TRUTH -- if it is inconvenient for me -- is often confused with being "attacked." But I'd like to think that I grew up and out of that notion.
Please don't take this as a personal attack. Understanding is hard to come by, and anybody (including me) that achieves it half the time is doing pretty well. Please reconsider your view, and let me know what you conclude.
Complain about this comment
Allen T2
"Sorry, but a carrier is always considered to be in "safe water." It was also off the coast of California on its way back to San Diego after being out to sea for ten months and in the Iraq and Afghanistan combat theaters. You have no idea what you are talking about.
There are also over 3000 crew members on a typical American super-carrier. :)
Well then, I'm sure the Secret Service just took the day off... I'd be willing to put decent money on there being a difference between "safe water" and "safe water when the president is aboard" I picked 1000+ out of thin air as checking wikipedia to find out that the USS Abraham Lincoln has around 3,500 souls on board doesn't make much difference in highlighting point that it's a lot of extra work for the Secret Service to check so many names.
__________________
"Your claim of a "re-election stunt" would assume that somehow Bush didn't care for his troops and his country. No reasonable person could disprove what was so obvious."
Not at all. Although if he was willing to commit troops to die in a war he couldn't justify, I believe he'd happily use them for his own political purposes. He can still care about them and be selfish too.
__________________
"And why would any reasonable Afghan that values freedom and democracy be offended by seeing the Taliban destroyed? The same people that murder anyone in the most horrific ways that do not believe in exactly what they believe in. The same people that torment, torture and execute homosexuals, woman and children."
Cos what they have now is so much better? The taliban gained power because enough Afghans were willing to tolerate their fanaticism in exchange for something like the rule of law. The invasion reversed that decision and put Afghans right back where they were before the Taliban took over. They or something similar to them will probably be back in power 3-5 years after the US leaves.
___________________
"So if you accept that then why question my negative feelings towards it? My feelings are the same as yours!
Ah I see. So you can in good conscience justify committing a wrong just so long as someone else is doing it? Does that make sense?"
My point was that everyone does it, but you only chose to make waves about it now.
There is a financial cost that goes with having elected leaders (with a family). Michelle Obama has stepped over the line this time, but she is no more responsible than many before her. I'm agreeing that shes wrong and that there is no justification for it. I'm asking why you choose to examine this issue rather than the potential cost of a round trip to Texas every 5 weeks for 8 years. Did Fox not cover that? I wonder why...
Complain about this comment
According to you what is the real reason we invaded Afghanistan? Was it for all the oil they don't produce or to control the opium production? Please don't tell me it was to get closer to Iran, Iran has a coastline and the Marines will feel teribly insulted if you insinuate we were planning to invade Iran but didn't think we could do it from the sea. Or was that we invaded Iraq, so we could drive our tanks to Iran? Which raises the question why have we pulled our combat units out of Iraq if we were planning to invade Iran?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To get closer to Iran was the main reason. Nothing more and nothing less..You dont know how americans do their job, you are just its citizen..and its citizens never know anything about their government's modus operandi..The americans have surrounded iran, by being in iraq and afghanistan, and by proxy fighting once again through pakistan's baluchistan..The stage is being carefully prepared, working on set design and props..when all that is completed, just wait for the director's speech from the white house..Whoever the director is going to be, he will give you a hollywood style speech and Voila! you will be liberating the iranis..or specifically the baluchis..the sunnis, from the shia regime..Just like you liberated the shias and kurds from the sunni regime in iraq...The reason bush refused to negotiate with taliban over ben laden, was that he had already planned and given a green signal to war...capturing ben laden was not important, however it would have been an added benefit..if he was captured..Those who still do not know and dont want to know about taliban offer, can do the google, the information is just a click away..Get your facts correct, its pathetic that people who claim to have so much knowldge dont know a basic simple fact...and I want to ask such people, where they were when taliban were making such offers? listening to the two religious and alcoholics and religous, aka crusadders, aka don quixote and sancho panza, aka bush and blair? the mutual interests which brought american and british nations together were just mutual interests these two crussaders shared, booze and religion, no wonder, the war on terror had always had an element of religon..it was run by two religous leaders in the west..Pakistan is the most allied ally of usa..americans and its government can critisize the people, the country the leaders, can violate its soverginty by sending drones, and kill its citizens, can bulldoze its leaders to bulldoze its citizens, and force its army to protect american soldiers in afghanistan, can accuse it for every defeat the american face in afghanistan, both militarily and politically, can close its trade import from pakistan, excpet for the mangoes..can force pakistan to buy all sorts of redudent equippment and planes without proper parts, yet pakistan will always support usa..
Complain about this comment
As for reliable, as I noted in my earlier post Pakistan's military intelligence service was instrumental in creating the Taleban and still maintains links with them, we would be foolish to regard them with the same degree of trust that for example we give to our NATO allies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And what was pakistan supposed to do with all those mujahed's created by usa? just let them kill each other as they were doing before the creation of taliban? Pakistani military or ISI did what it learnt from CIA..they created mujaheds and ISI created taliban..It just created a platform for the people who were tired of the creation of CIA..someone had to fill up the vaccum left by ussr and usa..it turned out to be taliban, big deal.And just to clear one important thing, if you think that CIA doesnt have links to one or the other taliban group then I guess you have no idea about the intelligence agencies..That which attracts adventurous people towards such intelligence agencies is all these links to the enemy grouls, Mossad has links with hamas, thats how it keeps eye on every movement of everyone in gaza, it has links with PLA, Raw has links with rebels in kashmir, CIA has links with KGB...You think that when your fbi manages to stop some terrorist attack, its because the fbi is so smart? guess again, the information is passed on to it through various agencies, both of the enemy and of their friends. 9/11 happened because of the breakdown of communication between your local agencies, cia and FBI, the international agencies, passed on the information to them well in advance..
Complain about this comment
Pakistan didn't jump up after 9-11 and volunteer to help us, President Bush had to do a lot of arm twisting to gain what support they've given us.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush didnt even twist the little finger of the dictator general president of pakistan, the dicator was looking for an acceptance of his dictatrship and to prolong his rule..bush gave this to him...Otherwise, india was more than ready to provide everything that american government wanted, and plus a lot more..You should have followed the debate of indian leaders bending backwards to get usa to use its soil..
Complain about this comment
AllenT2: "Your claim of a "re-election stunt" would assume that somehow Bush didn't care for his troops and his country. No reasonable person could disprove what was so obvious."
I would suggest Bush didn't care about his troops. He was clearly desperate to put them in harm's way and eventually found a way to do it. I would say by ignoring international war, I'm sure you would refute that.
"And why would any reasonable Afghan that values freedom and democracy be offended by seeing the Taliban destroyed? The same people that murder anyone in the most horrific ways that do not believe in exactly what they believe in. The same people that torment, torture and execute homosexuals, woman and children."
Have you read many of the sentiments of prominent British generals and aristocrats from the early/mid 19th century? They speak with contempt about the people of far away lands, and speak of the need to bring civilisation to their shores. You'd approve of much of it, I think.
As for torture and torment and those murdering in horrific ways others who hold opposing beliefs to them. Please tell me if you really need me to point out the parallels to you?
Complain about this comment
I assume you have the video of the American ambassador shaking hands with Jinnah and Mountbatten before they signed the agreement to create an independent Pakistan just to give the Americans a tool in the region? That would certainly explain why India was so cool towards us for all those years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mountbatten is your and indians hero..and his wife was Nehru's herione. In pakistan, the last vicroy is considered to be a blair.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_Y06tzyc8s
Skip the song that comes at the start...
Complain about this comment
A low level betting scam gets out of proporttional media coverage..the betting was about which bowler throws how many no balls, here and there..its not as if english team won because of these no balls..this scandel is being overcovered in the western media..perhaps to compensate for the under coverage of the floods..The negative portrayal of pakistan is in fashion these days..
Complain about this comment
Ref. 104, AllenT2:
"Boy, you really don't get it."
Go ahead and explain it to me then. I'll read it.
Complain about this comment
re. #111. At 3:15pm on 02 Sep 2010, colonelartist wrote:
"To get closer to Iran was the main reason. Nothing more and nothing less..You dont know how americans do their job, you are just its citizen..and its citizens never know anything about their government's modus operandi..The americans have surrounded iran, by being in iraq and afghanistan, and by proxy fighting once again through pakistan's baluchistan..The stage is being carefully prepared, working on set design and props..when all that is completed, just wait for the director's speech from the white house..Whoever the director is going to be, he will give you a hollywood style speech and Voila! you will be liberating the iranis..or specifically the baluchis..the sunnis, from the shia regime..Just like you liberated the shias and kurds from the sunni regime in iraq...The reason bush refused to negotiate with taliban over ben laden, was that he had already planned and given a green signal to war...capturing ben laden was not important, however it would have been an added benefit..if he was captured..Those who still do not know and dont want to know about taliban offer, can do the google, the information is just a click away..Get your facts correct, its pathetic that people who claim to have so much knowldge dont know a basic simple fact...and I want to ask such people, where they were when taliban were making such offers? listening to the two religious and alcoholics and religous, aka crusadders, aka don quixote and sancho panza, aka bush and blair? the mutual interests which brought american and british nations together were just mutual interests these two crussaders shared, booze and religion, no wonder, the war on terror had always had an element of religon..it was run by two religous leaders in the west..Pakistan is the most allied ally of usa..americans and its government can critisize the people, the country the leaders, can violate its soverginty by sending drones, and kill its citizens, can bulldoze its leaders to bulldoze its citizens, and force its army to protect american soldiers in afghanistan, can accuse it for every defeat the american face in afghanistan, both militarily and politically, can close its trade import from pakistan, excpet for the mangoes..can force pakistan to buy all sorts of redudent equippment and planes without proper parts, yet pakistan will always support usa.."
------------
Mexico produces very nice mangos, no need to import them from Pakistan.
Complain about this comment
106. At 1:24pm on 02 Sep 2010, arclightt wrote his post,
Thanks for your take on the psyche of American think,it can be seen in the positions & attitude of posters here.But like all folk the world over some are poles apart from the word go, Patriots vs Loyalists,Union vs Confederates Farmer vs Cowmen,hang on I feel a song coming on,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHw3xadHorw&feature=related
I say,do American girls sill wear those long dresses & I love the way
Granny Clampett takes control with that colt 45 ;)...
Complain about this comment
106. At 1:24pm on 02 Sep 2010, arclightt wrote:
...
In the late 1960s-early 1970s, the political left denigrated not only the efforts of the US government in Vietnam, but the soldiers themselves. Many of them have never owned that error, or apologized for it, or else have tried to sweep it under the rug. Many on the right have never forgotten that, or forgiven that.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Were you there?
A lot of us that were thought the left had it absolutely right, and certainly didn't have anything to apologize for. We admired the kids that went north -- or at least recognized that they did what they thought was right. The happy, oh-so-warlike but stay-in-school RIGHT was what irritated -- the people I knew, anyway.
I encountered a lot more kids that moved right-to-left in Vietnam than kids that moved in the other direction. It got pretty hard to find happy warriors that thought we were "saving" anybody or covering the US in glory. The most popular helmet liner slogan I remember was: Where were the Vietnamese during OUR civil war.
When I got home, I got welcomed in a mens room at Chicago's Ohare airport by some moron that told me I was a baby-killer. I think he was genuinely surprised when I told him that I agreed with him, and that he needed to take it up with Richard Nixon.
The whole thing taught me how dangerous glib analysis and over-simplified history can be. Maybe there's something there for you, too. The lesson certainly would have benefited George Bush and his crowd.
IMHO.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 112, colonelartist:
"9/11 happened because of the breakdown of communication between your local agencies, cia and FBI, the international agencies, passed on the information to them well in advance..."
Sort of. That's why the attack was somewhat successful, but it wasn't the impetus behind the event. I don't doubt that the Taleban and al Qaeda believe fervently that they're doing God's work, that they are God's warriors.
But the rest of your post is the truth as I know it. My guess is that the ISI feels that they followed the CIA's lead. Why wouldn't they? The tactic worked to defeat one of the world's two superpowers. They must have figured it would surely work against India. Unfortunately, the Taleban attitude was more like one down, one to go. They never really were on our side, were they? And they're not on Pakistan's side either. They're striking out on their own.
The ISI was no more aware of the reality of the situation than the CIA and both were burned badly for their tunnel vision. The rift came when the U.S. declared their former allies (or puppets if you wish) persona non grata and started pointing the finger at Pakistan... for doing exactly the same thing the U.S. did!
Then America discovered a brand new affinity with India. Curious, since we've always had a chilly relationship with them in the past.
The difference between the situations of the two countries, of course, is that the Taleban are inside Pakistan while they're half a world away from the U.S. It allows the Americans an us versus them, black vs. white position. That's simply not possible for Pakistan.
The Taleban won't stop if we withdraw. They will consider themselves 2 and 0 against the world's strongest military powers. They will look to extend what they see as their winning streak.
With the floods, a disaster of truly biblical proportions, Pakistan is on its knees (any country would be) and divided from the only country that actually has the ability to help. I don't know how to resolve this, but resolve it we must. Pakistan must survive as it is. We need people like you to stay in control of the country. Then, eventually this chapter in history will draw to a close. Hard feelings will remain for a long time, though, I fear.
I wish the Soviets hadn't invaded Afghanistan in '80. We saw the opportunity for revenge for Vietnam, Colonel, and we seized it. Well, we got our revenge and a whole lot more.
Complain about this comment
re. #113. At 3:29pm on 02 Sep 2010, colonelartist wrote:
Pakistan didn't jump up after 9-11 and volunteer to help us, President Bush had to do a lot of arm twisting to gain what support they've given us.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Bush didnt even twist the little finger of the dictator general president of pakistan, the dicator was looking for an acceptance of his dictatrship and to prolong his rule..bush gave this to him...Otherwise, india was more than ready to provide everything that american government wanted, and plus a lot more..You should have followed the debate of indian leaders bending backwards to get usa to use its soil.."
If Pakistan had been a more reliable ally I doubt Bush would have felt the need to make threats such as his "If you're not with us you're against us" speech. Call it an ultimatum or call it calling in a marker but it was not done in the same manner that we asked for help from other allies such as those in NATO.
Whether India was willing to help is beside the point. The last time I checked the map they didn't share a border with Afganistan and the immediate need was an air corridor for our planes. India offered to help because they feared the U.S. being drawn into closer relations with their old nemesis Pakistan and they saw an opportunity to improve relatiosn with the U.S. In hind sight, India needn't have worried.
Our relationship with Pakistan is one of convenience for both sides: we need their assistance for our war in Afghanistan and they need us as a deterrent to possible attack by India. In the old days the U.S. backed Pakistan because India leaned toward the Soviets but the Soviet Union is no more and in the long run the U.S. has more in common with a diverse and democratic India than it does with coup ridden Pakistan that is still a fertile breeding ground for Islamic fanatics and terrorists.
Sorry if that offends you colonelartist, just stating my opinion.
Complain about this comment
81. rodidog:
"I was watching Hardball last night. They were talking about how Obama and democrats are losing Wall Street donors along with their base supporters. One of the panelist actually said they should let Wall Street go and stick with their base. "
************
They really don't get it. Viewing Wall Street only as a voting bloc is their first mistake. Viewing Wall Street players only as a group of rich people who owe a lot to someone else is their second mistake.
With these views of investors, is it any wonder democrats cannot figure out how to improve investor confidence?
Complain about this comment
20. Curt Carpenter:
"A lot of us that were thought the left had it absolutely right, and certainly didn't have anything to apologize for."
***********
I think you confirm the point that there is a lingering resentment that fuels the left-right divide. Neither side is without responsibility.
People love to blame FoxNews, etc., but the left has fueled its own brand of hate politics. Not sure why this is so hard to see.
It's too bad that Obama is inspiring another wave of haters. The pendulum just keeps swinging back and forth.
Complain about this comment
Colonelartist: "The negative portrayal of pakistan is in fashion these days"
What are you talking about? Would you rather the world's media didn't mention the natural disaster? I can just imagine what you'd be bleating if it didn't make the news. Something along the lines of the west ignoring the desperate people of Pakistan, I shouldn't wonder.
As for the cricket, I think it is a big deal and so do many others. OK, no one died, but if we spent time thinking only about the most catastrophic stories it'd not be long before we all started self-harming! And by the way, the Pakistani cricket team are a source of inspiration and hope to many of the unfortunate people in Pakistan, so to them this is a seriously big deal.
Would you rather keep them in the dark?
Complain about this comment
SaintDomonic,as i have stated before i moved here from the socialist utopia of the UK,here is something to think about,my nephew was playing rugby and injured his knee.My sister took him to the doctor,then the specialist who said he needed an mri,11 months later he had the mri.This is not unusual,you think waiting a month is bad wait until the socialists get their hands on it cancer survival rates will plummet after a few years,but the good thing is at least we will all be treated the same right ?
Complain about this comment
#42
My comments about the DMV,post office running health care was showing an example of how the government runs things.About 9 tenths of people who work for the government are idlers looking for an easy ride in a job no matter how inept,or unproductive they are,they don't get fired.
Name an agency run by the government that is even close to being efficient or completes any thing on time and under budget ?
Complain about this comment
As for the cricket, I think it is a big deal and so do many others. OK, no one died, but if we spent time thinking only about the most catastrophic stories it'd not be long before we all started self-harming! And by the way, the Pakistani cricket team are a source of inspiration and hope to many of the unfortunate people in Pakistan, so to them this is a seriously big deal.
Would you rather keep them in the dark?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
First comes the clarification, and then comes the accusation.So: Its not as if anyone expects more coverage of floods in pakistan in western media.. However western media's coverage of floods is like the person who scarps his little finger and wants to stand in the lines of nartyr before G-d. Comapred to that the low level betting scandal takes more news time.Pakistani cricket team is not a source of inspiration to unfortunate people of pakistan..There a plenty of insiprational sources aside this source..the kind of people it inspire are the 18 yr old bowler who is involved in this scandal..or that fast bowler that has been sent to replace him..who thinks practising and disipline is for others and not for him. The real source of insipiration are the ones who play squash.
Complain about this comment
"If you're not with us you're against us" speech.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
And whatever gave you the idea that pakistan was the target of that speech? Bush addressed the whole world..
Complain about this comment
Our relationship with Pakistan is one of convenience for both sides: we need their assistance for our war in Afghanistan and they need us as a deterrent to possible attack by India. In the old days the U.S. backed Pakistan because India leaned toward the Soviets but the Soviet Union is no more and in the long run the U.S. has more in common with a diverse and democratic India than it does with coup ridden Pakistan that is still a fertile breeding ground for Islamic fanatics and terrorists.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relations are always established for the convience..for 50 yrs this relation of convience has existed..In this fifty yrs lots like you have benefited from this relations, saying exactly the same thing which you are saying. Unlike all your allies and friends, pakistan is the only ally you have a sadist relationship with..And I will not elaborate more because bbc will not let my post see the daylight.
Complain about this comment
The Taleban won't stop if we withdraw. They will consider themselves 2 and 0 against the world's strongest military powers. They will look to extend what they see as their winning streak.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The taliban in pakistan, the so called pakistani taliban created themselves because of usa..As long as usa remains in pakistan, and their military is present, it has pakistani aribases on lease and as long as it drones pakistani space and as long as it forces pakistani military to fight its war to save americans on the other side of the border, taliban will remain in pakistan..After that, they will vanish or go back to their local neighbourhods..Because the reason they use, america, will not be there..
Complain about this comment
We need people like you to stay in control of the country.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure, create the mess, and encourage people like me to do the damage control..People need to control their impuse of damaging. People like me cannot even conrtol their families and you are telling us to control a whole country...Nice try.
Complain about this comment
Then America discovered a brand new affinity with India. Curious, since we've always had a chilly relationship with them in the past.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not curious if you bring in China..americak's new found relation with india is because of its hatered for communism..aka china. And since india serve this purpose of the west and usa, the west conviently overlook all the negative about india...The human eqaulity spokespersons become all quiet about indian society's ineqaulity of the highest order..not to mention the smell of its cities..and ofcourse the nano cars bursting into fires.
Complain about this comment
re. # 131. At 8:03pm on 02 Sep 2010, colonelartist wrote:
"The taliban in pakistan, the so called pakistani taliban created themselves because of usa..As long as usa remains in pakistan, and their military is present, it has pakistani aribases on lease and as long as it drones pakistani space and as long as it forces pakistani military to fight its war to save americans on the other side of the border, taliban will remain in pakistan..After that, they will vanish or go back to their local neighbourhods..Because the reason they use, america, will not be there.."
To some degree that's true, U.S. withdrawal will deprive the local Taliban of a recruiting tool and some of their less comitted members may use it as an excuse to lay down their arms and go back to civilian pursuits. It doesn't explain the recent Taliban attempt to extend their control into non-tribal regions like the Swat valley and replace civil authority with Shariah law and Islamic courts. That would indicate that the hard core Taliban have an agenda that extends beyond any temporary American presence in the country, namely to overthrow the western leaning ruling elite (military and civilian) that has governed Pakistan since independence and impose an Islamic government on Pakistan.
Complain about this comment
re. #133. At 8:13pm on 02 Sep 2010, colonelartist wrote:
Then America discovered a brand new affinity with India. Curious, since we've always had a chilly relationship with them in the past.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not curious if you bring in China..americak's new found relation with india is because of its hatered for communism..aka china. And since india serve this purpose of the west and usa, the west conviently overlook all the negative about india...The human eqaulity spokespersons become all quiet about indian society's ineqaulity of the highest order..not to mention the smell of its cities..and ofcourse the nano cars bursting into fires.
-----------
You neglected to mention India's reasons for seeking closer ties with America: a history of border disputes with China, competition by China for influnece over Nepal and Bhutan and the increasingly violent Maoist insurgency in India's eastern provinces.
Complain about this comment
Yes BUT to both though both have important points that should not be ignored.
9. At 04:40am on 01 Sep 2010, I did not like, trust or support George Bush during the election. I reacted with strong nationalism after the attack of 9/11.
I did not buy the connection of Saddam to Al Qaida as the administration tried to paint it. However, there seemed to be enough justification to trust the government in the aftermath of the attack:
“The enemy of my enemy is my friend” is an old Middle Eastern saying. The rivals, Saddam and Osama bin Laden, working against a common enemy, the US, was at least as plausible as Hitler and Stalin working together [see Molotov Ribbentrop Pact].
I began to see the errors and inconsistencies immediately after the invasion, and my willingness to support the “Bungler in Chief” dropped to nil, and I was not alone in this.
10. At 04:47am on 01 Sep 2010, rodidog wrote
Re #6. Lee
If the Democrats had not supported the GOP on matters of national security they would have been subjected to cries of communist, socialist and traitor. This is born out by the unjustified, and unjustifiable, use of such against President Obama. Yes, it was political calculation, not conscience, but that just makes them guilty of the same conscienceless mendacity as the GOP. Big surprise that, as they are the same sorts who are beholden to the same puppet-masters.
Complain about this comment
they need us as a deterrent to possible attack by India.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would india attack pakistan? its not foolish as usa. And how can usa be a deterrent if pakistani military which traditionally guarded its eastern and sourthen border and left its northern and western borders to be defended by the people its killing, if the military is engaged in north and west..its eastern border with india has never been as vulnerable as its now, because of usa...and somehow it reminds me of the days when india fought with bangali terrorists in east pakistan against pakistani military..From the start of that war, there was this 7th fleet of us navy which was supposed to come to supposedly help pakistan..the war ended the pows returned, pakistan accepted bangladesh and there was no sighn of that fleet..it just kept on comming..without reaching..
Complain about this comment
Ref. 131, colonelartist:
"After that, they will vanish or go back to their local neighbourhods."
Are you sure about that? It's not what the Afghan Taleban (or those that would become the Taleban) did after the Russians left. They took Kabul.
Once we're gone, I don't think we're coming back. So, if you're wrong... well, there's always the UK.
Pakistani Taleban are supposed to be different, I guess. They're two distinct groups, right? Over here on the other side of the globe, I can't tell them apart.
Why won't they make a deal? Any sort of non-aggression pact and we'd be gone overnight. We'd still have to hunt down bin Laden and Co., but we could stop using robots to wipe out their movement's leadership.*
As far as their expansion into Swat -- and that was a territorial expansion, right? --, does Islamabad really want to give that area up? Are everyday Pakistanis cool with that? Are you?
_________________
* Funny, I always identified with the humans in the Terminator movies. Guess I was wrong about that.
Complain about this comment
It doesn't explain the recent Taliban attempt to extend their control into non-tribal regions like the Swat valley and replace civil authority with Shariah law and Islamic courts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a history behind it, and it doesnt start from swat valley and replacement of civil authority with shariah law of the last yr..the local politics got out of control again due to the present of americans..which had nothing to do with swat but everything to do with a certain man, who was let to hijack the entire valley because of your favourite general dictator of pakistan..and usa government knows all about it..but it too overlooked, because creation of taliban in pakistan was in their favour because they could then conformtably ask and not pakistan to keep on engaging its military..and ergo destablising the country slowly and steadly..The situation is messy, but their is a system to this mess..its called, america's policy of systematically messing up a country.
Complain about this comment
108 Curt Carpenter,
"My general confusion anymore is massive, so you're probably correct about my 1908/1912 error. My apologies."
No apologies necessary, I agree with your point. It's just that the story is much deeper on a personal level when you realize that Taft and TR were good friends, that TR helped Taft win the republican nomination in 1908 because he refused to run, only to come to a falling out between the two four years later over TR's more progressive views and subsequent third party bid for the White House.
Complain about this comment
33. At 12:35pm on 01 Sep 2010, HabitualHero wrote:
"But it is also a message to American people as a whole, who are tired of war."
"Aw, poor them. You'd imagine that it was their country that was invaded and left in ruins. But that's americans for you - poor, poor us*. Iraqis? Who? Never heard of 'em.
*How ironic that the United States of America is generally referred to as "US"."
I don't believe this person has ever lived in the US or has ever known a real sampling of Americans. All this propagandist has to offer is continual, one-sided, attack, in which he/she/it always paints 300,000,000 people with the same inaccurate brush. This person ought to be very ashamed of him/her/it-self, though Joseph Goebbels would have been quite admiring.
Complain about this comment
You neglected to mention India's reasons for seeking closer ties with America: a history of border disputes with China, competition by China for influnece over Nepal and Bhutan and the increasingly violent Maoist insurgency in India's eastern provinces.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The border dispute with china had always been there..For about 50 plus some yrs, india was a NAM member..a founder too..in reality all NAM members were more pro ussr..with cold war ending, india could be open to west..it was one of the country that supported ussr invasion in afghanistan and was against usa proxy war...it was also very pro.PLO, now its people wish everyone would just forget that part and just consider india to be very friendly to israel..India likes to consider itself an israel of the sub-contintent..its a new role it has taken..but acts in a very bad way...like a flop hero..
Complain about this comment
How could Obama present rhetorical flourishes about the end of the war in Iraq when he knows the war is not over; in fact, it is open-ended.
50,000 troops remain under the guise of “trainers”, American contractors are pouring into Iraq, and then there's that Embassy larger than the Vatican and probably holding as many as, if not or more people than the Vatican. Oddly, knowing that Americans have not left Iraq. Obama has the nerve to state that neither Afghanistan nor Iraq are wars without end.
The rest of the “troops” will leave Iraq sometime next year, and then what? Does Obama intend to tear down that American Embassy, or simply surrender it to Iraqis?
In Afghanistan the pace of withdrawal is likely to be determined by how safe it is on the ground to finally build the American pipeline:
The Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline (TAP or TAPI). The pipeline will transport Caspian Sea natural gas from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan into Pakistan and then to India. The abbreviation comes from the first letters of those countries. Oh, and how much will Afghan get? About 8% of the project's revenue.
The US intends to sustain and strengthen its leadership of the world. Otherwise known as American imperialism, but this will have to be through military action alone because the United States will remain in debt for years and years to come. The United States is quickly becoming a second rate power.
The US had spent more than $1 trillion on war, which has "short changed" investment in America and put 40% of Americans on at least partial foodstamps. Foreclosures are up; banks art still going belly-up. The financial reform was no reform at all, which means derivative trading, speculation and defult swapping is still going on. What will Obama do now – print more (declining-in-value) money, which not even China will buy?
The White House is constantly trying to turn the media's attention to the economy. It may be where most Americans want Obama to focus, but there is nothing there to see!
Obama cannot turn the American economy. It's too late. So I guess things are going to get very sticky on the home front.
Complain about this comment
Are you sure about that? It's not what the Afghan Taleban (or those that would become the Taleban) did after the Russians left. They took Kabul.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, Andy. Those were not taliban, those were northern alliance..karzai, dostum, ismail, general fahim, abudullah abdullah and your famous and loved, now dead Masood..not to be mixed with the mehshud or mehsud tribes of pathans...these were mujahedin created by cia..those who hanged the president of afghanistan after russian withdrew and started non stop fighting each other..
Complain about this comment
Ref. 133, colonelartist:
"Not curious if you bring in China.."
It's always seemed as if India had trouble telling the U.S. and the British apart. We look alike, you know. They're starting to make the distinction.
We had a revolution just like you.
Yes, India offsets China, and that was the U.S. government's reason. It was seen as a matter of national self-interest. It's not a secret, but my fellow citizens just don't care enough to pay attention. Americans in general have little interest in foreign affairs.
The Mumbai attack was what brought the American public along.
Hey, you got attacked by Muslim extremists? No kidding! So, did we! Gosh, they're such evil doers!
I remember an incident not too long ago when a whole passenger train of Muslims were roasted alive in the cars when it stopped at a station in northwest India. Unbelievable savagery.
I can't help but see Mumbai as the latest in a long series of atrocious behavior on both sides going well back into history, pre-dating the arrival of the British for sure. It didn't have anything to do with America, and yet through some quirk of fate, a sling of outrageous fortune if you will, it brought Pakistan's mortal enemy and the world's only superpower together.
And the hole got deeper.
Complain about this comment
As far as their expansion into Swat -- and that was a territorial expansion, right? --, does Islamabad really want to give that area up? Are everyday Pakistanis cool with that? Are you?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is something...do you know kashmir? gilgit, hunza and all that surrounds it, once came under kashmir..when pakistan starts demanding india about kashmir thats occupied by india, india starts messing in these valleys..Swat was an independent estate in pakistan, was forced to join the province..its a long story..the new generation post ussr withdrawl generation have found a new platform to fight for its independence from the province..in the shap of taliban..Nothing else nothing more..30 yrs ago it was ruled by its prince, with no goverment law..then proxy ruled by the prince, the law of pakistan was just for the deocrative purposes..it was a backward area when ruled directly by its prince, remained a backward under the provinicial government rule..and would have remained the same if taliban had ruled..the only thing which is missing are certain kinds of plants (not poppy) but the ones which are legal in holland to grow..they were eveywhere in swat..growing wild.the army and the taliban did a complete bulldoze on them, the way israel does on gaza.
Complain about this comment
I can't help but see Mumbai as the latest in a long series of atrocious behavior on both sides going well back into history, pre-dating the arrival of the British for sure. It didn't have anything to do with America, and yet through some quirk of fate, a sling of outrageous fortune if you will, it brought Pakistan's mortal enemy and the world's only superpower together.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The politics in mumbai are the dirtist politics, dirtier than mafia..the groups are fighting for internal control of mumbai..control of the port..the muslim mafia in mumbai controlled the city up until that hindu fanatic bal thackery came into picture..whatever happened in mumbai was the groups internal conflict..
Complain about this comment
124. At 6:42pm on 02 Sep 2010, AndreaNY wrote:
I think you confirm the point that there is a lingering resentment that fuels the left-right divide. Neither side is without responsibility.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
With all due respect, I don't think you understand at all. The resentment -- yes, it's there -- is toward the sort of hubris that gives us "shock and awe," the juvenile insistence on "sides," and all the simple-minded dichotomies that too many of us demand because anything more complex makes our head hurt.
Give me something to work with beyond pronouncement about sides and "haters." At least give me a -story- with a moral, or a nice limerick.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 144, colonelartist:
"No, Andy. Those were not taliban, those were northern alliance..karzai, dostum, ismail, general fahim, abudullah abdullah and your famous and loved, now dead Masood..not to be mixed with the mehshud or mehsud tribes of pathans...these were mujahedin created by cia..those who hanged the president of afghanistan after russian withdrew and started non stop fighting each other.."
I don't understand. Where did the modern day Taliban pick up their training, then? Americans not only provided arms to the Mujahadin, they trained them in small unit tactics. They were getting mowed down by the Russians before. They used to run away from the helicopters. That's a bad idea.
You remember a while back when an U.S. outpost got overrun on the border? A few weeks later they tried it again. It wasn't successful and they took heavy casualties, but it was textbook American tactical doctrine (which is a short branch away from Britain's). I understand these people have a long history of repelling invaders, but their use of indirect fire in support of a multi-pronged, staggered attack... it was almost as if they were showing their teachers just how good studies they were.
Where did they get the training if it wasn't from the CIA? ISI, maybe?
Complain about this comment
Ref. 147, colonelartist:
"The politics in mumbai are the dirtist politics, dirtier than mafia..the groups are fighting for internal control of mumbai..control of the port..the muslim mafia in mumbai controlled the city up until that hindu fanatic bal thackery came into picture..whatever happened in mumbai was the groups internal conflict.."
Hmm, I don't know about that. Washington kept New Delhi at bay in exchange for information from Islamabad. The attack was certainly launched from within Pakistan. That's not the same as saying that it was Pakistan that launched the attack. Islamabad is having trouble controling the roiling forces within its borders. Pakistan needs to get a break somehow, somewhere. Just some stroke of good fortune.
Those floods were sent by the devil himself.
Complain about this comment
Ref 143, BluesBerry
"The rest of the “troops” will leave Iraq sometime next year, and then what? Does Obama intend to tear down that American Embassy, or simply surrender it to Iraqis?"
No, the 21-building "embassy" will remain in place, marines will protect it, and it will continue to be a major factor in the decision making process in Iraq, both on political as well as economic matters.
President Obama's announcement about the end of "combat operations" simply means that we have moved to the next phase of the war, which in addition to training and logistics support to the Iraqi military, it also includes an orderly withdrawal. Considering the amount of materiel in that country, the latter is no easy task.
Complain about this comment
Ref 97, Arclight
Good post, as usual. You are correct in saying that raising taxes will not solve our problems. It may reduce the deficit by about one third, but more will be needed to balance the budget and start paying off the debt. I am afraid some painful cuts in spending will be necessary. I would not be surprised if an across the board budget reduction is tried first (probably around 10%), but if that doesn't work some services are simply going to go away.
I would also not be surprised if the Social Security eligibility age is raised to 67, and the contribution cap is raised considerably.
Complain about this comment
I don't understand. Where did the modern day Taliban pick up their training, then? Americans not only provided arms to the Mujahadin, they trained them in small unit tactics. They were getting mowed down by the Russians before. They used to run away from the helicopters. That's a bad idea.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modern day taliban are very modern..they improvise. But, if they were all that trained they would not be dying in dozens and two dozens every time they try to make a raid..the recent example is the attack on two bases in afghanistan..
Complain about this comment
Hmm, I don't know about that. Washington kept New Delhi at bay in exchange for information from Islamabad. The attack was certainly launched from within Pakistan. That's not the same as saying that it was Pakistan that launched the attack. Islamabad is having trouble controling the roiling forces within its borders. Pakistan needs to get a break somehow, somewhere. Just some stroke of good fortune.
Those floods were sent by the devil himself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The attack was done by the sea port...The mafia that control mumbai port, controls mumbai..It was purely a mafia war between mumbai's mafia..Indian politics is very dirty..the raw has connections with mafia in bombay..There was an investigation going on about some fanatic hindus exploding bombs in muslim areas..the chief who pathetically was killed in mumbai, was carrying out that investigation..everything about is on the net...Pakistan has survived for 60 yrs with india as its neighbour and usa as its friends, earthquake of three yrs ago and will survive these floods...Some countries are survivalists, others destructives..
Complain about this comment
ref #145
Andy Post wrote:
Ref. 133, colonelartist:
"Not curious if you bring in China.."
It's always seemed as if India had trouble telling the U.S. and the British apart. We look alike, you know. They're starting to make the distinction.
We had a revolution just like you.
Yes, India offsets China, and that was the U.S. government's reason. It was seen as a matter of national self-interest. It's not a secret, but my fellow citizens just don't care enough to pay attention. Americans in general have little interest in foreign affairs.
The Mumbai attack was what brought the American public along.
Hey, you got attacked by Muslim extremists? No kidding! So, did we! Gosh, they're such evil doers!
____________________
First Bush had stregnthened relations with India before the Mumbai attacks
Second why should not the two largest democracies in the world be friends.
Third since India like other democracies and tolerant countries is going to be the target of islamic facists, we should be friends.
Ever notice that democracies work best when islam has no part in governing. Look at turkey progressive country till they got an islamic pm than they started supporting terrorist groups
Complain about this comment
re. #139. At 9:19pm on 02 Sep 2010, colonelartist wrote:
"...The situation is messy, but their is a system to this mess..its called, america's policy of systematically messing up a country."
Oh come on, you're not giving the U.S. enough credit. If America set out to systematically mess up a country we could do a much better job of it than that.
Complain about this comment
6. At 03:52am on 01 Sep 2010, Lee wrote:
"Also the Democrats voted to go into Iraq. Put the numbers up. It just wasn't one party!"
"You're right, but you failed to mention the reason everyone rallied around George Bush... that reason was the blatant lie about WMDs... why do people forget WHY democrats supported going to war... ?"
Why do people forget that the issue regarding Saddam Hussein and WMD pre-dated George W. Bush? And, if as it would appear, intelligence services globally believed Saddam was actively pursuing WMDs, and indeed had actually used them on his own citizenry, why didn't the previous administration do something about it? It would certainly appear, given the following quotes that they believed that there was credible evidence both before and after George Bush was elected.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Complain about this comment
re.# 154. At 10:59pm on 02 Sep 2010, colonelartist wrote:
Hmm, I don't know about that. Washington kept New Delhi at bay in exchange for information from Islamabad. The attack was certainly launched from within Pakistan. That's not the same as saying that it was Pakistan that launched the attack. Islamabad is having trouble controling the roiling forces within its borders. Pakistan needs to get a break somehow, somewhere. Just some stroke of good fortune.
Those floods were sent by the devil himself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The attack was done by the sea port...The mafia that control mumbai port, controls mumbai..It was purely a mafia war between mumbai's mafia..Indian politics is very dirty..the raw has connections with mafia in bombay..There was an investigation going on about some fanatic hindus exploding bombs in muslim areas..the chief who pathetically was killed in mumbai, was carrying out that investigation..everything about is on the net...Pakistan has survived for 60 yrs with india as its neighbour and usa as its friends, earthquake of three yrs ago and will survive these floods...Some countries are survivalists, others destructives..
------------
Assuming for the sake of argument that you're correct, is it customary for organized crime groups in India to hire hit squads from Islamic extremist groups based in Pakistan? That seems like odd behavior, why turn a local turf war into a terrorist incident with all the extra publicity and interest from the central government's security and intelligence forces?
Complain about this comment
"I would also not be surprised if the Social Security eligibility age is raised to 67, and the contribution cap is raised considerably."
Saint Dominick.
Well they have already started using the birthdate to limit benefits. Doesn't suprise me after this liberal progressive power drunken stupor of this band of Democratic bandits. Didn't a Congresswomen (Dem) from just get caught giving scholarships to her family, even though they didn't live in the correct area. As well as giving the same scholarship to an employee who works in her office kids two scholarships. Talk about corrupt, I would have like to seen the other probably more deserving kids needs and scores. I am amazed by corruption in both parties, but I think it is status quo on the democratic party side. I truly hope more people leave this relic broken two party machines and demand more. I would be embarassed to align and join either party then brag about it. The people that join these parties are just parrots for the drivel that they sell them.
Democratic defenses, ummm, they are racist, Bush did it, Palin arrgh, Taxed Enough Party (they must be lunatics). Well the more they drone, the more I see the Liberal Progressive Democratic hacks losing it. I LOVE IT.
Complain about this comment
As far as Mumbai, Islamabad is the hub of the Islamic Taliban mafia. I mean after all, they backed them for so long. China, India, Russia, and the rest of the nations should recognise the threatening nature of those Islamists foister this in all nations in this world. All are having these problems. So this threat is far more insidious than the Mafi, more like Nazi's. But Obama keeps pumping the money into Pakistan, even from behind closed doors.
Complain about this comment
Grizzly,
Gov. Ryan, (R-IL) convicted on corruption charges, now sits in jail.
Gov. Blago (D-IL) awaits a second trial to likely be paid by taxpayers.
In Illinois, it is to the point where corruption is becoming an everyday normal thing, especially if it is a politician's second term, kinda ridiculous, but that's the way it keeps happening, like a revolving door or energizer bunny...
Many Illinois voters are deeply unhappy that Blago's second trial will likely be paid by taxpayers and although the law's the law, many of us would rather let the guy go, than pay for his trial! It is not worth it to spend our millions on Blago, when we could be using that money for the people! Schools, roads, jobs, whatever! The point is, let the guy go and let us spend our money on the people!
Complain about this comment
159. At 00:30am on 03 Sep 2010, AmericanGrizzly wrote:
"Well they have already started using the birthdate to limit benefits. Doesn't suprise me after this liberal progressive power drunken stupor of this band of Democratic bandits."
____________
The forces at work here are demographic. As baby boomers reach retirement both Social Security and Medicare are going to find that there just isn't enough in the pot.
When it comes to the inevitability of actuarial science, it doesn't matter whether they are Democrats or Republicans, they are going to run into the same brick wall, financially speaking.
Complain about this comment
Re: St.Dominick 152
I believe the social security age for retirement with full benefits has already been raised to 67, incrementally increasing to that age in full for the year 2022 as a result of the 1983 social security reform act.
As our congress currently seems unwilling to even allow the Bush tax cuts to sunset, it's hard to see where revenues are to come from or where responsible spending cuts are to be made. It may be at the brink of catastrophe when politicians will feel they have the necessary cover to act, and, sadly, when acting under such circumstances, the reults are often less than they might otherwise have been.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've noticed among some earlier Republican posters a desire to ascribe the Iraq war policy to the Democrats. At least it's a tacit recognition of a wrong headed policy-- better than nothing.
Partisanship aside, we really need a more sober approach and honest public dialogue in the future when considering the use of force. If we've learned that, we will have moved forward.
Complain about this comment
Abnormal Norman;
"On a positive note, let me say that the American economy will never have a meaningful growth again -- until after another catastrophic event, like a world war, that is."
Then by all means we should attack without further delay. It really doesn't matter who. The best choice would be someone who least expects it. Say Britain, France and Germany all at the same time. Wow would they every be stunned. Catch them completely off guard. The element of surprise would be awesome. Or maybe Israel. I'll bet they don't expect to be attacked by the US. Or maybe India. Just when they think they are getting close to us, WHAM! BANG! Shocker. Or maybe Canada. The border is completely unguarded, there would be no resistance. Our soldiers could go in disguise as hockey fans. But the sooner the better because our economy needs it and you say we will have economic growth and recovery if we get into a world war. It's time to start beating our plowshares into swords.
Complain about this comment
106. At 1:24pm on 02 Sep 2010, arclightt wrote:
..."In the late 1960s-early 1970s, the political left denigrated not only the efforts of the US government in Vietnam, but the soldiers themselves. Many of them have never owned that error, or apologized for it, or else have tried to sweep it under the rug. Many on the right have never forgotten that, or forgiven that."
A post I wish I had written. I have been trying to say that for months. Thank you.
It is interesting that the objections that confirm your point are only coming from the Left.
Curt - I was there too, and although the mood of the times swept over us all, at least in California, I was just old enough to have seen things from the other perspective as well.
Forty years later we are still having the same, heated arguments in my family, among my siblings, and just along the lines Archlight lays out. Thank goodness we know each other well enough not to come to blows or utterly disown our own. I have lost friends over this, and from the strength of your position, so have you. However , I later married a woman who was raised in central Oklahoma at that same time. Many of her schoolmates were ruined by the 'Nam experience, including her first husband. But all of them were welcomed home when they got back to town.
We have become markedly uncivil in our generation, and that is a threat to our civilization.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
Ref 161, Lucy
"Gov. Ryan, (R-IL) convicted on corruption charges, now sits in jail.
Gov. Blago (D-IL) awaits a second trial to likely be paid by taxpayers."
You forgot to mention Gov. Sanford (R-SC) who used taxpayer's money for a rendezvous in Buenos Aires and is still in office.
Unfortunately for us, corruption is one of a few bipartisan attributes we can count on from our politicians.
Complain about this comment
Ref 159, AmericanGrizzly
"I am amazed by corruption in both parties, but I think it is status quo on the democratic party side..."
Have you forgotten Sen. Stevens, Congressmen Cunnigham, Foley and others?
Corruption among our government officials is commonplace and it doesn't seem to be linked to party affiliation. What I have not yet figured out is whether we elect corrupt candidates or whether they become corrupt after they are elected. It may be a little bit of both, but I think the arrogance that comes from being in a position of power and the temptation of easy money associated with lobbying probably has a lot to do with it.
The solution may be to ban lobbying, term limits, limit political contributions to no more than $1K (disclosed), and the creation of one or two more major parties.
Complain about this comment
Assuming for the sake of argument that you're correct, is it customary for organized crime groups in India to hire hit squads from Islamic extremist groups based in Pakistan? That seems like odd behavior, why turn a local turf war into a terrorist incident with all the extra publicity and interest from the central government's security and intelligence forces?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am always correct. It is very customary for th eorganized mafia of mumbai to hire squads from anywhere..The hindu mafia led by bal thackery has connections with raw and the politicians..
Complain about this comment
Since hurricane season is on us, and according to colonerartist, US economy cannot recover, perhaps Pakistan could assist US for a change?
For example by sending some of its transport helicopters to help Mexican Gulf oil spill's victims?
[I still remember a significant aid EUSSR countries delivered in the aftermath of 'Katrina' disaster. ;(]
Complain about this comment
It is amusing to read colonelartist's claims about Pakistan having had to live for decades under threat from U.S. supported India.
Whereas everybody and their granmother knows that during the Cold War U.S. has strongly supported and armed Pakistan and was accused of doing just that by both India and Soviet Union, New Delhi's staunchest ally for decades. :)
Complain about this comment
re. #139. At 9:19pm on 02 Sep 2010, colonelartist wrote:
"...The situation is messy, but their is a system to this mess..its called, america's policy of systematically messing up a country."
Oh come on, you're not giving the U.S. enough credit. If America set out to systematically mess up a country we could do a much better job of it than that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trust, its usa that has set the pace of this systematic mess up..Too fast, and usa wont be even able to make the face saving gesture that it has tried to make at the withdrawl of some of its troops from Iraq, too slow and the result would be the same. usa cannot afford to take up another war for some time..in the meantime, its preparing the turf at its own pace..
Complain about this comment
SD: Have you forgotten Sen. Stevens, Congressmen Cunnigham, Foley and others?
I thought that sen. Stevens dying recently notwithstanding, the corruption accusations against him had been dropped?
And that Congresman Foley was a Democrat?
And quite a leading one to boot?
[No, I won't mention that famous Democrat, Charlie Rangel]
Complain about this comment
165. At 04:18am on 03 Sep 2010, KScurmudgeon wrote RE
106. At 1:24pm on 02 Sep 2010, arclightt wrote
I remember the Anti-War riots and Kent State. I considered myself a "Socialist" and anti-war, until I ran into the Marxist cabal that dominated my university. They persecuted me because I would not swallow the party line hook, line and sinker and because I insisted on examining their motives, methods and policies with the same detachment as the government's.
They said I couldn't possibly be a "socialist" because I did not accept pure doctrine [TRUE], they also said I was a stooge or government spy [UNTRUE but typical].
I remained anti-war, and I remain suspicious of leftists [especially Marxists] as much as equally misguided and undemocratic rightists. I agree, therefore, that we are still suffering a hangover from the mid-20th Century. The $24,000 question is how do we move on from here?
Complain about this comment
173. At 01:57am on 04 Sep 2010, JMM wrote:
"I remember the Anti-War riots and Kent State. I considered myself a "Socialist" and anti-war, until I ran into the Marxist cabal that dominated my university. They persecuted me because I would not swallow the party line hook, line and sinker and because I insisted on examining their motives, methods and policies with the same detachment as the government's."
At UCLA there was no dominant cabal, except the anarchists. It was a real lesson in politics to go to the student union under the 'student' administration and watch them argue against any and all authority, including their own.
"They said I couldn't possibly be a "socialist" because I did not accept pure doctrine [TRUE], they also said I was a stooge or government spy [UNTRUE but typical].
...
"The $24,000 question is how do we move on from here?"
Maybe it is somewhere between your experience and mine: question authority - all of it especially the purists, knowing that diversity is stronger. But organize on what we have in common - the common interests. (borrowing an idea...)
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
Re: 172
I think he means Cong. Mark Foley of Fla.
Complain about this comment
Thans. I meant TOM Foley, a former speaker of the House.
BTW. What was the name of that congresman whom Charlie Rangel and the whole Black Caucus defended so staunchly after ill-gotten $70,000.00 was found in his fridge?
Complain about this comment
Yup, there's plenty of it around, and it's not limited to 'official' corruption either. I don't really recall any "staunch" defense, not that I always catch everything, but it seemed to me more like a case of 'how do we get this guy out of here as quickly as possible'. Trading names of individuals in and of itself though would probably be fruitless and never-ending. Now, I know, we could just remove every public figure who wasn't genuinely and foremost serving the interests of the majority in his district or state, but they got it covered with this quorum thing, not to mention the electorate, so......
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS