What are we doing in Afghanistan? Anybody worried? or Not worried?
"CNN viewers in the United States and around the world actually knew about the attack on Baghdad...before any of the soldiers here in the field," (Walter)Rodgers said.
The Television War American Journalism ReviewA handful control the media. And that handful invest in Israel, big investment. Did you know the former CEO of Time Warner, major shareholder in CNN was also the CEO of Fannie Mac. Try google this. You will not find any government websites or glossy commercial pages. Why? You work it out.
I have never trusted any economist offering finance advice on my television nor in my newspapers. These multi billion dollar companies have massive paper trails and majority of ownership is corporate thus any accusation of conspiracy, propaganda and so on has no means of proof.Well this all is quite impressive....... NOT!
With all the hoopla and hustle and bustle over this forum post lately, it would have been nice to have actually stumbled upon some intelligent conversations. But NO!!!; yet again we find fellow hubbers dishing out more offensive and absolutely STUPID, single minded behavior. If you think I'm not talking about YOU- your wrong.
Stop the name calling and senseless bickering people, it really doesn't sit well to newcomers to HubPages.
How embarrassing.Hey, I see where you are coming from. Yet, I am a newcomer and you have just addressed the whole forum(this post) stating we are all wrong. Do you not think that is a big generalisation? I won't speak for anyone else and I agree there are some entirely riduculous comments but I don't discriminate your comment as much different. Sorry to spoil the party. You just called me and everyone here absolutely stupid and single minded. Maybe a little tact next time hey?
I am posting this here because it gets traffic.
I presume I will soon be banned from hubpages because hubpages star favourite
RELACHE
didnt like me asking for a web mentor and closed something I had posted
http://www.webworth.info/www.hubpages.com
the facts.
hubpages is commercial and I have been censored for trying to do the same by a snob.Man. What's your deal? You're hubs are nothing but poor me, poor me, look at me, self pity nonsense. And now you pull something like this in this forum, and actually think it's okay to bitch about the that you got busted for it before? I don't think so. Not on my watch. Go back to writing your druggie induced self pity party hubs, and leave the "tact" to much better hubbers than you.
The next time you go looking to teach someone about tact, you need to look at yourself first. One thing is forsure, HubPages doesn't need another self righteous, whiner running freely in the forums. By the way, I'm RK Henry and I've been around a little longer than you. So the next time a newbie like yourself, thinks they know it all, I'm here to tell you you do not even have a clue.
Tact? Tact my butt. What makes you think we want to read your self pity potty stories anyways? We've got BadCO for that.
Dude, you don't know nothing. I hope you do get banned.RKHenry, your sentiment is returned. I couldnt care less how long you've been chatting away online and I don't care if you like my hubs or not. Don't read them if you don't like them. I'm not here to win friends and influence people and certainly not a prat like you. If you actually read my hubs you will find that its not self pity and all, all you have proven here is your ignorance and maybe some butt slaps from your hubber buddies. Whatever it is I know, thats my business and what you know yours, go tell someone who gives one. You wouldn't have any idea about me, you probably had a quick look and blagged your little reply here hoping for me to fly off the handle again. Well boo hoo Henry, I flew off it for a reason. Because of snub nosed ponies like you. I write for a reason and I don't need 253 fans telling me how awesome I am. If you want to argue the point, go ahead, I'll tear your petty words apart if you so wish. I didn't 'get busted' I was censored without good reason, probably by one of your buddies. Its a discussion forum on the internet, not the white house or United Nations. Thing is, I don't care if I get banned or not, there are plenty of other forums out there. If I do get banned then its no loss to me, if thats the ethos of hubpages, so be it, not what I need. Go brown your nose elsewhere, I don't play that game... Not on my watch? What a joke of a line that is. When a dog drops a turd in the corner I like to rub its nose in it so it will learn. You can bite all you like Henry but I'm wearing long pants so I'm not all that worried.
Relache cannot close threads, she does not work for HubPages.
I was going along the lines of the school kid running to the principal.
Well, you don't know for sure if it was her or not. The moderator may have come across is by him or herself and snipped it.
Yeah I realise that, I admitted my mistake. It obviously seemed a bit strange for coincidence. Anyway, its done now. One spammer gone, one red faced cow blah blah done.
There did come a positive anyway, seeing how RKHenry has now proven a brighter shade of fool is never far behind.Dude.... You're the only fool here.
Blow a few brain cells did ya? Wanna share some more poor me drug stories?
Want the world to feel sorry for you?
Typical, and predictable. I'll still be here, when you're long gone off into self pity madness.
What's it like to be a spent up drug addicted, liar and cheat? Did you're family bring you a computer on your last schedule visitation?
PredictableWhat's it like to be an arrogant Jew? You should never have been born.
I've been online since the bulletins boards. Go pull yourself elsewhere.Dude, I'm an atheist. Nice try, feel free to pass the crack pipe.
Does it make you feel better to keep cracking jokes about my past addictions?
How about yourself? What have you achieved? What gives you the right to the throne?You think I know nothing yet on these forums in a week I have had plenty of people who hold a different opinion. If you want to prove yourself go ahead. You don't prove anything by attacking past. You really did get to me last night. A few spoil it for the many. In a previous post you dress your self up to be some sort of hubpages hero. Whats your deal champ?
8years if they do not long for freedom than we should leave.But someone told me they do not know freedom.The tailiban/or the ones who take away human right to decide suppress people.......
Bovine, are you kidding me? I completely find you to be hilarious.
___________________________________________________________
Now get this straight:
No- Bovine, YOU have addressed me as some HubPage hero, not I.
No- It was YOUR slight of words, that grilled another hubber who was trying to help (poorly as it may have been) about TACT.
No- It was you who took the first shot being the "HERO."
No- YOU ruin for a lot of fellow hubbers.
_____________________________________________________________
Yes- YOUR hubs are filled with the vials of self-indulgent pity.
Yes- YOU wanna to play some sort of "know it all, hubpage HERO." Tact remember? Or shall I go get that other post, where YOU started this crap.
Yes- Apparently you can dish it, but cannot take it.
Yes- It is quite apparent I don't give a crap about you or your self indulgent heroism.
Watch your step next time.
Recognize when to keep your mouth shut, and when to talk.
Try being nicer. Or does play too much havoc on your own timeline of feeling sorry for yourself, or take away from the energy of you spend being the "TACT HERO" here in the hubpage forum?
Now, I cannot help it if YOU got your panties in a bunch, over me telling you to mind yourself when lecturing another hubber whose been here longer than you. Remember YOU started this "hate" mongering, to begin with. Own it. This isn't a drug induced coma you can ignore. Own it.
____________________________________________________
Furthermore:
Do you honestly think, just because you are in recovery that YOU get to apply new rules for only YOU to follow in social settings?
Dude, it don't work that way.That was very interesting. Completely jaded from the truth but interesting.
Letters, NY Times 11-13-09
The Road to a Decision on Afghanistan
Published: November 13, 2009
To the Editor:
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
Lewis Scott
Re “Envoy Expresses Doubt on Forces for Afghanistan” (front page, Nov. 12):
Ambassador Karl W. Eikenberry’s reservations about sending more troops to Afghanistan recall the disregarded warnings within the Johnson administration against the continual, futile increases of troops in Vietnam.
In the current war, which generals have told us we are losing, can we reasonably expect to turn things around even by increasing our troop level by as much as 40,000 soldiers? We and the Afghan Army and police now outnumber the Taliban by 12 to 1. Would 14 to 1 cause a definitive change? Would still more?
Further, Ambassador Eikenberry’s concern about President Hamid Karzai’s corrupt, nepotistic and coercive government recalls the trouble we had with the corrupt President Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam before we acquiesced in his assassination in 1963.
We’ve been there, seen it, willfully forgotten it. When will we ever learn from our blunders?
David Eggenschwiler
Los Angeles, Nov. 12, 2009
•
To the Editor:
If President Obama decides to send tens of thousands more troops to Afghanistan, it’s now his war. And our presidents, once it’s their war, have found it nearly impossible to let go.
We paid an awful price in Vietnam — in our lives and their lives — to try state-building in a quagmire. The lesson: It is almost impossible for an occupying power to build a nation.
Generals are trained to carry out missions. Statesmen must look outside the box to question the mission itself. Schools we can build, but not states or nations.
John Bohstedt
Knoxville, Tenn., Nov. 11, 2009
The writer is professor emeritus of history at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
•
To the Editor:
My response to “3 Obama Advisers Lean Toward Plan for 30,000 More Troops for Afghanistan” (news article, Nov. 11) is this: “Don’t do it, Mr. President! You will lose my vote and stain your presidency if you send even 10,000 more troops to Afghanistan.”
No one has shown that this war or the one in Iraq is making America safer. In fact, evidence is to the contrary as American attacks help our enemies recruit more people to their cause.
President Hamid Karzai’s corruption is a good excuse to get out now. Let’s not spill more blood on this illegitimate and unwinnable war.
L. Michael Hager
Washington, Nov. 11, 2009
The writer is former director general of the International Development Law Organization in Rome.
•
To the Editor:
Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal has asked President Obama for more troops for Afghanistan.
Has there ever been a wartime combat commander anywhere, any time, who did not want more troops?
Richard Kirschman
Dogtown, Calif., Nov. 13, 2009
•
To the Editor:
Re “Seeking a Lever in Kabul” (news analysis, front page, Nov. 12):
As the United States pressures President Hamid Karzai to clean up his act, it is important to realize that his dependency upon the shadowy network that surrounds him is our creation, starting with the initial decision to allow the warlords to fill the power vacuum after the Taliban retreated.
Then, instead of paying attention to the problems this created, the Bush administration focused on Iraq, leaving Afghanistan to fester under a policy of benign neglect that alienated the population against the Karzai government and the American occupation.
The best one can hope for at this point is a negotiated settlement with the Taliban, whose goal, unlike Al Qaeda, appears to be limited to reclaiming control of Afghanistan.
Tom Miller
Oakland, Calif., Nov. 12, 2009
The writer helped found an Afghan-run microfinance organization in Kabul.You know, I find it ironic that after the two months since this post originally was posted, it seems that our troops are still in limbo. I proudly voted for Obama, and I don't think that this current situation is NOT Obama's fault. No. It is Bush's fault for not putting in a worthy leader there in Afghanistan, for not finishing the job right in the first place, and for leaving our troops out to dry. However, it is the responsibility of this President to fix this mess, and do what is right for the American people. That is where his oath stands.
I'm extremely concerned about the situation brewing over in Afghanistan. And after reading posts on this subject matter, I'm incline to voice the fact that NOBODY has the RIGHT answer on what to do. So where is the comprise? What next? In one voice, what are the American people wanting?
It is no wonder that nothing has been done, when our country is SO divided on this point, and some many others. It is hard to hear the one clear voice of reasoning and the one true voice of logic.
What the hell are we doing over there? Why are we still there? These points have me greatly concerned.The Twists And Turns Of Afghanistan Opinion
Nov 11 2009
"After Americans said they support sending more troops to Afghanistan two weeks ago, they now say they don't: new data from CNN/Opinion Research Group shows Americans oppose sending more troops to Afghanistan 56 percent to 42 percent."hi to all, the prob with poll research is that it is not representative of the whole, they just sample at random,
Thanks Mike. I know, it is all very confusing. I'm one of the 56% who opposes sending more troops. I just cannot see costing more American lives, for a lost cause. You know what I mean? It all seems so pointless to me.
I worry about all the young men and women from the United States that are dying and the misery this causes their loved ones.
This war will continue until the US figures out a way to maintain control of oil in Iraq and the oil and gasline to be built through Afganistan. The political power and security of the Iraqi and Afgan people is a smoke screen to cover the US interest in oil and gas.
We still have no concrete way of dealing with our energy needs other than Big Oil Company solutions. Why do you think that is?I also tend to think that Oil is playing the most pivotal role in this matter. Why? Do we not have enough oil ourselves? What about making use of other resources? We own the car companies now, how come we cannot make them build something else than a gas powered car?
I believe the US only bought its national share of the companies, they are mostly offshore owned?
There are alternatives to oil to fuel our energy needs. Awhile ago a guy patented a gas to water conversion for autos. He was a bit of a nut but showed that it does indeed work. He died under some shady circumstances and the project has begun anew with his brother.
You should check it out:
http://www.waterpoweredcar.com/stanmeyer.htmlYeah actually IntimatEvolution is not too far off the mark here. There is also the issue of an oil supply problem. It has a limit, it won't last forever. But I don't think we can rely on our existing auto industry because they are so tied into the oil industry and it's been shown that they have bought patents just to shelve them. For this reason an organization called The Orion Project is trying to acquire Stan Meyer's (it's actually water to energy conversion) technologies to bring it to the market. Yeah Stan died under some very shady circumstances. These self sufficient technologies are what we should be concerned with instead of more war. In fact that is one of the changes that Obama promised.
I don't blame you for being disgruntled about our politicians Madame X. For that same reason Paraglider is suggesting a groundswell of social and personal realignments in attitude, behavior and expectations in this hub of his. I think a different approach to alternative energy sources is in line with what Paraglider is saying.
http://hubpages.com/hub/bloodless-revolution
The only wars I am inclined to support are those which I would feel compelled to buy a gun and go to, to fight personally. The last such war was WWII. WWII might have been one of the few fully justified wars in history that I am aware of.
The problem with oil,
figures from the US treasury,
MAJOR FOREIGN HOLDERS OF TREASURY SECURITIES
(in billions of dollars)
Top Four (August 2009)
1)China, Mainland 797.1
2)Japan 731
3)Uk` 225.8
4)Oil Exporters ( Oil exporters include Ecuador, Venezuela, Indonesia, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Gabon, Libya, and Nigeria. 189.2I see. Well poop, there goes that idea. I'm so glad I'm not in politics. It is incredibly difficult to keep up with, and maintain. Gotta go all, thanks for the great discussions. Bye for now.
Frank Rich provides a useful update and perspective on Afghanistan in today's (11-14-09) New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/opini … ef=opinion
Here are some of his observations:
Yet the mass murder at Fort Hood didn’t happen in isolation. It unfolded against the backdrop of Obama’s final lap of decision-making about Afghanistan. For all the right’s jeremiads, its own brand of political correctness kept it from connecting two crucial dots: how our failing war against terrorists in Afghanistan might relate to our failure to stop a supposed terrorist attack at home. Most of those who decried the Army’s blindness to Hasan’s threat are strong proponents of sending more troops into our longest war. That they didn’t mention Afghanistan while attacking the entire American intelligence and defense apparatus in charge of that war may be the most telling revelation of this whole debate.
The reason they didn’t is obvious enough. Their screeds about the Hasan case are completely at odds with both the Afghanistan policy they endorse and the leadership that must execute that policy, including Gen. Stanley McChrystal. These hawks, all demanding that Obama act on McChrystal’s proposals immediately, do not seem to have read his strategy assessment for Afghanistan or the many press interviews he gave as it leaked out. If they had, they’d discover that the whole thrust of his counterinsurgency pitch is to befriend and win the support of the Afghan population — i.e., Muslims. The “key to success,” the general wrote in his brief to the president, will be “strong personal relationships forged between security forces and local populations.”
McChrystal thinks we might even jolly up those Muslims who historically and openly hate America. “I don’t think much of the Taliban are ideologically driven,” he told Dexter Filkins of The Times. “In my view their past is not important. Some people say, ‘Well, they have blood on their hands.’ I’d say, ‘So do a lot of people.’ I think we focus on future behavior.”
Whether we could win those hearts and minds is, arguably, an open question — though it’s an objective that would require a partner other than Hamid Karzai and many more troops than even McChrystal is asking for (or America presently has). But to say that McChrystal’s optimistic — dare one say politically correct? — view of Muslim pliability doesn’t square with that of America’s hawks is the understatement of the decade.
As their Fort Hood rhetoric made clear, McChrystal’s most vehement partisans don’t trust American Muslims, let alone those of the Taliban, no matter how earnestly the general may argue that they can be won over by our troops’ friendliness (or bribes). If, as the right has it, our Army cannot be trusted to recognize a Hasan in its own ranks, then how will it figure out who the “good” Muslims will be as we try to build a “stable” state (whatever “stable” means) in a country that has never had a functioning central government? If our troops can’t be protected from seemingly friendly Muslim American brethren in Killeen, Tex., what are the odds of survival for the 40,000 more troops the hawks want to deploy to Kabul and sinkholes beyond?.....America has the best troops and fiercest firepower, but no strategy for throttling the ideology that drives the enemy — in Afghanistan and in Texas.”
>>>America has the best troops and fiercest firepower, but no strategy for throttling the ideology that drives the enemy — in Afghanistan and in Texas.”....
Only days later the Afghan president mocked the American president by parading his most tainted cronies on camera and granting an interview to PBS’s “NewsHour” devoted to spewing his contempt for his American benefactors.
Matthew Hoh, a former Marine and, until recently, a State Department official in Afghanistan, could be found on MSNBC on Thursday once again asking the question no war advocate can answer, “Do you want Americans fighting and dying for the Karzai regime?” ....
Only days later the Afghan president mocked the American president by parading his most tainted cronies on camera and granting an interview to PBS’s “NewsHour” devoted to spewing his contempt for his American benefactors.....
What we do know is that American intelligence continues to say that fewer than 100 Qaeda operatives can still be found in Afghanistan.Yeah Matthew Hoh was the U.S. envoy that resigned over Afghanistan a couple of weeks ago.
Here's a good interview on Afghanistan with University of Michigan Middle East Expert Juan Cole:
http://www.metrotimes.com/news/story.asp?id=14540i agree afghan war is about the caspian oil and gas fields and also about an american presense on the asian continent to prevent either russia or china controlling too much land and rising to contest america's global primacy.
http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119973.pdf
check out the link.
i don't go for all the swearing.What of the Afghan people who want nothing to do with either Karzai or the Taliban?
That wasn't our objective. The Oil and Gasline was always the prize. We don't care about the people.
I can make a statement to match that. You are mistaken.
Read this:
http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/afghanistan.asp
That coupled with our dropping any support of Afganistan after the Soviets left is proof alone that the US doesn't care about the people of Afganistan.Go around in circles forever, but there is no proof of dark, cynical motivations.
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123173999
A Tragic Mistake--Bob Herbert Op-ed in the NY Times 12-1-09
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/opini … ef=opinion
Here are some exerpts. Everyone should read the entire op-ed.
“I hate war,” said Dwight Eisenhower, “as only a soldier who has lived it can, as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.”
He also said, “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.”
I suppose we’ll never learn. President Obama will go on TV Tuesday night to announce that he plans to send tens of thousands of additional American troops to Afghanistan to fight in a war that has lasted most of the decade and has long since failed.....
It would have taken real courage for the commander in chief to stop feeding our young troops into the relentless meat grinder of Afghanistan, to face up to the terrible toll the war is taking — on the troops themselves and in very insidious ways on the nation as a whole....
I keep hearing that Americans are concerned about gargantuan budget deficits. Well, the idea that you can control mounting deficits while engaged in two wars that you refuse to raise taxes to pay for is a patent absurdity. Small children might believe something along those lines. Rational adults should not....
A recent Bill Moyers program on PBS played audio tapes of Johnson on which he could be heard telling Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, “Not a damn human thinks that 50,000 or 100,000 or 150,000 [American troops] are going to end that war.”
McNamara replies, “That’s right.”
Nothing like those sentiments were conveyed to the public as Johnson and McNamara jacked up the draft and started feeding young American boys and men into the Vietnam meat grinder....
The tougher choice for the president would have been to tell the public that the U.S. is a nation faced with terrible troubles here at home and that it is time to begin winding down a war that veered wildly off track years ago. But that would have taken great political courage. It would have left Mr. Obama vulnerable to the charge of being weak, of cutting and running, of betraying the troops who have already served. The Republicans would have a field day with that scenario.
Lyndon Johnson is heard on the tapes telling Senator Richard Russell, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, about a comment made by a Texas rancher in the days leading up to the buildup in Vietnam. The rancher had told Johnson that the public would forgive the president “for everything except being weak.”
Russell said: “Well, there’s a lot in that. There’s a whole lot in that.”
We still haven’t learned to recognize real strength, which is why it so often seems that the easier choice for a president is to keep the troops marching off to war.Ahem. There hasn't been a draft in decades. No troops are being "fed" to any meat grinder. Please don't insult the willing volunteers who are enlisting and reenlisting knowing full well there's a war going on- a war that needs to be finished.
Make no mistake. If the Taliban isn't taken down for the support they gave Al Qaeda, if they still resolve to keep fighting us, there will still be a war. Peace cannot be achieved if only one side resolves to stop fighting.I'm not so sure the volunteers are "willing." The military has been meeting its recruiting goals mainly because there are few civilian jobs here in the U.S. Most of the "willing" recruits have no choice.
Also inaccurate. The DOD is making goal and turning down loads of potential recruits! Many who can't find a job also dont qualify for entry in the Military.
Keep in mind that Afghanistan borders include Iran, Pakistan and the People's Republic of China. We have to keep our presence there to avoid further conflicts. We are no longer after BL, in my opinion it's not about oil, it's just about securing our presence. The Afgan's know their territory better than we do, I'm not sure we have much to teach them.
A fellow hubber sent me this video, it brought tears to my eyes. I just wanted to share.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btX49lLYBoc“The momentum of Asia’s economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea.”
- Zbigniew BrzezinskiGood idea to explore new sources. We should be doing so ourselves closer to home.
almost like a Jerry Springer show. I say bring our kids home!! Obama said he would do that and all he has done is send them to a differant place. Oh yes and Blame George Bush for everything including his Mother in law moving in!
Are any of you suprised? Was there ever a politician who kept all his promises?
The Obama didn't promise to bring all our troops home from Afghanistan right away. In fact, on the campaign trail he repeatedly brought it up as a "necessary war" so he could satisfy his base by declaring Iraq 'lost' and pull the hippy nostalgia string while still looking 'tough' (as a cover for his utter inexperience) by showing his resolve on Afghanistan. The problem is that when Pelosi/Reid were proven wrong and the focus started to shift away from Iraq, Afghanistan stopped being seen only in contrast and became the new target for all the pacifism, defeatism, cultural prejudice, knee-jerk opposition to anything involving the US military, anti-Americanism, and nutty conspiracy-spinning that Iraq had previously attracted. And when it became clear that The Obama would have to deal with Afghanistan beyond using it as a foil to Iraq, the long dithering began.
Afghanistan is literally one of the poorest places on the planet. I mean, it is around second from the bottom in a world ranking, lower than much of Africa.
It did experience a growth in GDP, technically, in the last little while, but this was due to a large degree to the poppy/opium trade (read heroin, of course).
Why in the name of God (and I mean that quite literally) is all of this money (heck, maybe not all, how about simply "most") spent over there by "us" in the West not going to improving the lot of the people!
It's not rocket science, for God's sake: Hi Ahmed, Oh hi, did you see the new school and hospital the Canadians/Americans/Dutch/Germans just built for us, it's really cool, it has electricity, clean running water, and, you know doctors!
- Really? That sounds really cool. These warlords, and that Taliban crowd never do anything like that for us. In fact, they wouldn't let my daughter go to school.
Rinse and repeat across the entire country.
Simplistic? Perhaps. But no worse than simply bombing peopleIt is simplistic. Do you know what happens to schools in Taliban-occupied areas if they accept female students?
Are you unaware that we have been building schools, roads, hospitals, and infrastructure over there?
The United States of Israel will soon enough push the boundaries too far. For the ignorant out there, not looking at anyone in particular, I will be really specific: The Zionist movement is a disgrace, Israel will be brought to trial by the new world order and the American war criminals also. The current state of affairs will not last much longer because full scale war is inevitable. It should be obvious to most people, the world can only accomodate so many people. China is bulging at the seams, Germany is pissed off and waiting patiently, Israel should be worried and the US too. It is going down and China will rule the world. This is not about Jews but about Zion, this is about the invasion of Palestine long ago, this is about the corruption of the West going way back to Balfour, the corrupt post war deals in Europe and the failure of nations far and wide to act in the best interests of humanity as a whole. There are too many people on this planet. We in the West have had it too long, we have let greed and false prophets lead us into passive collusion. We are at war with ourselves over petty issues on home soil, America and Britain being the main perpetrators. In bed with everyone and the game is up. Everyone can see it. Deny all you like, those with the will but this is not a matter of opinion. If you care to look at the facts, time is up. We need a massive correction, it is simply human nature, whatever you want to call it, god for those on that side of the fence, whatever. Britain is on the brink of civil war. The British are leaning on Pakistan, the Taliban leaning on Pakistan, India are breeding like flies. What else can happen? Nothing. Full scale World War is here, right now. Believe the hype if you want. Call me a crack pot or a conspiracy theorist, call me whatever the hell you like. Do any of you reading this really think our race is so advanced we are actually past this scenario of another World War? You are being force fed your views through the media, not unlike the Cold War, not unlike the propaganda of days past. Too many people on here spout words they have no idea about. It is not about communism or capitalism or christ, islam or any of that trash. This is just plain secular war. Fighting for survival. The fittest will decide our fate. Afghanistan? Couldn't give a rats. 30,000 troops, 20,000, 50,000 whatever it is. Not about oil. About positioning. Where is palestine geographically. Where is Afghanistan? Where is Iraq? Control the Middle East and you have some chance. Look at it. Why fight over that piece of land. America is sending in troops in preparation for war. China is going to kill anyone in the way to power. Like it or lump it. Afghanistan aint sh1t.
Hyperbole, hysteria, and anti-Semitism are not serious or productive approaches to foreign policy.
While your comment is technically correct, tksensei, I also think that the writing is on the wall for the Israeli hawks. Eventually there isn't going to be enough global support left for them, and then they'll be up the creek without... well, you get the picture.
Personally, if I was American, steam would be coming out of my ears that so many millions of dollars goes to supporting a country that is not, well, America! And in an economic crisis too! It's shameful, too shameful for words. Israel already has an enormous military capacity: how come it needs more money from you folks??? Talk about a swindle. (And I'm half-Jewish).
By the way, is it "anti-American" to criticize the American government? No, it is the duty of all citizens to do so. So why should it be "anti-semitic" to criticize the Israeli government? You don't think Israelis ever criticize the Israeli government? Of course they do; they have freedom of speech: who are you to call them less Jewish for doing so. Such rubbish...That depends upon what form it takes.
Who called them thus? Where did you see that? Israel is a Democracy, unlike a certain country not far from it where people are shot dead in the street for protesting their insane, corrupt government.
Kinda seems like an ally worth standing by...You just called BovineCurrency anti-semitic for criticizing Israel. Or were you referring to the word "Zionist." Israelis and supporters of Isreal are Zionist by definition: people who support a homeland for the Jews in the Middle-East. Just a fact, a description of the state of affairs.
By the way, I heard someone point out that Israel is hardly a safe haven for Jews; I mean, far more Jews are killed in Israel than anywhere else in the world... but that is a side-point.
And, by the way, in addition to Iran (whose leaders are indeed a-holes), we have Saudi Arabia, where women are legally stoned for adultery -- you know, Saudi Arabia, where women are not allowed to drive. You know America's second strongest ally in the Middle-East...And...that means we should abandon our PRIMARY ally in the region? The one that doesn't do those things?
???I pointed out anti-Semitic comments that are but the latest in a series of blatantly anti-Semitic comments.
As I say, a large number of people in my family are Jewish, closely-related relatives, so I have some "gut" knowledge of this topic...
It is *not* anti-semitic to criticize Israel. Period. On the contrary, it is patronizing and disrespectful to treat the Israelis as if they cannot take criticism. It is also patronizing and disrespectful to keep funneling them money like a sick baby. Honestly, I mean, I thought people were supposed to get off welfare handouts, and stand up for themselves -- this is a basic principle of human nature: handouts to people who really do not need it is demeaning. For God's sake half the world's technology is designed by Israeli engineers! Leave them alone to live their own life, and fight their own battles, as you would any group you truly respect. I mean, who are they threatened by, seriously. Iran knows it will get nuked if it attacks them anyway. And no-one else has the muscle (including Iran, in fact), least of all the Palestinians
But you have *already* stood by them to the tune of billions of dollars over several decades. The Israelis are invincible, pretty well, by this point. They can look after themselves. Honest!
Do you abandon your friends when you feel as if you've befriended them long enough?
I don't continue to lend them money once they can stand on their own two feet.
How about when they are surrounded by enemies who have sworn to kill them? (we can go on like this forever...)
Their enemies are weak as dishwater.
Nice to bet someone else's butt on such an ill-considered underestimation of enemies.
Israel has got a better military than most European countries. And the rest of the Middle-East is semi-Third-World. Right?
And for the record, it is NEVER NEVER NEVER anti-American to criticize the American government: NEVER -- your fathers fought the Nazis for that right; it is a sacred trust millions have clamoured to have; it is your *duty* to criticize your leaders.
That is not true. If someone criticizes the US government because they (in their own words) believe it to be "damned," thereby expressing an active hatred for the country, then that is by definition 'anti-American.'
I don't really understand this example. The American government is not America (at least, I damn well hope not, I haven't been there in a while...). I hated the US government from 2000 to 2008, and certainly had mixed feelings about it before that, but people there are pretty good, on the whole, and your system is pretty good too, generally, and your values, in general, also admirable...
Do you "hate" your brothers and sisters when you disagree with them?
Oh, and our government is comprised of Americans and does represent us.I hate Dick Cheney, period. I also hate the current Canadian prime minister, where I live. Yep, hate them. But that is not the question. The question is whether it is a good thing to criticize one's own government. How about this: 99.9% of the time it is not only a good thing to be critical of one's own government, it is a *requirement* for democracy. When a politician gets in power, he gets to "borrow" power from me; but it's not unconditional -- he has to endure criticism, and perhaps ridicule, if he takes the job. But he knows that beforehand, so he basically agrees to this by running for office.
Throwing around words like "hate" so easily is irresponsible in my opinion. And I'd bet that after a half an hour with either man you would lighten your tone considerably.
Maybe Harper -- he's just deluded in my view, about some things, and a bit of a jerk; but Cheney, never, never, never.
Have you ever spoken with him? It's a shame when otherwise clear-thinking people let their political prejudices carry them completely away.
Hehehehe, this is a bit silly. If I hate him or not is not important -- all that matters is what I think of his actions. Naturally, when I say you should criticize your leaders, I mean their actions, their points of view, and their intentions. These are the nuts and bolts of government after all.
Well, it's late here, so I wish you a good night and maybe we shall meet again soon on this site
China's rate of population growth is already on the decline.
We are nowhere near that amount and populations are declining in many places.
That is an offensive way to refer to the people of India.
I am not going to pull the books out right now but just a little side note that popped up in my head. Around the 40s and 50s there were many change of ownerships in the US magazine/paper business, now not so many because there is no competition (I say this because NY Times was mentioned). The book I am thinking of is, New Journalism or the New Journalists something like that if anyone cares.
No one, nothing. Guess I'll go and talk about the invisible one... bored. Could make a hub I guess but 24 hours on the run now. sigh.
Everyone would rather discuss the christian interpretation of sexuality? borrrrinnggg.
Is it too hard to discuss something relevant??- worried manposted 14 years ago
0Afghanistan is unwinnable by any means.We need to bolster Pakistan.
- worried manposted 14 years ago0
first world strategy is increasingly predicated by the amount of casualties a country is prepared to incur.The American electorate drew the line at fifty thousand in Vietnam.How many are we prepared to lose in Afghanistan? Our enemies know that it's a matter of attrition.They know we won't stay there forever,that it's a matter of outlasting us.That gives them a stategic advantage we can't overcome.
But the Afghan government at the time supported Al Qaeda. Our war is not just with Al Qaeda, but with the government that supported them.
This was true several years ago, but is it not old news. And are you sure that this is the reason you are there? I thought it was to tackle al Qaeda?
The Taliban has never attacked America. In fact, the Taliban were invited on a trade mission to the West a couple of years before September 2001. The Taliban suck, don't get me wrong, but lots of regimes suck. The Taliban is not al Qaeda - that is the only group that has attacked you (since the Japanese)And while Bin Laden bankrolled the operation, who provided the training, material resources, and logistical support for 9-11? Where did the terrorists train? And who is trying to take over Afghanistan all over again?
All in the past, my dear. And is the mission to prevent the Taliban from taking over the Afghan government, or is it to tackles America's specific enemies? (Just for the record, as I am sure you know, Bin Laden was trained by the CIA because he was fighting the Soviets at the time. And the money came from the American ally -- the Saudis)
Not very far in the past, and very likely to happen again if we let it.
"...is the mission to prevent the Taliban from taking over the Afghan government, or is it to tackles America's specific enemies." The Taliban are not the Nazis. The Nazis had an entire industrialized European nation to work with.
- Writer Riderposted 14 years ago0
Not sure, maybe more heat stokes the fire...or maybe it causes it to burn out. For the 1st time I'm even questioning the role of Al Quaeda (take a look at what I found http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIZ205ccX8M it was made on March 4, 2001). Taliban never invaded our country though they rule their country with a heinous fist (Al Quaeda and the Taliban are not the same btw).
Even if al Qaeda didn't bring down the twin towers, clearly they like blowing up people they don't like, and that certainly seems to include Americans. The problem, as I say, is that they are a network... not even, they are more like hubbers in fact: people from all over the world with a common interest... Wahhabism (a form of Islam that is relatively young, and that 99% of Muslims have nothing to do with).
If the US government had really wanted to extinguish al Qaeda, they'd have used a different approach -- because trying to catch people in mountains in Central Asia... sounds difficult to me...
The Taliban became our enemy when they provided training and resources to Al Qaeda.
Are the CIA your enemy too? How about Saudi Arabia?
The Taliban, and Osama himself, grew out of the Mujaheddin. I don't know how old you are, but if you around watching the news in the 1980s, you'd remember, every night, images of the Afghan "Mujaheddin" (which comes from "jihad" ... Mu - jihad - in) fighting the Soviet invasion. This was all over the media for several years; and it made sense that the CIA trained them.
As for Saudi Arabia: not a democracy; of all the world's Muslim countries, the only one with serious oppressive religious government (except Iran of course), and a fount of wealth for terrorist "Wahhabi" activities (the Saudi regime are Wahhabis -- the only branch of Islam that disputes the commandment in the Koran never to target civilians)... And of course, a US ally....
Hi Ralph
One of my former Political Sceience Lecturers Dr Amin Saikal is an expert on Afghanistan here is a link to one of his(numerous) posts on the topic. http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/08/23 … nightmare/Interesting angle that I haven't seen anyone else comment on. One more reason for doubt about what we're doing in Afghanistan.
What is so funny is the ignorant and arrogant way America views this region and its history.
The British established a very pronounced class system in all their foreign cultural entanglements in the past. The new British influence that is being deployed in Afganistan is just not acceptable to the history and culture there.
The US also has a history of rejecting culture and history with US interest always coming first. The US placed or should I say shoved Karzai down their throats then upholds a corrupt election and then gives them a deadline to straighten up and fly right. What is it they have to gain with more of the same? The neglect of Afganistan culture that hols women in such low esteem is further offended by the US sending them a female secretary of state to smooth out the talks and negotiations. Once again we inflict our culture and morals on a country we are trying to win to our side. A sad state of affairs. And what about the oil?
- Writer Riderposted 14 years ago0
I didn't say they were'nt an enemy, I meant that they probably are not as dangerous to us as the supposed brain and executors behind 9/11...Al Qaeda.
None of these people are as dangerous to you as McDonald's -- McDonald's has FORTY PERCENT of the fast food market in the US...
a full *half a million* people die in the US every year from heart disease. McDonald's deliberately targets (ie manipulates) your children...
It may sound silly, but think about it; on American soil 3000 people died from terrorist activity in the last decade... all on one day. Since 2001, *four million* people have died from heart disease. Four million!!!!
Let's get some perspective here. Government spending relies on some hard decisions -- billions upon billions of dollars for fighting terrorism: how much for fighting, ie, eradicating, heart disease? Someone needs to get their priorities straight.
Sound silly? Ask someone whose spouse has keeled over from eating too much fat and salt... there are literally millions of them in your midst...
- Writer Riderposted 14 years ago0
I wonder when the wars will stop...probably when everyone is working at Burger King, scientists to. Can you say depletion of resources? We need to fix our economy.
US sending thirty thousand more troops to cost $30 billion in Afganistan.
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news … on/549049/
Talibans and company are already on their plans
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8390466.stm
I can now clearly see what will happen in near future.An open letter from Michael Moore to President Obama on Afghanistan:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-m … 73457.html
I think Moore may be right. I hope not.Our war in Afghanistan drags on with few signs yet that the Afghan army is close to being able to take over.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/world … an.html?hp
Marines Do Heavy Lifting as Afghan Army Lags in Battle
By C. J. CHIVERS
Published: February 20, 2010
MARJA, Afghanistan — As American Marines and Afghan soldiers have fought their way into this Taliban stronghold, the performance of the Afghan troops has tested a core premise of the American military effort here: in the not-too-distant future, the security of this country can be turned over to indigenous forces created at the cost of American money and blood.
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
Tyler Hicks/The New York Times
A Marine, left, and two soldiers with the Afghan Army checked a house in Marja on Thursday.
Related
Dutch Government Collapses Over Its Stance on Troops for Afghanistan (February 21, 2010)
The New York Times
Scenes from this corner of the battlefield, observed over eight days by two New York Times journalists, suggest that the day when the Afghan Army will be well led and able to perform complex operations independently, rather than merely assist American missions, remains far off.
The effort to train the Afghan Army has long been troubled, with soldiers and officers repeatedly falling short. And yet after nearly a decade of American and European mentorship and many billions of dollars of American taxpayer investment, American and Afghan officials have portrayed the Afghan Army as the force out front in this important offensive against the Taliban.
Statements from Kabul have said the Afghan military is planning the missions and leading both the fight and the effort to engage with Afghan civilians caught between the Taliban and the newly arrived troops.
But that assertion conflicts with what is visible in the field. In every engagement between the Taliban and one front-line American Marine unit, the operation has been led in almost every significant sense by American officers and troops. They organized the forces for battle, transported them in American vehicles and helicopters from Western-run bases into Taliban-held ground, and have been the primary fighting force each day.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/world … an.html?hp
The war in Afghanistan is a bargain for U.S. taxpayers. It only costs $3.6 billion a month.
As of July 2009, DOD’s average monthly obligations for contracts and pay were about $10.9
billion, including $7.3 billion for Iraq, and $3.6 billion for Afghanistan. Compared to a year ago
when the surge ended but troop levels remained high, average obligations have fallen by about
12%. Decreases in costs as troops are withdrawn from Iraq have been largely offset by increases
in costs for additional troops for Afghanistan.
Related Discussions
- 70
How worried should we be about a nuclear threat from Iran?
by Ralph Deeds 12 years ago
How serious and immediate is a nuclear threat from Iran? What should we do about it? Some of the same hawks who helped talk us into invading Iraq are coming out of the woodwork and saying that a nuclear Iran is intolerable and something must be done to prevent it from happening. A timely and...
- 18
Should the U.S. be worried that China is massively building up their military ri
by Brandon Daniel 9 years ago
Should the U.S. be worried that China is massively building up their military right now?China is building up their military at a greater rate than Hitler did prior to WW2. China's military is as technologically advanced as ours.
- 66
Swiss want to arrest George Bush for torture!
by Susan Reid 13 years ago
(Reuters) - Former President George W. Bush has canceled a visit to Switzerland, where he was to address a Jewish charity gala, due to the risk of legal action against him for alleged torture, rights groups said on Saturday.Bush was to be the keynote speaker at Keren Hayesod's annual dinner on...
- 35
war on terror costs $ 1 trillion for usa
by pisean282311 13 years ago
The United States has spent more than $ 1 trillion on wars since the September 11, 2001, says a recently released Congressional report.Adjusting for inflation, the outlays for conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere around the world make the "war on terrorism" second only to World...
- 40
110 POUNDS OFCESIUM-137 STOLEN IN KAZAKHSTAN
by Deforest 9 years ago
John Paul Leonard stated :"At the end of August 2007, with Bush beating the drums for war on Iran, a highly unusual thing occurred: a "rogue B-52" laden with six nuclear missiles flew from Minot, North Dakota to Barksdale AFB, the staging ground for bombing runs to the Middle East....
- 19
Is Syria a modern Vietnam to us?
by Nicola Thompson 10 years ago
It sounds to me that while there is a horrific Civil war going on in Syria, every one is trying to get the rest of the world outraged at what is going on within Syrian boarders. But is this another thing where we are being fed lies, or exaggerated truths to inspire us to rush of an "be the...