RE RJ Kruger, July 27 at 7:09 pm #

Unless I’m on acid, I don’t believe anyone is propounding “occupying” Afghanistan.  Troops would be there to ferret out Bin Laden, remember him? and reduce Al-Quaeda and Taliban—at the behest of the Afghani government.  I think this strategy is called the “war on terror,” a strategy the Bush Administration somehow remade into its own image: Blood for Oil in Iraq.  Iraq is and was an occupation.  Please tell John McCain that the U.S. wasn’t perceived as liberators, please.  And, then send him on a fact-finding mission to Siam.
————————& #8212;———————R 12;————————
RJ,

For a guy on acid you make a lot of sense. Going after bin Laden always was sanctioned by the international community. Remember, how right after 9-11 the whole world sympathized with us, even Iran? Afghanistan is “the central front in the war on terror” if there is such a thing. Nobody wants Al Qaeda. They are nothing but a gang of international thugs. The Afghan people will thank us for getting rid of them, and anyway it is our responsibility since we created them in the first place.

When the next President arrives at the White House he will not be shocked that the Federal Government may be some 560 billion dollars short and possibly even more depending on the real costs of the continued wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, nor will the new Congresspeople be shocked because they all know this already. The shock and dismay will be felt by those sheeples who still do not understand that the next President and Congress even in total Obamaish harmony cannot pass much, if any meaningful social legislation, especially on Health Insurance, without dangerously increasing this deficit even more or else having to genuflect before the Chinese hoping that they will lend them out of their predicament.
The Obama campaign argues that there is no reason to worry because he will “soak the rich”. For 560 billion? Get real silly man.
Eventually the ballooning national debt will be a greater threat to our country than the price of crude oil and Osama bin Laden combined. The cures are almost the same: use less oil and make less war. Even better: get out of Iraq, all the “Stans” where we are such as Afghanistan, South Korea, Japan, and Europe.

What is an American neoliberal? This is an individual who will talk about the United States as a guiding light for other less enlightened nations. Someone who claims military aid to Israel is sacrosanct, not for the strategic motives of Dick Cheney, but because “its rooted in the shared values and shared stories of our people.” A neoliberal is someone who seeks advice from a Walmart apologist and then dismisses criticism of NAFTA as being overheated rhetoric. A neoliberal will always say belief in people’s freedom is paramount, but when crunch time appears, they always cave into corporate interests. A neoliberal will sometimes make claims for peace, but inevitably they are pro death penalty and for increasing the military budget. A neoliberal does not believe in a national health service, but rather wants to make insurance rates more affordable. A neoliberal leader, like a neoconservative leader, will always call on the Almighty to guide them, as they pursue their cowardly venal occupation, namely POWER.

For those who claim it is all just vague rhetoric, I suggest you scroll down to the comment on July 27, 6:49 am, where I quote Senator Obama directly from his own words in the New York Times.

Ok, here’s a partial list of the probable/possible ‘employers’ of the latest barrage of ‘Operatives Against Obama”. Some of our most recent resident trolls, (registered and not registered) are likely associated with one or more of these Swiftboat type organizations, and some are likely operating on their own. (too bad..they must not know they could be receiving generous pay for their efforts).
There is also an incomplete list of the INDIVIDUALS at the top of the organizational charts. But, keep in mind that the list is only partial, since these 527 PACS can indeed remain, “below’ the surface for indefinite periods of time before discovery. (remember, the Swiftboaters had already done their damage to John Kerry before he was able to even think about responding).

These 527 PACS (as well as the already long established right-wing attack organizations) are the foremost reason why Obama declined to participate in public campaign financing. These attack groups operate outside of any campaign finance legislation, and are *abundantly* funded by private political operatives. Accepting public financing would have left the Obama campaign totally unable to respond.
The list of the actual smears needs updating, which is how I was reminded of this to begin with. Since his tour of the ME (Iraq, Israel, Kuwait) and South Asia (Afghanistan) and Europe (Germany, France) there is a new barrage of the smears and IED’s, (Innuendos, Exaggerations, Distortions) so the latest of them still needs to be filed into the database, with the corresponding TRUTHS required.
Who is Behind these Lies?
Smears Inc.

A short list:

GROUPS

Citizens United
National Campaign Fund
Stop-Him Now
Citizens for A Safe and Prosperous America
(doesn’t that one make you gag?)
Policy Issues Institute
Legacy Committee
Presidential Coalition
Chicagoans Against Obama
(one of various and sundry among the independent riff-raff groups)

INDIVIDUALS (connected to the groups)

David Bossie
Floyd Brown
Bob Perry
(NOT the same Robert Perry of Consortium News)
Craig Shirley
Bruce Hawkins
James Lacy

The link gives a detailed run down of the individuals.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/behindthesmears

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fightthesmearshome/

cyrena,

This is from the Wikipedia history of Afghanistan. Read it and weep.

Once in power, the PDPA moved to permit freedom of religion and carried out an ambitious land reform, waiving farmers’ debts countrywide. They also made a number of statements on women’s rights and introduced women to political life. A prominent example was Anahita Ratebzad, who was a major Marxist leader and a member of the Revolutionary Council. Ratebzad wrote the famous New Kabul Times editorial (May 28, 1978) which declared: “Privileges which women, by right, must have are equal education, job security, health services, and free time to rear a healthy generation for building the future of the country .... Educating and enlightening women is now the subject of close government attention.”[52]

The majority of people in the cities including Kabul either welcomed or were ambivalent to these policies. However, the secular nature of the government made it unpopular with religiously conservative Afghans in the villages and the countryside, who favoured traditionalist ‘Islamic’ restrictions on women’s rights and in daily life.

The U.S. saw the situation as a prime opportunity to weaken the Soviet Union. As part of a Cold War strategy, in 1979 the United States government (under President Jimmy Carter and National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski) began to covertly fund and train anti-government Mujahideen forces through the Pakistani secret service known as Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), with the intention of provoking Soviet intervention, (according to Brzezinski).[53] The Mujahideen belonged to various different factions, but all shared, to varying degrees, a similarly conservative ‘Islamic’ ideology.

In March 1979 Hafizullah Amin took over as prime minister, retaining the position of field marshal and becoming vice-president of the Supreme Defence Council. Taraki remained President and in control of the Army. On 14 September, Amin overthrew Taraki, who died or was killed.In order to bolster the Parcham faction , the Soviet Union—citing the 1978 Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Good Neighborliness that had been signed between the two countries—intervened on December 24, 1979. Over 100,000 Soviet troops took part in the invasion backed by another 100,000 plus and by members of the Parcham faction. Amin was killed and replaced by Babrak Karmal.

The Soviet occupation resulted in the killings of at least 600,000 to 2 million Afghan civilians. Over five million Afghans fled their country to Pakistan, Iran and other parts of the world. Faced with mounting international pressure and great number of casualties on both sides, the Soviets withdrew in 1989.

Soviet troops withdrawing from Afghanistan in 1988. Photo by Mikhail EvstafievThe Soviet withdrawal from the DRA was seen as an ideological victory in the US, which had backed the Mujahideen through three US presidential administrations in order to counter Soviet influence in the vicinity of the oil-rich Persian Gulf.

Following the removal of the Soviet forces, the US and its allies lost interest in Afghanistan and did little to help rebuild the war-ravaged country or influence events there. ...
Because of the fighting, a number of elites and intellectuals fled to take refuge abroad. This led to a leadership imbalance in Afghanistan. Fighting continued among the victorious Mujahideen factions, which gave rise to a state of warlordism…
————————& #8212;———————R 12;——
So you see, the U.S backed the most reactionary forces in Afghanistan - the Mujahedeen - and cleverly provoked the Soviets to intervene, bogging them down in a debilitating war that incidentally killed or made refugees millions of Afghans and completely destroyed their society. 

Nice going, Zbig.

•  “..Much of what is being said about Senator Obama and Afghanistan is reiterated by Mr. Hedges.”..

And, what exactly *IS* that beerdoctor? “That much of what is being said?” You don’t mention it here.

•  “…Endorsing occupation, whether it is for the neoconservative reasons or the just as idiotic neoliberal reasons put for forward by Senator Obama and his ilk are completely wrong…”

AGAIN..you don’t say. We KNOW that he hasn’t ‘endorsed occupation’ however, so…here we are again, with all of your vague rhetoric.

•  “..No people on the face of this planet want to be occupied by another country. The fact that Obama embraces this notion reveals that the Senator is not the “very smart guy” the apologists keep claiming him to be.”..

Gee, you don’t say. Nobody on the face of this planet blah, blah, blah. Please. Tell us how you and/or Chris, (when did he become an expert on South Asia, war, occupation, and global terrorism) have come up with the fact that anybody (besides the Bush team and Israel) want to OCCUPY anybody. Chris Hedges is an ordained minister, and a long time journalist who has certainly produced some fine work. He also probably should consider some anti-depressants or something.

Put your shit in writing beerdoc. Tell Chris Hedges to explain how HE has decided that this plan that Obama has maintained for well over a year, also put forth by John Kerry 4 years ago, somehow amounts to an ‘occupation’ of Afghanistan?

Explain how the original effort to route out the extremists in that section of the Afghanistan/Pakistan border where bin Laden and his gang were allegedly operating from, is somehow now a planned ‘occupation’?

Otherwise beerdoc, this is per the usual for you, ALL INUENDO, with ZERO substance. All ‘creative writing’ cannot CREATE ‘facts’ nor can you appoint yourselves as the ‘thought police’ and decide that what Obama says, OR DOESN”T say, means something that you decide it means.

Tell us how you came up with ‘occupation’ when in fact there is no indication of a 36,000 or 46,000 troop force being able to accomplish such a thing in the midst of total chaos bordering on genocide, if it isn’t already that.

WHAT are these ‘neoliberal reasonings’ that you claim are being put forth? You don’t say. Maybe because ‘neoliberal’ has NO connection to ANYTHING involving military operations. Are you retarded?

~~~~

Tony…you’re right, at least my understanding is the same as yours. Afghanistan has been a failed state for 16 years, and Zbig screwed up at the time. Even THAT, however, was not an ‘occupation’.

I think you can discern from the comments on this forum, in reference to the long held view by Obama to contain the terrorists in the area is really not what it appears to be. Were ANY of these same people hollering when the Shrub first sent troops to Afghanistan in 2002? That’s a rhetorical question, because we don’t know.

My best guess however, would be a resounding NO! Not a single one of them would have questioned it at the time, or been hollering about the US planning to ‘occupy’ Afghanistan. Tell me what in the hell benefit the US would have in ‘occupying’ Afghanistan.

That is NOT the concern of these posters, who have yet to make a peep about the PLANNED occupation of Iraq, for the purposes of stealing their oil, and setting up a neocolonial operation there, or the fact that Obama’s plan has always been to shut that down.

Not a single solitary PEEP about the million Iraqis that have been slaughtered, or the 4 million plus that have been displaced, or any of that. Never a peep about the continuing air raids by US forces that continually drop bombs on the civilians there, including wedding parties. Nope. Not a concern for these folks, because Obama has always been up front about STOPPING what was a disastrous policy to begin with.

It’s not about Afghanistan. It’s about Obama, at least for these hate mongers.

Unless I’m on acid, I don’t believe anyone is propounding “occupying” Afghanistan.  Troops would be there to ferret out Bin Laden, remember him? and reduce Al-Quaeda and Taliban—at the behest of the Afghani government.  I think this strategy is called the “war on terror,” a strategy the Bush Administration somehow remade into its own image: Blood for Oil in Iraq.  Iraq is and was an occupation.  Please tell John McCain that the U.S. wasn’t perceived as liberators, please.  And, then send him on a fact-finding mission to Siam.

Chris Hedges was interviewed by Brian Lamb, on Sunday’s C-SPAN Q & A. Much of what is being said about Senator Obama and Afghanistan is reiterated by Mr. Hedges. Endorsing occupation, whether it is for the neoconservative reasons or the just as idiotic neoliberal reasons put for forward by Senator Obama and his ilk are completely wrong. No people on the face of this planet want to be occupied by another country. The fact that Obama embraces this notion reveals that the Senator is not the “very smart guy” the apologists keep claiming him to be. Chris Hedges sees Obama as a very cleverly packaged courtier of the corporate state, full of lofty rhetoric, but absent of substance.

dihey: grab a dictionary, look up figurative and literal

The number of times wannabe Obama used the word “wall” in a speech:

In Iraq: 0
In Israel: 0
In Berlin: 16

The actual number of existing “walls”:

In Iraq: numerous
In the West Bank: numerous
In Berlin: zero.

Hey folks, if you think that President Bush is divorced from reality, you will truly enjoy a President Obama, whose success rate in “tearing down of walls” is inversely proportional to the presence of real walls where he trod.
Actually, his use of “let’s tear down walls” sixteen times in Berlin was cowardly and obscene to the max when you consider his slavish performances in Iraq and Israel where he was silent on the existing “apartheids”.

“As president I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there.”
BARACK OBAMA, NY Times, July 14, 2008

Re cyrena

In fact, Afghanistan has become a failed state. That the US botched and criminal presence in Afghanistan since early 2002 has been the primary cause of this is probably obvious to ANYONE who is politically conscious. The question is: what to do?
————————& #8212;———————R 12;———————— —cyrena,

My understanding of recent history is that Afghanistan has been a “failed state” since the Communist government of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan fell in 1992 after the Soviets left. I’d say the Afghan people must remember that government fondly compared with what they have had for the last 16 years. That extremely clever move of Brezinski to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan was not done with an eye to benefitting the Afghan people, although that is of course the propaganda story put out by the West at the time. For that, Zbig should be ashamed of himself. But one thing I feel certain of: Zbig does not want the U.S to get bogged down in Afghanistan the same way the Soviet Union did. He knows what the Afghan people are capable of. I would suppose his advice would lean heavily on non-military components to help restore a functioning Afghan economy.

By Erroll, July 26 at 7:42 am part 1 of 2

Erroll,

Your few valid points in the argument of putting additional troops in Afghanistan are buried in your anti-Obama rhetoric. You actually DO have a legitimate argument, and one that is actually discussed from objective viewpoints. But it means putting aside the Obama component, and your real agenda is exactly THAT. The anti-Obama component.

So you go on about ‘loyal followers’ of Obama, and ‘neoliberals’ like Obama, and on and on, which is why you’re arguments are lame, and hypocritical, and all of the hyperbole doesn’t mask your basic agenda, other than for those who share it. They’ll eat it up. Others may even be distracted by it, with all of the shock and awe of dropping bombs and the like. There’s actually FAR MORE shock and awe that you’ve somehow avoided mentioning, in respect to the crimes of the US in Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo, and various other black site locations were renditions and torture by the CIA as well as the rank and file military have been going on. So, you don’t fool me in your pre-selected narrow focus on the limited elements of what Obama has suggested.

Common sense and even a 30% comprehension of the history of the past 4 decades of US wars would clearly bring anyone to consider the risks of any military action, anywhere. However, you’ve chosen to, (or been directed to by your employers) to focus solely on this one position in an overall foreign policy strategy that is relative to more than you’re willing to address, such as the basic reasons for the suggestion to add military troops to the effort in Afghanistan, which is actually far more directed at PAKISTAN, and the tribal areas on that border, which is where the element of the terrorists extremists can be traced, (to the extent that they can be). 

You’ve also decided not to address ANY of all of these same concerns of yours, in respect to any of the other activity that the US has perpetrated in their so-called ‘war on terror’ for the past 7 years. Apparently you don’t have an issue with the US military dropping bombs on civilians in Somalia, or Iraq, or anywhere else where civilians have recently been wiped out, and the ‘terrorists’ get away. All of these things Erroll, are clearly WAR CRIMES, and there are in fact, Laws of War, basically set in stone since the end of WWII, for the sole purpose of preventing these very atrocities. The CURRENT ADMINISTRATION OF THUGS headed by Dick Cheney, (and other more secret operatives) has violated every one of them.

Meantime, there ARE sanctioned and legitimate reasons for engaging in military action. Those as well, are governed by International Law. There are even International Laws and Treaties that OBLIGATE the US and other nations to respond to aggression. Now one could argue (and experienced legal experts DO) the legalities of military action anywhere in the world, dependent on the circumstances. . Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity, Crimes Against the Peace, are among those. The ‘trickiest’ part of these laws is very much the overwhelming value that State Sovereignty plays in all international law. Be that as it may, the conditions for engagement in military action are well laid out.

By Erroll, July 26 at 7:42 am part 2 of 2

Now if you would like to discuss those conditions, and the laws that govern them, I’d be glad to do that. There is much to be considered, and the issue of global terrorism presents a number of challenges to those laws. So, there is much to be gained from objective discussion. However, that sort of discussion doesn’t allow for any underlying partisan agenda, or any of the bullshit hyperbole that you’re trying to pass off here.

For the moment, we know that the situation in Afghanistan is very severe for the civilians of that nation state.

http://www.harvardir.org/blog/?p=223

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/world/asia/09afghan.html

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-05/2006 -05-02-voa13.cfm?CFID=18137368&CFTOKEN=45641611

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6196716.stm
In fact, Afghanistan has become a failed state. That the US botched and criminal presence in Afghanistan since early 2002 has been the primary cause of this is probably obvious to ANYONE who is politically conscious. The question is: what to do?

There’s no doubt that it’s a huge disaster now, and that would be the case even if the US hadn’t dropped bombs on those wedding parties. It’s not a ‘surprise’ that the Pentagon has denied it. They’ve been lying and denying the killing of millions of innocent civilians for the past 7 years. And let us be reminded that it all started long before you or much of anyone else outside of Illinois ever even HEARD of Barack Obama.

So, check you notes and read up on the current situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan, respective the human rights atrocities that are underway, as well as the terrorist center of activity. The connection between the Taliban and al-Qaeda is a no-brainer. 10 minutes of research will get you there.

And then, we can talk.

(somehow, I doubt that’s really what you’re interested in)

By Erroll, July 25 at 12:55 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

Tony Wilcher at 8:06 am believes that Obama’s speech was “anti-imperialist.” What he conveniently ignores is that Obama was urging Europe to aid the United States by sending its military into Afghanistan, where it could presumably help the U.S. rain down more 500 lb. and 2000 lb. bombs upon the villages and homes and wedding parties of the Afghan people. Not exactly the best way to win the hearts and minds of the Afghanis, now is it?
————————& #8212;———————R 12;————————
Erroll,

Methinks thou doest presume too much. When did Obama say he is going to drop 500-pound bombs on villiagers? Look, we left Afghanistan pieces after the cold war. Right now it’s a narco-state that is producing 120% of the total world heroin supply. Al Qaeda, the ISI, CIA and every other kind of gang are using the money to fund black ops. The whole world is affected by these conditions, and the whole world has to make an effort to help bring some kind of stability to the area, for the sake of the Afghani people and the world as a whole. That is an internationalist position, not an imperialist one.

There obviously will be a military component to Afghanistan, but the most important thing will be convincing the people of Afghanistan that whey have a better alternative to the Taliban. That shouldn’t be so hard. We will see what happens.

“IGNORES” and “PRESUMEABLY”

Straw man manufactures like Errol here, are detectable from a million miles away. They start out making a claim that has no substance, by saying “Obama was urging…”

Problem is, there is absolutely nothing in the text or even the nuance of Obama’s speech to suggest that he was ‘urging’ (they always use these descriptive type words to plant fake imagery) Europe, (or the German people listening in Berlin) to PRESUMABLY aid the U.S. in the ‘raining down of blah, blah, blah, to destroy villages of innocent Afghans.

It’s all very theatrical and possibly effective in certain venues of CREATIVE fiction prose, but in terms of what Barack Obama actually SAID, Errol here is full of the standard straw man shit.

So Tony was ‘ignoring’ WHAT WAS NEVER THERE, and simply does not exist..not within the context of the speech, and not within the context of reality, since it’s preposterous to suggest that one is ‘planning’ a military operation to wipe out villages of innocent beings. So, no sane person is going to ‘recognize’ (as oppose to ignore) something that doesn’t exist.

The ‘presumption’ is a creation of Errol’s imagination.

As for winning hearts and minds, one COULD presume daily suicide attacks pretty much eliminate the hearts or the minds that need to be won.

Ha!  I just figured out McCain’s strategy.  He is dumbing down the issue-dialog of his campaign and he is trying to appear folksy—under the proviso that the American electorate, the same people who brought us George Bush, is uninformed.  Brilliant!  The cheese aisle, the Sausage Haus, the golf cart…He has decided to run a low-tech campaign!  He totally makes sense now!  Columbia, Mexico, Canada, London, Kennebunkport…a pattern is emerging.  Every town in the U.S. named “Berlin.”  I expect him next to visit Irving Berlin’s grave.  It will be interesting when he visits with the Dalai Lama.

Bakersfield, Calif. Again

Re dihey, July 25 at 7:37 am #

Yeah, and if you love imperialism and want McCain for president, listen to you.

By heavyrunner, July 25 at 7:40 am #

I read the entire speech Obama gave in Berlin.  He argued, it appeared to me, for the continuation of American Imperialism.  This is a mistaken policy.
————————& #8212;———————R 12;———————— —-
Hardly. The European crowd he was talking to was pro-democracy and anti-imperialist, and so was his speech. What he spoke for is continued U.S. involvement around the world, but within a framework of international cooperation. This may use existing institutions like the United Nations and the International Criminal Court, existing alliances like NATO, or it may involve new treaties and institutions. He pointed out with great clarity that the world is completely interconnected, and that poverty or disease or injustice anywhere affects the whole world. That is an internationalist, not an imperialist position.

I read the entire speech Obama gave in Berlin.  He argued, it appeared to me, for the continuation of American Imperialism.  This is a mistaken policy.

In Berlin, where there is no wall any longer, Obama yells “tear down the walls”. In Iraq and Israel/the West Bank where there are REAL walls he is silent. If you want an abject coward as our next president, vote for Obama.

Let’s give Obama a little credit for his own “luck.” And let’s give the American people - Iowans, Montanans, and North Carolinians alike - for looking beyond color to see what this man is all about and voting for their own future.

Just another empty suit being the black hope for the oppressed.
Too bad he had to excuse himself from visiting the wounded GI’s. That pitiful excuse was just another Lieberman style of cowardliness.
Poor Amerika: Deedle Dum or Deedle Dee Both serving The Man, and that ain’t you or me.

Obama’s Berlin speech and the reaction to it indicate that not only Americans, but the people the world over are tired of the status quo politics and the business as usual.

There is an element of destined luck in the Obama’s phenomenon, but there is also an aspect of symbolism for change towards betterment. Whether that change will actually materialize under an Obama’s presidency is yet to seen. However, for the time being, there is a unique momentum for hope that many people in the world are clinging to.

I think that the most striking aspect of the Obama’s phenomenon is that there is a possibility that a person of color, whose father was a goat herder from Africa, has a chance to become the leader of the the most powerful country in the world. If this happens , it would be, for me at least, a proof that God does exist and that He is the Master of Fates and Destinies!