Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
July 21, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

The Life of Caliph Washington

Truthdig Bazaar more items

Email this item Print this item

Democracy at Gunpoint Guarantees U.S. Defeat

Posted on May 5, 2009
American soldiers

U.S. Army soldiers stake out a village from a hillside in Afghanistan’s Chowkay Valley in August 2007.

An account from the Taliban side of the Afghanistan war, which was published in The New York Times on May 5, provides devastating evidence of the failure that almost certainly will eventually overtake the United States and NATO. It is a long interview with a young Taliban “logistics tactician” who has been speaking with Jane Perlez and Pir Zubair Shah of the Times for many months about the Taliban view of the war, and about what he sees as their inevitable victory.

Square, Story page, 2nd paragraph, mobile
It amounts to an implicit challenge to the “democracy development” strategy adopted by the Pentagon and the Bush administration, and that now seems the policy of the Obama government as well. It is a strategy that assures a very “long war.”

This strategy, overall, is described by one of its American critics as “to install democracy at gunpoint inside failed or backward societies, along with unrealistic security guarantees to states and people of marginal strategic interest to the U.S.” (The critic is Douglas MacGregor, a retired Army officer, in an article entitled “Refusing Battle” in the April Armed Forces Journal. It’s to be recommended.)

“Refusing battle” simply means not fighting battles and wars you know you will lose. This is what the Times article confirms that the United States has again done, in Afghanistan as it did in Vietnam. In Afghanistan it is fighting a guerrilla war in which it has left to the enemy the choice, timing and location of battle, as well as a permanent option of withdrawal and dispersion.

The implications of the Taliban interview will be resisted by American commanders on the scene, professionally committed to their faith in victory, and conservative political observers in the United States, who believe that having second thoughts is weakness.


Square, Site wide, Desktop


Square, Site wide, Mobile
The implication of what the Taliban says is simple and convincing: that it will be impossible for the U.S. and NATO to win a war in Afghanistan in which the enemy is based on the other side of what is for them an easily permeable frontier between Afghanistan and the tribal areas of northwest Pakistan, but which is for American and NATO forces politically impregnable.

This is classical guerrilla warfare against regular forces. The guerrillas operate with (in this case) almost perfect intelligence concerning NATO troops. They are highly mobile and reactive, and possess a refuge where they are vulnerable only to attack by rocket-firing drone (unmanned) aircraft, since the main, ground-based NATO/U.S. forces cannot reach them.

The Pakistan government and army forbid American and NATO intrusion into their country. The United States in the past has scarcely been a scrupulous observer of foreign sovereignties, and the Bush administration declared its policy commitment to aggressive and pre-emptive attack wherever it chose. However, the United States today needs Pakistan.

It is inhibited not only by Pakistani sovereignty and by international law, but by military and political realities. The mobility of Taliban forces allows them to move as far into Pakistan as necessary to escape ground attack, and to disperse against air attack. Another inhibition is the character of the population of the region, where Pathan civilians are scarcely distinguishable from the Pathan Taliban, and all are ferociously hostile to foreign intrusion and air bombardment.

The anonymous subject of the interview acknowledges the strength of American forces, soon to be reinforced, but says, “The Americans cannot take control of the villages. In order to expel us, they will have to resort to aerial bombing, and then they will have more civilian casualties.”

The American authorities can see this as well as anyone else, and they have a new strategy, which will be implemented with the arrival of U.S. reinforcements. It is an adaptation of Gen. David Petraeus’ policy in Iraq of dividing the insurrection by hiring Sunni tribal militias to defend their own communities.

But it will ultimately rest—as in Iraq—upon an extremely doubtful long-term reliance on democracy development, of which we have heard much and seen little, since it assumes that a democratic society can be supplied by foreign military intervention. It is the recipe not for a long war, but for an unending one. The people of Afghanistan and Pakistan will in the end settle it, but only after the foreigners have gone home.

Visit William Pfaff’s Web site at

© 2009 Tribune Media Services Inc.

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, September 4, 2009 at 11:47 am Link to this comment

“Humans have converted to the remaining out of kinds thinning moments by going real pesticides to balance circumcision substances and music use birds and lobes.”Dunne

I really wish you had picked a simpler sentence. The first part almost makes some sense. “Humans have converted to using other kinds of thinning methods using natural pesticides to balance circumscribed substances along with music to attract birds.” I am unsure where “lobes” fits in. Lobes of the brains of the birds? In the soil?  An animal? It is just unclear to me. There are translation programs that could help you at least part of the way. But I must caution you that I am not a linguist or philologist or expert in English. Try simpler sentences first like “See the tree in the yard” as an example. Then build up from there.

Report this

By Dunne, September 4, 2009 at 6:45 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hello. The movies are the only business where you can go out front and applaud yourself.
I am from Iceland and now study English, tell me right I wrote the following sentence: “Humans have converted to the remaining out of kinds thinning moments by going real pesticides to balance circumcision substances and music use birds and lobes.”

Thanks for the help :o, Dunne.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, May 12, 2009 at 10:47 am Link to this comment

I agree, KDelphi.

I would like anyone who defends the actions of the USA to point out where this process has been successful.

Report this

By KDelphi, May 12, 2009 at 8:44 am Link to this comment

The best way to stop a person who is seeking your attention, is to ignore them….

Report this

By ardee, May 12, 2009 at 3:40 am Link to this comment

Dwight the quite mad Baker:

Or does me being around bring certain soundness to the less others commenting that like to take over TRUTHDIG, as it was theirs not the community at large to work in informed forums about the articles posted?
Is this the certain soundness of which you rant?

“Please log off—-take a break—-mediate—-re-read—-your comments then take a shower——relax—-then come back a better person.”

I think it just a personal attack, quite irreligious of you in fact, but then again most of your type of far right religious nut jobs are the most intolerant on the planet…

I do not speak for any but myself when I say that I came here to discuss politics and problems , not engage with a man seeking a group therapy session to vent his fears, phobias and off topic delusions.

Perhaps it is best if we simply each ignore the other. Or even better still, go on to your mission for Christ.

Report this

By KDelphi, May 12, 2009 at 12:00 am Link to this comment

If you have not had to shoot at a person, you have no idea whether you could or not. And, as Sepharad says you should never pull one if you do not intend to use it. (Sep—you dont know if you would have used it on them—you didnt know for certain that they were murderers, and, people will usually hesitate, unless they have had battle training…so I wouldnt feel bad at all)

Since I was in a postion to use one on a man who had hurt me before, and, I did not use it, I presume that it is more dangerous for me to try to use one.

That is the problem with all the gun hoarders in the uS—many dont have a clue as to what they are doing. This most be the most dangerous situation of all.

People I know that have had to use guns, say, in war, are usually either very lax aboug them, OR, have a profound respect for what they do and do not keep them around or, as Sep says, shoot into hillsides…but, I am not objective on this one. Cant be.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, May 11, 2009 at 11:00 pm Link to this comment

If you are a Christian, Dwight Baker you know what happens when you call another a fool you call yourself that as well. Do you believe? Even during the Great Patriotic War (II) a large number of recruits couldn’t pull the trigger in combat or would not aim at the enemy. Were they too ‘cowards’ in your black and white world of utter simplicity in the complex of reality?

Such Absolutists as yourself cause great havoc in this world of relativity, rainbows and quantum probability. Just like that fellow who was in office previous to Obama. He thought the same way as you.

Do you agree that democracy from foreign sources can work or not? Whatever comes from it isn’t real democracy. I say no.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, May 11, 2009 at 10:23 pm Link to this comment

Yes KDelphi, that is the clincher I wrote about further down the line. Could I pull the trigger on someone even if my life depended on it? I don’t know. I seem to have this limiter in my brain that forbids me from hurting others even though I have trained myself in fighting. If it does work it would be my nervous system responding, which does not think or have emotional content in its actions. Just a robotic response pattern.

Report this

By Sepharad, May 11, 2009 at 4:18 pm Link to this comment

KDelphi—You are not a wuss, not even close. I’ve never shot anyone but we have a couple guns and know how to use them. My uncle taught me how to shoot and the importance of practicing at a target range a couple times a month. He also said to never pick up a gun you weren’t intending to use, and then without hesitation shoot to kill, aiming at the torso so you at least keep the person from reaching you and taking the gun. I never learned how to use a rifle, though my cousins from Israel knew how and kept wanting to teach me but I had enough trouble with the handguns and didn’t expect to be in combat. No one in my family hunted for sport, though a couple cousins hunted with bow and arrow, and shared the deer meat with the rest of the family once or twice in season. 

When we were still living in San Francisco our neighborhood was getting so dangerous what with the gangs and drug dealers that though we’d raised two kids safely through high school, by the time the youngest was ready for elementary school things were so bad that at a community meeting a police sergeant told us he could not officially suggest it but recommended carrying a gun when walking or jogging alone. We took his advice. I jogged with a small .38 tucked under the sweatshirt and in the house we also kept a .357 by the bed in our house. But naturally the one and only time I needed it, didn’t have it with me. Was out putting up posters on telephone pole re our Airedale for whom the 10’ fence was no obstacle if he really felt like roaming. Some guys pulled up to the curb in their car tried to pull me in with them, but I heard the sound of another car coming up the hill, jerked myself free and threw myself in front of the oncoming car, hoping the driver would stop. He did and the men drove off before I could get the license number. (Feel guilty to this day about not having the presence of mind to somehow get the plate number while I was rolling on the pavement, because later that two women were assaulted and killed in a car that fit the description by four guys, same ethnic group, inside, according to some people who saw one of their bodies being tossed on the street from a fast-moving car.) Naturally the damned dog—Cosmo—showed up later on his own.

Still have both handguns, as we’re pretty isolated where we live, plus a beautiful silver and wood shotgun my husband’s step-father left him. 

Most dangerous around the coutryside here is that a lot of people keep guns and shoot any old place for target practice, and though any fool knows you shouldn’t shoot into a hillside many of them do anyhow. Have tracked some down and asked them to please be more careful but they stand on their old private property rights and say they can legally shoot on their property as long as no other dwelling is within 150 yards. I.E. we can go pound sand if we don’t like it. Also, while out riding in more remote areas hunters have sometimes shot too close for comfort, despite the bright colors we wear.

Report this

By ardee, May 11, 2009 at 3:30 pm Link to this comment

DWIGHTBAKER, May 11 at 6:51 am #

By ardee, May 11 at 6:31 am

Please log off—-take a break—-mediate—-re-read—-your comments then take a shower——relax—-then come back a better person.

The wars that need to be fought is not with each other.  Do you get that?


Can you show me to which post directed at you this response is aimed? Can you point to any rule that makes you the arbiter of what is posted here?

You post such garbled nonsense that I have , in fact,begun to turbo scroll past your efforts. By the by, didnt you note, some twenty posts ago or so, that you were leaving “to do the master’s work” in combating the Bilderbergs or some such? Please allow me to urge you on your way…....

Report this
Paul_GA's avatar

By Paul_GA, May 11, 2009 at 9:23 am Link to this comment

OK, Dwight; we’re getting off topic anyway.

But one thing I admire about the Afghans is contained in an old saying about them—“Every Afghan has his own God and his own gun”, and by inference, he resents furiously anyone trying to dictate to him about either. The Taliban may be religious fanatics and totalitarians, but at least they’re Afghans and arguably under no obligation to any foreigners, while the Karzai government is dominated by foreigners—and infidel foreigners at that; especially the USA.

Who do you think will win, given enough time?

Report this

By ardee, May 11, 2009 at 3:31 am Link to this comment

Paul_GA, May 10 at 9:31 pm #

I’ve gotten plenty of knowledge about firearms from books and magazine articles, Ardee, and a good bit of practice at the range and at home (dry-firing). Signing up for a government-mandated “safety” program strikes me as just another way of informing the increasingly totalitarian State that you’re an armed citizen and (in their eyes) a potential danger. Better to keep mum and swim under the radar.

Ive no clue as to what you mean by “government mandated safety programs”, and I suspect neither do you. My local range offers courses in gun safety including maintenance and training in firing a weapon safely. I see no such over the top rant as you offer warranted by this suggestion. Neither do I see such in my suggestion to KDelphi….

Report this
Paul_GA's avatar

By Paul_GA, May 10, 2009 at 6:31 pm Link to this comment

I’ve gotten plenty of knowledge about firearms from books and magazine articles, Ardee, and a good bit of practice at the range and at home (dry-firing). Signing up for a government-mandated “safety” program strikes me as just another way of informing the increasingly totalitarian State that you’re an armed citizen and (in their eyes) a potential danger. Better to keep mum and swim under the radar.

Report this

By ardee, May 10, 2009 at 3:58 pm Link to this comment

Guns are, after all, inanimate objects that do only the bidding of the brain behind the trigger. One might debate the intent of the founders in writing that most debated of all amendments, the second.

Per Wiki:
There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights. One such version was passed by the Congress, which reads:
“    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.    ”

Another version is found in the copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, which had this capitalization and punctuation:
“    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.    ”

The original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, approved by the House and Senate, was prepared by scribe William Lambert and resides in the National Archives.

I do not post this to add to that debate, only to note a common mistake made by many and apparently echoed by KDelphi. If one believes that owning a weapon is necessary for ones self protection then attending a class on gun safety, including the proficiency in use, is a mandatory step.

Far too many find, as their last vision on earth, their own guns used against them. If any wonder, I am on the side of an armed populace, and a sane one would be even better.

Report this
Paul_GA's avatar

By Paul_GA, May 10, 2009 at 2:17 pm Link to this comment

KDelphi, I’ve never been in a shooting situation, and I pray to the Good Lord I’ll never have to squeeze a trigger on any human being for any reason—but if I ever have to out of sheer self-preservation, my prayer will be, “Lord, don’t let me miss!”

Report this

By KDelphi, May 10, 2009 at 1:05 pm Link to this comment

I meant that I COULDNT shoo it…I shouldtn be talking about this either, so I am out of here…

Report this

By KDelphi, May 10, 2009 at 12:45 pm Link to this comment

Sepharad—I had a gun, and, had a vet teach me to shoot it, after I was assaulted…

When the m-fer broke into my house, he walked up and took it away from me—I could shoot it. I guess that that makes me a real woose….

Fortunately, he didnt use it on me, but, he might have.

I still do not see how anyone can think that they can defend themselves , against the uS govt, with a firearm….I just do not see it.

Have you guys actually shot at people?

Report this

By Folktruther, May 10, 2009 at 12:02 pm Link to this comment

Elizibethe- I agree with your comments as far as they go, but I don’t think voting is the primary method out of our current historical rpedicament.

Paul, people always need a party to unite and activate them for historical policies, even with all the Elitist power deviations that are inherent in their formations.  Individualsm doesn’t offer any way out.  Including, and possibly especially, individualism with guns.

Report this
Paul_GA's avatar

By Paul_GA, May 10, 2009 at 10:01 am Link to this comment

Quite true, Dwight. One must always distrust politicians because they’re worshipers of power and wealth (with a few conspicuous exceptions) who obviously don’t want ANY “power to the people”, though they may utilize this slogan as part of their pursuit of power and wealth.

(Seems their slogan today is “this country is surrounded by enemies, and only the State can protect us; put ME [or my party] in control, and you will be safe”.)

Report this
Paul_GA's avatar

By Paul_GA, May 10, 2009 at 4:16 am Link to this comment

Thank you, Elizabethe, for your additional comments.

And, Folktruther, I personally believe that the gun—in the hands of the people—should never be controlled by any politicial party; indeed, the only “gun control” I believe in is a firm hold, a keen aim, and a steady squeeze on the trigger. That, I think, is the original intent of the Founders as far as the Second Amendment is concerned.

Report this

By elizabethe, May 9, 2009 at 10:17 pm Link to this comment

The Duopoly is due to the media and two party conspiracy against the people of the United States.

CHANGE DUE on the ballot officially WAS PRESENTED as real and valid—real change for a budget on track and the public interest and honest government and policy for change against Bush wars and trillions in military red ink and erosion of the Constitution and protections for freedom and democracy.

The DEBATES used to be hosted by the League of Women Voters.  The two parties refused OPEN DOOR policy determination.  The League of Women Voters said it was FRAUD against the nation and they would not submit to that, and refused to host the debates on the two party terms of closed doors.

The two parties then formed their own debates and that is what the Commission on Presidential Debates IS: ONLY a two party hosted debate that claims non-partisan but THEY make up the rules.

Ron Paul suggested the proper view is the slate on enough state ballots to win the popular vote should be the debate.

THE PEOPLE need to change the host of an OFFICIAL debate to yield the DEMOCRACY due for honest non-partisan debates and the SIX not TWO as valid for 2008—Ignore the CPD.  MAKE A VALID DEBATE HOST NON-PARTISAN REQUIRED.

Baldwin, Barr, McCain, McKinney, Nader and Obama THESE were the BALLOT CHOICES NATIONALLY in a majority of 50 states.

It is not a two party contest.  Of course not.

It is not a duopoly of entrenched corruption that is resistant to the democracy defined in the U.S. Constitution. It is the fault of the media for liking it so much they refused to tell the people there was a serious challenge and it was four outside against the two warmongers favored by the media against the change for peace and budget in the black on track OFFERRED by the FOUR and NOT by the TWO.

Vote change and get it!

The press conference held on September 10, 2009 did not yield the proper press results.  A DEBATE OF SIX was DUE and OVERDUE.

The press said you are stuck in two choices, which do you want?

The people did not do this, but they submitted to the duopoly of corrupt media presented lies of pretended politics.

We have to take up the challenge tendered by four and make it public to the nation.

The four wanted a change for peace and bring the troops home, not redeployment into Afghanistan, which Obama wanted, I believe very disingenuously, he got into Congress as a senator on his disparagement of Bush, and then did a flip flop and copied what he likely believed was Bush “success” which is not, and he added insult to injury saying he would ONE UP BUSH,with his intended agressions, and the media hyped him way out ahead as if wanted! The majority did not know a slate for real change was refused…

The media owes, and the public needs to know, the debates are two party controlled tyranny!

The Sept. 10th 2008 Press Conference was not intended to comment on the duopoly, it was to offer DEMOCRACY and choice for CHANGE DUE with REAL LEADERSHIP at an honest level for proper public interest government and democracy…to govern America—THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE THE BEST and vote it, is certainly the core of our democracy in the U.S. Constitution!

How do you get rid of the duopoly?  You challenge it at the presidential level strongly!

Four did.  Baldwin, Barr, McKinney, and Nader.

Ron Paul presented their unity of challenge against the corruption. A duopoly unchallenged was the media’s lie.

SIX not TWO was real in 2008.  Nader has been working for the challenge and has believed gradual change was achieved.  No change yet?  Watch Four years of horror and tyranny of war corrupt pretenses?  This is not American Democracy it is pure Obama and McCain against the people, “gladly”?  With the media’s endorsement?  I certainly did not vote for a duopoly! I believe it was Nader who should have been seen as the winner in 2000, 2004, and 2008 and the corrupt should have been seen as the clear losers with no chance.

Report this

By elizabethe, May 9, 2009 at 8:12 pm Link to this comment

The solution will be found ONLY AFTER THE FOREIGNERS GO HOME ... I agree, and so did the FOUR CHALLENGERS FOR PRESIDENT—NADER, BARR, BALDWIN, McKINNEY.  They were four who offered CHANGE in the military and the red ink, and PEACE as their change from the Bush wars.

The U-Tube link posted again,  shows the CHALLENGE offered to the Press and the Public for the REAL DEBATE for DEMOCRACY to happen. September 10, 2008 before the National Press Club, introduced by Ron Paul, who claimed the four have differences, but they are AGREED on FOUR PRINCIPLES and those were on target with what Sheer said was missing (oh boy was it ever) from Obama’s speech (and offerings!)—(1) Foreign Policy (peace); (2) Privacy (restoration of civil liberties taken during Bush’s War(s); (3) BUDGET on TRACK, end the red ink; No deficit spending, cut the military; (4) Federal Reserve - no bailouts…taxes for people, not corporate corruption.

Check out the speech!  Ron Paul is good as the presenter, and, I loved Nader….I voted Nader…but the four certainly make a DIFFERENCE DUE…and the chance that Ron Paul is CORRECT when he says, “We are a Majority” and that people were not happy with the two choices forced…and the challenge was on the ballot at a majority potential WIN level and should be the VIABLE DEBATE DUE for Democracy in America to PUT AMERICA BACK on TRACK for PEOPLE and - I would say sanity and safety, and let the world be the proper “world order” restored free from the war on terror that is not ok, and not civilized.  It is invasion and is not “Democracy at gunpoint” it is death and destruction and pollution, and red ink in the trillions and red blood, what “Commander In Chief” is allowed to do the intended actions of Obama?

The people claim they did not vote this and the media says it was not what they credited Obama with intending, well, how about forcing democracy and make him face his challengers who can make his intentions much clearer to both the press and the public and let voting mean a leader that is true to a wanted agenda.

Obama is NOT.

As Ron Paul put it, “Change?  Obama is not Change!”

Report this

By elizabethe, May 9, 2009 at 7:54 pm Link to this comment

My cut and paste included a list not intended, but, perhaps just as well!

WE ALL DESERVE THE TRUTH OF OBAMA’s INTENTIONS UP FRONT, not sleezed in gradually as if not intended by Obama or the Media…the hypocrisy is too much, as if they did not know what he intended, trillions in red ink.

GET OBAMA to the proper view of CUTS ARE WANTED in the military RED INK and ask him if he INTENDED TRILLIONS IN RED and IF BUDGET means anything to him.

What does the world peace mean to him?

What does “Democracy” mean to him?  Fair elections where incumbents are challenged before the public?

War only declared by Congress?

What is 90,000 increased troops?  RED INK and WAR, while he offered the lie of PEACE! 

I heard the “lie” and not the “hype” because to me, it is not credible, and we are NOT LUCKY TO HAVE OBAMA.

Read his platform book published which clearly is not sane and not feasible, “A Change You Can Believe In” seems to me a change not wanted on any level!  Red ink and offensives globally.

Ask Obama if he knows what a President of a Constitutional Democracy IS SUPPOSED TO DO with the military budget IN LINE!

Cheers and good luck to Robert Sheer, we would like to make Obama answer to the hype versus intentions and budget status!

I see only lies and hypocrisy.

Apologies again to Chris Hedges.

A search on this site showed he has given Nader considerable credit for his ideas, I did not take out the time to read what he wrote, he wanted the ideas implemented, how about DEMOCRACY OVERDUE?

Maybe he and the majority need to face the truth, a duopoly is NOT democracy, and facts are supportive of the outside should have had a much greater chance to win against the two who were the duopoly of military red ink way out of line!  Four challengers were on a majority of 50 state ballots and we have a majority of non-partisan registered voters, 24 states do not register party, about 82 million and of the 26 which allow party declaration at registration, about 21.3 million are non-partisan. 36 million of 167 registered voters are Democrats and 26 million Republicans, They do not own the country.

The taxes are NOT their earnings!

Sanity says everyone should want to see the full slate of SIX not TWO and net an honest agenda wanted by a majority free to vote for a candidate who they deem best after the party primaries have chosen their frontrunners, the final in September was arrival for the proper contest DUE!

How about that!

Report this

By Folktruther, May 9, 2009 at 7:46 pm Link to this comment

Night-Gaunt, Paul, the major power commidities are money, violence and truth(or the lack of it.)  By emphasizing that communists rely primarily on violence, it distorts in the public mind that communists and socialists parties in fact rely primarily on persuasion. And this is true in militry-political wars as well.

The reason that US power has lost in Iraq and the Afpak war is the people hate them.  Because it is activists and truthers who explain the latest barbarism that occurs.  Activists can only function in a war situation with the support of the people.  And you can’t bullshit people face to face for very long.

The implication of the Mao quote is that military power is controlled by political power, not the reverse.

Report this

By elizabethe, May 9, 2009 at 7:40 pm Link to this comment





CUT AND PASTED FROM “GETTING WARMER” february 25th claim of lucky….by Sheer:

Email   Print   Share x

Posted on Feb 25, 2009

AP photo / Charles Dharapak

By Robert Scheer

We are lucky to have Barack Obama as president. I write that even though I believe the content of his Tuesday evening speech deserved no more than a B+ / A-, for its failure to seriously address the origins of the banking crisis and for only hinting at the severe military budget cuts required to get close to his goal of reducing the federal deficit by the end of his first term.


Report this
Paul_GA's avatar

By Paul_GA, May 8, 2009 at 5:21 am Link to this comment

The version of that Mao quote which I’ve saved for reference reads, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party.”

As I see it, the Founders’ principle was that the people control their own guns, not the American State or the governments of any of the various states. I believe in a small, voluntary standing army solely for defense, backed up by a voluntary armed populace (“militia”) formed by the states. A country with a land force so organized cannot be a danger to its neighbors, much less countries far, far away.

Report this

By elizabethe, May 7, 2009 at 11:52 pm Link to this comment

If you like the idea of honest politics and majority rule as supposed to be guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution—and if you prefer peace policy on track and troops out of Afghanistan AND Iraq, and a proper respect for the Middle East to have their peace within their borders DECIDED BY THEMSELVES and whatever THEY choose to invite, then you might like to check out the FOUR CHALLENGERS who the MAJORITY COULD HAVE AND MIGHT STILL PREFER TO INSIST UPON, AS THE RIGHTFUL DEMOCRACY DUE AMERICANS FOR A PRESIDENTIAL CONTEST WHERE INCUMBENT TYRANNY CANNOT STAND! 


Four were on the ballot in 2008 and the challenge against the two party corrupt tyranny claiming duopoly as if we wanted it, certainly I did not, and the truth is the FULL SLATE has to be the only valid contest…this link shows a press conference and a request for the press to offer the proper presentation to the people so the PEOPLE

September 10, 2008, in plenty of time for a REAL DEBATE, this presentation was at the National Press Club…saying the majority wanted peace, and a budget in the black, sound fiscal solid policy to support a strong leadership for America to restore the PEOPLE rule against the corruption, no more red ink warfare, restore peace! and our country as a reality check! Not to mention international law and order and respect for the right organizations such as the United Nations to maintain global harmony and protect the world against war!

Report this

By elizabethe, May 7, 2009 at 11:05 pm Link to this comment

Lies are what brings two evil boxes presented as if wanted as the only viable choice.  Lies yields a Presidential Pretender—Obama the Coward in Chief—who would never consider standing next to his soldiers—soldiers who would never consider standing on foreign soil without the red ink paychecks and money to the invaded in the trillions intended by Obama! THE BIG LIE IS THE OBAMA VOTERS WAMTED THIS, they say they did not! Check out Chris Hedges lies.

RED INK only in the trillions is the paycheck for the blood and injuries wanted by Obama!

Soldiers from the U.S. have no right to take red ink paychecks and shoot Obama lies on foreign soil!

Obama wants them to, hugely, he wanted all sorts of red ink policies described in his platform book that is entirely offensive, “A Change You Can Believe In” by Obama and Biden-insanity of global offensives.

Taxes cannot and do not support them.

This is not inherited money that is being used to tender a bill of heinous offensive against the world by Obama and Hillary, it is RED INK in the TRILLIONS and Obama has no conscience. “TOXIC LEGACY” against the future.

And, this audience believes they can say it is the Bush and Obama administration, as if a government did not get voted in on the advance knowledge that they were voting for warmongers who have no respect for proper peace policy or budgets in the black and BALANCED ON TRACK ALSO!

Ask the public if they voted for Democracy at Gunpoint!

Likely they will say no. But disclaim proper power for the change due.

I dislike the lies and the claim of broker status, there is no such thing, honor is the only path to peace, proper sovereignty and democracy in your own country is the only proper way to lead on track.

Right after inauguration Chris Hedges gave high praises hyping Obama, and pretended to complain about the missing budget cuts in the military, AS IF intended, when indeed NEVER WERE THERE ANY intended, TRILLIONS ADDITIONAL were intended and Obama said so.

The media didn’t want the public to notice, they incumbents rule… all the war and red ink and bloodshed that makes OBVIOUSLY no sense.

Obama is a COWARD IN CHIEF and powermonger against democracy.  Americans need to stop their children’s red ink paychecks and bloodshed.

If the majority faced who they voted for as their fault,and stopped pretending amazement, they would net democracy.

Peace, honor, democracy on track, these are what belong in public view and office, and the change DUE as REALITY CHECK was offered by Ralph Nader three elections. The media refused challenge against the duopoly, willfully three times and still counting!

The people believed the media—they should know better, Nader is against corruption and warmongering and dishonest politics.  People should know they do not get government for people if they do not require honest politics.  Allow corruption and you get corruption as guaranteed, because corrupt are exactly that.

The people can stand against the two evil boxes-24 states do not register party, 82 million people.  Over 100 million are non-partisan registered of about 167 total voters.  OF course the majority CAN WIN and vote the best against the two lesser evils that deserve to go.

It is a can do.

Void the election as FRAUD and end the RED INK fraud and end the fraud of Democracy at Gunpoint.

We need voters to vote their truth, not lies.

There is no time like the present.

(Ralph Nader has posted on his site, his credentials for running, is my belief of why he posted…the media only presented the warmongers and called them change…how could an educated country believe such trash?.. If Hedges believed that Obama intended military cuts he never listened to Obama’s military platforms! People must force a VALID CONTEST and end the no democracy that is clearly in front of the world, by the U.S.military offensive against everyone, I say the media is the source of it.

Report this

By Sepharad, May 7, 2009 at 10:49 pm Link to this comment

KDelphi, Re guns, I agree with Folktruther but also take your point that everyone who gets a gun is not a NightGaunt or Folktruther, which is correct and perhaps the best reason why you should have one. Much better to have one if you need it—as long as you know how to shoot it; target practice is essential. But you know that. It’s unfortunate that the world is what it is—probably why you are a social worker, trying to make it incrementally better. I hate the ugly parts of reality, but it’s wise to look and understand it. Leaves you free to appreciate the good without feeling like a Pollyana.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, May 7, 2009 at 10:22 pm Link to this comment

Well KDelphi, the one item that I find bothersome with the Left is its disdain and mistrust of people owning weapons, especially guns. As if with them people will become mini dictators and/or murderers. Even though they are human they have an odd idea of human behavior. Something I find mildly humorous in a narrow fashion. Guns et al are tools and it is the tool user that is to blame for how the tool is used in what context. To murder or to save another from death or other bodily harm. To them all guns are “bad” and must be removed from society. I don’t see them wanting to disarm police or the military which are the cornerstone of state enforcement power and its abuse.

Report this

By ardee, May 7, 2009 at 4:53 pm Link to this comment

DwightBaker, so certain of facts…

Of the various factions that emerged under Hasmonean rule, three are of particular interest: the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes.
The Pharisees

The most important of the three were the Pharisees because they are the spiritual fathers of modern Judaism. Their main distinguishing characteristic was a belief in an Oral Law that God gave to Moses at Sinai along with the Torah. The Torah or Written Law was akin to the U.S. Constitution in the sense that it set down a series of laws that were open to interpretation. The Pharisees believed that God also gave Moses the knowledge of what these laws meant and how they should be applied. This oral tradition was codified and written down roughly three centuries later in what is known as the Talmud.

The Pharisees also maintained that an afterlife existed and that God punished the wicked and rewarded the righteous in the world to come. They also believed in a messiah who would herald an era of world peace.

Pharisees were in a sense blue-collar Jews who adhered to the tenets developed after the destruction of the Temple; that is, such things as individual prayer and assembly in synagogues.
The Sadducees

The Sadducees were elitists who wanted to maintain the priestly caste, but they were also liberal in their willingness to incorporate Hellenism into their lives, something the Pharisees opposed. The Sadducees rejected the idea of the Oral Law and insisted on a literal interpretation of the Written Law; consequently, they did not believe in an afterlife, since it is not mentioned in the Torah. The main focus of Sadducee life was rituals associated with the Temple.

****The Sadducees disappeared around 70 A.D., after the destruction of the Second Temple (see below). None of the writings of the Sadducees survived, so the little we know about them comes from their Pharisaic opponents.******

These two “parties” served in the Great Sanhedrin, a kind of Jewish Supreme Court made up of 71 members whose responsibility was to interpret civil and religious laws.
The Dead Sea Sect

A third faction, the Essenes, emerged out of disgust with the other two. This sect believed the others had corrupted the city and the Temple. They moved out of Jerusalem and lived a monastic life in the desert, adopting strict dietary laws and a commitment to celibacy.

The Essenes are particularly interesting to scholars because they are believed to be an offshoot of the group that lived in Qumran, near the Dead Sea. In 1947, a Bedouin shepherd stumbled into a cave containing various ancient artifacts and jars containing manuscripts describing the beliefs of the sect and events of the time.

The most important documents, often only parchment fragments that had to be meticulously restored, were the earliest known copies of the Old Testament. The similarity of the substance of the material found in the scrolls to that in the modern scriptures has confirmed the authenticity of the Bible used today.

Report this

By KDelphi, May 7, 2009 at 1:32 pm Link to this comment

Night Guant—Ok. What I meant, is, how can one complain about someone using guns for power , (which,I assumed you were doing with Mao)in defense of something they see as Imperialistic, and, then use a gun to obtain power themselves, against their percieved enemy…isnt that contradictory, and, the point I was making about “progressives” (not necessarily you or any one person), is that, many are anti-war, but, hang onto guns as their source of power. (often, I’m afraid, falsely)People that leave them hanging on the wall, and, go to target practice, I just dont think that we are talking the same people…

I just dont know where it all ends…ususally with the govt putting everybody in line by out-gunning them, maybe.

I dont know enough about the Chinese Revolution to comment on Mao. (its hard to get anything honest here in the West)But, his point, was, that , those who have guns, I think, often win by merely outgunning—not (just) becasuse they are right.Might doesnt make right.

I really think that you guys are not considering gun owners who are not like ‘you”. If you have been to gun shows, perhaps you are… I know that gun laws will not change in the uS. My concern is not their civilian use on the govt, but, being used on innocent civilians, But, the govt is certainly not going to disarm! They are passing a bill today to ARM, ARM, ARM…I wish that I could see a huge difference..but I dont.

Is it a “female” thing?? Nope, there’ somwn n here who love to use guns, apparently.There may be different kinds of gun owners and users, but, it seems that the result is the same, on the urban streets of the US.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, May 7, 2009 at 12:32 pm Link to this comment

“As for the Maoist quote, that is the usual anti-communist bullshit.  Mao led the communists against the Japanese imperialists to rid the coountry of them during WW2, and then defeated the corrupt and brutal Chang, who was supported by the US, to establish the current Chinese state.”FolkTruther

I don’t see how that quote is anti-Communist at all and it fits any who deal with power and is just as applicable in the USA as well. The gun is where it ultimately comes out of so I don’t understand your negative rant in this area. A simple universal truth in this. It is who is using it and for what reason makes it good or ill for others. That was my point. The old Star Trek episode “Savage Curtain” deals with that whole concept very well. [Easy to understand format.]

“Night-Gaunt—Not being confrontational, but, how does “failing to understand Mao” (and I’m not sure that I do fail to understand), has anything to do with being anti-violence. I am not a pacifist. I would agree with Paul_GA, in self defense and against invasion.”—</b>KDelfi</b>

Well it goes back to a previous statement of yours that perhaps you didn’t quite get the meaning separated from another point. You made the point or question that wasn’t the pro-gun “Progressives” acting in the spirit of that Mao quote? Well the essence of its meaning shorn of its political situation, I would say yes. Wouldn’t you? How does that relate to those who are pacifists? You made no reference to them. Not in that question from a previous post by you which spoke about Progressive gun owners. So the context of your question is confusing to me with your latest post. Maybe you should clarify and rephrase it for me.

Report this

By hidflect, May 7, 2009 at 12:15 pm Link to this comment

I thought all those military academy graduates were schooled in the tactics of Sun Tzu. But it’s the illiterate goat-herders with Kalashnikovs who are picking when and where to fight…

Doh! Back to West Point for a refresher, Generals. Start with Vietnam 101…

Report this

By Jon, May 7, 2009 at 11:52 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Looks like the Neocons still run the DOD and State Department.

Obama needs to roll the hard six and get out of Kabul and Iraq asap.  We all know that in Iraq, it’s all about ‘the oil.’

Report this

By KDelphi, May 7, 2009 at 11:33 am Link to this comment

Folktruther—Point taken. But it is a visceral reaction on my part, and, i cant seem to overcome it.

I used to fire guns, and, I’ve had them fired at me. So it is not simply my social work history.

I know people who have died when someone got drunk and decided they had to kill them. I think that, if people are going to PLAN to use guns, they had better know how and be certain that they are prepared to actually use them.

Having one and finding yourself unable to fire on another human being is very dangerous…

Also, the amassing of weapons that seems to be going on frightens me.

As I have said, I am not a pacifist, per se.I just grew up in a very “rural” environment and every Joe Hillbilly I knew seemed to decide that they had to carry a concealed weapon into the bar that night—and somebody wouldnt come out…or , had to “go hunting” and kill everything that moved, often , peoples’ pets. People would be arguing at a party, and, if Hells Angels came, I knew that there would be “no arguing”, just shooting.

That is what I object to.

I am not certain that some , who follow the Libertarian approach to gun freedom, have ever been in a situation where they actually had to shoot at another person, and, I am not certain that AI trust their reactio , if the time comes. Target practice, it aint….

Report this

By Folktruther, May 7, 2009 at 11:20 am Link to this comment

KDephi, I know that you’re anti-gun ideology is influenced by your career in social work and your belief in a soft social democratic ideology, but guns are esssential for the coming postdemocratic police state that Bush-Obama is instilling. 

The Gops believe in hate as much as they believe in greed and vigilante violence will increase, encouraged by the media and other truth organs, notably the churches.  Vulnerability exites them, and the idea that they can kill, rape and intimidate people without danger of getting hurt is attractive to them.  Much of this can be averted by the threats of using guns in defense against the guns that they possess.  Imagine, for example, how the posession of guns would have prevented many lychings during the century after the Civil War if the lynchers had to risk their lives to hang or burn someone.

As for the Maoist quote, that is the usual anti-communist bullshit.  Mao led the communists against the Japanese imperialists to rid the coountry of them during WW2, and then defeated the corrupt and brutal Chang, who was supported by the US, to establish the current Chinese state. 

The struggle against the Nationalists was primarily political, not military,and guns were less of a weapon than words.  But this quote is taken out context and reprinted endlessly in the Western media, just as the quote by the Iranian president’s is, that he is in favro of ‘wiping Israel off the map.’  This kind of thing is Western power bullshit (powerbull) that the Zionists specialize in to mislead the politically confused. I mention no names.

Report this

By KDelphi, May 7, 2009 at 11:02 am Link to this comment

Maybe Chris Rock’s idea of the $3000 bullet—-make that $30,000. It would cost a fortune to shoot an automatic—then, it might only be worth using against an actual threat, but who gets to decide what is a true threat? The individual gun owner. That is just scary to me, when guns are as available as they are in US society…the only way to “mediate” is, after someone is shot, in a court system that cannot be trusted. And , it will not bring your loved one back.

Report this

By KDelphi, May 7, 2009 at 10:57 am Link to this comment

Night Guant—Not being confrontational, but, how does “failing to understand Mao” (and I’m not sure that I do fail to understand), has anything to do with being anti-violence. I am not a pacifist. I would agree with Paul_GA, in self defense and against invasion.

YOu just cannot outarm the US govt.

But, we can agree to disagree.

Report this
Paul_GA's avatar

By Paul_GA, May 7, 2009 at 10:13 am Link to this comment

I’ve heard, KDelphi, that there’s a saying in Switzerland—“Only free men are armed; only armed men are free.”

I don’t see the difficulty with being antiwar and also pro-RKBA. “Antiwar” is not a synonym for “pacifist”, in my view. I believe in just war, and to my mind, there are only two kinds of just wars:

1) A war of national defense against a foreign invader; and

2) A war of national liberation against either a foreign occupier or a home-grown despot.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, May 7, 2009 at 10:10 am Link to this comment

“Please correct me , if I am wrong, but, to all the loyal gun supporters , who claim to be “progressive”, how are you not adhering to Mao’s quote above???

Anti-war , unregulated gun support seems, to me, odd indeed.”KDelphi

You fail to understand Mao, who was first a revolutionary but also an authoritarian dictator too. Oh it was regulated, heavily regulated both in their revolutionary fighting units and now in the sprawl that is Red (Republican) China as it is now becoming. You will find that in any authoritarian gov’t the weapons are the first thing to be regulated along with speech as primary factors in control, the third leg of that triad is the economy.

Not at all what some of the founders believed for many of whom had seen such authoritarian laws in action in England and France in action and did not want to repeat it here. However once we became a Federal Republic in 1789, we started sliding in that direction where we are today.

Report this

By KDelphi, May 7, 2009 at 9:55 am Link to this comment

Please correct me , if I am wrong, but, to all the loyal gun supprters , who claim to be “progresive”, how are you not adhering to Mao’s quote above???

anti-war , unregulated gun support seems, to me, odd indeed.

hippie4ever—-Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine—I am re-reading that, too (there is so much there) Minds think alike?? Who knows..

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, May 7, 2009 at 9:11 am Link to this comment

“The power comes out of the barrel of the gun”
-Chairman Mao Tse Tung (paraphrase)

That is what came to mind when I saw the Joker version of that quote and its implementation in foreign lands. Just think of whole armies of illegal immigrants coming to your country un-invited, to stay and pillage and ‘help’ you become civilized. It is the Great White Father at it again only it isn’t in the Great American Desert but the great Mesopotamian desert now and again to pacify and educate in the ways of the demigods of earth. Read PNAC which is the secular operational manuel of the Dominionists. Remember 1990 and what has been done to Iraq since then, millions dead, terrorism writ large and untouched by the UN? “Democracy” as has been used by this country is a code word for proxy control of other nations. Neo-colonialism as has been practiced for the 20th and early 21st centuries on this benighted planet. A different face but the same ethos in operation.

Report this

By Fadel Abdallah, May 7, 2009 at 8:53 am Link to this comment

By DWIGHTBAKER, May 7 at 10:10 am #

Fadel Abdallah, May 7 at 9:58 am

You find the most arrogance among the East Coast Blue Bloods, inheritors of the oil Barons, the second and third generation inherited money that has not a clue about anything except making all bow because of their money—-and with that their astute intellect that all goes hand in hand.
Thank you DWIGHTBAKER for your positive feedback on my post. I’ve been reading your comments and finding spiritual and thought affinity with yours.

I, like you, have had increasing and almost torturing concern with the wrong politico-military direction of the homeland. I have even been so confused about the fact that the two most bragged-about-democracies in the world (i.e. Israel and the US) are committing the worse atrocities in the world and are the worst bullies modern history has known. And cosmetics aside, it seems to me there isn’t much difference between the two dominant and rotating parties. Bipartisanship is the only permanent feature under this system.

I used to lean democratic in the past, but no more. After all my disappointments in both Democrats and Republicans, I now seriously think that the two party system in America is inherently dictatorial reactionary, and extremely partisan. Alternatively, a multi-party system might be better, but then I look at Israel and I am alarmed that it might be worse.

Hence I’ve been thinking lately about a better alternative and here are my ideas about it. To eliminate partisanship and the influence of dirty money, fear-mongering and long, nasty and costly presidential campaigns, let’s follow a system based on nomination and rotation from among the fifty states of the Union. Based on this, every four years each state nominates its best man or woman public servant through a referendum. Then the fifty nominated candidates are interviewed by a national search committee in the way the university presidents are selected, and one of those fifty is elected president. If a referendum at the end of four years rates the president highly, then his/her presidency is renewed for another four years.

In the next nomination cycle, the state that provided the outgoing president is eliminated from participation in the nomination, so the nomination is restricted to 49 states, and so on. In a cycle of 200 years, each state, no matter how small or big it is, will have a chance to provide the nation with its best public servant, with no particular party partisanship.

I know in advance that this idea of mine would sound crazy or very Utopian, however, it might be the only radical cure for the ugliness we experience with the status-quo system we have now!

Report this
Paul_GA's avatar

By Paul_GA, May 7, 2009 at 8:36 am Link to this comment

Not so much an intellectual “blitzkrieg” as an *emotional* one, Hippie4ever. Politicians prefer to appeal to the emotions rather than to the intellect (with the conspicuous exception of Ron Paul). That’s what propaganda is all about; to quote Joseph Goebbels, “Propaganda should be popular, not intellectually pleasing. It is not the task of propaganda to discover intellectual truths.”

Report this

By hippie4ever, May 7, 2009 at 8:06 am Link to this comment

Wednesday night Rachel Maddow had Naoimi Klein on her show. Naomi wrote “The Shock Doctrine” and I believe many writers here would enjoy reading it for her thesis that the ruling classes utilize an intellectual “blitzkreig” (sp?) to overwhelm the senses of the population, and thereby forcing their elitest agenda through.

Report this

By Fadel Abdallah, May 7, 2009 at 6:58 am Link to this comment

I don’t like the title of this piece for the simple fact that the words “democracy” and “gun point” are mutually exclusive and contradictory in nature. “False-Democracy at Gun Point” seems more appropriate title for this piece.

Another point, is that such political-military folly not only guarantees defeat for America, but also guarantees its moral and financial bankruptcy!

America, my homeland now for thirty years, seems to me the worst nation on earth in terms of learning from the lessons of history, and the main reason for that is the moral defect of extreme arrogance and false sense of superiority. And in light of this the economic collapse of the country, the Swine-Flu scare and the repeated natural disasters are relatively good wake-up calls, so per chance we wake-up to realize that all worldly and material glory are transitory in nature.

Report this

By ardee, May 7, 2009 at 3:41 am Link to this comment

Common sense might lead one to ignore the ravings contained within the two Dwight Baker posts. But then I think of the reason for being here in the first place and understand that, in order to combat hatred and stupidity, it is always necessary to speak out when one encounters it.

I believe I have now spoken out.

Report this

By elizabethe, May 7, 2009 at 12:50 am Link to this comment

I share the view of this author, Pfaff, with his very good ending sentence, that should be the mantra of the present, “The people of Afghanistan and Pakistan will in the end settle it, but only after the foreigners have gone home.”

It should happen “sooner rather than later”.

We need an honest trustworthy leader to make it happen.

“Americans” should practice democracy for American Presidential Elections.  It was the military industrial red ink establishment NO CHOICE BUT US INCUMBENTS FORCED on the people unblinking, mainstream media representing red ink and blood that they love so much.

I prefer Democracy in America and to let Afghanistan and Pakistan find happiness without the ugly foreigners who are very very ugly.

You do not install democracy from the outside with guns, certainly!  Only the people can create democracy and only in their own country.

America did not have democracy, Obama and McCain were and are WAR MONGERS and they think they are having fun, it is not fun, and it is not sport, and it is not honorable.  Of course Obama wanted to do this and said so way in advance the media ushered him in intentionally against TRUE VOTER CHOICE way overdue.  Obama has no merits.  He is The Premier Ugly American leading bankrupt morals and principles way out in the lead ahead on that score ahead of everyone.

There were four challengers offering proper pullout from the Middle East and proper restoration of American sovereignty and proper recognition of the sovereignty of the Middle East countries and their right to solve disputes themselves as is lawful and civilized.

September 10th the National Press Club did not pick up on the democracy due and the DEBATES DUE for the PEOPLE to vote change and America on Track and honest votes at the individual level so Shakespeare’s adage, “be true to yourself, and it shall follow as the night the day, thou can’st not then be false to anyman.”

Obama has no courage, and has no intentions of standing with the troops whose deaths show no proper respect for the Taliban and the people of both countries, Pakistan and Afghanistan.  This is murder, and horrific.

Peace is a duty, and interference is not legal nor wise, and it is not a surprise.  I certainly did not vote for Obama, I heard him saying what he intended, he said he wanted the trophies of victims of sacrifice and to occupy Afghanistan all during the campaign.

I do not “like” this pretense of a President.

I believe it is possible to demand the democracy due American with proper law and order and peace for the U.S. and the Middle East.  The four challengers offered THAT!  Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, and Ralph Nader. 

I voted for the best, and I support the choice due before the country, and to end the pretense of the Obama lies.  He said he wanted to do this, red ink, and military increase.  That was ugly truth.  He also said peace, hope, and change.  That was ugly lies.

Report this

By Claus-Erik Hamle, May 6, 2009 at 10:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The contract regarding the pipeline was signed last year and the pipeline will be built starting next year, I don´t know the reason for the delay. The invaders are a bunch of criminals. Obama is a war criminal. Killing civilians by drone attacks is a war crime. The torture taking place at Bagram is a war crime. And their crazy religion. I recommend W.Y. Evans-Wentz: The Tibetan Book of the Great Liberation, Oxford Uni Press, foreword C.G. Jung.
And Melchizedek didn´t have a mother or father and was equal to Jesus in importance as the black book tells us.

Report this

By Sepharad, May 6, 2009 at 8:06 pm Link to this comment

beerdoc, re living one’s life on a human-to-human level without malice: I’m not laughing. It’s the only way to remain a human being.

Report this

By yours truly, May 6, 2009 at 6:12 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

America’s defeat in Afghanistan will be bad news for the U.S. government but could be good news for the public.  Good news, that is, if said defeat motivates us to demand that our government give up on Empire and go instead, as President Obama promised, for change that we can believe in.

Report this

By Sepharad, May 6, 2009 at 5:08 pm Link to this comment

Dammit. Why can’t anything ever be simple? Still stand by my May 5 post, but heard on NPR this afternoon a correspondent currently in Buner area reporting the thousands and thousands of people fleeing Sawat and Buner, not just to avoid being caught in the middle of a war but because some of them, formerly welcoming to the Taliban (who presented themselves as Islamic Robin Hoods who would bring justice and food for the poor), have been living under the extreme sort of Islamic law and its penalties that comes with the Taliban, they’re appalled and scared by it, don’t like it, and want to run away.

So do we ignore these people? Rather, what SHOULD we do, as we already know what our government wants to do? The Afghanis I know in this country seemed to know what the Taliban was like before they actually came to power (that’s why our friends are living here and not in Kandahar). But is it possible the Pakistanis didn’t know, got sucked into something they had no chance to get out of because they were so poor and oppressed by the landlords that they were susceptible to anyone promising justice?

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, May 6, 2009 at 3:29 pm Link to this comment

If only there was some way to convey what savage insanity and injustice all of this is about. Words are inadequate vessels to launch any notion of what this barbarism means. The horrors wrought from the Taliban way of thinking are equally matched from the so-called rational “good war” ideas now put forward by the Obama administration, who think it is quite suitable to launch drone missile attacks on one of the poorest nations in the world. One only has to read the ICRC reports from Kabul to try and fathom what that kind of carnage this entails. Cecil Taylor was right when he said: “to feel is perhaps the most terrifying thing in this society”. What Robert J. Lifton called “psychic numbing” is used in full force today, because the terrorism claimed by the national news is really a media defense mechanism to justify every kind of brutality, but even more importantly, to facilitate the prevention from ever realizing the common universal human condition. For if you were to feel what others feel as a human being, you would be terrified at what senseless acts of violence are committed by the government in your name.
Perhaps that is the ultimate freedom that is being denied: the ability of the people to solve problems without resorting to violence, mercenary contractors, or dubious agreements. Even the idea of living on a human-to-human level will be opposed by those in power, all over the world. So much so, that will even threaten total annihilation of the planet. That is why the shell game about nuclear weapons is such a cruel joke. Governments always claim they want peace, but what they really seek is justification for extending violence. Meanwhile, the rest of the people who abide on this planet suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous stupidity; their children and family members are thrown into the sacrificial volcano called national service; their talents and resources are subverted and perverted for never ending imperialist wars, all in the name of some ideology that actually does not even exist.
I think it has becomes obvious by now that it is so delusional and futile to believe that governments will ever address these problems. This is difficult to explain because of its simplicity. Laugh if you choose, when I say I am trying to live life on a human-to-human level, with malice towards none, not even those whom I might vehemently disagree.

Report this

By Everest Mokaeff, May 6, 2009 at 3:19 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

You asked Russians to comment? Here it is. For the starters, I don’t feel good when people tend to think they possess some sacred knowledge which enable them to bring high moral standing in any discussion. Any time we talk about the situation in Iraq or
Afghanistan somebody inevitably winds up drawing comparisons to Vietnam and the very concept of just war. Nowadays it’s almost conventional to consider Vietnam of being no-win for the US. Please stop recycling it over and over again.

Aside the reasons US tropes invaded both countries, let’s take a look at the mess we have to deal there and options at the table. Sooner or later we have to start contemplating the way out-the-war. Both countries engulfed in swells of violence. For Afghanistan it seems to be peculiar yet natural way of evolution from one armed conflict to another. We may totally distrust genuineness of American agenda publicly promoted by US Defense Department but we can not turn a blind eye to the fact that Taliban regime is one of the most inhumane and brutal we have witnessed ever. To have a precise account of their deeds you need just to google it. More than half a century ago allied forces defeated another regime in different part of the world. Since then we gradually shift form one area to another to fight reemerging instances of injustice and basic human rights violations all over the world by means of various internationally established institutions from UN to NATO to European Human Rights Court. I can concede that, inter alia, US troops in the region serve political interests of neo-cons and military establishment. Nevertheless, I am a true believer in mission that encompasses humanitarian part and helps develop peaceful and prosperous society in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Until we fight terrorists of Al Qaeda and Taliban instead of winning over the broader populace support we are doomed to loose that battleground and retreat to Dover Air Base. There is no way to contain guerilla operations without eroding the basement of their ever-lasting fighting. To do that we need to redirect people towards value-creating kinds of activity. For them it should be of greater interest to engage in normal activity than to fight infidels. If people have a choice they usually make a right decision for themselves. Although its up to us to fertilize that neglected terrain. Stop thinking in military options - behind a military op there should always be a little guy.

Report this

By Shift, May 6, 2009 at 3:01 pm Link to this comment

Change is much bigger than the Obama mini change agenda.  American imperialism is ending. Islamic peoples among others are forming agreements with South American Peoples who have suffered under Euro/American genocide and imperialism.  China is a player, Russia is a player, Iran is a player, Venezuela and Bolivia are players.  Their intent is to end American aggression and they are succeeding.  The banking oligarchs are breaking America financially in an attempt to control world banking and resources.  They are failing and we are just beginning to pay the price. To much of the world, America is The Great Satan and no matter how we view ourselves, they will continue to resist us. Technology has made mass murder affordable and easily acquired.  It is no longer a matter of if, but of when.  The oligarchs and sheeple have seen to that.  The Great American Genocide has come full circle to end us.

Report this

By KDelphi, May 6, 2009 at 2:52 pm Link to this comment

On cnn, there is a story about the fricking plane flying over NY. MSNBC has another Michelle story and FOX, of course, has Glenn Beck arguing with someone from ACORN.

That might be ok for people that can watch Al Jazeera online, but, my HD just isnt big enough to watch this show video on Demopcracy Now! (it just keeps crashing) So I read the transpcript, for those that can, here is the video…150 civiliznas, killed in Fahar, Afghan….Wolf Blitzer says that
“it was Taliban with a hand granade”.

We are going to be open to this kind of bullshit mongering as long as we’re in Af-Pak, aDN, as long as we do not have taxpayer sponsored media that ALL can watch—they will keep saying that the US doesnt care about anything but McNews… BBC is not good enough anymore and pbs is all commercials…(there was a hearing today on the failure of newspapers)

“AMY GOODMAN: Dozens of civilians were killed Tuesday in a US bombing in Afghanistan in what may be one of the highest civilian death tolls of the war. Witnesses say US warplanes bombed scores of homes during clashes with Taliban fighters in the western Afghan province of Farah. The Pentagon says it’s investigating.

Estimates of the dead range from fifty to as many as 150. A Red Cross team reached the scene of the air strikes yesterday afternoon. They say dozens of civilians were killed, including many women and children.

Jessica Barry is the communications coordinator and spokesperson for the International Committee of the Red Cross. She is in Kabul. She joins us on the telephone from there. “

Welcome to Democracy Now!

Report this

By hippie4ever, May 6, 2009 at 1:50 pm Link to this comment

I’m so over having “democracy” used as code for imperialism. Even the brainwashed should be able to comprehend that we aren’t in the Middle East to bring freedom to an enslaved people. If that were true, wouldn’t we enjoy liberty and freedom in the United States? The nation with the largest prison population in the world, a media owned by out-and-out fascists, a Congress bought by lobby groups bent on theft and subjegation of the American people?

Of course the U.S. will fail in Afpakistan; it doesn’t matter. As long as the military-industrial complex gets its share of tax revenues, they are perfectly content. When soldiers die, for nothing, wrap a flag around them and move on, because there’s a huge “surplus” population and no jobs for the working class.

And as for the comparison to Vietnam, I disagree: Vietnam wasn’t anywhere near as bad as Afganistan given its terrain. Both countries have dedicated fighters with much experience fighting superpowers, and winning. Ask the Russians.

Report this

By KDelphi, May 6, 2009 at 1:20 pm Link to this comment

We are going to be SOOOOOOooo…sorry that we let this go on…

Report this

By rmuldavin, May 6, 2009 at 10:56 am Link to this comment

Mary Ann McNeely, May 5 at 9:35 pm
Dependent upon Bribery?
Sepharad, May 5 at 9:53 pm
Read MacGregor’s article, ... “strict Islamic laws”, compromised Alghani people… (USA)... should offer them American citizenship ... Taliban’s agenda limited to Afghanistan, ... [comments-rm: agree with much, some “facts” I didn’t get until reading the Sepharads comments. The “Blundering around the Middle East and Central Asia” reminds me to keep in mind and body the facts of active Wars, so I am still not giving on up some constructive notions:
(1) back to the futures, 20Ca40 as model for 20 Nation Economic Summit (20-NES) still makes sense to me, for example the model treats nuclear protons and neutrons, each as a triplet (three vertices, three sides, but each vertex itself is a 1/3 triplet, important because a spinning charge has a magnetic field, and if there are three 1/3 charges acting as a relative “point charge” their individual magnetic axis would tend to occupy as far away from each other due to their self repulsive properties.
Stepping back from this branching of each vertex into smaller 1/3 charges, means we should do it also for the “unbreakable electron”, and this has already be postulated at the least by Nobel Prize winner Has Dehmelt of the University of Washington circa 1998 (Peace Prize).
(2) Thus Dehmelt, although working with single protons (Hydrogen nucleus, unitary positive charge) but generalizing to the electron, proposed that the electron can be modeled as three 1/3 negative charges separated by equal distances. Give them here the name, flat equal lateral triangles, (felts).
(3) Now am I ready to “jump start” the construction of a 20-Nation Economic Summit?
First to check the 4K byte limit?

Report this

By NYCartist, May 6, 2009 at 9:12 am Link to this comment

Remove the “fig leaf”.  The US and NATO are not in Afghanistan “to bring democracy” with guns.  Silliness.

The article points out that the Pakistan government said no to US fighting in Pakistan but the US/CIA is sending drones/missiles into villages in Pakistan. It’s war crimes to do it.

Report this
Paul_GA's avatar

By Paul_GA, May 6, 2009 at 9:04 am Link to this comment

Obama has probably been tricked into thinking that the biggest, baddest nation on earth can’t possibly be defeated, Folktruther; that America can do ANYTHING! (Especially with Israel by its side.)

But if anything Churchill ever said has relevance in this situation, it’s this: “Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.”

Report this

By Folktruther, May 6, 2009 at 7:47 am Link to this comment

It is becoming clear that Obama doesn’t know what he is doing in his war policies and is just continuing Buhite policies mechanically. The US is now leading Nato in a war game in Georgia to support the US puppet Loonyashvili.  This is possibly crazier than the orignially attack of Georgia on Russia.

The loony president is now being beseiged by his own people and an uprising by a tank battalion and possibly other troops, and a lot of demonstrators, all want to get rid of him.  In addition to this ‘mutiny’, an number of Nato and other countries are supporting Russia, who this military exercise is directed at.

The most dangerous game that Obama is playing at the behest of his Zionist advisers is threatening Russia with events like this war game, and a first strike missile emplacement in Poland and Chezcho.  He is doing it under conditions that make it to the RIGHT of Bush, while smiling and saying how much he wants peace.  He is relying on the geostrategic ignorance of the American population to addopt a provocative war policy that only Obama cheerleaders can love.

Obama is EXPANDING Bushite war policies, and consolidating them.  Since he has no military experience, he is relying on Zionists like Biden to continue Bushite policy for the interests of Israel, since they want the oil that flows through Georgia to sell to Europe.  This is not only against the interests of the Aemrican people, it is against the interests of the American power structure.  But it appears that they prefer Israeli interests to American interests, snf Obama mindlessly goes along.

Report this

By michael, May 6, 2009 at 7:29 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Perhaps no one has told the Americans that an Afghan can take your money and still stab you in the back.
No one told them that we could come over there in the 70’s tell them we are their friends we want them to have freedom and when we didn’t need them anymore we dropped them like a cheap date. Seems like I have seen several reports that this is why OBL hates us.

Report this
Paul_GA's avatar

By Paul_GA, May 6, 2009 at 7:02 am Link to this comment

Sooner or later, this country will experience a “Black Hawk Down” in Afghanistan. The Taliban will be looking for such an opportunity, mark my words.

Report this
Purple Girl's avatar

By Purple Girl, May 6, 2009 at 6:36 am Link to this comment

US boots should have never touched ground in Afghanistan- either in ‘01, but more poignantly in the ‘80’s -Let’s give a big round of Applause for McCain and his group who sent boots and Funds over to Bin ladens Rag tag ‘Freedom fighters’. While waging a covert war with the Soviets over the top of the Afghani Citizens, we allowed (and enabled)AQ to set up shop, with our money and ‘gifts’.
When the Sopviets pulled back, we pulled out and left the Afghani’s to fall vicitm to AQ and their moral justifiers the Taliban. Not only controlling their religion and social heirarchy, but their economic livlihood, then converted to that oh so profittable poopy plant.Did the average citizens actually benefit from this crop conversion- nope, but AQ and the Taliban created their own cash cow.
Until we stop viewing the Afghani problem in the myopic vision of the last 7 years, we will never resolve the problems WE helped create.
We abandoned the Afghani’s when we were done using their terriroty to wage a meaningless battle.As means to an end -so Reagan could make his Flase claim to Fame that HE brought down the Iron Curtain- Wag the Dog, came back to bite US in the Ass on 9/11.
worse yet we ahve yet to address the Breeding gorund of Saudi Arabia et al, who used Afghanistan as their college Campus to further indoctrinate their youth in the profitable facade of Middle East unrest- lending to the unfettered ability to claim the conflicts were to blame for Oil Obama is not only waging a war to unseat the powerful and oppressive AQ and Tailban in Afghanistan, he’s trying to derail the strangle hold the OPEC nations have on our economy and world affairs.
If Aq and the Taliban are the ‘only game in town’ and weild the power to literally slaughter at will, why should we expect the afghani’s to be able to free themselves of them alone? Esp when both are also getting financial and man power constantly being provided by the OPEC Oil Royals. Opec relies on ‘outside infleuences’ to justify their price hike like our Oil Corps rely on the mere threat of a natural disaster to claim their specualtion and resulting rate hikes are warranted. Our Speculators pray for Huricanes while the OPECs pray for an up tick in civil unrest and violence.Frankly I wouldn’t be surprised if the Oil Royals are funding the Sudanese Pirates- makes for a great excuse,thus profittable.
Lest we forget who also makes a living off conflict- those global war contractors who would be extinct if armed conflicts or ‘fight for Freedoms’ were non existent.Who provided the arms for Binny’s ‘Afghani Freedom Fighters’?
And what is the real name of this unholy alliance between Miltiary. Politics and Oil…The Miltiary industrial Complex. And how better to deflect suspecion away from themselves- target their own, and then wrap it in a flage of ‘they attacked US for our freedoms’. If that were in fact the case- why not go after the real symbols of our Freedoms- the Statue of Liberty, the Mall of America, Mt Rushmore??? Now they are trying to tell US the only target they saw as symbolic on the west coast was the LA Library- Give me a break, why not the Seattle Space Needle, the Golden Gate Bridge. Perhaps they decided attacking those Real Symbols may get their heads cut off if their covert operations were revealed.
What a twisted web we weave when we practice to deceive.Afghanistan is just another victim in this interantional Web of Crimes against humanity. a Red Herring.
How do we gain justice for US and the global Community- go after the main players of the MIC. In fact lets throw the Afghani’s a few players who screwed them over in the ‘80’s by playing war games on their soil.

Report this

By melpol, May 6, 2009 at 5:26 am Link to this comment

The American civil war must be used as an example of obtaining peace in Afghanistan and Pakistan. If the U.S. let the opposing forces battle until a winner emerged there would be peace in those two nations. Mother nature is the best peacemaker.  That is why there is calm in the wild.

Report this

By herewegoagain, May 5, 2009 at 8:54 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What a damn shame. The Taliban are organized rapists and sadists, period. It is disgusting to even think about them in power again. I am surprised that our presence in Afghanistan isn’t garnering more support from both the left and the right, but especially the left. Weren’t we all clamoring in unison the last eight years that Afghanistan is where we needed to be, not Iraq?

Report this

By jackpine savage, May 5, 2009 at 8:27 pm Link to this comment

Somehow i doubt that we’ll see reality intrude on the decision making process.  And the institutional history necessary to understand our current situation is an anathema to the US government in any case.

The War in Pashtunistan will go on until we can no longer continue it.

Obama’s got the war he always wanted, and he’ll almost certainly fail at it.

I won’t even get into the types of people that his administration is hoping to co-opt with the Iraq Surge Redux “strategy”.  But if they think that Gulbuddin Hekmyatar is going to save them, they’re bigger fools than i’d like to admit.

Just a taste: Hekmyatar’s first great political act…while he was still a young protege of a CIA funded professor at Kabul University…was to throw acid on the legs of a female student who was showing more skin than he found tasteful.

Report this

By Folktruther, May 5, 2009 at 7:59 pm Link to this comment

Actually, Sepharad, that’s a sensible approach.  But the purpose of the US in Afghanistan-Pakistan is not to win, but to avoid losing until the next presidential election of Obama.  There is nothing any longer for the US TO win, the pipeline from the ‘Stans to the Arabian sea being long gone.  As YS oiwer dwindles with Nato and mid-Asia, the whole Af-pak war is horrible bloody farce. 

Obama is blundering in this war in the same way the Bushites blundered in Iraq.  And he is doing it to win the next election. All frank military assessments see the that war as lost.

Report this

By Sepharad, May 5, 2009 at 6:53 pm Link to this comment

Brilliant. Everyone involved in making policy re Afghanistan should read MacGregor’s article but also, more important, the NYTimes interview with the Taliban logistician. As much as I despise the benighted way of life imposed on human beings—especially women—under strict Islamic laws, we should leave Afghanistan to the Afghani people. If there are Afghani residents we’ve compromised, putting them in danger by helping us against the Taliban, we should offer them American citizenship—the same deal goes for Iraqi translators. If Al Quaeda begins operating from Afghanistan again, or continues based in Pakistan, we should go after them with permission if not help of the governments. If this means making a deal with the Taliban, we should do it—though it’s probably way too late. We should have done it a long time ago, when Clinton was still President. The Taliban’s agenda is limited to Afghanistan, or was until they had to hide out in Pakistan. They may no longer be willing to give up Al Quaeda, but if we stop attacking their country they may be cooperative or at least not oppose other efforts to quash Al Quaeda ... which has a much broader agenda.

The Taliban has not attacked us outside of Afghanistan and Pakistan. We can’t continue blundering around the Middle East and Central Asia, and residents in these areas who help us and are at risk when we pull out should be able to come to the U.S. to live and educate their children. That is a much better way to demonstrate democracy.

Report this

By Mary Ann McNeely, May 5, 2009 at 6:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

In other words, the American plan relies on bribery.  Perhaps no one has told the Americans that an Afghan can take your money and still stab you in the back.

Report this

By yours truly, May 5, 2009 at 6:09 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What does another permanent war + global warming + economic collapse mean for the world? Doomsday, that’s what.  How to prevent this?  We rise up en masse.  Anything else?  Yes we can.

Report this
Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide

Like Truthdig on Facebook