Top Leaderboard, Site wide
October 24, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


The Importance of Being Exceptional
Oil Boom Prompts U.S. to Push for Crude Exports






Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

Here We Go Again

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Dec 2, 2009
AP / Charles Dharapak

President Barack Obama speaks about the war in Afghanistan at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y.

By Robert Scheer

It is already a 30-year war begun by one Democratic president, and thanks to the political opportunism of the current commander in chief the Afghanistan war is still without end or logical purpose. President Barack Obama’s own top national security adviser has stated that there are fewer than 100 al-Qaida members in Afghanistan and that they are not capable of launching attacks. What superheroes they must be, then, to require 100,000 U.S. troops to contain them. 

The president handled that absurdity by conflating al-Qaida, which he admitted is holed up in Pakistan, with the Taliban and denying the McChrystal report’s basic assumption that the enemy in Afghanistan is local in both origin and focus. Obama stated Tuesday in a speech announcing a major escalation of the war, “It’s important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place.” But he then cut off any serious consideration of that question with the bald assertion that “we did not ask for this fight.”

Of course we did. The Islamic fanatics who seized power in Afghanistan were previously backed by the U.S. as “freedom fighters” in what was once marketed as a bold adventure in Cold War one-upmanship against the Soviets. It was President Jimmy Carter, aided by a young liberal hawk named Richard Holbrooke, now Obama’s civilian point man on Afghanistan, who decided to support Muslim fanatics there. Holbrooke began his government service as one of the “Best and the Brightest” in Vietnam and was involved with the rural pacification and Phoenix assassination program in that country, and he is now a big advocate of the counterinsurgency program proposed by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal to once again win the hearts and minds of locals who want none of it.

The current president’s military point man, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, served in Carter’s National Security Council and knows that Obama is speaking falsely when he asserts it was the Soviet occupation that gave rise to the Muslim insurgency that we abetted. Gates wrote a memoir in 1996 which, as his publisher proclaimed, exposed “Carter’s never-before-revealed covert support to Afghan mujahedeen—six months before the Soviets invaded.”

Carter’s national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, was asked in a 1998 interview with the French magazine Le Nouvel Observateur if he regretted “having given arms and advice to future terrorists,” and he answered, “What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?” Brzezinski made that statement three years before the 9/11 attack by those “stirred-up Muslims.”

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
So here we go again, selling firewater to the natives and calling it salvation. We have decided to prop up a hopelessly corrupt Afghan government because, as Obama argued in one of the more disgraceful passages of Tuesday’s West Point speech, “although it was marred by fraud, [the recent] election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan’s laws and constitution.”

To suggest that the Afghan government will be in seriously better shape 18 months after 30,000 additional U.S. and perhaps 5,000 more NATO troops are dispatched is bizarrely out of touch with the strategy of the McChrystal report, which calls for American troops to restructure life down to the level of the most forlorn village. Surely the civilian and military supporters of that approach who are cheering Obama on have been giving assurances that he will not be held to such an unrealistically short timeline. Evidence of this was offered in the president’s speech when he said of the planned withdrawal of some forces by July of 2011: “Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We’ll continue to advise and assist Afghanistan’s security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul.”

A very long haul indeed, if one checks the experience of Matthew Hoh, the former Marine captain who was credited with being as successful as anyone in implementing the counterinsurgency strategy now in vogue. In his letter of resignation as a foreign service officer in charge of one of the most hotly contested areas, Hoh wrote: “In the course of my five months of service in Afghanistan … I have lost understanding and confidence in the strategic purpose of the United States’ presence in Afghanistan. … I have observed that the bulk of the insurgency fights not for the white banner of the Taliban, but rather against the presence of foreign soldiers and taxes imposed by an unrepresentative government in Kabul.”

Maybe they should have given Capt. Hoh the Noble Peace Prize.

Click here to check out Robert Scheer’s book,
“The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street.”


Keep up with Robert Scheer’s latest columns, interviews, tour dates and more at www.truthdig.com/robert_scheer.



Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: Thank You for Not Sharing

Next item: We ‘Support’ the Troops by Burdening Them More



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.

By christian96, December 8, 2009 at 11:55 am Link to this comment

Leefeller——I just watched “Chicken Little” on
the Disney Channel.  What’s the probability that
movie would be on the day after you mentioned
“Chicken Little?”  Until yesterday I hadn’t heard
“Chicken Little” for years, years, and more years.
In the movie earth is attacked by aliens.  Reminded
me of Revelation 12:9, “And the great dragon was cast
out(of Heaven to earth), that old serpent, called
the Devil, and Satan, which deceived the whole
world: he was cast out to earth, and his angels
were cast out with him.”  Revelation 12:12 reads,
“Woe to the inhabitants of earth and the sea! for
the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath,
because he knows that he has but a short time.”
Think the devil and his angels are on earth?  No
doubt about it!  Just look at the destruction taking
place around the world!  Things are going to get
worse but then they will get better when the Archangel Michael binds the devil and his angels
and cast them into a pit.  Hold on to your hat.  We
are in for a rocky ride!

Report this

By ardee, December 8, 2009 at 10:40 am Link to this comment

I may not be a rocket scientist, but at the cost of one million dollars a day for every one of our troops in Afghanistan for 15 years does not seem far fetched, but does seem quite mad,

Are you certain of that figure? I thought it was one million a year….

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, December 8, 2009 at 10:26 am Link to this comment

If the following is true, Obama is providing fantasy stories to ignoble me. According to plan, after 8 years and by 2011 Karzai is supposed to get his head out of his arse and have his army up to speed? (loyalties abound)    I may not be a rocket scientist, but at the cost of one million dollars a day for every one of our troops in Afghanistan for 15 years does not seem far fetched, but does seem quite mad, plus and what of our troops mental state a minor overlooked concern?

Today Karzai is on the news saying the following.

“Afghan President Hamid Karzai said Tuesday it will be at least 15 years before his government can bankroll a security force strong enough to protect the country from the threat of insurgency.” Yahoo news.

Maybe Karzai should have aimed for a real number, like 3000 years?

Report this
Peetawonkus's avatar

By Peetawonkus, December 8, 2009 at 9:52 am Link to this comment

Leefeller,
With all due respect, I don’t think there were many peace activists left in Germany by the time of the Poland invasion. The Nazis murdered so many that we tend to lose sight of the fact that first they killed all the Communists, Socialists and Labor Leaders. Within a few years, all opposition was crushed. That’s why Germany couldn’t be changed from the inside. It had to be defeated from without. Not, of course, that we should derive any historical parallels from that.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, December 8, 2009 at 9:17 am Link to this comment

With respect to Sheers article, I will say Obama has selected the road I would not have preferred. With the recent references to Hitler and Nazi’s I sort of see myself in the same possible light as a Peace activist in Germany before the attack on Poland. 

My knowledge of history is not very enlightened as most anything else, but I hope there were some Peace protesters in Germany?  Maybe they were taken care of as any other people of different opinions or people of promoted differences?

In the end, I was against the alleged successful surge in Iraq, so my being against this surge in Afghanistan may with any luck be proven me wrong again.

I like being wrong!

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, December 8, 2009 at 8:45 am Link to this comment

It would suit me M Henri Day, to only discuss Mr. Obama’s policies.  If you noticed
my former post did withdraw from the personal interconflagration.  It would have
been a nasty piece of work were I to allow anyone to denigrate me as was
consistently conducted.  I was raised to not let men of small minds with malice
attack my intelligence and reputation and get away with it.  I’m sorry you were
offended.  My part in this conflict on this forum is done.

Is there something relevant you would like to discuss about Mr. Obama’s policies?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, December 8, 2009 at 8:44 am Link to this comment

Henri,

It may be the state of affairs is reflected by what is being seen here. What one deems relevant may only be what one would prefer not what others would agree to prefer?

From the top down or the bottom up, seems bickering is.

What may be relevant or deemed to be relevant does not ever see the light of day, in a sense one may say we are doomed!

Report this
M Henri Day's avatar

By M Henri Day, December 8, 2009 at 8:13 am Link to this comment

Would it not be more relevant to the question at hand were we to concentrate rather on discussing Mr Obama’s policies than each other ? Personally, I find the ad hominem (ad mulierem ?) attacks we’ve seen on the present thread - and not so few others - both tiresome and counter-productive….

Henri

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, December 8, 2009 at 7:49 am Link to this comment

Well, ardee, since you are the ass of this forum, and all of Truthdig, Her
Shrewness doesn’t mind one piece of Her flyshit what you think, nor anyone
else for that matter.  She is notorious for that lack of care.  No one owns
Truthdig that posts on the forums, so see this little fly-on-the-ass-of-
Truthdig’s middle finger, it is in your face.  She can visit as She chooses, where
She chooses, and say what She chooses.  She does not live and breathe on what
useless flotsam of a shrunken-brained blogger like you thinks.  Particularly
one who hardly thinks at all and talks out of his ass all the time.  Every forum
on which you post someone says the same thing.  The only one I have ever
insulted is your pathetic self, purposely since your mind is filled with garbage. 

Obviously from your story about your sister you are a jealous misogynist and
your defense of a slobbering, saliva-gushing supplicant who has expressed
worship for you sustains your microbic mind.  Oh well small minds will grasp at
small acts of adoration and misery loves company.

Say what you will of Shenonymous, call Her any name you can muster from
your adolescent pea brain, ardee, you are a zero, a zilch, a cypher not worth
another word after this post, and I, Shenonymous, discontinue any interaction
with you henceforth.

Report this

By ardee, December 8, 2009 at 6:29 am Link to this comment

I am indeed sorry that menopause has dealt you such a crippling blow, Shrewnonymous. Yet the truth remains, you are a fly on the ass of this forum and nothing of any greater significance, despite the ravings of a sadly hormonally imbalanced mind.

After insulting everyone in sight you now attempt to drive a wedge between such as TP and myself, good luck with that strategy you arrrogant ass. More likely everyone will soon simply ignore you, as we all should.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, December 7, 2009 at 7:44 pm Link to this comment

Poor ardee, me thinks thee doth protest too much.  The very minor annoyance is
like a thorn in your ass.  Five yups, I do have worms in my head, but you still can’t
make any comments worthwhile can you?  Well you do have an ardent admirer,
poor tp keeps slobbering all over you, even offering to kiss your _____ and you
keep kicking him in the teeth… and he loves it.  LOL

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, December 7, 2009 at 7:01 pm Link to this comment

C96, I am done with Tiger Woods and his infidelity’s, so you may run and play with it. While playing, with it C96, comprehension skills are still not necessary !

Report this
M Henri Day's avatar

By M Henri Day, December 7, 2009 at 4:59 pm Link to this comment

«Maybe they should have given Capt. Hoh the Noble Peace Prize.»

Whether or no Mr Hoh’s contributions to the cause of peace suffice to render him a worthy candidate for Nobels Fredspris (to call it by its Norwegian name), is beyond my ability to judge, but I do hope that sooner rather than later Den norske Nobelkomite will be given the kiss that wakens it from its enchantment with US presidents, in particular those in office. For both Theodore Roosevelt and Barack Obama other interests than peace were - and in the latter case, are - primary….

Henri

Report this

By ardee, December 7, 2009 at 3:30 pm Link to this comment

Being a nightmare, I am your worst nightmare!

No Shrew you are not, merely a very minor annoyance. But you do demonstrate the worms in your head with that one…

Report this

By christian96, December 7, 2009 at 2:37 pm Link to this comment

Leefeller(alia chicken little)——-You make reference
to thinking about Tiger Wood’s endowment and I’m
not talking about his monetary contribution to
Stanford University.  Yet, you refer to yourself as
chicken “Little”, as in small.  Sigmund Freud could
have spent some time with those expressions.  If you
don’t already know Tiger Woods has a beautiful wife
that could give women in Hollywood a run for their
money.  Why would he chose adultery with such a hot
cookie at home?  Well, guys with muscles wear
muscle-man t-shirts so others will notice their
muscles.  Women with big boobs wear tight sweaters
so others will notice their boobs.  A married man
who is well endowed can only show off his endowment
to his wife.  Therefore, to get the attention of
others in reference to his endowment married men
will often committ adultery so someone elso can
notice their endowment. Don’t feel alone chicken
little.  I don’t committ fornication or adultery.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, December 7, 2009 at 11:46 am Link to this comment

Instead of posting on Hedges Nonsense Article, I am taking the liberty to post here instead, and feeling badly for interrupting what is perceived as a most serious discussion,  with this ollowing announcement!

Some may not kkonw this but I was the recipient of the Chicken Little Drivel Award of the Year (Award). Since I alreaday gave my appreciate and thank you post, I will not bore you with it here!

My concern is everyones concern! I beleive Tiger
Woods is being given a raw deal by the MSM.  One can feel sorry for Tiger Wpods with mistresses popping out like babies from the Octomom! Now it has been revealed by Tigers Mistresses they believe Tiger is very well endowed, which is supposed to mean in blond language “very smart”!

The newest revelation is Tiger was Texting all his mistresses using CC, which would normally not be a problem with blonds, but Tiger did not know some of the mistresses were not real blonds! Which leads to just how well endowed Tiger really may be?

In the end, I suppose this post helps support my drivel poster of year award! Now I may approach the redundent Nader should have been president Hedges Article, with a clear mind, thanks for letting me clear Tiger Woods out of my system!

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, December 7, 2009 at 5:51 am Link to this comment

Sorry ardee, you just don’t cut it no matter how feebly you try.  You cannot
attain to my level of intelligence nor intellect.  Your incessant name calling is
first proof of your many deficiencies of mind.  I love prunes, dried up ones or
plump, or fresh.  I am happy to be compared with prunes.  I take it as a
compliment, as they are luscious, which is stunning given I was so described by
a vacant minded creature like yourself.  How you managed to say anything
coherent is a miracle.  Your mental arm is never broken to read my posts and
you are most welcome to pass them by when my name comes up as a
commenter.  Who the fuck cares who an idiot like yourself admires?  Your pity is
misplaced and should be reserved for your puny-minded self as I am very self-
satisfied and happily go about my business both here and in real life.  You on
the other hand are not worth ant shit.  It is not only I who comments your
posts are a waste of time.  You should save your computer key finger and stick
it….where the sun don’t shine, deary. 

Now if you want to continue this personal war, you may of course, and continue
to bore the hell out of the other TDers, but you will continue to shadow box as
I am here indefinitely and will counter anything you have to say.  Here or on any
other forum.  Being a nightmare, I am your worst nightmare!

Report this

By ardee, December 7, 2009 at 4:31 am Link to this comment

It is easy to be me

I agree it is simple to be such as Shrewnonymous One simply needs be a dried up prune of a hag,so in love with herself and so hateful of everyone else that she uses nine and ten paragraph posts with an insult contained in every paragraph whenever anyone shows the bad taste to question her pontifications.

I have noted her insults to so many whose efforts I admire that I would really be insulted not to be included among them. But, in the end, one must feel pity for such as she…..

Report this
Peetawonkus's avatar

By Peetawonkus, December 6, 2009 at 7:50 pm Link to this comment

Amon Drool,
Sounds like good advice. Me and my boner will be saying Good Night To All, And To All, A Good Night.

Report this

By Amon Drool, December 6, 2009 at 6:22 pm Link to this comment

hey peeta…goright is giving u credit for a huge hard-on, take it as a compliment and let this thread end wink

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 6, 2009 at 4:16 pm Link to this comment

Peetawonkus,

I honestly can’t recall anyone noteworthy conflating the Taliban and Al Qaeda as you see it.  If you see otherwise feel free to display it.

I have identified myself as, basically, Right of Center.  But you have yet to ask what I see.  Instead you have offered your opinions on what you believe I see.  That stumps me.

I support President Obama’s decision to reinforce troops in Afghanistan but not for a single reason you’ve imagined.  Not unlike how odd it would be for me to peg you as blindly and robotically believing in the troop build-up simply because you hail Left of Center.  You see how senseless that would be?  You take my every word and wash it through your own dirty laundry before even looking at it.  You also have a HUGE hard-on for anyone “Right” of yourself.  To the point of making demons out of more than half the nation.  There’s just so much filth and anger in your views you can’t possibly see threw it clearly.

-

I still believe it’s important to understand that Mullah Omar’s Taliban never once offered to turn bin Laden over the “the repugs”.  With that in an individuals mind, I believe, it takes away all realistic context of the situation.  I sincerely believe your entire premise to be flawed.  I’m sorry but we’ll simply not agree.  And it won’t be for a single reason you’ve imagined.

Very simplistically I believe the United States owe the Afghan people a huge dept.  It’s impossible to be of meaningful assistance while being shot at and/or blown up.  Unfortunately this means sending in the men and woman who’ve trained to break things and kill people.

I believe the United States yet again turning her back on Afghanistan would be the most horrendous thing possible.  Adding yet another self-serving and dark chapter to her history.

Report this

By christian96, December 6, 2009 at 4:15 pm Link to this comment

Would you people right(not a misspelling; think
about it) something!  I could be in the living room
(why do they call it “living?”) watching the Dallas-New York football game but no here I sit reading
these comments full of self-defensive expressions
and mental masturbations.  This is Truth-dig? Then,
DIG AND DIG AND DIG SOME MORE!  I want to read
the TRUTH!  I’m going to watch the game!

Report this
Peetawonkus's avatar

By Peetawonkus, December 6, 2009 at 12:45 pm Link to this comment

Go Right Young Man,
You are absolutely right that Obama and much of the Beltway Bunch in general apparently hold the Taliban and Al-Quaeda to be one and the same. Oddly, that seems to be one of the ways in which the Right is cheering him on, if not encouraging him to go further. Indeed, they even heap abuse on him for not escalating things to Ragnarok levels. Funny how Afghanistan, which is now the line in the sand to the right-wing mind, had no value from 2003 to 2009. However, we don’t have to follow Newt Gingrich or Obama down this path, nor defend it, nor invent reasons why it must be so. It was always wrong, but during the Bush years it was next to impossible to cut through the lies and relentless disinformation. Now, at least, there is the possibility of restoring accurate information and a historical perspective to so much confusion. We simply can’t win this war. At least not the way we’re fighting it and for the reasons we think we’re fighting it. And we most certainly will not get the government we think we want in Afghanistan. We will have to compromise, and that means talking to the Taliban…or the consequence will inevitably be more war, death, and money thrown after blood to chase a bogeyman.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, December 6, 2009 at 12:37 pm Link to this comment

Yes, Drool, you are reduced to drivel.  How appropriate!  Remember the lack of intellect of the name-caller.  You choose a real lightweight as a reference.  Again appropriate to the occasion.  Xntrk appears seriously uneducated, or at least not educated very well, was probably a nonachiever.  You are unable to smoke anything, not even ShePOT a mus.  It is all bluster and sham.  You are not of any importance to my life or anything I think.  I give references, yours are shown to be weak, and you hate questions in your patronizing pontifications.  I still think the Palestinians have part responsibility for the enmity in the sovereign state of Israel! You like the female type that Xntrk represents because they genuflect to your kind of hubris, bet if you stuck a foot out she would kiss it.  Hahahaha you crack me up, rolling on the floor laughing again.  Get your jollies while you can old man.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 6, 2009 at 12:20 pm Link to this comment

Peetawonkus,

President Obama and his Senior Staff are arguing for the fight to continue in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  The White House is, as you would put it, conflating Al Qaeda and the “Taliban”.  Correct or not these are hardly “right wing” individuals.  Now is when you can properly apply the term “New- Conservatives” if it makes you happy.

This leads me to write how you display an “unkempt, unfocused and emotional mind.”

-

You’re full of strong opinions.  Of that there can be little doubt.  But you keep writing of having proffered evidence in support of your opinions.  We have yet to see anything more than attitude.

It’s never enough to simply repeat yourself.  There always comes those time when one must hold some substance.

Report this

By Amon Drool, December 6, 2009 at 12:15 pm Link to this comment

aahh, the vision of a shepotamus rolling on the floor laughing…what bliss it brings me!!

well, i’ve managed to smoke out your chauvinism towards the middle east again (remember your ravings during last year’s israeli invasion of gaza)

a woman of much worldly experience, Xntrk, recently summed u up as an “educated ass.”  BINGO!!!!....no need to waste any more time with u

Report this
Peetawonkus's avatar

By Peetawonkus, December 6, 2009 at 11:42 am Link to this comment

Amon Drool
I’ve made similar arguments to your own from the beginning here. And been accused of having an “unkempt, unfocused and emotional mind.” Any disagreement apparently is the sign of a weak mind—and disagreement with evidence to back it up only goes to show the depth of our ignorance. Well, you can provide some people with evidence from sun up to sun down…but since they choose not to believe it, therefore it is not valid. Those on the Right seem to need to believe that the Taliban and Al-Quaeda are a two-headed Hydra and that’s all there is to it. Possibly because we don’t do as well at fighting guerrilla movements and criminal organizations as we do at fighting countries. We need to have an enemy that’s attached to a country and “terrorism”, in the right-wing mind, becomes conflated with any and all Muslim countries. How convenient to have an enemy that numbers more than a billion. Why, at that rate, we’ll never run out of wars.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, December 6, 2009 at 11:40 am Link to this comment

So sorry for your attention deficit Amon, must be age… or a birth defect.  But
you did push through some of the shit.  Good going boy! 

Amon:  Your question:  has the afghani taliban ever invaded another country? 

Shepot’s answer:  (Wow I like that even better than Shepotamus.  Sounds so
much like Sexpot!  I really like that!)  Can’t say I ever heard they did, but how is
that pertinent to what they think about W-W jihadism (I’ll abbreviate as much
as possible for your short attention span).  Must be the long papers I had to
write, you know thesis and dissertation, that helps me with thorough and
adequately referenced posts so less mistakes of what I say occurs.  Unlike so
many of you and your cohorts slop through.  Duh is all I can say about
that!

Amon:  Your question:  ...how could the taliban have handed over bin laden to
the US and maintained their credibility with their own people and the larger
muslim mideast? 

Shepot’s answer:  Way…ell, it doesn’t seem that credibility ought to be the first
thing in their mind, and probably never ever is any other time, why?  Because
they have their place on the ladder of militant Islamism.  So what the fuck what
anybody else in the Middle East thinks? They were willing in theory to hand
over the criminal.  That is not good enough logic.  It is irrelevant what kind of
an enabler the US was.  The bargain was made and that said what they were
willing to do, but they played the tag game and so we all just laugh at their lack
of “integrity.”  Why would anyone believe Mohabbat?  I doubt even Mohabbat
would believe Mohabbat!  It is the game of “to what degree is anybody
believed?”

Amon:  Comment:  one just chooses as best as one can what speculation is
informed speculation.

Shepot’s response:  yup yup yup yup yup that is all we are left with.

Amon:  Comment:  whoa…quite an assertion..cbs and reuters being the only 2
VALID articles!! 

Shepot’s response:  Way…elll Amon, do read all the 241,000 and tell me which
ones supports Mohabbat’s integrity?  That was a kind of very lame comment
really.  You can do better than that!

So you are not even familiar with the crap you are talking about!  So you don’t
have any integrity either?  It figures.  Do take the time to read the references
you so lavishly provided. Laugh laugh, rolling on the floor laughter.

Report this

By Amon Drool, December 6, 2009 at 11:13 am Link to this comment

goright…so tell me, who here is arguing that the afghani taliban and al qaeda are diametrically opposed?  we are just making the case that the afghani taliban has been sick of bin laden for quite sometime, and beyond forming short-term tactical alliances with al qaeda, see their longer term interest in moving away from groups that support world-wide jihad.
_______

shepot…my eyes glaze over while trying to make it thru your long-ass posts…must be another indication of my “weak mind”.  but i’ll soldier on and respond.

shepot: “Why is there no evidence that the taliban is nationalistic and says out loud or publishes that they think world-wide jihadism is foolish adventurism?”  has the afghani taliban ever invaded another country?  porter quotes mullah omar as willing to show territorial respect other countries as long as they show territorial respect for afghanistan.
shepot: “If the taliban did not look kindly on al Qaeda policy, as the Porter article asserts, it is curious why they just didn’t hand over bin Laden..”  i’ve said this before.  how could the taliban have handed over bin laden to the US and maintained their credibility with their own people and the larger muslim mideast?  the US has been an enabler of post 1967 israeli expansion into palestinian territory.  but, according to US/taliban go-betwwen kabir mohabbat, the taliban, from the time of the cole attack to 9/11, had bin laden under constant surveillance and were willing to give the US targetting co-ordinates for a cruise missle take-out of bin laden.  i suppose a lot of our disagreement hinges on whether one believes mohabbat or not.  i just can’t see any reason for him to make this stuff up.
shepot: “I read eight of the googled articles on Mohabatt.  Most were blog speculation.”  well, all this blog stuff is speculation to some degree…one just chooses as best as one can what speculation is informed speculation.
shepot continues: “The content of the ones on the following pages of the 241,000 google references merely parrot the only 2 valid articles CBS’s and Reuters.”  whoa…quite an assertion..cbs and reuters being the only 2 VALID articles!!  i guess u just get to blow off mohabbat’s “testimony” to cockburn/st.clair…after all, just can’t trust them ultra-lefties.

but i better stop here.  i’ll have to read the cbs and reuters articles if i chose to carry on here.  it’s sunday and i’m gonna do some mindless footbaw watching..i’m in vikings country u know

Report this

By omop, December 6, 2009 at 9:49 am Link to this comment

The Ying and the Yang of ... here we go again.

The number of barefooted cave dwellers in Afghanistan that are killed daily ( estimates run from 4 to 20 odd a day) are symbolic of the effectiveness of US arms as well as the rights of self defense against terrorists.

At one time the Yang or is it the Ying defined those same (terrorists) Afghans as the US’s friends and financed and armed by US to kill Russians, who incidentally were in Afghanistan doing it (as presently being done by NATO, wink, wink) to the same barefooted cave dwellers.

At some point in time (NATO, wink, wink) will be Yinging and Yanging some 125,000 US military into Pakistan,

Thus providing Robert Scheer a redo of his, “Here We Go Again”. To conclude this scenario one must express best wishes and peace on Earth to the good people at Truthdigand elsewhere.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, December 6, 2009 at 9:11 am Link to this comment

Leefeller, for the Spartans get the movie 300, they have plumes on their
helmets which were intended to make them appear taller, hence more
fearsome, and contrary to what the movie portrays, they wore full body armor. 
But the movie director said the armor made each soldier undistinguishable,
and heaven forbid, that is Olympia forbid, the Greek Heaven not the lady from
Maine, the soldiers need to be separately distinguishable.  So I guess kids
could use the seven and a half to nine feet in length pikes the Spartan infantry
carried, or the short sword he kept in his waist.  His shield was so high that it
could be used as a stretcher to carry his corpse or wounded body from the
field.  You can do something with this information I’m
sure.

It’s gotta be time for another cup of coffee!  I’ll look for your toys for Xmas,
‘cept I don’t do Xmas, aw too bad.  I know some kids though.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 6, 2009 at 8:45 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous,

Peetawonkus is a young and passionate individual with an unkempt, unfocused and emotional mind.  I applaud the passion, misdirected as it may be, that this individual has displayed.  While the tactics should always be deplored, the honest passion is truly commendable.

Manchild, on the other hand, meets the very definition of a myopic bigot (see below).  I believe this to be a completely intellectually dishonest and harmful individual who’s mindful growth was stunted at roughly the age of 12-15. -  It’s a fairly common pathology often accompanied with extreme Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) or NPD-IV.  Unfortunately, and regrettably, this individuals advanced age will likely prohibit any “unlearning” of the behavior. 

The danger, in my opinion, comes with how this individual sows authentic hatred and division amongst people who fail to see or witness things the way he does. He is, in my opinion as an criminal profiler, a precursor to discord to the point of probable violence.

Aside from the likelihood of past or future harm to others, I do pity this individual greatly.

-

Bigot:
1. : “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own”
2. : “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially :  one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance”

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, December 6, 2009 at 8:36 am Link to this comment

Forming conclusions could lead to problems like a slippery roof, for the jump may turn out to be much further than anticipated, one should have a rope handy or maybe a ladder, even lemmings may not be as dumb as we are led to believe.

History may repeat itself for a reason, but I can not conjure up what that reason may be, except to speculate history in repeating itself actually seems to be predicting the future.  Possibly the title of Robert Scherr’s article;, “Here We Go Again” may be another description of what was, is now!

If my premise is on track the usual third rail, it may be prudent to look at many history books on the shelves through different eyes (my centrist one here)  and maybe book stores and libraries should rename the history section to be the;  “Hear We Go Again Nostradamus” section!

She computer war games may only be an extension of the toy solders of yore, did the American Indian’s have toy Indians and cowboys or toy Indians and Indians? Do I see, ancient Roman’s children playing with little crosses and toy lions and maybe tiny little nails. One can picture Catholic children playing with wooden stakes and little toy heretics, though maybe not allowed to play with real matches? Wonder what kind of toys the Spartan’s children played with?

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, December 6, 2009 at 8:28 am Link to this comment

As I’ve said, ardee, you are my favorite game animal.  For me it’s a sport and you
make such a good clueless target.  Let’s see, I carry a semi-automatic 12 gauge. 
And I’m for gun control!  Go figure.  I’m so glad you are not me. Ah em happy to
be me, I ain’t no froggy.  It is easy to be me.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, December 6, 2009 at 8:23 am Link to this comment

Go Right Young Man.  In my academic career of 30 years, I learned that in order
for someone to learn something as illustrated by the complexity Theory, going
from simple to complex to very complex, or from order to complex to chaos, it
takes at least seven times of hearing it, or reading it, to commit it to memory.  I’ve
even been known to repeat it an eighth time.  Scholarly research is also my
background.

I’ve also learned to be a skeptic since I’ve run into many self-delusional Rasputins
out there in the most innocent looking spaces.  Some of the commenters simply
hate it that I put their feet to the fire.  Mannnn I’ve received the worst brow
beatings.  But resilience can be a sign of healthy questioning and justified inquiry. 
The world has seen many martyrs of many stripes.  You encourage me, thanx.

Report this

By ardee, December 6, 2009 at 8:10 am Link to this comment

Interesting that the dried up old prune cannot resist personal insult ,all the while claiming innocence of such…Well maybe not as much interesting as revealing.

The shrew does serve one unique purpose however, making others rather happy not to be her.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 6, 2009 at 7:18 am Link to this comment

Amon Drool,

Oops! My post below should have read…..


“Many of these (Taliban) groups hold very divergent goals, however, do work in concert when each feel their respective goals converge.”

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 6, 2009 at 6:56 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous,

We obviously come to our conclusions from different directions, however, you are one of the few here who will go to such pains as to distinguish what is “evidence” of a position and what is merely “repeated”, or, what I refer to as, regurgitated, information from news sources or Weblogs.

There are millions upon millions of individuals whom, on seeing a piece of information repeated several times, take what they see repeated as further evidence of a position.  In other words; supposition upon supposition upon supposition.

As an Investigator/Researcher of 20 plus years I can tell you that you do it correctly.  A jury would understand and appreciate the difference.  I know I do.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, December 6, 2009 at 6:46 am Link to this comment

Quite unlike Amon Drool, who does provide sources and meat of discussion to
chew on, ardee says, “....[is] an accurate, I think, and well written assessment of
this noxious poster. ” assuming that to be GRYM, and that accuracy is based on
what?  Nothing… as usual.  He makes three flimsy visceral opinions masquerading
as as irresistible points and devoid of a speck of substance to back up his
gossamer allegations.  Unbelievable that anyone would accept the claptrap.  Oh
well, TD does attract the flies.  He talks about pompous fools.  Isn’t it always the
truth that those who call names are the names they call?  Yup yup yup yup yup. 
As Hebrews 9:1 says, “Faith is the evidence of things not seen.”

Thus sayeth the Shepotamus.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 6, 2009 at 6:34 am Link to this comment

Amon Drool,

It’s important to note that nothing below be taken as an argument for or against sending additional troops to Afghanistan.  We should simply observe how there are roughly forty “Taliban” groups and tribes inside Pakistan territory alone.  Many of these groups hold very divergent goals, however, do work in concert when each feel their respective goals diverge.  I believe it’s important to note that Mullah Omar, for example, is not “the Taliban”.

These tribal and Taliban militias do appear to hold tension and discord stemming from disagreements and inter-tribal distrust. One example of this is an apparent schism between Mehsud and Hafiz Gul Bahadur, another Taliban leader in Waziristan and deputy commander of TTP, Mehsud’s umbrella organization. While Bahadur and Mehsud are leaders of the same organization, they are of different tribes. Bahadur was among the signatories of the peace deal between the Pakistani government and North Waziristan in September 2006. Bahadur has resisted Mehsud’s efforts too coordinate attacks in North Waziristan, which is Bahadur’s turf. Bahadur has even negotiated independent ceasefires and truces with the Pakistani Army and told Mehsud to steer clear of North Waziristan.

In the end, I believe, it’s a mistake to conflate all -so-called- Taliban, or Tehrik Taliban-i Pakistan (TTiP) or Tahreek-e-Taliban (TTP) or Afghani Taliban (Af/Talib). 

Arguing, as some do, that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are today diametrically opposed is not so easy.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, December 6, 2009 at 6:30 am Link to this comment

1 of 2 to Amon Drool. 
Not sure anyone else will respond. and dauntless and with absolutely no
malice, I will try to make sense of it because I am interested.  I at least give you
the respect to read and inquire into what you say:  If what you say is true Amon
Drool, and I don’t doubt you believe it to be, then why is it the taliban never
made such statements public directly?  Let’s make that “The Afghanistan
Taliban.”  News media are just a breath away.  Why is there no evidence that the
taliban is nationalistic and says out loud or publishes that they think world-
wide jihad is foolish adventurism?  Actually it is more than innocent foolish
adventurism, the jihad the world sees is mayhem and murder, and the cause
cannot really be attributed to Allah, if we are to believe the interpretations of
the Qu’ran.  When the jihadists cry “Allah Akbar” to whom are they attributing
their murderous acts to?  If the taliban did not “look kindly” on al Qaeda policy,
as the Porter article asserts, it is curious why they just didn’t turn over bin
Laden, what would have been more evidence of their devotion to the Qu’ran? 

I read eight of the googled articles on Mohabbat.  Most were blog speculation.
The content of the ones on the following pages of the 241,000 google
references merely parrot the only two valid articles CBS’s and Reuters’.  Yes, it
does appear that both the Clinton and elder Bush administrations used (or took
advantage of his services) to talk with the taliban.  But nothing in either of the
articles are conclusive. Those alleged talks were if anything counterproductive. 
It begs the question why?  The taliban knew the price on bin Laden’s head. 
There was something more, suggesting something much more sinister.  But
appearances are almost always not what they appear.

Mohabbat, an Afghani, apparently a naturalized American citizen was heavily
involved with Afghan Mujahidin groups in the1979 Soviet conflict.  Reportedly
he was a go-between the US and the Taliban beginning in 2000 in secret talks
(how did these secret talks become public information?) and how exactly did
Mohabbat die in Houston in 2007?  These are not just rhetorical questions.) 
Apparently CBS Pizzey checked (or was told by ???) the Quetta, Pakistan hotel
records found five Americans registered (it’s curious why he did that in the
first place, what tip did he get, isn’t it all second-hand?.  Sleazy CBS wouldn’t
make names known so we must suppose some authenticity; they claim “at
least” one was a military officer, booked as US embassy workers.  Then, the
plot thickens, two Afghanis (also supposed embassy employees) check in, and
a Taliban source says one of the two was a Taliban military commander. 
This has to be interesting.  All sides denied a meeting took place. Ah, so well…

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, December 6, 2009 at 6:29 am Link to this comment

2 of 2 to Amon Drool
But, middle-man Mohabbat, who would have made an 8th person in
attendance, spills beans to CBS! claiming the meeting was “friendly.”  Possibly
interesting.  But not really informative at least for the purposes of that CBS
article.  There were, Mohabbat claimed, three conditions the Americans
demanded:  deliver bin Laden; extradite foreigners in bin Ladens’ outlaw squad;
and for the taliban to shut down the bin Laden apparently multitude of bases
and camps which conveniently Mohabbat could not give any locations, all this
for some unspecified documents that the US would give to the taliban.  Also a
curiosity.  The reporter went on the supposition all happened exactly as he
wrote.  So what can be concluded from the CBS report?  Absolutely nothing. Yet
it is used as a piece of evidence of Mr. Mohabbat’s involvement and that things
happened as said.  The Atlantic Free Press article is all alleged information.  The
article does not really discuss the taliban and bin Laden but does reference the
same information found in the Pizzey piece.  Much opinion and
unsubstantiated sources describe this article. 

While blogs are hardly authentic material, but since so many of the google
references are from blogs, I picked on this one as it at least seemed coherent,
RealityZone, references an invitation meeting between Taliban and Unocal (their
thesis:  it’s the oil, stupid) and the failure of that meeting supposedly led to
further exchange of violence from the Clinton White House, and bin Laden.  The
conflict lasted over into the G W Bush presidency.  The only mention of Kabir
Mohabbat was that he was retained to arrange a meeting with the taliban.  That
was in 2000, then again he was supposedly dispatched in 2001 since the
taliban still had not surrendered bin Laden.  The bin Laden affair seems to have
put the taliban in the position of seeming to use bin Laden as a pawn.  But
nothing ever came of the interaction between taliban and the US.  Question:  if
bin Laden became an albatross, then the taliban would have found a way to
drop the bird, so to speak.  The Counterpunch article references the Pizzey
report.  Now it is legitimate to speculate that the taliban did not have bin Laden
nor knew where he was.  The search yielded nothing that supports the idea
that the taliban came to see bin laden as a “damn liability,” as Mohabbat
claimed.  He produced no documents that verified his opinion.  Everything is
hearsay and word of mouth.

Assuming Mohabbat was an intermediary.  Whatever he did is not corroborated
and as the Reuters, June 5, 2004 brief promotional story says, even though
Elmar Brok, a German member of the European Parliament, confirmed that he
helped Mohabbat make contact with the US government five years earlier in
1999, nothing is really clarified.  If one googled Elmar Brok, nothing is given
that is satisfying information.  This is all too shady.  Can you illuminate further? 
What is there to suppose the Mohabbat was actually loyal to the US?  I am sure I
am not the only one interested.

Report this

By ardee, December 6, 2009 at 5:37 am Link to this comment

I personally suspect he’s one of these righties who is paid to go on sites like this and toss a wrench into the works just to watch the machinery break.

****************************Well stated, Peetawonkus, and an accurate, I think, and well written assessment of this noxious poster. I have always been skeptical of the calling of any poster as an agent of some nefarious propaganda organisation, and for several reasons;

one, it give far to much import to one who is simply far too hard headed to respect truth.

two, it seems a waste of manpower to employ the necessary folks to creep around the internet seeking to cause a rift in actual communications.

three, what good can such actually accomplish after all? We are a splintered and powerless group, mainly because we think we are without power. Some turdball claiming special introspection, all the while lying freely, distorting shamelessly is simply unnecessary .

Perhaps talking points are indeed pretested in such forii, establishing campaign methodologies and readying refutations, but that is all I can consider really.

I wish I could adopt the strategies and maturities of some here, naming Night Gaunt as a chief example, and just respond always with even tempered discipline and ignoring whatever one cannot treat with such restraint. I just cannot though I am trying to do so now by ignoring dolts and pompous fools who condemn others for doing exactly what they themselves are doing.

Report this

By Amon Drool, December 5, 2009 at 10:44 pm Link to this comment

the case made for supporting obama’s escalation on this thread centers around the belief that the taliban, if given too much influence in afghan, will allow safe haven for al qaeda.  earlier, i told those who held this belief to google “how bush was offered bin laden and blew it”.  that posting essentially said that the taliban, after the cole attack, definitely viewed al qaeda as an albatross and were willing to let both the clinton and bush administrations take bin laden out with cruise missles.  taliban security constantly monitored bin laden (he complained to them about this) and would have been able to give targeting co-ordinates to ensure a deadly attack.  the person who’s told this story is kabir mohabbat… a US citizen who was used by both the clinton and bush administrations in backroom talks with the taliban. 

today, an article by historian gareth porter, fleshes out the split between al qaeda and the taliban since late 2001.  porter makes the case that the taliban has become essentially nationalistic and sees world-wide jihad as foolish adventurism.  the article is published by inter press service and can be had by googling “pentagon’s war pitch belied by taliban-qaeda conflict”

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, December 5, 2009 at 4:35 pm Link to this comment

For the bloody nose, Leefeller, just tilt your head back and press your thumb on
the side of your nose from where it is bleeding.  Hold it for a few minutes until
the blood coagulates.  I probably didn’t have to tell you that!  Sitting up so high
can cause nosebleeds but that is probably only because you just ascended.  It
is a hazard of the job.  You just need to acclimate.  Even bodhisattvas have
bloody noses occasionally.  And I think that is what you are.  You are heads
above the others because 1) you have a Ho Tai style of humor, meaning in the
face of the most dismal world, you can laugh and make others laugh.  The
Buddha would be proud to count you among the troupe.  2) you can transcend
the mindlessness of others (namely me!) and brush it off as if it was just a
momentary aberration, even enjoying my ire!  That is a splendid and most
manly thing to do!  It is most appreciated by this ordinary mortal!   

Not being sure of how it would be received, I am tempted to agree with one of
my detractors, for I think his answer of D. is most likely true.  Though I think
more than AB&C are in the equation.  It seems to me humankind has a faulty
gene that compels men to war against each other.  Second thing that comes to
mind as evidence are the number of war games in existence.  The
computerized ones simulate killing, maiming, and mass destruction and only
counts points for doing it.  Very detached warfare.  I think it is a substitute for
actually going physically to war for most of the gamers, but the military also
uses these games in their training of men who actually go to war.  The first
thing are the unending number of wars in humankind’s history.  Here is a
website that gives a brief, or rather Short History of War starting around 3500
BC.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/gabrmetz/gabr0001.htm
Wars from prehistory are only discovered from oral histories or archaeological
exploration that can be seen in anthropological/archaeological history
museums.  So what conclusion ought we to entertain?  Is there any hope for a
war free future?

Report this

By christian96, December 5, 2009 at 3:59 pm Link to this comment

Peetawonkus ask:—-But of course, whatever we do we mustn’t question the sacred need of the military to fight endless wars around the world for…what again?

Possible answers:

A. Greed
B. Save jobs in the defense industry.
C. The Corporations
D. All of the above

And the answer is:  D. All of the above

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, December 5, 2009 at 11:29 am Link to this comment

She,

Being a part time solipsist makes it much easier for me to be sitting up on my self proclaimed Pontiff’s Chair as the centrist Popey especial!  Though sitting up so high not only induces political centrist vertigo, I also have the occasional bloody nose from the height, not the intended bruising!

No need to apologize, for I enjoyed the ire as it was!

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, December 5, 2009 at 11:26 am Link to this comment

Go Right Young Man, granted the death penalty may or may not be an
effective deterrent.  I have read such studies as you mention and people like
Virginia Held, Department of Philosophy City University of New York,  would
argue gallantly and cite many others who agree.  Why is it though I just can’t
assume their arguments for all and any death penalty.  It is not that I don’t
value human life as much as they do.  Nature has a way of leveling the playing
field and has no conscious whatsoever whether humans populate the earth or
not.  If it had a consciousness I would think it would be glad to see that
species go.  Species come and go.  Humans are the only ones who hasten their
demise.  Given that the natural value given to humans is equivalent to any other
life form, I do not see any reason to not invoke the death penalty when the
crime is without a doubt, not a reasonable doubt, but without any doubt,
committed consciously by murderers.  Strangely enough I think that gives me a
higher value on human life.  That it is to be protected and preserved against
such monsters.  That might be counterintuitive for some. I have not yet been
convinced that it is. 

That leads me to argue again with Professor Held, about terrorism.  For I
believe when terrorists bomb innocents for their own ideologically driven
reasons, they too deserve the death penalty.  How that death penalty is meted
out is the question I think up for debate.  Terrorism is as Professor Held states,
small wars.  How one state (or country) deals with mini-wars is the puzzle. 

I think to be a deterrent though, death penalties need to be carried out in
public.  I think the guillotine was effective it was only deemed inhuman, and
maybe it is but the Islamist do not wince a fleck at slicing someones head off. 
Tit for tat, remember!  Electric chairs I think have been outlawed or abandoned,
hanging I don’t know but I think that would be quite a deterrent as much as a
solitary cell.  Wasn’t Saddam Hussein hung in public.  I have no idea if that was
a deterrent or not since the crimes are fuzzy and even though he was a cruel
and miserable human murderer in his own world, I do not think the rest of the
world should have had a hand in bringing him to that justice.  Is there a bit of
uncertainty about the death penalty in that, maybe with a moral flavor?  Maybe,
but I think morality has a lot to do with war and imperialism.  Cultures do have
proprietary rights to their own conventional moralities.  It is food for discussion
without a doubt.

I lean towards a death penalty that is highly qualified.  I don’t know if I have
argued well but when someone provides a more convincing argument I know I
have changed my views.  So to that degree I am open for that kind of
discussion.

I see you now have to turn your attention to those who are ripping you up and
down the yingyang and I have to be off to see a cat who is in great trouble and
only can hope he can overcome with my help and a couple of others the misery
that has befallen him.  Cats usually may not have as much lifeworthiness as
humans, but this one does.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, December 5, 2009 at 11:26 am Link to this comment

Peetawonkus, it is not my intention to start an enmity with you even though I
cannot disagree with you about the tax and spend label put on Democrats by
the Republicans, it has been their mantra since Reagan assumed the
presidential throne.  I still think on the whole, Democrats will almost approve
any bit of spending put before them, I never see them say anything cost too
much or worry about running programs more into debt.  Only a handful
Democrats did not support the Iraq War.  They are gullible spenders.

Republicans have seized on that penchant to paint Democrats as the
spendthrifts (which they deserve but only to some degree).  Deceptively the
Republicans have used that veil to hide their own extraordinary spending
programs, except their programs are enormous, gigantic, like unnecessary wars
and financial black holes.  It is the wand of the magician that works there. 
Dazzle and razzle like the celebrity of a Reagan and even a Democrat like John
Kennedy.  I think the Democrats need to take a lesson in fiscal responsibility
as noxious as that might sound.  I don’t mind using overworked words if the
terms fit.  That does not exonerate the deep pocket spending of the
Republicans.  Their culpability needs to be made highly visible by Democrats
but it isn’t.  It is given lip service if anything, because the Democrats sheepishly
realize they are not much better at containing spending.  And they do not have
the clever advertising skills they desperately need.  It is all razzle dazzle when
it comes to a public so easily affected.  However, the Democrats spending is for
the common good, not the upper echelon of wealth whether that might mean
imperial preemptive war for the oil resources of an Iraq or some other similarly
oil rich country.  Does that make them more superior?  Only if numerically
morality has weight.  You know, the good of the many outweighs the good of
the few.  Sounds so Spokian, but it really is consequentialistic and the
many/few conundrum.

It is not an easy thing to see into the entire dynamic of a society and their
values.  I think most other countries don’t have as much a predicament as the
United States because their societies are much more ethnically homogenous
and values tend to be more homogenous too.  Fierce political fighting happens
everywhere, some of which is as frightening as hell such as some of the African
tyrannies and the non-tolerance found in most Middle Eastern political
organizations where opponents are outright murdered. 

I believe humans are on the brink of new insights of tolerant interaction or
value changes demanded by a global involvement and glorified even more by
the electronic media, facebooks, twitters, iphones, television which is really an
old media but satellite provides much more access and observations to world
events and opinions.  This newer age (“neo” age as GRYM questions) probably
won’t happen in my lifetime.

Report this

By 9circlesofhell, December 5, 2009 at 10:27 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

-Peetawonkus-

Your 12/05 (1:32pm) comment about military spending and war reasonably
positions -in what I believe to be- the heart of the matter regarding much of the
debate on this DBoard as well as within the general discussion throughout all
media.  Great points!

As I am apt to use this quote regularly, Einstein reminded us “You cannot
simultaneously prevent and prepare for war” I believe that the budgeting and
excesses of our military (and it is indeed a business) encourage our leadership -
across all dimensions- to view the ordinary and extraordinary problems of a
complex world with but one eye open ... and that is the eye of superior military
strength (akin to some old saying, “if you only have a hammer, everything tends
to look like a nail”). 

As such, when the United States comes to the international table it often is
accompanied by the trump card of military super-power status.  Is that a
wonderful position to be in?  As a citizen that believes all governments should
be providing for the safety and well-being of all citizens, then, of course, yes!

At the same time, the issues facing our nation today ... notably education (the
public school system is dysfunctional), homelessness (how can the supposed
“greatest nation on earth look itself in the mirror when it’s estimated that over
100,000 vets are among the homeless?!), stagnant wages and unemployment,
the absence of reasonable and affordable health care for all American citizens,
the denial of rights -as a federal policy- for LGBT Americans, the abject,
domestic terrorism our urban citizens face on a daily basis as gangs and narco-
traffickers rule neighborhoods, and obviously this list goes on and on, are as formidable, real, and present as elsewhere across the globe.

Meanwhile, our nation’s leaders don’t pause a second as we hand $30 billion
more over to the military to have our men and women go fight a “war” that isn’t
a war.

I believe the only logic that can be extracted from such convoluted dialogue as
engaged by our leadership (again, to paraphrase Einstein, “to continue to do the
same thing over and over again and expect a different outcome is insanity”) is to
fall down the same rabbit hole that they inhabit.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 5, 2009 at 9:45 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous, December 5 at 1:05 pm

I agree with most of what you’ve written.  I do, however, question whether capital punishment is an effective deterrent.  I have seen a few scholarly studies which indicate, for many varied reasons, that the death penalty is not the deterrent one may believe or what it once was.

One study I found interesting showed a correlation between the lack of deterrence and today’s youth holding a sense of immortality.  It seems they have a hard time even imagining “death” for themselves so the deterrent factor is lost. 

On the other hand the idea of being completely alone, but alive, tends to scare the bejesus out of people.

Don’t misunderstand. I’m not against the idea of vengeance as a form of punishment.  I simply lean more toward the deterrent factor in order to save lives.

Report this
Peetawonkus's avatar

By Peetawonkus, December 5, 2009 at 9:32 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous
“It is true that President Obama is having trouble with his own party members, mainly those who are called Blue Democrats who want more fiscal safety valves for the health care reform program.  Personally I think Democrats do have a tendency to over spend and include unnecessary social programs hence the need for the conservative element to assign control.”

Ah, “fiscal safety valves”...how responsible that sounds. And yet it was Reagan and Bush Jr. who gave us the largest deficits in world history. Republicans have hung the tag “tax and spend” on Democrats…yet it is Republicans who have consistently crashed the economy and pushed us into debt. Perhaps we should label Republicans “Don’t tax and spend.”

The United States spends more on its military than the next 30 most powerful countries in the world put together. Why not scale that back a little bit? Let’s say by 10 to 15%. I have a feeling we could afford anything we need by way of Health Care, Education…

But of course, whatever we do we mustn’t question the sacred need of the military to fight endless wars around the world for…what again?

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, December 5, 2009 at 9:05 am Link to this comment

Not so, I do not find you irrelevant, GRYM, contrary to the pugnacious and
entrenched ultra-leftists.  There are others besides myself who are centrists
who do read your links and find them authentic and compelling, not fact
twisting.  On the other hand, no such equivalent links have been provided
contrary to yours. 

Briefly back to this forum as the non-electronic life calls.  The fact that Capital
punishment is about vengeance does not bother me.  That reason, while laden
with primitive emotion is for me a basic reaction and legitimate.  I do believe a
penalty of death is a deterrent and the notion that a murderer of
unquestionable crime against humanity and I consider rape and murder of girls
as a crime against humanity does not deserve even the luxury of complete
isolation.  I care not the creature would have no experience of human touch.  I
do not think I or other taxpayers ought to foot the bill for housing, feeding and
watering such a savage animal.  Such confinement as you propose is like a
death anyway.  SInce I consider human life as deserving of preseration, I do not
consider such creatures as human nor like any lower animal but as lower than
the lowest animal.  I would not go so far as to kill lower animals for their
primitive mindlessly killing other organisms.  Theirs is not a perversion. 
Humans have this difference of being conscious of their acts.  Such is my sense
of emotional retaliation.  In the retaliation business, it is confirmed that a tit
for tat retaliatory system is the most effective. 

I too do not sanction frivolous abortion for the purpose of birth control.  I think
that is atrocity in capital and bolded letters (as one poster usually uses as
emphasis but for which I will refrain) and I would never give relief to any
woman who uses that method.  Other than that however, I do believe abortion
is within the absolute province of the person who has been impregnated. 

You are correct that opposition parties are prone to attempt to derail the
efforts of those in power.  That is in the most modern of politics.  This was not
always the case that the entire program of opposition were up for such lock
step glued shoulder to shoulder frozen minded political enmity.  There was a
time even as long ago as Eisenhower where Republicans and Democrats could
come to agreement on issues for the common good.  The underlying absolute
hatred for ideology was just not there.  Derailment was not the objective, but
rather convincing of logical premises by rational means.  Not that there were
not those who did have rabid adversarial programs.  But conservative meant
more fiscally responsibility, not outrageous corporate influence and liberal
meant social conscience.

It is true that President Obama is having trouble with his own party members,
mainly those who are called Blue Democrats who want more fiscal safety valves
for the health care reform program.  Personally I think Democrats do have a
tendency to over spend and include unnecessary social programs hence the
need for the conservative element to assign control.  But I do not agree with
the Democrats who oppose the President on abortion, the public option, or his
decision about the US’s involvement in Afghanistan.  That military action
however does give me the question of what might be the next military project. 
Will it escalate to Pakistan, Iran, South American countries, the Philippines,
where?  I agree that some real and definite effort by humans needs to be
undertaken to stop war.  I also realize this is a chimera of a hope as savage
human nature is almost too much to surmount.

Our difference of opinions is significant, but I don’t see it as completely
rendering calm and rational discussion asunder.

Report this
Peetawonkus's avatar

By Peetawonkus, December 5, 2009 at 9:03 am Link to this comment

ardee,
People like Go Right Young Man will never listen no matter how much evidence and proof you bring to the table. Their beliefs were arrived at first and any “evidence” is cut and tailored to fit those beliefs. You’ve argued well and fought the good fight and every boot brought to Go Right Young Man’s ass is leather planted for a good cause. The problem is, he enjoys it. He sure ain’t larnin’ nuthin’ from it. His function is to get everyone stirred up and make the post about him rather than the topic of the article. One can show up with a mountain of facts and evidence and this joker will never acknowledge them. A “fact” to people like this is a beaten dog they drag around on a leash. Sadly, TruthDig gets its share of these f**ktards who inhabit that right wing parallel universe where belief trumps evidence and myth is the master of science. I personally suspect he’s one of these righties who is paid to go on sites like this and toss a wrench into the works just to watch the machinery break.

Report this

By ardee, December 5, 2009 at 8:28 am Link to this comment

Go Right Young Man, December 5 at 11:28 am

Do you honestly believe that your dishonesty is not noted? You may rant all you wish about your assumptions of my position, but they are there in public view and have not changed despite your stupidly insisting that they have.

The links you post are paeons to propagandized twistings of fact. Certainly the Taliban offered bin Laden up on conditions, just as certainly they withdrew their offer once Bush ignored them and began to slaughter Afghanis by the thousands.

I believe strongly that, the more you post this garbage, the more people will find you irrelevant.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, December 5, 2009 at 8:26 am Link to this comment

Poverty in one country is relative to whatever country it is compared to.  Let us
suppose Afghanistan is desperately poor.  How much poorer is it than the poor
in other countries? 

“Poverty” defined as an economic condition of lacking both money and basic
necessities needed to successfully live, such as food, water, education,
healthcare, and shelter also as an economic condition of lacking predictable
and stable means of meeting continuous basic life needs.

Out of the 195 countries in the world, a comparison shows that compared to
35 other countries, the percentage of those Afghanis living in poverty as
determined by its own country’s authorities is higher than
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bolivia Burkina Faso, Burundi, Chad,
Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Republic of the Congo,
Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Ethiopia, The Gambia, the country of Georgia,
Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho,
Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Moldova, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger,
Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Yemen, Zambia.  So while
Afghanistan may be said to be “among” the most poverty stricken, it is really
higher than many who are abjectly poor.

The point is that using poverty or its more primitive life condition, i.e., tribal,
cannot be used as an authentic reason for criticizing a USA war incursion.  The
fact is that the Taliban and al Qaeda (T/AlQ), and not only do I but hundreds of
critics in the USA and the rest of the world believe the two are inextricably
connected, do use 20-21st century weapons and strategies of terrorism to
attack also not only the west, but innocent people within their own Middle
Eastern countries.  The people of Aghanistan are hardly the same as native
American tribes prior to colonization by Europeans.  With Iran on the brink of
nuclear weaponry and by extension warfare, should such a nuclear holocaust
occur, the people of Afgahnistan will not be immune to the devastation.  The
entire Middle East will not be immune.

Going to a place for a vacation ought not to be the measure of whether an
armed conflict is to be waged. It has to do more with strategic parameters, such
as the fact that the close proximity of Pakistan does have nuclear weapons that
would become appropriated by Talibani and al Qaeda that would then become
even more susceptible to be used in their continued assault on the west.

zeroinfinity, you might want to move as far away from where the radiation dust
settles as you can. Or your offspring, if you have any, or then, any other family
you might care about.  In this case I don’t think the USA has much care about
being seen as ‘friendly’ except to those local tribals where they have to be
based or seek out the Taliban/al Qaeda.  How often do the T/alQ warn the
locals or western innocents that they are about to explode bombs or launch
attacks of other kinds?  Never!  They intend to kill and maim as many
westerners as they can innocent or not.  They perceive every westerner,
innocent or not, as not innocent.  The westerners do not INTEND to do that
with the local people where the war is taking place and take as much care as is
feasible to not target the innocents.  Show me where they have intended to kill
and maim the non-combatants of a region and I will apologize.

Perhaps the Taliban, by name, were not involved in 9/11 but the al Qaeda did
hole up in Afghanistan at the invitation of the Taliban before moving into
Pakistan making the Taliban complicit therefore as culpable.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 5, 2009 at 7:28 am Link to this comment

Here is the rest of what I posted in November of this year for Manchild to see and read.

While I can’t be certain; I believe this information may have played a part on Manchild’s change of heart about what he once believed he knew on this subject.  All I can be certain of is that he has revised his position from a short time ago.


-

Taliban Won’t Hand Over Bin Laden
Associated Press
Wednesday, May 30, 2001; 6:31 a.m. EDT

KABUL, Afghanistan –– Afghanistan’s ruling Taliban on Wednesday said the conviction in New York of four men for the bombing of U.S. embassies was “unfair” and VOWED NEVER TO HAND OVER Osama bin Laden.—“We won’t hand him over to America UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. It is our stated policy,”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010530/aponline063147_000.htm

Taliban Reneges On Offer To Extradite Bin Laden
Apr 3, 2001 ... Afghanistan’s ruling Taliban militia will not extradite suspected ... measures last December to pressure the Taliban to hand over bin Laden, ...
http://www.unwire.org/unwire/20010403/13845_story.asp
Sep 22, 2001
“We won’t hand over bin Laden”, say defiant Taliban
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/1341340/We-wont-hand-over-bin-Laden-say-defiant-Taliban.html.

“Afghanistan’s Taliban rulers will not hand over Osama bin Laden”.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/world/main310852.shtml

This is what was happening AFTER bombing began.

“President George Bush rejected as “non-negotiable” an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden if the United States ended the bombing in Afghanistan”.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5

“Bush rejects Taliban offer to surrender bin Laden.
After a week of debilitating strikes at targets across Afghanistan, the Taliban repeated an offer to hand over Osama bin Laden.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/bush-rejects-taliban-offer-to-surrender-bin-laden-631436.html

Report this

By 9circlesofhell, December 5, 2009 at 7:19 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

-Shenonymous-

An excellent 12/04 (8:32pm) post ... astute, on mark, and with ample room for
open discussion -great writing (and thinking).

As an American -and adult- I’m much less concerned with the labeling so
frequently used as a conversational convenience to either abridge critical
thought or to instigate further pissing matches ... however, I most certainly
welcome -and instigate- engaging the dialogue where topics and issues have
room to breather across all points of the spectrum.

Like you, I’m not yet convinced that Obama should be tossed to the lions nor
am I certain that he is but another wolf in sheep’s clothing ... however, that
remains to be seen and, in some regard to fairness, I’m willing to extend the
courtesy of “hearing him out” at least until his second year as president has
been completed.

However, on one issue I do disagree and have little room for the tired cliches of
many (beginning with our congress) the criticality of war ... and that is, I
strongly oppose the order for 30,000 more troops to be sent to Afghanistan.  I
would vehemently stand in the way if my sons and daughter were compelled to
go or even thought in their minds they should go.  Neither America or any
other country has any business in Afghanistan other than to help that country
move beyond its entrenched historical “graveyard of the empires” moniker and
truly work at developing the people from the ground up ... in my experiences
and reading, that generally doesn’t occur at the end of a rifle.

As an American I truly believed by this point in my life -and in history- that
this nation (among others) would have evolved enough to clearly see through
the foolishness of war, that death and destruction has a means of imprinting
the human mind and soul for yet more bitterness, more anger, more death and
destruction.  I’m saddened that this simple lesson has not been learned and, in
my view, seems blithely ignored or misunderstood ... I wanted to believe -for
decades now- that we were better than that, that we were moving beyond the
primal and towards the intellectual, that, at the end of the day, winners and
losers were not determined by military might and tyranny, that the capacity to
minimize the knee-jerk and maximize reflection, patience, and options (used
to be noted as diplomacy) would serve the day. 

Sending troop into a country that lacks the presence of what we’d generally
consider a “state” or form of governance capable of engaging “war” is, in my
view, foolish and unconscionable ... and I regret that, as an American i’m living
to witness more women and men die and suffer injury as well as indignity for a
cause that has no reason.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 5, 2009 at 6:54 am Link to this comment

Manchild,

You argued incessantly how the Taliban had offered to turn bin Laden over to the Bush administration before the bombing in Afghanistan began.  You are clearly arguing something entirely different today.

Call me all the names you desire, Manchild.  You are showing yourself to be completely intellectually dishonest.  How do we know this?  By observing your previous posts.

By ardee, October 28 at 6:20 pm #—Where are those immortal words,“mission accomplished”? Better yet, where are the prosecutions for lying us into an unwinnable war? (sic).. I would have taken the Taliban up on their offer to turn bin Laden over but water under the bridge and all that.”

or this…

ardee, November 2 at 8:19 am #—“a link to proof that the offer from the Taliban was made PRIOR to the invasion of Afghanistan”.

-

Here is what I posted after you made your claim that the Taliban offered to hand bin Laden over to the Bush administration.

-

UNITED NATIONS NATIONS UNIES Quick View
over the territory of Afghanistan under Taliban control and expanded the ... time limit on the arms and financial sanctions over Usama bin Laden and Al-Qaida, ... take the necessary steps to increase cooperation between the United ...
http://www.un.org/.../Information package - 2009.08 - English.pdf

“Taliban Again Refuses to Hand Over bin Laden”
Oct 12, 2001 ... The Taliban envoy to Pakistan, Mullah Abdul Satam Zaeef laughed away Bush’s offer.. http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200110/12/eng20011012_82122.html

Online NewsHour: “Taliban Won’t Hand Over bin Laden”
May 29, 2001 ... Taliban leaders called the ruling “unfair,” and said they would never hand over bin Laden, the exiled Saudi millionaire whom U.S. ...
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/may01/embassy_5-30.html


“Taliban reject clerics’ call to hand over bin Laden” - Asia, World ...http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/taliban-reject-clerics-call-to-hand-over-bin-laden-752136.html

“Taliban maintains refusal to turn over bin Laden”—dailypress.com http://www.dailypress.com/news/national/sns-worldtrade-taliban-chi,0,2325274.story

“Taliban refuses to hand over Bin laden” http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/011020/2001102010.html

“Taliban won’t give up bin Laden even if proof”-paper
Reuters | 10/04/01 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/539340/posts

“UN sanctions against Taliban”: Indian perception of Pak-US motives-http://news.indiamart.com/news-analysis/un-sanctions-against-6341.html

FCN Interview with Taliban Ambassador- http://news.indiamart.com/news-analysis/un-sanctions-against-6341.html

“Taliban reject ‘second chance’ offer” | The Russia Journal - http://www.russiajournal.com/node/7608

-

You’ll get a great deal more respect, Manchild, my employing authentic honesty.  I guarantee it.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 5, 2009 at 5:55 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous,

Two brief comments: 1. Capital punishment is about vengeance.  It’s my belief that the death penalty does not prevent crime.  It seems to me that if we put premeditated or gruesome killers in a small cell, never again to have human contact for as long as long as they live, it would act as a more effective prophylactic.  Put simplistically; no talking.  No human touch.  No human interaction of any kind (solitude is the most excruciating thing you can do to a human).  I believe more would-be killers would think twice.  I believe it would serve as a better message if the Justice system did not kill in order to prevent killing.

2. You write: “I think the domestic issues are exasperated by the ultra right wing conservative to derail everything he does.”

A. Am I incorrect in saying that the opposition party is always just that?  The opposition?  That it matters none which party happens to be in the opposition?  All tactics are employed to obstruct the party in the majority? B. Is it not the president’s own party that he’s having the toughest time with in passing his agenda? 

Republican procedural tactics aside (largely overcome by the majority with the numbers they enjoy); the President has the votes he needs in both Houses if his party were on the same page.

Do I see the current political situation incorrectly?  Is it not the president’s party that’s actually failing him and his agenda?

Report this

By ardee, December 5, 2009 at 5:13 am Link to this comment

shite for brains says:

Adults admit they simply do not know everything.  Adults freely admit when they make mistakes.  Adults do not throw insults about for the mere fun it or, when another simply disagrees.

Adults don’t whine and cry about how right they are only to say something completely different to another individual or in another discourse.

Yet shite for brains as he circles ever to the right is guilty of each and every condemnation he posts. What a freaking maroon!

Despite the proof I posted about the Taliban offer, which was exactly as I noted it to be, an offer to the Bush administration to turn bin Laden over to any Muslim nation for trial that would not end in the death penalty, this brain dead propagandist continues his endless attempts at obfuscation and condemnation of every truth that opposes his endless distortion and lies.

That proof, by the by, was a word for word transcript of the statements of ranking AlQaeda leaders, but this slimer dismissed it because it was posted in a newspaper…what a jackass.

It is encouraging that, as this pile of shite continues his tactic, more and more post rejections of both his “facts” and his personality. We need to stand up to crap such as he espouses and not be fooled or sidetracked by his stupidly childish attempts to sidetrack truth.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, December 4, 2009 at 4:32 pm Link to this comment

GRYM, I hope you don’t mind the abbreviation.  It seems to me that we are both
centrists.  You on the right side of the dividing line and I on the left.  That puts
us closer together than to the radicals on either end, as Leefeller so cleverly
gauged.  There are similarities in our views and dissimilarities as I do not
oppose the death penalty but would qualify it to criminals who are without a
doubt, evidentially guilty.  I could not in all conscious allow someone to have
the luxury of life who rapes and murder girls.  And I dare say if any man who
declares to be unequivocally against the death penalty were to have his beloved
daughter’s life taken in that manner, there would stand a reformed anti-death
penalty mind.  The man whose yard was recently turned up with 19 or so
bodies is one I would not commute a death sentence.  A Jeffrey Dahmer is
another one.  But as I qualified my position, there has to be absolute certainty
and these kinds of cases do exist. 

As I said I lean left of center on probably as many issues as you lean to the
right.  I like President Obama, and did vote for him, I am not convinced I
wasted my vote, yet.  I agree with him also about 80% of the time on foreign
policy, and differ with him not a good deal on domestic issues.  I think the
domestic issues are exasperated by the ultra right wing conservative to derail
everything he does.  I have the unfounded belief, just a hunch, the course will
be seen to be corrected within a years time.  We will see.  I believe the Birth
Certificate issue is quite insane, not merely inane.  I believe in capitalistic free-
market system, but support social programs such as old age social security, as
it is too hard for too many people to save on their own for the years at the end
of their lives and I believe in the sanctity of the elderly.  I believe in a health
care system that provides decent health care at reasonable cost for all
Americans.  If Obama leans heavily on a socialistic approach to government I
think it is appropriate given the size and range of wealth of its population. 
Education needs federal support, the states just have not taken care of that
crucial institution.  Infrastructure, roads, bridges, etc. needs federal
involvement for a myriad of reasons, saving public lands needs federal
protection as experience in the past would have ravaged those lands to
corporate investment and development.  Aside from those big programs, I think
the government has a responsibility to guard the financial basis of this country
and prevent a corporatocracy to adversely affect the lives of the population
with their self-serving operations, which they have done already.  I think the
government needs to regulate such an institution.  I was completely against the
Iraq war, but am not so sure there isn’t a valid reason for a military effort in
Afghanistan, and I would like to see rational arguments against it and actually
for it.  I do not buy the money factor if there are larger reasons to consider.

I would not mind discussing these things and there are other important things I
would like to open talk on but I have already taken up a lot of TD space.  It has
to be later as other obligations call right now.  Thank you for your post at
10:15am.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, December 4, 2009 at 4:32 pm Link to this comment

Shepotamus here.  Thank you Amon Drool, you use one of the better names for
me.  If you are gone, so be it.  Doesn’t matter.  You rank along with truedigger3
and ardee among the pantheon of the name-callers of Shenonymous on
Truthdig and I reckon you to be one of the sniping haters of Her too.  You
seem to take turns with insulting name-calling instead of offering any cogent
argument.  It shows your weakness of mind.  The way I figure it, the more
names She is called, the higher on the scale of Celestial Irritations She is.  She
is aiming to be at the top of the Heap.

I have had a long standing admiration for the inimitable humor and remarkable
insights of Leefeller and I’m afraid I may have thoughtlessly bruised his persona
with some undeserving impoliteness and misdirected ire.  Although he has
been a gentleman and not said a word, I hereby make a public apology.  I
would offer an excuse but it would be feeble to do so.

Report this

By LemuelG, December 4, 2009 at 1:58 pm Link to this comment

Some seem to find it difficult to believe that the US could ever behave with altruistic motives in the international arena.

Maybe some teenager sitting in some American metropolis would find it hard to comprehend that a great many people are grateful for American interventions? I live in the S. Pacific - if not for the battle of Midway (won with American muscle), my family could well have ended up as slaves to one of the most murderous cultures in the world.

So, next time you wanna call America evil… fascistic etc. just take a second to ponder a world without US interventions - quite possibly a world divided between three of the most repellent empires ever known - the Nazis, USSR and Imperial Japan…

These negative attitudes are more prevalent among people who’ve not had relationships with the generation who lived in those dark days. Not surprising, but y’all need to grow up - has this system really been so bad for you?

You will not find the time to cry for J. Bloggs in Afghanistan or elsewhere when the four horsemen come knocking at your door. You will run back into the (nuclear) arms of ol’ Unca Sam in a heart-beat. (rational observers remember how very little opposition there was to the Afghan invasion, and are not at all surprised that Americans have become bored with it and wanna go home… to get fat I s’pose)

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 4, 2009 at 10:24 am Link to this comment

truedigger3,

Thank you.

On your return if you could be specific about a place you see the types of behavior you describe I could get a sense of what you’re witnessing.  So far you’ve been broad but damning of the U.S. (For Peetawonkus’ sake we could keep to the subject of Afghanistan?).

Please keep in mind that I have never claimed the United States can do no wrong.  I have, right in this thread, acknowledged many mistakes and blunders.  Some of them very serious.  You miss the point if you believe I have advocated otherwise.

-

Unfortunately for everyone here, particularly Peetawonkus, I am working from home this week and have time to listen, think and write…..LOL Me and my Idiot, Neo-Con, think no wrong evil-self (smile).

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 4, 2009 at 10:02 am Link to this comment

Peetawonkus,

I will ask you the same I ask others.  What does “Neo” mean?

-

If you could supply us with these many sources of information regarding the Taliban offer to hand bin Laden over to Bush I think everyone, including myself, would appreciate it greatly.  At the very least you could give us some sense of where you derive your best sources.  It’s truly the least you could provide.

It’s fascinating how you so deeply desire to close down anything I have to say, however, you oddly believe that it’s me attempting obfuscate and/or end all discourse.  It’s interesting.

-

I mean this with no disrespect, Peetawonkus:  You are obviously a young individual with an unkempt mind.  Over the years you’ll find a more poignant and calm way of expressing your frustrations to be heard and understood. 

I’ll simply ask you to trust that, in the end, it’s not that important to be vindicated in your beliefs.  But we must allow others their own views.  And it must be done with respect.  It’s the only way to receive it.

Report this

By 9circlesofhell, December 4, 2009 at 9:18 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

-NABNYC-

Great comment on 12/02!

In my view, your assessment is as close to the truth -or, at least,
the perception of the truth- than most put forth ... an excellent
post.

In fact, the greatest struggle to understand the conundrum the
US is mired in today seems to be that many attempt to view it
through the lens of an ersatz moral high-ground inappropriately
crafted from the left-over remnants of a military super-power. 
From that quite myopic lens, America does no wrong ... oh my.

However, when viewed through the lens of history and fact (not
politics), it’s quite evident that, generally, America is a nation
that views war as a solution ...

President Eisenhower’s farewell speech to our nation back in
January 1961 was quite prophetic -especially in view of the so-
called dual wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the current
administration’s cowering decision to send 30,000 more
American troops to the land of poppy:
“This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a
large arms industry is new in the American experience ... In the
councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise
of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the
weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic
process.”

I’m guessing that speech is not required reading for our
Congress or budding politicians.

One of the best and brightest -EVER- Mr. Einstein, nails it
without argument, “You cannot simultaneously prevent and
prepare for war.”

Report this
Peetawonkus's avatar

By Peetawonkus, December 4, 2009 at 9:11 am Link to this comment

I see Go Right Young Man continues his relentless campaign of lies and bullshit. Apparently he believes if he just keeps wearing down and bludgeoning every single individual on this post he will gain credibility. He likes to paint himself as reasonable and willing to be disproved—if only someone can show him where he’s wrong (and, of course, he’s never wrong, in his mind). Just to take one example, even a modest internet search of the issue of the Taliban offering to hand Osama bin Laden over to the Bush Administration yields copious examples. Yet Go Right Young Man continues to deny them. Why? Because it doesn’t suit his purposes of spreading lies and poisoning any real dialogue with his neo-con(job) agenda. He is an example of these people who have been so hyped on the meth of “Terrorists” that they simply cannot distinguish the innocent from the guilty. Like Birthers who continue to believe Obama was born anywhere but in America, regardless of the evidence, this Republican mouthpiece simply will not listen to any point of view but that which agrees with his own. No amount of evidence or proof is enough, and it never will be. His sole purpose here has been to deflect commentary on the article at hand and instead focus discussion on matters of his right wing agenda—something, I might add, he continues to deny…even as he pushes it. Ever since his first post his purpose has been to hijack the thread and get people to talk about what he wants to talk about, which is war, war, and more war, why Americans already have a wonderful Health Care System and don’t need reform, how we’re the best and most generous country in the world, blah, blah, blah. The usual Tea Bagger/Chamber of Commerce talking points. I urge everyone to kick this hijacker to the curb and just talk around him.

Report this

By truedigger3, December 4, 2009 at 9:08 am Link to this comment

Go Right Young Man,

Please accept my apology for my bad choice of words.
You ask:“Where, exactly, is the U.S. acting in the manner you see?”

If after all what was happening in the world in the last two decades and you ask such a question, then it seems we are living in two different planets and we are seeing completely two different views.
Any way, I will follow Amon Drool and stop posting for a while. I need some sun. Bye for now.

Report this

By Amon Drool, December 4, 2009 at 8:44 am Link to this comment

i’m gonna be away from a computer for a while.  i rushed my 10:34am response to leefeller and maybe did not express myself clearly enuf.  “sure, there are inanities on the left and right, but the center has its share too” could be construed as calling someone an inanity.  i was just saying that people of the left, right AND center are capable of mouthing inanities.  and i was just qustioning what i perceive as leefeller’s self-satisfaction in his center zone.  damn, i need a life…i better stay awy from posting for a while….

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 4, 2009 at 8:06 am Link to this comment

Truedigger3, - “Arguing with you is like arguing with someone in the fourteenth century about the corruption in the Church. I will be talking to deaf ears and will be considered a heretic.”

What makes your above comment necessary?  And, perhaps, we don’t actually need to argue about anything.  Perhaps we could simply hold a “stable”, “good” and “orderly” discourse?

Am I wrong in believing your above comment was meant to “run rough shod” over me? - I wrote of changing Human nature, yes?

-

Where, exactly, is the U.S. acting in the manner you see?  Can you lend us an example and, are you willing to listen to another point of view without belittling that view?

Report this

By truedigger3, December 4, 2009 at 7:34 am Link to this comment

Go Right Young Man,

Arguing with you is like arguing with someone in the fourteenth century about the corruption in the Church. I will be talking to deaf ears and will be considered a heretic.
The United States helped build Europe and Japan after WW2 because it worried about the spread of communism, besides, it needed viable Germany and Japan in its struggle against the Soviet Union. There is no charity or goodness here but cold calculating thinking which is OK by me.
I am well aware of the limitations of the human nature but that is not an execuse for the immensely powerful and wealthy to run amock spreading chaos and riding rough shod on everyone instead being a force for stabilization, good and order.
And in another note, you say you don’t like Obama because he is a “socialist”!!!
Does a “socialist” give hundreds of billion of dollars to banks.
Obama is siding with big Business/Money in every step he makes. The health care “reform” is a good example. That “reform” is nothing but a give away to the insurance companies and the health care industrial complex. What kind of a socialist is that?!! That is really a new breed?? LOL!
Obama is nothing but Bush2 but with good command of oratory and a black face coupled with tooth-paste smile.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 4, 2009 at 7:30 am Link to this comment

Below we observe this from the Manchild, ardee.

“The Taliban offered to turn bin Laden over to any Muslim nation that guaranteed no death penalty, an offer sounding like no alliance I am familiar with.”

On another thread this individual repeatedly and consistently argued that the Taliban offered to turn bin Laden over to the Bush administration.  I shared numerous items which clearly displayed that no such offer was made.  This individual responded, in unbending fashion, how I am nothing but an evil “Neo-Con” liar who fails to see what’s before me.

This individual adamantly refused to admit he just may have been wrong on what he had come to believe in.  He refused to admit that my information was solid.  That he had, apparently, effectively changed his mind.


-

Why do I refer to this individual as Manchild?  Why is he the sole recipient on this site of my ill will and comments?  Basically it’s in the manner in which he treats all who hold a different point of view.

Adults admit they simply do not know everything.  Adults freely admit when they make mistakes.  Adults do not throw insults about for the mere fun it or, when another simply disagrees.

Adults don’t whine and cry about how right they are only to say something completely different to another individual or in another discourse.

Report this

By Amon Drool, December 4, 2009 at 6:34 am Link to this comment

after a couple days of commendably drawing the line with obama on afghanistan, mr. feller predictably rushes back to his bovine comfort in the center.  i was strainin’ whatever brain cells i have left to come up with a response to his latest offering, but our equal oppurtunity basher shepotamus saved me the trouble.  sure, there are inanities on the left and on the right, but the center has its share too.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 4, 2009 at 6:31 am Link to this comment

truedigger3,

Change the nature of human beings and you’ll find the peace you strive for.  In the mean time it is proven that there are people who mean you and your family dead.

I will keep repeating myself here when I feel it necessary.

The United States is the only nation, in all of human history, that would completely destroy an enemy only to build them up again at terrific cost and, leave them to their own autonomy.  Remember that when you chose which nation you would prefer as the sole “super power”.

With all it’s ills the United States is one of the most generous in earth.  No matter what the ideology of another nation is, the U.S. ALWAYS comes to the aid of those in need.  It’s a rarity that seems to get lost by its most ardent critics.

-

I had a friend years ago who was born and lived in the Soviet Union but worked in the States.  He spoke at times about race problems in the U.S..  He also told me the Soviet Union had no such problems.  The Soviets, he told me, simply didn’t allow black people into the country.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 4, 2009 at 6:15 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous,

It’s been my experience that most people agree on the goals but differ in ways of achieving them.  It’s also my experience that people live and work side by side every day without regard to politics or ideology.  Therein lies the real world.  It’s in Washington, the media, and Web sites such as this where we witness what is not actually “real”.  I think many Web posters forget this.

Most people hold a sense of anonymity when posting.  This tends to bring out behaviors which they would normally almost never display face to face, eye to eye, human to human.

I believe it’s important to always remember that humans are human everywhere.

-

I do lean right of center on many issues.  I like President Obama but did not vote for him.  I agree with him 80% of the time on foreign policy, however, differ with him a good deal on domestic issues.  I believe the Birth Certificate issue was quite inane.  I also believe Mr. Obama leans heavily toward a socialistic approach to governance (I am unapologetic in my capitalist-free market beliefs in that it brings about the most personal freedoms and human imagination).  Unfortunately, as much as I like him personally, I believe the president holds a fair amount of disdain for American contemporary history.

I detest the number of abortions in the world but am loath to take a woman’s choice away (I don’t disagree with the result of Roe.  I believe it’s bad law).  I am pro-gun control, pro-health care reform, and passionately against capital punishment.  What does all this label me?  Apparently an idiot….lol

-

The term “Neo-Con” is not only over-used but, has somehow morphed into an odd cartoon character with only evil intent.  This is the epitome of ignorance.  And, not to put too fine a point on it, I am not a “new” conservative.  I am, perhaps, a “new” idiot, however.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, December 4, 2009 at 6:05 am Link to this comment

truedigger3 yo’ain’t nuttin but a Shenonymous-hating blowhard.  You can’t in
your wildest dream imagine She cares (using the third person on purpose to
irritate anyone he hates it too) what you think, or say?  You think you can
decide who posts or not?  You really are a blowhard.  And besides She is a
good girl.  Why don’t you look at the subject from another angle?  Like
from your eyes instead of yo’ass.  By the way if you showed a tenth of the
reasonable class that GRYM shows you might just make it as a man with a
brain.

Leefeller, your self-effacing self-righetousness sounds pontificating too as
much as you try to distance yourself from either fanatical end of the spectrum
you have constructed.  Yup, you have made yourself holier than all of thou’s in
the room.  Sitting up so high could give one a bit of political centrist vertigo. 
I’d say it was an interesting exercise in categorization, maybe with a few holes
but good strategy nevertheless.  You and Pascal.  I’ll never tell what I have
tatooed on my butt! Aw what the heck,

Report this

By ardee, December 4, 2009 at 6:03 am Link to this comment

Leefeller, December 4 at 12:16 pm #


Trying to label this political crap is most annoying, not wanting to do any research myself, so if anyone else feels the urge to define political stereotypes, please do. 

Opinions are like rectums, we all have them. wink

Heres another:

The ‘Middle’ is a mathematical term designating an imaginary place betwixt and between all opinion or positions or whatever. Progress never comes, I think, from this place, rather it comes from a small group of informed and motivated folks who refuse to accept the status quo ( with apologies to Margaret Meade for butchering up her citing). Hardly a definition of centrists I think.

I think your listing of the stages of politics, left and right, to be valid only as your own opinion, and telling in that you see your own versions of extremist politics as undesireable, whether left or right. I think you seek to marginalise many folks whose opinions you find invalid with a poor characterisation of them and your attempt to fit many where they very well may not belong.

After admittedly refusing to research, after honestly noting that this is all your own opinion after all, you proudly claim membership in the middle, as formerly noted a nonexistent place. It may be a safe and cozy feeling, remaining far from
the edge, but wheres the beef after all? Where is the commitment to change, or do you state that you think such unnecessary?

What have I missed here, Leefeller?

Report this

By truedigger3, December 4, 2009 at 5:54 am Link to this comment

“Go Right Young Man” wrote:
“On the other hand there are many who, first and foremost, look to see how the United States plays an evil role in the world.  It’s as if the United States invented greed, self preservation and hubris”
_____________________________________________________

Of course not, the United States didn’t invent greed, but with its immense power and wealth, compared to the rest of WHOLE world combined, and now the only super-power in the world, it could have chosen to be a force for peace and lead the world to a better tomorrow, facing the serious problems facing the world, especially environmental degradation, climate change and population uncontrolled increase.
Instead, the United States is on a war path, putting its heel on everyone neck spreading fear, division and destruction everywhere.
In short, the United States could have acted as the class president, who has his special privileges but everyone look at him with respect and listen to him, instead, the United States has chosen to be the school yard bully who is spreading fear and violence and shaking down even impoverished kids from their badly needed lunch money.

-

Report this

By 9circlesofhell, December 4, 2009 at 5:50 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

So I’m out shopping with my wife a few weeks ago (you know, trying to
resuscitate a DOA economy) when, in a furniture sore I notice a series of large
boxes stamped “Made in Vietnam.”  The owner of the store -on my inquiry-
tells me that a table and chairs are in the boxes.

I’m stunned!

I’m old enough to be of the “Vietnam Vet” cohort and, at that moment
countless images flooded my mind -from the death of 57,000+ of our
soldiers, to the little girl running down the road in [Napalm] flames, to the
frenzied rescue during the last days as helicopters on rooftops enacted the
exodus.

Amidst the horror of realizing that the death and destruction of the Vietnam
War resulted in some 35 years later and economic bridge to the very country
we did our lying best (read historical docs of Johnson, Nixon, McNamara, and
the like)  to prevent “going Communist”, I had a funny bone moment recalling
Country Joe and the Fish singing “... and it’s one, two, three, what are we
fighting for ... don’t ask me I don’t give a dams, the next stop is Vietnam ....”

Communism the, terrorism now ... replace Vietnam with Afghanistan in the
songs lyrics and it’s the same old, same old.  It’s hard not to state simply -and
factually- war is the American way!

Politicians are -essentially- whores (my apologies to any bona fide prostitutes
who may be reading this, I’m trying to make a point nor disparage you to the
lowly depths of people who take other peoples money [taxes] and give nothing
of value in return) and, if we the people continue to accept their version of
reality then we can’t expect more than lies, deceit, immorality, a casual view of
others’ lives -including our soldiers (if that pisses anyone off, go out today and
find a homeless Vet ... ask him/her “what are we fighting for”?)- and more wars
.

In fact, it seems plausible that eventually the US and UN will negotiate some
deal with Karzi and his wink-and-nod style of governance that’s akin to the
Oil-for-Food program that worked so corruptedly well back in the day of big
bad Saddam, Paul Volcker, Kofi Anan, and others ... today we’ll name that new
initiative Poppy-for-Parkas or some other lame government label.

Leave Afghanistan now!

No apologies, no tired cliches, slogans, and wrenching “what if’s”  -simply
leave.  Put our taxpayers dollars into sometime other than war.  Heed
Eisenhower’s prophesy back at the end of his presidency, “Beware the Military
Industrial Complex.” 

Beware, indeed!

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, December 4, 2009 at 5:16 am Link to this comment

Trying to label this political crap is most annoying, not wanting to do any research myself, so if anyone else feels the urge to define political stereotypes, please do.  I claim ignorance and only write of what is perceived in this simplistic fog of mine. (A fog most likely made by a prolific fog machine)

You know if one is left of center they may be called pinko! Move them a little further left and McCarthy or some right wing bat slaps them with a Commie label, then moving way over to the left there is the self righteous left the holy order of the progressives,  who seem to emanate a piousness and annoying orthodoxy, which permiates a stenchy billy goat odor! (I have a stinky billy goat and I know this!)

On the right side of center the labels sort of lump and jump from something like the unemployed steel worker in Ohio who cannot stand Obama because he is black and the worker proclaims while crying in his beer, Palin is the brightest light in the room. Moving a little further right we have the Tea Baggers screaming about how they want this and that, telling me to keep my hands off their doctor and and their unemployment and socialist SSI.  A little further to the right we see the regurgitated Christians and their aching to start a war someplace. I may be wrong in this but maybe the same people attend the local KKK meetings. Then we have the Nazi skinhead’s sort of like the KKK with out the sheets, instead they like uniforms and boots. I Just do not know where the neocons fit in, they must fit someplace,  maybe they are pulling strings for the others sort of like corrupted bosses?

How about the center?  I seem to fit someplace in the center, least I like to think so. Steriotypes and labels I usually oppose like goat cheese, but for clarity sake lets do some labels.

Maybe one can look at politics using religious terms. So this may mean I am sort of a political agnostic being on the fence tottering from side to side. How about the right, they would be like the Catholic Church or Muslims with their extreme fanatics and moderates who attend church but really most are just going through the motions to cover their ass’s in case something may be true to the stories? 

On the other hand the Left would be sort of like political Atheists the far lefts self righteous progressives having a big A tattood on their butts, of course making sure everyone else knows about it!

Looking from the middle one can see nothing is going to work out, because both sides look like fanatics opposing fanatics with their own opposing fanatics opposing other fanatics.

This may seem most confusing, but I can comfortably say, I got them right where I want them!

Report this

By truedigger3, December 4, 2009 at 4:41 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous wrote:
“in spite of my being and commenting as a liberal. 
Hopefully a rational liberal which might actually be an oxymoron”
_____________________________________________________

Shen,

You claim you are a liberal, then immediately disparage liberals.
With “liberals” like you, who need completely biased right wing nuts like that idiot “go right young man”.
Always your research and searches end up with noncoclusive or in full agreement with the power-that-be even in health care “reform”, Ms. fake liberal.
Why don’t you look at the subject from another angle?? like oil and gas and their pipelines and the neocons plans and ideas.
By the way I am not a liberal but populist/liberal and definitely left of center.
And I know you are a hopeless case. You are just a careerist, which is OK if you keep to yourself, but what is not OK is to waste people time with your fake arguments to prove that you are a “good girl” to the power-that-be.!

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, December 3, 2009 at 9:51 pm Link to this comment

I am astonished that I agree as much as I do with someone whose politics
could be diametrically opposed to mine.  But then when I read what you’ve
said, I see they are not that much in opposition.  I had to take a step back. 

I do not recall taking umbrage with you GRYM.  I might have said you “maybe
exaggerate,” which doesn’t say that you do, and I actually defended that you
had not been shown to lie.  I thought that was well put but I guess it was too
esoteric.  I thought I was taking umbrage with the one who called you a liar.  I
will be more specific.  After reviewing several threads where we both posted, I
do not see where I disagreed with you except perhaps our view of Obama.  That
is stunning since you admit on this forum to not voting Democratic (Obama). 
That doesn’t mean you are Republican because you might be something else. 
But it doesn’t mean you are not Republican either.  I think that is just fine.  I do
not find all Republicans repugnant as some on TD do.  With tongue in cheek,
I’ll venture to say some of my best friends are Republicans, and close family
members.  And we often enjoy a huge debate without rancor. 

But I am Democratic and I did vote for Obama, and contrary to many leftists on
this website, not only this forum, I still want to see that he did not deserve my
vote.  I also want to see world peace, but I am more a realist than an idealist
and I think it is contrary to man’s nature.  It is something that needs a lot of
work.  But I believe it can work, someday.  You did say something I think was a
candid remark:  that the President truly believes in the dangers he speaks of. 
From the interviews he has done and speeches he has made I think so too.  Nor
do you tear Obama up an down, which is laudable.  Not too many on the right
or the left can do that.  We, you and I, may differ on Obama, but I appreciate it
that we don’t have to shriek those differences, with no infantile name-calling
and can have reasonable conversation about it.  I am more than willing to
change my perspective when faced with compelling argument.  You do offer
references for what you say, which has been my pet peeve on these forums: 
that people make claims with nothing substantial to back them up. 

And I get bone-tired of the tendency to make America the butt of castigation,
defamed, and belittled especially by the left calling it the evil empire, and I have
often spoken against those who would blatantly assault the freedoms they only
get in this country.  Occasionally I use the slangy words ‘Merica and ‘Merkin
hilariously usurped from another poster when I wish to use sarcasm aimed at
Leftists who slander and vilify this country, which I think kind of drives them
livid since they volley huge and out of this world invectives at me.  It never fails. 
I am their best non-right-winger to bash.  Well there is one other who is even
more favored for that kind of bashing.  OM but he is a real conservative and
boy do the lefties have a field day with that guy. He seems more than up to the
challenges though.  Just for the record, I sincerely like and say bravo for the
way you request others to show proof of their accusations.  I don’t really care
what they say, just as long as there is convincing evidence for it.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 3, 2009 at 7:23 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous,

My Login name here has everything to do with my Father and the advice he had passed to me many times.  Nothing to do with politics.  - My Father was an avid democrat and union man.  Many here simply assume a great deal and spoil for confrontation (interestingly enough those who feel weakest in their convictions).

One thing I find myself taking exception to in these posts are the almost constant and unsubstantiated attacks on the West, and more specifically, the U.S..

I doubt there’s a man or woman alive who believes the U.S. is the world’s “Night in Shining Armor”.  On the other hand there are many who, first and foremost, look to see how the United States plays an evil role in the world.  It’s as if the United States invented greed, self preservation and hubris and, it all seems to happen in an vacuum or, what many call, a Western-centric point of view.  A terrific attention to the actions of the U.S. but little attention to the actions of others.

This leads people, quiet honestly, to believing in things that are simply and provably false in regards to the overall character of the U.S..—I believe it has a great deal to do with how people (Westerners in this case) look upon themselves.

With that particular critique aside; I’ll offer up information for all to evaluate.  I offer only those things I myself find interesting enough to pay attention to.  I don’t comment on every news piece as some regulars here tend to.  Frankly if I don’t believe I know enough about a subject I simply listen to others.  I’m not in the habit of offering things I cannot prove.  I’m also not in the habit of offering others opinions (most media sources) in making my point.  I tend to go to the source(s).

Thank you for your kind encouragement.  I don’t know if you recall how you recently took great umbridge with an item I shared here recently..(smile) but I thank you today sincerely.

Report this

By Amon Drool, December 3, 2009 at 6:36 pm Link to this comment

i just noticed a TD thread of a little less than a week ago.  it’s entitled ‘taliban target UN workers in deadly kabul attack’.  and round and round we go…right, goright?

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, December 3, 2009 at 5:57 pm Link to this comment

I am not sure what your ID name means Go Right Young Man.  I don’t think it is
as important as some of the commenters try to make out.  Sounding like an
instruction, it could mean a whole host of things.  For instance, there are some
TDers who are “over” the Left edge and anyone who is just “at” the Left edge
would be considered Right radicals. Ye gads and gawd forbid if one is a centrist
Liberal, as they are considered not human by the deranged clique of
progressives.  Whatever is the case, for what it is worth, I find your comments
very calm and thoughtful and reliably informative.  Amon Drool seems to be
very civil and even though he would not care one whit what I think, I thought
his posts to you were remarkably polite.  I did google Kabir Mohabbat.  There
were a lot of sites to visit but from the site the articles I selected were one from
History Commons, a newservice with which I am not familiar.  It seems
objective.  It reports in November 2000 that the offer by the Taliban to turn
over bin Laden was ‘alleged” and with several cavaets.  Lots of ifs.  Everything
was offered as “reported.” nothing verifiable.  A later report in September 16,
2001 says the US was being demanding and obstinate and unwilling to
negotiate.  Mohabbat supposedly was a secret Afghan envoy for the US.  And
in a CBS Online News report September 25, 2001 that essentially is very hazy
even though some things were noted Mohabbat said the talks were “friendly”
but did not elaborate. 

It is obvious that you have some nemeses who intend, however, to scourge not
only what you say but you personally!  I have select words for these TD ghosts
and they have heard them before and have attempted to assassinate me in not
so many words as well in spite of my being and commenting as a liberal. 
Hopefully a rational liberal which might actually be an oxymoron. They just
don’t like my position of being closer to the dividing line between left and right. 
You probably wouldn’t like that either since I do fall on the left side most of the
time, but that is neither here nor there.  I am interested in what you have to say
and also what you have had to say to these antagonists.  I suppose I just
wanted you to know there is at least one who appreciates your observations.  I
may not agree with you on everything, since I do not know enough,  but I think
by all accounts of the way you conduct your discussion, we would be civil in
our disagreement.  You will be warned, indubitably, of my broom riding
shrewishness (from my biased viewpoint I am not shrewish at all by I do ride a
broom).

Report this

By Amon Drool, December 3, 2009 at 5:43 pm Link to this comment

goright…i’m lazy and i’m not gonna search for that ‘extentsive’ interview right now.  if u point me too it, i would appreciate it.

one of your posts contains this: THE TALIBAN NEVER OFFERED TO TURN BIN LADEN OVER TO THE REPUGS.  THE BUSH ADMINISTATION NEVER RECEIVED SUCH AN OFFER.  (your caps) 

now really, how could the taliban hand bin laden over to the US and maintain credibility in the middle east and arab world?  after all, the US has enabled post 1967 israeli expansion onto palestinian land.  but according to the article i cited, the taliban did view bin laden as a problem and were willing to let the US take him out with cruise missles.  now if that ‘extentsive’ interview with mohabatt sez something different, i may change my my mind on the bush admin. talks with the taliban.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 3, 2009 at 4:50 pm Link to this comment

Amon Drool,

Thank you. I am aware of Mr. Kabir Mohabbat.  If you locate an extensive interview with him be sure to read carefully the things actually said vs what another may claim he said.  I wish Mr. Mohabbat were still alive.

I’d be willing to bet a search of news archives in the area of Houston Tx. would gain some good insight into his reasonable claims.

-

What I offer is verifiable evidentiary information on the subject for all to evaluate.

Report this

By Amon Drool, December 3, 2009 at 4:25 pm Link to this comment

gorightyoungman…i suggest u google ‘kabir mohabbat” and more pertinently “how bush was offered bin laden and blew it.”

here’s the story:  after attacks on US embassies in 1996, the clinton admin. told sudan to give bin laden the heave-ho or else.  afghanistan then gave him sanctuary.  upon first entering the country, he was house guest of one of the northern warlords who had opposed the taliban.  the clinton admin. warned the taliban that if any harm came to any US citizen from bin laden, the US would bring full force to bear upon afghan.  3 weeks before the nov. 2000 election, the USS Cole got hit.  the clinton admin. gave afghan. 30 days to turn over bin laden. 3 weeks later the taliban placed bin laden under house arrest at a site 30 miles from kandahar. supposedly in late nov. the US and the taliban agreed to deal with their mutual bin laden problem thru US cruise missle strikes on that site. here’s where the story gets a little blurry from my point of view.  for some reason, the clinton administration, evidently because the country had chosen a president from a different party, decided to leave bin laden’s fate to the incoming bush admin.

the bush admin. retained the same go-between, kabir mohabbat, that the clinton admin. used with the taliban.  mohabbat claims that at least 3 times before 9/11/2001 the taliban asked the bush admin. why they were delaying the hit on bin laden.  they even jokingly offered to pay for the fuel that would empower the cruise missles.  now, i can’t for sure say why bush didn’t take out bin laden.  it coulda been because of the strong fammily ties of the bushes and bin ladens.  or it could have been thru cheney manipulating bush in his world domination game.

that’s the story.  it surely isn’t the final word on that time period.  but anyone expousing on US/afghan relations prior to 9/11 should give it due consideration.

Report this

By ardee, December 3, 2009 at 3:38 pm Link to this comment

Peetawonkus, December 3 at 3:58 pm

Brilliant assessment, and a waste of time. This guy is so deeply entrenched in his own head that nothing whatever can penetrate, especially not fact or reason….

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 3, 2009 at 3:23 pm Link to this comment

mick,

Sure.  If you wish more feel free.

Osama bin Laden has been wanted by the U.S. in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States embassies in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya.  Extradition requests to the Taliban government quickly followed.

Contrary to those who believe this was an entirely “American” plot the international community involved itself by way of the United Nations (resolution 1267 -1999).  Muslim, Christian, Far and Near East countries, along with Western and Eastern European countries began lobbying the Afghan government for Osama bin Laden’s extradition at that time.

http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/pdf/consolidatedlist.pdf

or

The Al-Qaida and Taliban Sanctions Committee - 1267
... Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1267 (1999) concerning Al-Qaida and the Taliban and Associated Individuals and Entities.
http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/index.shtml

After several extradition requests spanning several years, and the Afghan government reneging on already agreed upon requests, the Taliban made it’s only offer to hand bin Laden to a third party Muslim nation IF, first, United Nations and NATO sanctioned bombing ceased killing them. Second; they demanded evidence, to be agreed upon by themselves, of bin Laden’s guilt.

NATO, the United Nations and the American President explicitly replied that that time had passed.

Report this
Peetawonkus's avatar

By Peetawonkus, December 3, 2009 at 1:19 pm Link to this comment

Go Right To Hell Young Man,
You’re so full of crap. “I’m not a neo-con”, says the guy with the name “Go Right Young Man”. Uh huh. You can act coy all you want but you’re not fooling anybody and you certainly aren’t interested in sharing information. On every single issue you’ve gotten into a tangle with someone on this site about you’ve shown your true colors, despite your protests to the contrary. Your sole function on this post has been to poison the thread and conflate the Taliban and Al-Quaeda. If Obama wasn’t so intimated by the Beltway and so wet behind the ears he’d stop listening to people like you and stop trying to appease your bullshit. It’s simply time to leave Afghanistan. Now, and not in 18 months. We can’t afford it, we can’t and won’t win, and everybody with half a brain knows we’re there for oil and gas and not “freedom”. The question is what to do about it and how to get our country to do the right thing, for the first time in 9 years. Not keep thinking up excuses to remain. I think personally you’re one these right wingers who are paid to go on sites like this just to piss in the punch.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 3, 2009 at 12:58 pm Link to this comment

Peetawonkus,

You could have simply taken me up on my offer to share information, Peetawonkus.  There was no need to take such an adversarial stand.  You would have been no worse for wear. 

“Oops.  I see I was wrong” is not that difficult a thing.

Report this
Peetawonkus's avatar

By Peetawonkus, December 3, 2009 at 12:37 pm Link to this comment

Yak, yak, yak. You’re a time waster. Beat it.

Report this

By dr wu, December 3, 2009 at 12:36 pm Link to this comment

9/11, their answer to everything—oil and gas, my answer to everything.

Report this

By Redd Herring, December 3, 2009 at 12:27 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Tiger Woods is having a marital dispute, and the Salahis crashed the White House Dinner.  I think Stone Cold Steve Austin is going to make a come back.  With progressive talk radio a la Ed Schulz in such a piss poor, kiss ass boring rut, it can’t be soon enough.

The Taliban did make an offer to Bush to turn over Bin Laden to a neutral country.  Bin Laden was and is innocent.  The FBI does not want him in the “Most Wanted” sense.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 3, 2009 at 12:10 pm Link to this comment

Peetawonkus,

You blindly confuse an apologist with someone who will not sit idly by while people, such as you yourself, go off on an unprovable tangent about how the Taliban wished to hand over bin Laden to the United States.  It simply never happened.

You can peddle your theories all you wish.  But why not do it by displaying how much you know?  Not how little you’ve paid attention.

So, yes, let us get this perfectly straight before you go off on another tangent.

THE TALIBAN NEVER OFFERED TO HAND BIN LADEN OVER TO THE “REPUGS”.  THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION NEVER REFUSED SUCH AN OFFER.

It simply never happened the way you theorize.  You need to rethink what you present to others.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 3, 2009 at 11:59 am Link to this comment

Beerdoc,

One more thing.  Do you actually know what neo means?  It doesn’t mean “a whole buncha sumthin”.  Or really really alot O’ that.

Neo means New.  So how exactly do you arrive at the conclusion that I am a “New conservative”?  Is it the same way you have believed for almost two decades that it was the “United States” that imposed sanctions on Iraq?

Report this
Peetawonkus's avatar

By Peetawonkus, December 3, 2009 at 11:58 am Link to this comment

Go Right to Hell Young man,

Let’s just get this right out into the open.

First, you’ve shown your true colors right on down the line. You’re an apologist for right wing talking points. Your posts are proof enough. You can simper demurely and posture all you want. I got your number.

Second, all of this is a continued attempt to conflate the Taliban with Al-Quaeda and thus justify our presence in Afghanistan. And your “evidence” is just a prop for that. The US military is really good at fighting countries but sucks at fighting movements. Al-Quaeda, other Islamist groups and that grand undefined bogeyman, “terrorism”, can’t be fought by armies. They require international police action for international crimes. But that’s complicated and there’s no money for the US ruling class to make on that. So off to war we go again, conjuring enemies. Some bright soul on this post mentioned that if you want to find the truth about anything, follow the money. America is now a country where the military and the corporations dictate what will be done. Democracy is essentially a puppet show for the rubes. Since you and your Yes Men like history so much, here’s a nugget for you. Imperial Rome kept the pretense and show of the Old Republic for centuries after it had lapsed into dictatorial control. To call attention to the “lie” was to have bad manners. We continue to fight these wars on credit to control Middle East resources despite the fact, and it is a fact, that most Americans want us out. But the Corporations and the military say we stay so we stay. That’s when the Marketing Machines crank up to repackage these endless wars to the American people as necessary and righteous endeavors. All they have to do is find people like you to help them sell it. And the sad thing is, you come gladly out of the woodwork to do it.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, December 3, 2009 at 11:56 am Link to this comment

If one has an opinion, which is portrayed and sold as fact, it may be defended to the death under the prospectuses of war. Seldom do the sellers of facts go to war themselves, if they did wars would be far and few between!

Report this

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 >

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook