ITW,

Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Katrina and the Tea Party.  You got sucked into a single-minded mantra, my friend.

Your pitiful insults with which you attempt to goad me are ludicrous.

You are off-topic and you know it and now are in tantrum mode because I won’t play along.

ITW,

Your desire to avoid this subject (Obama: Gulf Oil Crises) is sadly obvious.

God forbid you should utter or write just how myopic you and others were in your criticisms of the (Bush) federal government after the largest natural disaster struck the continental United States in recorded history. Hurricane Katrina. 

Bush did it! Bush did it! Bush did it! 

You got sucked into a mantra, my friend. You allowed yourself to wallow in the cesspool from the media and Beltway gamesmanship.

In short: You, like millions of others, came to believe in phantoms.

GRYM:

Is this thread about Katrina or BP?

(hint: the answer isn’t “Yes”).

ITW, - “I didn’t give you an answer you could agree with or debunk.  Therefore you claim I “didn’t answer”. It’s a tactic of yours and a rather cheap one at that.”

-

I saw no answer to either debunk or praise.  Could you point me to your reply?  I missed it.

-

I’ll re-post my questions for your ease.

Have you been following the criticisms of the Obama administration in regards to the Gulf of Mexico oil crisis?  Are you now witnessing how each and every criticism of the federal government on display today are identical to the criticisms after hurricanes Katrina, Andrew and Hugo?  Is it not exactly as I said?  Are the basic criticisms identical?

Have you seen the recent polls of Louisianans?  It seems the majority feel as though President Bush handled the aftermath of Katrina better than President Obama in this latest crisis. - Does this not corroborate what I previously intimated in regards to perceptions?

You neglected my question regarding the criticisms of the Obama administration compared to every major disaster in the past 30+ years.  Is it not as I had pointed out roughly a month ago?
*******************************

Translation: I didn’t give you an answer you could agree with or debunk.  Therefore you claim I “didn’t answer”. It’s a tactic of yours and a rather cheap one at that.

Anarcissie,

Remember when Extraordinary Rendition, the Patriot Act, Domestic Signal Intelligence, Indefinite Detention, Enhanced Interrogations and Signing Statements were proof-positive of a “Neo-Con Cabal” in the White House?  Remember the “Worst Constitutional Crises in American History” under Bush/Cheney in regards to all of the above? 

Well, each of the above policies continue, and some have expanded, under a democratic congress and a democratic president.  Interesting that we never here about the continuing Constitutional Crises today.  Where are the cries of the Neo-Con’s in the White House after the Patriot Act was made permanent a few months ago by a democrat controlled congress and signed into law by a democrat president?

I have been writing on this for a very long time.  The notion of a “Neo-Con” plot to take over Washington and the world was pure folly.  People who believed in such nonsense, and there were millions, were chasing phantoms.  People who believed in these cartoon character “Neo-Con’s” ignored the votes of the majority of the democratic members of congress.  Which, as we see today, continue with the very same foreign policies.

Of course the common refrain during the Bush years was how the evil “Neo-Con’s” tricked hundreds of gullible and easily mislead democrats -as if all democrats are children- into going along with this “Neo-Con plot”.

What is the twisted rationale now?  Richard Cheney still controls the presidency from Wyoming?

-

Yes, some have been gullible.  Those, and there were millions, who believed in phantoms.

No one here can say I didn’t attempt many times to bring a larger, more realistic, context to the discussion of domestic and global events.

I find no joy in writing that I was right.

Go Right Young Man, June 27 at 10:10 pm:
’... We can also recall that President Obama, in part, was elected on a clear platform of exiting Iraq, placing those resources in Afghanistan, and an escalation of military force inside Pakistan.’

A truly astonishing number of people seemed (and still seem) to be unaware of this.  I assume they didn’t read the position papers posted on his web site.  Mr. O has not gone back on any of his campaign promises, except for the business about rescinding some of Bush’s spying and other unconstitutional assumptions of power, about which of course nothing was done.

There seems to be a curious disjunction here between things that are plainly said, and image.  But I am hardly the first to notice this.

gerard, June 28 at 12:32 am

-

I’m sorry.  Was that a yes or a no on whether or not the Revolutionary War should have been fought?

Go Right:  You ask, do I believe the American Revolution should have been fought. I am far from an authority on the American Revolution, but as a rabid anti-war patriot, I wish it had not happened but other ways might have been found to avoid it and achieve independence.  But wishing is utterly futile in this case.
Like most wars in history, I believe the Revolution has been hyped after the fact, and a good many horrible errors at the time were covered over in the interests of starting a new and “independent” nation—though of course it was not independent. It depended upon Europe and on the “natives” for a good deal of cooperation,one way or another.
  I admire those non-Royalists who had seen enough of monarchy to want to try something a bit more democratic, but at the same time, I know there was a huge difference, much-wrangled-over, between the “elitists” (Hamilton etc.) and the more democratic-minded (Jefferson and Washington). 
  I greatly admire the “free thinkers” who came alone a little later—the Quakers and Congregationalists—much maligned and persecuted by the stiff-necked Puritan element.  Later Emerson and Thoreau and others helped to liberalize those who were able to think freely and had enough education to read.
  From the beginning the “elitist” South was a drag on the democratic ambitions of the more liberal Northerners, and eventually a hideous war was fought.  I regret that also, of course, and wonder why things were allowed to reach the point of civil strife, engendering a reactive spirit and a good deal of hatred that exists to this day—the legacy of that war.
  I admire those Quakers and others who tirelessly rode horseback up and down the East Coast, from very early on, and during the pre-war years, trying to convince the Southerners to free their slaves voluntarily.  They achieved some success but not ehough.  Free labor was always very attractive to aristocrats who had become used to it in Europe.
  All in all, the Revolution, like all wars, was a “mixed bag” of great tragedies and few rewards, and those mostly paid for by too high a price in blood and tears.
  Thanks for your question.

ITW, - “90% of Americans supported our actions in Pakistan??????”

-

Yes.  In the years between Nov. 01 through Feb. 06.

We should remember that Zawahiri, Omar and bin Laden were thought to have escaped to Pakistan.  The whole of the U.S. Congress was in favor of killing or capturing inside Pakistan. Most of that support remains amongst today’s 111th Congress. Support remains high amongst the American people as well. Over 70% - depending on how one asks the question.

We can also recall that President Obama, in part, was elected on a clear platform of exiting Iraq, placing those resources in Afghanistan, and an escalation of military force inside Pakistan.  Aside from “not being Bush” Pakistan was Mr. Obama’s most sweeping foreign policy position during the primaries and, into the 08 election.

-

You neglected my question regarding the criticisms of the Obama administration compared to every major disaster in the past 30+ years.  Is it not as I had pointed out roughly a month ago?

Go Right Young Man, June 27 at 3:28 pm #

So you won’t direct your comments about me directly to me but, you will for others?  I find that interesting.
**********************************

My humble apologies: You said “Pakistan” not “Iraq”.

90% of Americans supported our actions in Pakistan??????

ITW,

Have you been following the criticisms of the Obama administration in regards to the Gulf of Mexico oil crisis?  Are you now witnessing how each and every criticism of the federal government on display today are identical to the criticisms after hurricanes Katrina, Andrew and Hugo?  Is it not exactly as I said?  Are the basic criticisms identical? 

Have you seen the recent polls of Louisianans?  It seems the majority feel as though President Bush handled the aftermath of Katrina better than President Obama in this latest crisis. - Does this not corroborate what I previously intimated in regards to perceptions?

gerard,

I apologizes if I was not clear.  I thought it clear I was talking about peace with England.

I’m not sure how I can explain, in this brief thread, all the many ways the reference holds great meaning in this discussion.  I would only ask that you give it some thought.

The American Revolution is not in the distant past.  As nation states go it was but a short time ago.

Question.  Do you believe the American Revolution should not have been fought? 

If you keep your answer brief I have a follow-up question.

GoRight:  Sorry to be so long getting back to you. Here are your two questions—that don’t seem all that direct to me.  However:
  “-I asked you two simple and direct questions on this thread. 

1.“Who is it, that you are aware of, that dismisses any thoughts of peace making?
  Tens of thousands of brainwashed military-minded or absent-minded citizens who believe in their hearts that war is “inevitable” and that there is “nothing they can do” to stop it and to develop alternatives. and that it is okay—even wise and honorable—to kill your “enemies.”

2. “Are you aware that the letter sent to the King of England by America’s Founding Fathers mentions the end of slavery twice as many times as taxation without representation? - A war ensued after that letter was received.  Followed by over two-hundred (200) years of peace.”
  Answer:  I wasn’t aware of this letter, and furthermore, I don’t get the significance of it to the subject we were discussing.  Sorry. As to the 200 years of peace—I would have to take issue with that:  Peace for the indigenous people?  Peace for the indentured servants?  Peace for the poor, ignorant, starving Irish Catholic immigrants?  Peace for the people captured, chained and brought over from Africa to be sold?  Peace?  Give me a break!

ITW- “Also, GRYM argues that 90% of Americans supported our entries into both Afghanistan AND IRAQ.”

-

Honestly, ITW, I have never written any such thing.  This discussion has been about Afghanistan.  Where, exactly, did I write the above?

If you revisit my comments you will see your error.

-

So you won’t direct your comments about me directly to me but, you will for others?  I find that interesting.

SHIFT and SCOTTPOT: You bet!!

While the U.S. is out saving the World, the America that is left behind will be collapse and hardship.  American’s have not demanded respect from their government, nor will they receive it.  We have set a downhill course and we have no brakes.  Enjoy the ride while you can.  Technology, capitalism, or christianity will not save you.

Leon Pannetta was on today admitting there are only 50-100 “Al-Qaeda ‘’
in Afghanistan ,with the rest hiding on the Pakistan border. Why are we
even there ? The only good reason is to show American resolve.
Attacks come from everywhere. The 9/11 attacks were ‘‘launched’’ from Hamburg,San Diego,and Florida. The anthrax attacks were ‘‘launched’’ from a U.S. government laboratory.The last two attacks were “launched’’ from Nigeria and Connecticut .
When I read Afghanistan is plagued by a “weak central government, an unpopular president,a culture of corruption and violence ,a poorly educated population , and fundamentalism .’’ I think the same could be said of the United States.

“I have never written anything of the kind!”

Yes, you have.

Go Right Young Man, June 25 at 1:30 pm #

Jimnp72, - “Bush started this war”

-

I would like to start by pointing out that Zawahiri, Nasrallah, bin Laden and the Afghan Taliban started the battle against the United States inside Afghanistan.

It seems to me that 99% of the Congress, 90% of the American people
and the Bush administration answered the above by attacking various enemy inside Afghanistan and, later, Pakistan.

Shouldn’t every discussion of this subject begin with the proper context?

**************************************

I’m always amazed how you like to accuse me of being dishonorable.

You are right: The proper context is appropriate.

I generally don’t address YOU directly because this is a group discussion, not a private dialog.

Which proves the lack of depth in thinking of the
American Public, also their selfishness, self rightousness
greedy nature, and how they like to believe any
misleading story that the MSMs sell them.

ITW,

If you take 3 minutes and search The Pew Research Center “Public Attitudes Toward the War in Iraq: 2003-2008” you’ll see that their research found that 72% of the American public supported using military force against Saddam Hussein.

You’ll find similar results from Gallup, Rasmussen and Quinnipiac.

Good luck.

ITW,

I’m curious. Why is that both you and garard, when responding to items I post, not have the common decency to address me directly?

Is “playing to the crowed” preferable to an direct and frank discourse?

ITW, - “Also, GRYM argues that 90% of Americans supported our entries into both Afghanistan and Iraq.  Polls indicated that popular support for the Iraqi invasion never exceeded 57%—and THAT was only due to the lies deliberately perpetrated by Bush, Cheney and Rove.

-

I have never written anything of the kind.  But now that you bring it up I will point out that the favorability ratings prior to the invasion of Iraq reached as high as 87% amongst the American people.  The 57% rating you cite was derived from polls conducted after the invasion - 2006.

ITW, - “What I MEANT was he doesn’t recognize that the reasons for going into Afghanistan were clear and straight-forward while the reasons for Iraq were lies and CANNOT be honestly analyzed in the same context.  Nor can popular support for each invasion.”

-

I think if you re-read my posts you’ll see that I have not, nor have ever, put Afghanistan and Iraq in the same context.  To be blunt; you imagined me writing things I have never written.

-

Have you been following the criticisms of the Obama administration in regards to the Gulf of Mexico oil crisis?  Are you now witnessing how each and every criticism on display today are identical to the criticisms after hurricanes Katrina, Andrew and Hugo?

Have you seen the recent polls of Louisianans?  It seems the majority feel as though President Bush handled the aftermath of Katrina better than President Obama in this latest crisis?  OUCH!

I realized I wasn’t clear and may be misunderstood:

GRYM fully understands why we went into Afghanistan.  I didn’t mean to imply he didn’t.

What I MEANT was he doesn’t recognize that the reasons for going into Afghanistan were clear and straight-forward while the reasons for Iraq were lies and CANNOT be honestly analyzed in the same context.  Nor can popular support for each invasion.

Amazingly, GRYM is actually correct in one context that Bush cannot be blamed for getting us into Afghanistan. 

But he sure can be blamed for messing it up big-time!  We actually were at a real breaking point where both Al Qaeda and the Taliban could have been shattered forever when he pulled resources for the debacle in Iraq.

Of course GRYM ignores the fact that the reasons for going into Afghanistan were clear and obvious:
1) Al Qaeda attacked the USA
2) The Taliban helped them and provided their base.

However, EVERY reason given to the American people for going into Iraq was a pure lie, an invasion that was being planned in December of 2000, even before Bush was installed as President.

Also, GRYM argues that 90% of Americans supported our entries into both Afghanistan and Iraq.  Polls indicated that popular support for the Iraqi invasion never exceeded 57%—and THAT was only due to the lies deliberately perpetrated by Bush, Cheney and Rove.

Of course, I’m ignoring two issues here:
1) The Bush administration totally and deliberately ignored every aspect of the War on Terrorism instituted by Clinton, dismissing every warning up to and including COB of September 10, 2001.  Had they actually taken the Clintons efforts to heart, 9/11 and the need for the war in Afghanistan might have been avoided.  Might have.

2) The tin-foil hatters who are now totally convinced that the destruction of the WTC was a joint Mossad/NSA/CIA operation to justify war with Afghanistan and Iraq.  That Israel would launch an attack on its most important ally that, if revealed would destroy ALL relations between them.  That the NSA and CIA would willingly destroy a major component of the US economy, the basis of all the commodity markets.  I think, that on discounting this argument, GRYM are in rare agreement.

gerard,

After reading your posts it occurs to me that you are an good example of what I have been writing about on this thread.

You write of conflict resolution and peace amongst men.  At the same time your words drip with disdain when you reply to items I opine on (both past and present).  This does not even touch on the fact that you will not address me directly - A common, peaceful and decent thing to do.  It’s as if we’re in a room full of people and you talk about me but refuse to talk with me.

Let us imagine for a moment that you’re the president of the United states.  You’re sitting at a conference table across from Bashir Asad.  The room is full of Syrian and American officials.  You’re attempting to relax and renew relations with Syria.

Would you take the same tact?  Would you refuse to look Asad in the eye and address him directly all the while talk with disdain about how much you disagree with his world-view?

I fully understand that you’re simply being human and displaying human emotions, however, I couldn’t disagree more with your style of conflict resolution.  I believe there’s a better way.

-

I asked you two simple and direct questions on this thread. 

Who is it, that you are aware of, that dismisses any thoughts of peace making?

Are you aware that the letter sent to the King of England by America’s Founding Fathers mentions the end of slavery twice as many times as taxation without representation? - A war ensued after that letter was received.  Followed by over two-hundred (200) years of peace.

I was just watching a commercial on TV that promises “Free money”. All you have to do is buy the book. This could be the solution for the people of Afghanistan.

And lots of tanks and guns also maybe (YEE HAW)

Fix Afghanistan?  Did Afghanistan ask to be fixed?  Or do you mean like a Vet
fixes a dog

GORGTYNGMN offers the practical realization that many of us are akin to dangerous monkeys possessed by superstitious fear who, motivated by self interested greed, lack evolved self reflective conciousness. I sometimes think of Little Stevie Wonders admonition that: “—when you believe in things that you don’t understand, then you suffer—superstition ain’t the way—”. We’re sufferin’ my brother.

      The streets of Juarez are a good example of a place where life is dirt cheap. Even if you are not a “player” your life can be forfeit over nothing. Like Afghanistan it’s a “for profit” drug warzone with dead bodies on the streets daily where, huge numbers of kidnapped,murdered women are found in unmarked graves. Please note, that drugs are money, and money is power. It is now open knowledge that our major banks freely launder cartel money and we’ve just introduced military drones to patrol the U.S./Mexico border. GRYMs’ point is well taken. How do we protect American culture, ourselves and our childrens future from this manufactured political maymem and the murderers it engenders.

      It is obvious that many of the insurgent suicide bombers who have died fighting us were uneducated impoverished young people exploited (”—you’ll get eternal life and many virgins—”) by behind the scenes educated, many in the U.S., rich Arab politicos with a personal agenda. Who controls the oil? Because, the oil is money, money is power and power dictates the present and shapes the future? The worlds future. The poor socially damaged impoverished kid with a gun in his hand on the streets of Juarez or a sachel charge strapped to his back in Afghanistan has no future. That’s how he/she is placed in the position he/she is in. Superstitious exploitative ignorance foisted on poor trapped, impoverished, helpless, uneducated, futureless souls. The drug lords and the evil Taliban strike again.

      How about a multi-million dollar Creationist Museum in Kentucky, a religious right that is now rewriting the textbooks in Texas, the Bushite attack on the freedom of our public library system, the destruction of the greatest educational system in the world and the open looting of the American Treasury. And it ain’t (isn’t) over yet.                                      An ignorant thug by any other name is just as foul. Because a cutthroat dresses well and has the money to employ a cutthroat to cut your throat while his wife is out buying fifteen thousand dollar shower curtains, despite press propaganda, is still a cutthroat. The fascist Bushites came to power with a fairly in order American financial house. They carried us to the edge of a new Dark Age that offers ignorance, police state torture and apocalypse. Can President O save us? Can we save ourselves? As Mr. Scott Heron told us decades back. “The revolution will not be televised”  I mean gosh, the world austerity focused “—after looting the world lets cut social programs to the bone—”, G-SUMMITS going on in Canada aren’t allowing cameras are they?

      The wisdom of the American people ask’d for sane drug laws. Sane laws would stop a huge amount of Mexican drug violence. Why isn’t it happening? Because American politicos make money off drugs and prisons. The wisdom of the American people ask’d decades back for implementation of a sane energy policy. No policy—-variations of the same reasons. There are so many killers out there GORIGHT. I feel a little overwhelmed.

        I believe (this is just me) that the connecting thread that inspires GORIGHTS comments, my own, GERARDS and others, is allegiance to a disappearing American ideal of individuality, evolving conciousness, and the worth of human dignity that still clings to life inside us. We and it are under assault.

A bit of reality might help.

1) Afghanistan never threatened America, even though a small group of Arabs living there did.

2) Afghanistan, throughout history, hasn’t threatened any of its neighbors because it was too self-absorbed in struggling against itself. 

3) Only when Afghanistan achieved a measure of stability under the government of the Taliban was Al Qaeda able to find a realtively unhindered refuge there.

The only conclusion from these facts is that America must arm and encourage at least two factions in Afghanistan so that we can leave letting them fight among themselves.

Have you ever wondered why Eugene Robinson, Dionne, Jr., and others remain in the service of the worst of the MSM? Have you then ever wondered why Truthdig keeps printing the pieces of these servile journalists/commentators?

Go Right is typical of millions.  Anti-warriors are not typical—but there are more of them every minute!  They are being created by war—an insane venture in mass killng in order to rid the world of killers, and “nation-builting”—trying to force an ancient set of beliefs into the technological age.

Force does not work. For one reason, because force does not bother to understand, to try new ways of “winning” (hearts and minds etc.)  Force never questions whether it is “right,” “moral”—even practical.  It has been taken for granted for thousands of years. Force blindly soldiers on until it hits a roadblock it can’t go over, around or under. 

That road block is called “defeat”, and force will do almost any destructive thing to avoid “defeat.”
Wars do end, however, miserably for everyone, and are never reconciled, settled, repaired, apologized for or learned from.  Why is that?

Because forcers do not believe in evidence.  Instead, they are motivated by wishful thinking, and, like all people who are self-deceived, believe that the next time war can succeed, if only we have bigger guns.  The next time we can win friends and influence people with “shock and awe” if only we kill enough of them.  Besides, they are not as good as us, they are meaner than we are, want to kill us before we kill them. They deserve to die.  We deserve to kill them and live.  Etc. Etc.  Absurd? 

War itself will end all wars, eventually, unless by education, faith and sheer goodwill, enough people get together and invent ways to survive.

There are ways out there, but chances are Go Right will miss the chance to explore that territory, sad to say.

Go Right Young Man, June 25 at 7:53 pm:
’... Hundreds of millions of human beings have lost their lives because other men did nothing to stop it.  As hard as some may try there is simply no pretending that out of existence. ...’

I don’t see how imperialism is going to be a solution to that problem, since it is part of the problem as well.

Jimnp72, - “Long term peace is possible when deals are cut in which everyone profits….”

-

Are you aware that there are people in Afghanistan that would gladly cut your head off for the mere suggestion you make?  What do you propose for, or from, them to reach peace?

Long term peace is possible when deals are cut in which everyone profits
financially and the rules are clear and consistent and enforced among the clans.
an example would be big pharma purchasing the opium and paying the farmers a
fair price for it. another would be the afghans’ leasing their mineral rights to a
BMP extraction firm (there must be one or two).
I am sure there are many more ways to have money walk the afghans forward out
of poverty and medievalism.

gerard, - “There are a lot of people who try to dismiss any thoughts about peacemaking as “a touching notion” that they “wish were true” etc. etc.”

-

I would like to learn more.  Who is it, that you are aware of, that dismisses any thoughts of peace making?

gerard, June 25 at 7:29 pm

-

Dr. Zawahiri teaches us that if we are to live in peace all humans must submit to the will of Allah or be put to death.  That is his passionate belief.

You too bring up a popular notion amongst many.  But you have not supplied us with a vehicle for changing human nature.

-

There are people who will end your life for God, for money, for power and/or simply the “experience” of it.  We shouldn’t pretend this not to be true.  And we can’t pretend that being nice will end the phenomena.

Hundreds of millions of human beings have lost their lives because other men did nothing to stop it.  As hard as some may try there is simply no pretending that out of existence.

-

Did you know that America’s Founding Father’s letter to the King of England mentions the end of slavery twice as many times as taxation without representation?

There are a lot of people who try to dismiss any thoughts about peacemaking as “a touching notion” that they “wish were true” etc. etc.

If they truly wished it were true, they would recognize it as an idea far more realistic than modern warfare which inevitably causes more damage than it ever can repair, angers more people than it can ever assuage, ruins them beyond repair and finally collapses of its own weight, as we see happening now in Afghanistan and still in Iraq.

The lauded “necessity”, the “practicality” of modern war escapes me.  Judged by its result, it is organized madness and has to be stopped before the human race destroys itself.  Period.

“A better answer would be that it’s enough to leave behind an Afghanistan that no longer poses a serious threat to the United States or its vital interests.”

My question is, when did Afghanistan ever pose a serious threat to the United States or its vital interests?

A short rap on empathy:

The difference between some people and other people is that some people can imagine what it must be like to have your ass on fire, how much it hurts, how much damage it can do, how it might have been avoided, and take some steps to try to prevent others from having their ass on fire.

Other people can’t imagine anything beyond their own personal lives, which leads them to living narrow, rigid little lives full of fear, isolation and prejudice.  They can’t do anything beyond their immediate scope.  They think people who care about other people are wasting their time and money and are silly or even dangerous.

Some people can find ways to open other people’s lives to bigger possibilities, wider horizons, more open human attitudes. More courage.  More acceptance.  More understanding. 

Willful ignorance is a cardinal sin—perhaps THE cardinal sin.  Wnen a wise person tells an ignorant person (in the kindest possible way!) “You are ignorant.  You need to read more, study more, learn more,” some ignorant people get mad.  Some people do nothing.  But ... some people take out a book from their local library, register for a class at the junior college.  Doors open. 

The library is warm, has a few comfortable chairs. librarians are usually helpful and know more than you do about books, and the books are free.

Imagining is not the same as direct experiencing but it’s better than nothing.

P.S.  People who know how to imagine how other people feel are apt to be harder to push around and easier to live with.

Jimnp72, - “I like to think that conflicts can be resolved by other than violent means-if people can be clever and intelligent enough to devise them and come to mutually agreeable terms.”

-

That’s a touching notion.  I wish it were universally true.  The truth is there are people on the planet that will kill us both for $5.00.

-

Isn’t it time for people to stop believing that “Bush” got us into Afghanistan?  The truth is after Sept 11, members of the U.S. Congress (all parties) were falling all over themselves attempting to sound more hawkish than the next - Al Gore accused the Bush administration of “dragging its feet”.

First and foremost it was the likes of Zawahiri, Nasrallah and the Taliban government that got the West involved in Afghanistan this time around.

The difference between having your ass on fire and having an intellectual opinion about having your ass on fire, is the difference between suiting up and ducking insurgent RPG’s and presenting well intentioned opinions about the tempest in a teapot hijinks of military superstars in a manufactured for profit war.

      In both cases there is an awareness of burning flesh but the first is a much more personal and lasting experience. Hey, want some Trazidone?

        Osama bin Laden stated clearly, that just as happened w/the Soviets, he intended to draw America into an unwinable war and bankrupt her. Guess we showed him. Who were the Bushites working for?—-Not us.

        It was a good summary. Mr. Robinson is right to focus on the serious possibility that the change in military leadership puts the timeline for getting our troops out in question. Lets not forget them.

It’s just too bad that sooo many countries need nation-building. If it weren’t for
that, we might be able to do some nation-building here. We’ll just have to wait
until all nations are built according to our building codes.

Yes indeed Mr. Robinson, Iraq was a big success for BP,
U.S. contractors, no bid hucksters, and all the others
that made billions in the destruction and genocide
delivered to the nation of Iraq.

On 9/11 we were attacked by 15 Saudi Arabians who trained on flight
simulators in the United States of America. Bush/Cheney , the neocons,the military / corporate media complex then went to great lengths to propagandize us into an endless ‘’ war on terror ‘’ against ‘‘Al-Qaeda”.They lied “Al-Qaeda”’ is operating in over 80 countries and   they are being trained and controlled from Afghanistan by Osama bin Ladin . That attacks were coming -sleeper cells already in place!
Now in the 9 years since 9/11 not one American has been killed on American soil by “‘Al-Qaeda’‘. The two lame attempts by “Al_qaeda trained ” operatives resulted in the underwear bomber on Xmas and the Times Square bomber- a
U.S. naturalized citizen with a gasoline and fireworks “bomb’’ he learned to make in Pakistan.Some threat..Yet America bought it.  We are continually being fed the lie that “Al-qaeda’’ is a potent enemy and we need to stay in Afghanistan to defeat and dismantle them . If there was an “Al- Qaeda”,they lost their only effective operatives on 9/11.

“The good news? Nobody has to pretend anymore that
Gen. Stanley McChrystal knew how to fix Afghanistan
within a year. The bad news? Now we’re supposed to pretend
that Gen. David Petraeus does.”

Very witty, and also a sad reflection of the mentality of the
American press corps: to keep their jobs as respectable, “mainstream”
journalists, they have to do a lot of pretending—or they get
disappeared, like Helen Thomas.

What’s wrong with this sentence?

“The question is how much time will pass—and how many more young Americans will be killed or wounded—before that inevitable day comes.” (quoting Robinson, who should know better)

I like to think that conflicts can be resolved by other than violent means-if people
can be clever and intelligent enough to devise them and come to mutually
agreeable terms.  Doing so is far less costly in the long term to all. Bush started
the war for us by invading Afganistan, as we are a MIC and seemingly incapable of
resolving things by means other than military. although you are right conflicts
have been broiling there for a long time. this is the context of my questions.

Jimnp72, - “Bush started this war”

-

I would like to start by pointing out that Zawahiri, Nasrallah, bin Laden and the Afghan Taliban started the battle against the United States inside Afghanistan.

It seems to me that 99% of the Congress, 90% of the American people and the Bush administration answered the above by attacking various enemy inside Afghanistan and, later, Pakistan.

Shouldn’t every discussion of this subject begin with the proper context?

Petraeus will have to co-opt the tribal leaders to make the beginnings of a
functional federal and local government, and they will need to know that it is their
best interest to do so.
wonder how many tribal leaders there are, and how many are opposed to the
occupation. knowing this would be a good start
Bush started this war and when the window opened a bit he shut it by invading
Iraq.
all wars are despicable, and speak to our barbarism as a race, but if we were to
leave, the taliban come back, unite further with the Pakistan taliban, get a hold of
nukes, and the rest is history.
intelligent opinions on these matters are greatly appreciated.

It’s nice to see that even the neocon shills are coming around.  I guess their masters have noticed there’s an election coming up.

I do not know whether US can afford victories in afgh’n and iraq.
We do not know what to the masters of war the two vitories wld mean or entail.
Perhaps they are shifting from yr to yr or are steady goals.

We know for certain that one goal is to grab some land in each of the two countries. Another aim may be to keep supporting govts there that obey US and which wld be oppressive to ‘lowlife’ there.

US can also leave the two countries, but reenter at will or leave some troops there.
US will, it seems, have permament bases there.

The masters of wars-people in US need wars badly also to keep domestics dwn. So, that robber barons can prosper and century-old oppression of ‘lowlife’ cld continue for centuries or millenia longer. tnx

Mr. Robinson,

Please stick to your “Inside-the-Beltway”, self-congratulatory, media subjects wrapped in your own brand of bigotry and racism. - The subjects of your Pulitzer.

Global events, national security, and military matters is not your forte.

Withdraw—beginning now! All else is twaddle. The longer this country stays in Afghanistan and Iraq, the worse the eventual defeat will be. It’s that simple.

“...Nobody has to pretend anymore that Gen. Stanley McChrystal knew how to fix Afghanistan within a year…”

Maybe, just maybe, Gen. Stanley McChrystal wanted out.

“...Now we’re supposed to pretend that Gen. David Petraeus does…”

Nope

“...administration officials such as Vice President Biden, Ambassador Karl Eikenberry and special envoy Richard Holbrooke…”

“Dick” Holbrook thought it was a laugh riot when the US bombed a civilian TV station in downtown Belgrade killing 16 civilians. “Dick” is a PNACer and a despicable human being.

http://www.publiceye.org/pnac_chart/pnac_contributors_signatories_clinton_administration.html

Kosovo: Clintons pet PNAC

http://newamericancentury.org/balkans.htm

(links work if you right click>open in new window)

Maybe Petraeus can solve the afgan problem the same way the bushies and he solved the “insurgency” problem in Iraq, you pay the enemy to stop shooting at you and move your soldiers off the front line to one of the 50 plus military bases built along the pipeline. What’s that about blackmailers always coming back for more? Shit, that’s for the next administration to deal with.