Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Election 2008

Obama Wants to Shrink One War, But Expand Two Others

By Tom Hayden, AlterNet. Posted July 16, 2008.


Obama is serious about a withdrawal plan for Iraq, but he's committed himself to expanding the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Dumb Idea.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Barack Obama has restated his phased withdrawal plan for Iraq in response to public questioning, but committed himself to expanding the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Any proposal to transfer American troops from Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan is sure to cause debate and questions among peace activists and rank-and-file Democrats. The proposal potentially represents a wider quagmire for the US government and military.

On Iraq, Obama said nothing especially new in his July 14 New York Times op-ed piece and his foreign policy speech in Washington today. In both, he forcefully restated his commitment to combat troop withdrawals after his recent statements suggesting that he would "refine" his views when he consults military commanders on the ground. He neglected to address how many American "residual forces" he would leave behind in Iraq to fight Al Qaeda and "protect American service members," though he made additional US trainers conditional on the Iraqis making "political progress." It is a proposal that seems to promise a phased diminishing of the American military presence, not a complete withdrawal.

Many independent analysts question the wisdom of leaving some 50,000 American troops as advisers, trainers and counter-terrorism units in Iraq after the withdrawal of 140,000 by 2010. Those forces would be protecting a sectarian political regime that is linked to death squads, militias and a detention system now holding 50,000 Iraqis in violation of human rights standards.

It is quite possible that Obama's regional diplomacy, including hard bargaining with Iran, could facilitate a decent interval for American troop withdrawals and a more stabilized Iraq, as suggested by former CIA director John M. Deutch.

Obama smartly exploited the recent call by Iraqi prime minister Nuri al-Maliki for a US withdrawal deadline, although al-Maliki's timeline was twice as long as Obama's. In this face-saving scenario, the Pentagon would follow "the Philippine option," in which the client government formally requested that the United States close its bases. This option was advocated openly by the Marines' commander in Iraq in 2004. The United States withdrew only obsolete naval forces from the Philippines, however; today we spend hundreds of millions on a secret war against Islamic forces in the southern Philippines. Obama might do the same.

These public policy ambiguities are not simply Obama's problem; they are caused by a mainstream media that stubbornly refuses to ask any questions about those "residual forces." For example, how will "residual forces," tied to the regime the Americans put in power, be more successful on the battlefield than the departing 170,000 combat troops?

But Obama's proposals for Afghanistan and Pakistan are far more problematic. They can be described in everyday language as either out of the frying pan and into the fire or attacking needles by burning down haystacks.

The Pentagon paradigm is to defeat Al Qaeda militarily while refusing to address, and thereby worsening, the dire conditions that gave rise to the Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives in the first place. In careful prose based on reputable sources, Ahmed Rashid's new Descent into Chaos (Viking, 2008) provides a horrific portrait of Afghanistan:

It is estimated by RAND that $100 per capita is the minimum required to stabilize a country evolving out of war. Bosnia received $679 per capita, Kosovo $526, while Afghanistan received $57 per capita in the key years, 2001-2003.

When the United States installed the Hamid Karzai government, Afghanistan ranked 172nd out of 178 nations on the United Nation's Human Development Index. It has the highest rate of infant mortality in the world, a life expectancy rate of 44-45 years, and the youngest population of any country. In 2005, 95 percent of Kabul's residents were living without electrical power.

Seven hundred civilians were killed in the first five months of 2008 alone, according to the United Nations.

Despite some gains in media and currency reform, plus a modest increase in the number of children in school, this was the path of least reconstruction. And despite images of Afghan democracy that made loya jirga tribal gatherings appear to be the birth of participatory democracy, a warlord state was entrenched by the CIA.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: iraq, obama, afghanistan, pakistan, election 2008

Tom Hayden is the author of The Other Side (1966, with Staughton Lynd), The Love of Possession Is a Disease With Them (1972), Ending the War in Iraq (2007) and Writings for a Democratic Society: The Tom Hayden Reader (2008).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Election 2008! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Obama, McCain, choose your poison
Posted by: Richard House on Jul 16, 2008 12:26 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama’s u-turns are becoming more frequent (FISA, NAFTA, faith-based initiatives, Iraq, etc.). Or is he practising realpolitik? Actually if you look carefully at his web-site policy statement on Iraq, he never intended to completely withdraw from Iraq. His latest speech makes it clear for those who never read his fine print. Expanding the war to Pakistan is next. This article obliquely reveals the homogenous qualities of both corporate-backed candidates wanting to be ruler of this country. Nevertheless, the decision to vote for the lesser of two evils will be easy. If Obama doesn’t work out, close your American bank account and make preparations to move to Canada.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
» RE: So what's your proposal? Posted by: richholland
» RE: So what's your proposal? Posted by: xi_people
» RE: So what's your proposal? Posted by: blondesprite
» RE: So what's your proposal? Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: So what's your proposal? Posted by: powerofbelief
» RE: So what's your proposal? Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: So what's your proposal? Posted by: jstepp590
» RE: So what's your proposal? Posted by: carbon-based
It's about time someone asked these questions
Posted by: Moonray on Jul 16, 2008 4:37 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Finally, a person of national prominence has dared to question the towering folly of widening our military romp in Afghanistan. As usual, the corporate media are dozing or so busy licking the boots of the Establishment that they never get around to asking the obvious and crucial questions.

I can only hope that Obama is trying to out-JFK JFK by rattling the Afghan sword. Otherwise, he is a fool or yet another tool of the Halliburton-Washington-Tel Aviv Axis, which would keep U.S. forces bogged down in that region for centuries, if they had their way. And who can blame them? The opportunities for corruption are breathtaking. Consider the tens of billions of dollars already stolen in Iraq. And of the $2 billion per month being spent in Afghanistan, can you image the large percentage that is winding up in private and corporate bank accounts? The mind boggles.

No wonder the "pursuit of terrorists" is endless. And it's increasingly obvious that our "two-party" political system isn't two-party after all, but rather one large party in which the rich and powerful funnel massive amounts of tax dollars into their own pockets. Want to get super-rich? Start a large mortgage company and let if fail -- or go into the business of "pursuing terrorists" in some distant backwater.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Question: Why did The Obama cross the road?
Posted by: Blink on Jul 16, 2008 4:57 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Answer: The notion that Obama crossed the road is clearly ludicrous on its face. Obama has made it abundantly clear from the very beginning that he is on this side of the road, except when he's on the other side (he's kind of like an electron in exemplifying the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle). Besides, the position of the road is no longer clearly recognizable due to the receding of the oceans that came about with Obama's de facto nomination (nee, "selection") as Dem nominee. No doubt that phenomenon will be hastened when He Who Transcends This World decides to part the seas.

Can anyone say, "Stanley Laurel"?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hayden's Obama critique lacks progressive principles
Posted by: Earthian on Jul 16, 2008 6:04 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a tactical analysis of Obama’s plans, this article is pretty good. But Hayden doesn’t mention that the twin occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan are illegal and immoral. He doesn’t mention that Obama is decidedly against the idea that international law should limit the US use of force. And he doesn’t mention that Obama has committed war crimes already by threatening Iran with attacks by saying “all options are on the table” and by threatening to attack Pakistan by saying “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

Once progressives like Hayden (his credentials as a true progressive date to 1961) abandon a principled analysis of ongoing war crimes such as illegal invasions and occupations, what remains is just a pragmatic tactical and strategic discussion. Such an abandonment, such as this article demonstrates, is a move away from progressive ideals such as Hayden surely believes, and away from the progressive platform, as embodied by the Green Party, Nader, Kucinich, and Congressional Progressive Caucus policy positions on issues.

Lacking a principled analysis has other consequences too, for Obama. Nowhere can Obama's lack of progressive principles of opposition to invasions and occupations, based on law and morality, be less effective than with his recent removal of his pragmatic opposition to the Bush escalation of troop levels ("the surge") from his website.

If Obama were actually a progressive, and had opposed the invasion and occupation of Iraq based on progressive principles, he could distinguish himself from McCain to the electorate. He could say, "A more effective escalation of an illegal occupation is still a war crime. I believe empire is wrong, that international law should apply to all nations, and that what distinguishes me from Senator McCain is a commitment to the rule of law in international affairs and an adherence to our Constitution which declares that "treaties made" are the "supreme law of the land."

But Obama has no such progressive worldview, sadly. But Nader does. So does the Green Party and Cynthia McKinney. So does Hayden. He should express that worldview in articles like this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

By whatever means necessary!
Posted by: TomTom on Jul 16, 2008 6:05 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great article as always from Mr. Hayden!!! Let us be practical and agree that in order to do anything Obama has to win and, as far as this reader is concerned, win by whatever means necessary. Consider the alternative? End of story.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: By whatever means necessary! Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: Really? Posted by: TomTom
» RE: eally? Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: eally? Posted by: TomTom
» Don’t be so smug Posted by: TomTom
Peace for our time
Posted by: richholland on Jul 16, 2008 6:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The american friendly flamboyant French president Sarkozy wants around the Mediteraine Sea a kind of Union. including european and northern african countries. With Israel and Palestina on speaking terms USA can attack Iran without creating a world war. Remember McCain said Europe to help financially with the occupation in Afghanistan,maybe Pakistan, Iran, Iraq etc.
The majority of the western and eastern europeans is reluctant to help to support the profit for big corporations instead of real freedom and humanity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Peace for our time Posted by: VZEQICVA
The Children's Piggy is Empty
Posted by: PaulK on Jul 16, 2008 6:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
War is heroic when you're spending your children's inheritance. When that's gone you revert to cash and carry.

We've spent it all. The creditors are taking possession of the country right now. The dollar isn't actually backed by any "good faith and credit" anymore, so inflation of real goods made by real political slaves in China is ramping up in the US. Countrywide, Bear Stearns, IndyMac and Fannie Mae have left many European banks and American small businesspeople holding the bag. There went the government's good faith.

We need to fight four more years of war in a far-off landlocked nation filthy rich in heroin and corruption. We got rid of the inept Taliban at first, but after many years of our nurturing them by firebombing weddings the Taliban came back with a vengeance.

What will buying a Picasso at Sotheby's set you back? Nothing, gratis, you ain't got the cash. You don't even know where Sotheby's holds their auctions. You can only dream of sitting there in a suit, raising your bidding paddle, toughing it out against some sheik from Abu Dhabi.

What will four more years of war cost us? Nothing. The children's piggy bank is empty. The next bottle of wine costs two bucks and we're desperate for another drink, but we can shake no more coins out of our children's piggy bank. Sorry. Game over.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

visions or halucinations
Posted by: solrev on Jul 16, 2008 6:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The American people have swallowed the war on terror hook line and sinker. Obama has absolutely no option but to try and fight the good war. Once upon a time the good war may have been to apply the law of retaliation and destroy the al qaeda training camps when they were sitting in the open. Only a born again pagan would do that, but that time has long passed. I still have the audacity to hope that a black and white college boy, who cut his teeth on the streets of Chicago, learned something. War what is it good for? On the streets of Chicago where school kids are gunned down every day, I have faith that Obama learned one thing, and that is, if you want to accomplish anything you first have to stop the bloodletting. Unfortunately, Iraq and Afghanistan like Chicago have realities on the ground. While Obama does not have a magic wand, he does have the ability to wind and weave his way through the realities on the ground, one of which is getting elected. There is no doubt in my mind that this black and white man, a tale of two cities, has peace in his heart. McCain on the other hand is just a senile old man who just wants to win one before he dies. We mystics believe that you are known by your works and not the words that come out of your mouth. While peace will not be at hand during Obama’s time, he does offer that direction. Read the tea leaves and have a little faith.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» No Street Hustler He Posted by: edith
Obama Wants to
Posted by: bc430 on Jul 16, 2008 6:45 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
be the 44th president of the united States of America. America and the anguished world needs Obama to be the 44th president of the USA. The damn shame on us voting americans is that We The People who claim to love peace, liberty, equality and ascribe majesty to the higher ideals of undevided integrity and universal character development that is progressively consistant with the advancement of humanity have had our heads so far up our posterior for so long while playing self gratifying games with other parts of ourselves and kowtowing to religious and non-religious superstitions and fascist right wing government takeover and dictatorship that NOW in 2008 a candidate of Barack Obama's caliber and ethnicity has to say this kind of madhatter kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out crap in order to be thought "man" enough and "murkun" enough to get elected.

Don't blame Barack Obama for being serious about winning. His ability to finish is well proved. WE need to look in the mirror at 300 million reflections of empty, derilect excuses of heirs to the democratic processes of a more perfect union in progress that we have let weaken and wither from disuse. The time right now is to cut the rarafied pontificating and get busy commiting our total ALL to getting this man in the White House, and a real majority of real democrats in congress. We must then actively demand Logical, Passionate and Ethical governance from his adminstration; If not, the avaricious corporate fascists will have their way with him because reality will not tolerate a 4 year vacum.

As to Al Qaeda and Bin Ladin, where was Al Qaeda and who was Bin Ladin when Osama was our ally and his daddy was kicking it with Dubya's daddy? What was his "terrist" band of brothers called then? Huh? Barack Obama was not involved.

Our most urgent need is to regain our sanity, claim courage and cease devouring ourselves.

All heads out of every single ass on the count of three.
ONE - TWO - THREE!!!

No more Racist, Classist, Right wing, Religious, Ronald Reagan, Neocon mesmerization.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Obama Wants to Posted by: sju
Oh please!
Posted by: jstepp590 on Jul 16, 2008 7:17 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Making military decisions based on politics is stupid. No, I'm not being rude, it is stupid in fact.

To remove our troops from Iraq the wrong way will leave them open to attack, which is why he wants to consult the experts, the military commanders on the ground, before he commits himself to a policy. That shows brains, not lack of resolve. The ideological quest for peace gives us our goal but the reality on the ground dictates what we have to do to get there.

We invaded their country and tore apart the institutions that protected them so we have a obligation to help them until they are stable. This doesn't mean doing it for them, which is why he preconditioned it on their political progress. I agree with that also.

As for Afghanistan and Pakistan? Well duh! They are the ones supporting the people attacking us and are the people we should have been fighting in the first place. The average person there does consider us their enemies and are helping plan new attacks. Iraq was never more than a dangerous distraction from the people who really do consider themselves our enemies and threaten us still.

I'm for peace because I'm prior service and, no matter who wins the war, soldiers always lose. That doesn't mean I have to be a sniveling pansy afraid of my own shadow. If someone wants to declare themselves my enemy and attack me, well, their stupidity. I won't feel good about leaving them bleeding on the ground, because I do not enjoy violence, but I will do it because I decided a long time ago that I would rather feel bad about what I just did than to be the one on the ground bleeding.

When I read articles like this it just reminds me of why Republicans make jokes about Democrats being weak on defense. There is an element of truth to it, obviously. However, even if Obama shifted halfway to the Republican position he would still be far better for our country and quest for peace than McCain and his effort to keep us there for a hundred years.

So quit sniveling and help Obama get elected. At least the Republicans have shown they know how to support each other and present a solid front, which is why the Dems have been out of power for so long. Sometimes peace activists can be their own worst enemies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Oh please! Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Oh please! Posted by: jstepp590
» RE: Oh please! Posted by: emmas
» RE: Oh please! Posted by: jstepp590
» RE: Partial truth = ? Posted by: channing
» RE: Partial truth = ? Posted by: jstepp590
» RE: pt. 2 Posted by: channing
» RE: pt. 2 Posted by: jstepp590
» Good Skepticism Here Posted by: edith
» RE: Thank you edith Posted by: channing
» RE: Thank you edith Posted by: jstepp590
» RE: Thank you edith Posted by: channing
Osama Bin Laden
Posted by: Woeful on Jul 16, 2008 7:21 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On 9/11 I nearly enlisted to go to Afghanistan to find and kill Bin Laden myself. Iraq was a non-issue until Bush made it an issue. We should have more assets in Afghanistan where we belong. Obama never said he is against war, he said he is against dumb wars like Iraq. Afghanistan is important to our National security, as is Pakistan if they are harboring Bin Laden.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dr. Strangelove Revisited
Posted by: boing007 on Jul 16, 2008 7:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Iraq had no WMDs. Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Barack Obama better reflect on that reality before he invades another sovereign country. Will this horror story ever end?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Dr. Strangelove Revisited Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Dr. Strangelove Revisited Posted by: symcokid
A history lesson Obama ought to learn
Posted by: Ydotheyhateus on Jul 16, 2008 8:28 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There was a point in Afghanistan's tortured history when the future looked bright, when a determined effort to lift the country and its people out of backward agrarian feudalism almost succeeded.

It began with the formation of the communist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) back in the sixties, which opposed the autocratic rule of King Zahir Shar. The growth in popularity of the PDPA eventually led to them taking control of the country in 1978, after a coup removed the former Kings' cousin, Mohammed Daud, from power.

The coup enjoyed popular support in the towns and cities, evidenced in reports carried in US newspapers. The Wall Street Journal, no friend of revolutionary movements, reported at the time that '150,000 persons marched to honour the new flagthe participants appeared genuinely enthusiastic.' The Washington Post reported that 'Afghan loyalty to the government can scarcely be questioned.

Upon taking power, the new government introduced a program of reforms designed to abolish feudal power in the countryside, guarantee freedom of religion, along with equal rights for women and ethnic minorities. Thousands of prisoners under the old regime were set free and police files burned in a gesture designed to emphasise an end to repression. In the poorest parts of Afghanistan, where life expectancy was 35 years, where infant mortality was one in three, free medical care was provided. In addition, a mass literacy campaign was undertaken, desperately needed in a society in which ninety percent of the population could neither read nor write.

The resulting rate of progress was staggering. By the late 1980s half of all university students in Afghanistan were women, and women made up 40 percent of the country's doctors, 70 percent of its teachers, and 30 percent of its civil servants. In John Pilger's 'New Rulers Of The World' (Verso, 2002), he relates the memory of the period through the eyes of an Afghan woman, Saira Noorani, a female surgeon who escaped the Taliban in 2001. She said: "Every girl could go to high school and university. We could go where we wanted and wear what we liked. We used to go to cafes and the cinema to see the latest Indian movies. It all started to go wrong when the mujaheddin started winning. They used to kill teachers and burn schools. It was sad to think that these were the people the West had supported."

Under the pretext that the Afghan government was a Soviet puppet, which was false, the then Carter Administration authorised the covert funding of opposition tribal groups, whose traditional feudal existence had come under attack with these reforms. An initial $500 million was allocated, money used to arm and train the rebels in the art in secret camps set up specifically for the task across the border in Pakistan. This opposition came to be known as the mujaheddin, and so began a campaign of murder and terror which, six months later, resulted in the Afghan government in Kabul requesting the help of the Soviet Union, resulting in an ill-fated military intervention which ended ten years later in an ignominious retreat of Soviet military forces and the descent of Afghanistan into the abyss of religious intolerance, abject poverty, warlordism and violence that has plagued the country ever since.

Brzezinski confirms: "Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

thank you tom
Posted by: edith on Jul 16, 2008 8:46 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
what would you know right? (irony). it's necessary for people like tom h to expose Obama as the Harvard fraud Barack "The Editor" is. Harvard frauds got us into Vietnam; they now see Central Asia as their playground for big bucks consulting for business and government. Of course the H men aren't going to volunteer for combat duty at the Hindu Kush.

the slogan of the antiwar movement of the progressive left and antiwar libertarian and traditionalist right should be "Under 20"! In other words, let's boycott the polls on election day and drive DOWN voter participation to 20% or under in this farcical endorsement of financial center internationalism and monopolism by both New World Order "candidates".

If only 20% of registered voters participated in the November charade, the punch of non-foreign interventionism would be huge in future years. The scared scumbags in Congress would know that they would pay for their robotic votes for the gigantic Pentagon budgets that EITHER Obama or McCain will try to impose on us.

Let the Afghans defend their own damned country if they hate the Taliban so much. If the Pakistanis really wanted Ben Laden dead, he'd be dead. Without the war against Islamic fundementalism (which is utterly despicable) being fought primarily by Muslims who are sane, there is no point in a "Christian", Western army from anywhere tromping through villages and poppy fields, impenetrable mountain passes and unforgiving deserts. Westerners have come and gone thru the Afghan plateau and the Indus Valley since Alexander the Great. You'd think Obama read some history at Columbia as an international relations major. But the smell of power overcomes.

Listen to Tom Hayden. He was the rational side of SDS, Barack, not your looney-tooney homicidal buddies Bernadine and Billy Ayers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: thank you tom Posted by: pomes
» My Grip Is Your Grip Posted by: edith
What do you expect?
Posted by: Pirate1 on Jul 16, 2008 8:55 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama, as much as he is likeable personally is a mainstream Democrat... read, a member of the very same party that has enthusiastically approved funding for all the current US intervention in the affairs of other nations. We had Dennis Kucinich running but he wasn't a rock star and so escaped our notice. We have been and continue to be herded in the direction of appearance over substance, flash over substance by a media that deifies everyone from movie actors, singers, pundits and talk show hosts to politicians. They didn't like Kucinich and a lot of others going back in time because they call into question that precious status quo we go to war to maintain. That offensive sense of entitlement so many Americans share to the point that they don't even see it among themselves. They ask, "Why do they hate us so?" Because it's obnoxious and assumes that anything we might need to keep our "standard of living" going we have a right to just go and get for the least compensation possible. If we can go dismantle an entire nation and re-write their laws to give us all the resources we need for free, well we have that RIGHT! Right?

Obama isn't evil, he's just so much a part of the system he's incapable of seeing anything wrong with fighting a war to keep people down somewhere. He doesn't see that it was a cell of just such people that managed to bring down the Trade Center. We can't just go around routinely treating people like that and not expect repercussions at some point.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What do you expect? Posted by: jstepp590
» RE: What do you expect? Posted by: Pirate1
» RE: What do you expect? Posted by: Pirate1
This is why America BADLY needs RALPH NADER and an ABOLITION of the CIA !!
Posted by: maxpayne on Jul 16, 2008 9:05 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama would be better off getting off the media and taking some history lessons first. Ditton on Mccain. If it were not for Britain and America, Afghanistan and Pakistan would not have been empowered with Muslim fundies. ABOLISH the CIA and stop electing MISleaders from both parties who in return give back-door funding to Jihadists in America and all over the world !

P.S.: It is no coincidence that the Religious "Right" in America and the Muslim fundies in the East make strange bedfellows.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Amen! Don't vote! Posted by: pomes
» RE: Amen! Don't vote! Posted by: jstepp590
» RE: Amen! Don't vote! Posted by: pomes
» RE: Amen! Don't vote! Posted by: jstepp590
» RE: Amen! Don't vote! Posted by: Dboy
» Ok, not a problem. Posted by: maxpayne
Don't give up on Barack!
Posted by: HughScott on Jul 16, 2008 9:27 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When AlterNet responders attacked Senator Obama last week for supporting the revised FISA bill, I defended him.

I reasoned that he was a pragmatic politician who had to get elected to cause change. By not supporting FISA, which many Americans believe will protect us from terrorists, Barack would've have given valuable votes to John McBush. Conversely, once Obama takes office in 2009, under his leadership, there is NOTHING to prevent a Democratic-controlled Congress from repealing FISA and pursuing criminal complaints against complicit phone companies.

From my perspective as a registered Republican since 1956 (I'm 73), Senator Obama is the smartest, most inspirational leader I have ever seen. I truly believe when he becomes our 44th president, Barack will summon the greatest minds in American society, civilian and military (including perhaps Tom Hayden), and try to solve the numerous problems facing us.

Consider the so-called war on "terror" (an idea, not an enemy). Come November, by casting my ballot for Barack, I will be betting he soon realizes that Bush's "war" is really an international police action requiring the coordinated, worldwide efforts of law enforcement and intelligence agencies whose countries are inspired and motivated by an American president. That can only be Senator Obama.

Of course I could be wrong. But if Barack is not elected and we get President McBush instead, for sure nothing will change.

------------------------------------------------------------

Hugh E. Scott, editor of www.FreedomCentralUSA.com -- a nonprofit investigative Web site that exposes Project for a New American Century (PNAC) members and other neocons (including John McCain) as the primary and profit-motivated instigators of Gulf War 2.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Don't give up on Barack! Posted by: jstepp590
» RE: Don't give up on Barack! Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: Fools - Obama doesn't matter ... Posted by: edgeofnowhere
Obama's rightward move is to Clinton, for Clinton, and nothing but the Clinton
Posted by: channing on Jul 16, 2008 9:32 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama's realignment is simply to 100% sync his and Clinton's policy positions in advance of the announcement that "Hillary Clinton is the VP pick!" assuring the announcement is free of MSM target policy attacks. His "withdrawal with residual force plan for Iraq" is now identical to the slow-death policy Hillary alienated the progressive community with, and he has funded every dime of it. His many other recent swings also bring him into complete and indiscernible alignment.

Make no mistake, these two will win in November even if the same corporate big boyz who stole elections for bushit have to do the same for Obama-Clinton. McSame is their patsy, deliberately campaigning on flagrant stupidity to make Clinton look good, but Obama held charisma over Clinton and they had to include him with a private decision involving the DNC. Doesn't anyone remember how long it took Hillary to concede? That's how long it took to agree the arrangements for the general elections.

I won't be voting for them because I have a conscience about sanctioning War Crimes and granting de facto immunity to War Criminals, corporations and illegal subversive black-programs right here in the US... not to mention I love the Constitution and these two love Harvard's multi-billion dollar bigboyz club. (thanks to Edith for the post above)

"They will say peace, peace, peace, then will come the end"

I'm not really religious and I don't believe in a singular "end", but false peace like that provided by Clinton 1, was and will be the cover for more covert activity including increasing Police Statism, increasing DoD budgets, increasing CIA interventions and, here's where Brzezinski comes in, the dramatic global expansion of NATO. The UN has proven to be fairly "democratic" and therefore cannot be militarized, so bigboyz choose NATO. Before the end of the Brzezinski-Clinto-Obama 1st term you'll see NATO in Africa and South America. NATO has become the one militarized channel stealth warmongers in UK, Germany, Holland, Sweden, Denmark, France, and Italy can manipulate in relative isolation from the people's will... that's why NATO is in Afghanistan right now and the UN is militarily absent.

Will Brzezinski start his long dreamed of war with Russia? No, but he will be doing everything he can to pry Iran away from Russia, their energy agreements, and security pacts. But IMO this action is too late because the diminishing value of ME energy is largely locked for the next 10 years, during which time western nations will be well on their way to solar deserts and other permanent replacements for extracted fuels of all types.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» NATO = ATON Posted by: pomes
OBAMA: POSSIBLY THE NEXT KING OF THE AMERICAN EMPIRE
Posted by: david.model@senecac.on.ca on Jul 16, 2008 9:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama will not really be that much different than other presidents in foreign policy matters concerning the American empire. It is pretty much impossible to defy the permanent empire-building establishment consisting of high-ranking officials in the State department, Pentagon, CIA, National Security Agency etc.

Even Jimmy Carter, the champion of human rights supported Somaza in Nicaragua, various dictators in Guatemala, Mobutu in the Congo and the Shah of Iran etc.

There is not a chance that Obama will withdraw all our troops from Iraq since he will be forced to staff the new Embassy, protect American oil interests, and occupy the new military bases.

As for Afghanistan, his statements about sending more troops either demonstrate his complete lack of understanding about what is occuring in that country or his deferering to the powers-that-be.

As for Pakistan, he must be a nut-case if he thinks that trampling on the feet of Pakistan will be an effective military tactic. Does he know who lives in Pakistan and is he aware of its nuclear arsenal?

Again, most of his statements are saber-rattling to prove that he is as tough as that other nut running for King of the Empire.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

HOW TO EXIT IRAQ
Posted by: bc430 on Jul 16, 2008 10:07 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
jstepp590, You wrote:

Oh please!
[Report this comment] [Ignore this user] Posted by: jstepp590 on Jul 16, 2008 7:17 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5
"Making military decisions based on politics is stupid. No, I'm not being rude, it is stupid in fact."

"To remove our troops from Iraq the wrong way will leave them open to attack, which is why he wants to consult the experts, the military commanders on the ground, before he commits himself to a policy. That shows brains, not lack of resolve. The ideological quest for peace gives us our goal but the reality on the ground dictates what we have to do to get there."

Hey jstepp590, be rude and stupid if you choose. Years of republican rule has us kinda broke in. But there really isn't any good reason to be misled about leaving Iraq.
Check this out.

HOW TO EXIT IRAQ:

Go to 1970s archives.
Locate U.S. Forces leaving VietNam.
Observe carefully.
Repeat same leaving procedures in Iraq while official GI body count is under 5,000.
Bingo. Just like that. Your ass is outta Iraq.

Now what's the real reason for staying?

Why keep the human sacrifice thing going?
Whose god is requiring this ritual?

Human sacrifice is the act of homicide (the killing of one or several human beings) in the context of a religious ritual (ritual killing). Its typology closely parallels the various practices of ritual slaughter of animals (animal sacrifice) and of religious sacrifice in general. Human sacrifice has been practiced in various cultures throughout history. Victims were typically ritually killed in a manner that is supposed to please or appease gods, spirits or the deceased. Closely related practices found in some tribal societies are cannibalism and headhunting. By the Iron Age, with the associated developments in religion (the Axial Age), human sacrifice was becoming less common throughout the Old World, and came to be widely looked down upon as barbaric already in pre-modern times (Classical Antiquity). Blood libel is a false charge of ritual killing against such taboos.

Even if not ostensibly connected with religion, infliction of capital punishment is often highly ritualised and thus difficult to distinguish from human sacrifice. Death by burning historically has aspects of both human sacrifice (Wicker Man, Tophet) and capital punishment (Brazen bull, Tamar, tunica molesta). Execution by burning of Christian heretics was introduced by Justinian I in the 6th century. Detractors of the death penalty may consider all forms of capital punishment as secularized variants of human sacrifice.[1] Similarly, lynching, pogroms and genocides are sometimes interpreted as human sacrifice following Theodor W. Adorno.[2]

In modern times, as even the once ubiquitous practice of animal sacrifice has virtually disappeared (or has been re-cast in terms of ritual slaughter) from all major religions, human sacrifice has become very rare indeed. Most religions condemn the practice and present-day secular laws treat it as murder. In the context of a society which condemns human sacrifice, the term ritual murder is used.

Nonetheless it is still occasionally seen today, with reports from the 2000s from India and Sub-Saharan Africa (muti killings), but also isolated cases in the immigrant African diaspora in Europe

Really????

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Burnt Offerings Posted by: pomes
» RE: HOW TO EXIT IRAQ Posted by: jstepp590
LOL
Posted by: GreyFoxThree on Jul 16, 2008 11:03 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama is a blundering idiot with his own agenda. Does anyone really care what he thinks or says?

JT
Ultimate Anonymity

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: LOL Posted by: jstepp590
» RE: LOL Posted by: rideyourbike11
» RE: LOL Posted by: SkeeterVT1
How is it...
Posted by: Cowardly_lion on Jul 16, 2008 11:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That we FUCK ourselves systematically every election year! It has been DECADES since the american people have chosen a candidates worth voting for. Last election it was bush or kerry, the election before that it was bush or gore, the election before that it was clinton or dole. WTF? Who are we? People who LOVE big government and Lots of death or people who want freedom? how do we pick the biggest losers of the bunch when we have real choices in the crowds of people running for president? I hope you all know, I was obviously for Stephen Colbert.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: How is it... Posted by: rideyourbike11
Afghans will die to win election for obama Iraqis will die to win for mccain
Posted by: DesertStone on Jul 16, 2008 11:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The war in Afghanistan is the war with Pakistan. Like the Taliban, militants fighting in Afghanistan today are largely Pakistanis coming in across the border.

Threatening to escalate the war in Afghanistan is just a means of giving the American public the impression that Obama can war monger and slaughter with the best of them. This way he can appeal to those opposed to the Iraq war and still look like a tough guy. There is no strategy or reason behind this proposal.




It is estimated by RAND that $100 per capita is the minimum required to stabilize a country evolving out of war. Bosnia received $679 per capita, Kosovo $526, while Afghanistan received $57 per capita in the key years, 2001-2003.

The US would like perpetual chaos in Afghanistan it provides a reason to meddle in the region. They can only keep the phantom Osama alive for so long before they will need a new excuse to stay. There is no intention of rebuilding Afghanistan in any significant way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ydotheyhateus
Posted by: DesertStone on Jul 16, 2008 12:37 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In addition, a mass literacy campaign was undertaken, desperately needed in a society in which ninety percent of the population could neither read nor write.

Before the Soviets invaded the literacy rate was much higher than what you are claiming. That is a gross exaggeration. American liberals like you who blatantly lie and skew history for your own political agenda are a total affront to the people whose histories you misrepresent. Americans did create conditions to invoke soviets to invade both Soviets and Americans used Afghans and Afghanistan to fight their battles as they had done in Vietnam, Europeans yet again playing games with the lives of others waging their wars far from their own homes.


Still the communists in Afghanistan were hardly as benevolent as you paint them to be. They were ruthless thugs who massacred thousands of Afghans took random people as prisoners and sought to westernize by violence and force robbing people of their freedom of choice in the process. You piss on the graves of Afghans who died in war when you use their history, their very lives for your own political motives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Ydotheyhateus Posted by: jstepp590
And by the way, every time Obama panders to the "right",
Posted by: maxpayne on Jul 16, 2008 3:04 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
my wife and I double our contributions to the NADER team. And we take great pride wearing Nader/Gonzalez caps and t-shirts and we even put a Nader/Gonzalez bumper sticker on our car even if people honk and sneer at us ! Yeah, they'll show their middle fingers at us when we drive from time to time but they're just going to have to SHUT THE FUCK UP and learn. By the way, a surprising number of folks in my neighborhood, regardless of party affiliation, are equally disgusted with both parties. So far, 18 registered Republicans and 11 registered Democrats I've met are planning on voting for NADER, choice or write-in, come November. I look forward to Ralph Nader pulling in a SUPER HUGE 3rd party vote, the likes of which could even dwarf Perot's 1992 or Wallace's 1968. HASTA LA VISTA Democrats and Republicans !!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Keep it "Under 20" Posted by: edith
» A Waste of Money. . . Posted by: SkeeterVT1
50,000 troops in Iraq for four more years
Posted by: PaulK on Jul 16, 2008 3:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Actually, the phased withdrawal means an average of 100,000 GIs in Iraq for 2009. What's all this going to cost?

Given that the war cost about 4 trillion so far when you add everything up, with an average of maybe 200,000 troops including black-budget Blackwaters, the Obama plan is going to cost one more trillion that the U.S. doesn't have. Who has the extra trillion to spare? Fannie Mae? For people without consciences, this is the ultimate test. Is the money all gone? If so, the powerful can't flood the money and blood toward their rich friends and contributors. Watch! The whole war issue will come down to a lack of cash and a few domestic strikes making the home front untenable.

How many of those 50,000 are going to come home with a little piece missing? Concussion hemorrhages? PTSD? Body full of depleted uranium? Too violent, moody, in need of street sedatives for the voices?

How many of the Iraqis are going to come home with a similar problem?

Why again have we exported our Indian wars of obliteration to steal their land? Oil? Are we going to push all the Iraqis onto the oil-free reservation in the middle of the desert?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: 50,000 troops in Iraq for four more years Posted by: impeachbushandcheneynow
» Under 20! Posted by: edith
Who is Obama?
Posted by: flymulla on Jul 16, 2008 6:06 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I mean Obama is still wet in the pants, is he not? He still has to see those glittering stars and the stripe in January 2009 if there is one for him. In the meantime, I think Obama is an unknown face and the priests have stated these. He is wearing the hat and wife has the rifle. Who will go the pray and who will go to war, one or both?
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla DBA
P.O.Box 6044
Dar-Es-Salaam
Tanzania
East Africa

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Osama Bid Laden Was Never Even Part of the Taliban
Posted by: sofla100 on Jul 16, 2008 8:06 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama has simply been brain washed with the same "national security" ideology as McCain. The USA war in Afghanistan is to accomplish just what exactly? Give the central government more control of the countryside? As if it ever had much control to begin with. Not only that, we invaded Afghanistan even though evidence exists that Obama was a rogue even within Afghanistan. The Taliban basically wanted nothing to do with the guy, and he lived way off in the countryside in the caves. Of course, after 911, a President and a government hell bent on finding culprits just went after an entire government. It would be as if a cult in Texas attacked a major building in China and the Chinese government then blamed the President and the American People. The entire thing is ludicrous. Yet, our Press has brainwashed us with this nonsense. Obama and Mccain, just part now of the party line.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OPEN INQUIRY: Senator Barack Obama:
Posted by: channing on Jul 16, 2008 9:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Could you, Barack Obama lead informed peaceful revolution?

Would you start arresting record numbers of Americans who've been arrested in record numbers and more than any other nation in recent history to secure security?

Would you Command our US Department of Defense to Kill Women and Children and their Fathers?

Would you tell Russia to nuke us or we'll nuke you!?

Would you depend on oil or Solar Deserts for US energy?

Would you be a President friends only with the rich, powerful and connected, or would you have an affection for the US Constitution and dutifully uphold its guarantees of unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness for all Equal Americans?

LET'S ASK HIM!

I vote yes

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Seeking coherence Tom Hayden on the record in October 2003?
Posted by: GPFrank on Jul 17, 2008 5:46 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is not clear what Tom Hayden is proposing.
To begin with, what did Hayden say at the time we first went into Afghanistan and almost caught Bin Ladin? We would have caugnt Bin Ladn if it hadn't been for the Iraq distraction already in place.

But now that Bin Ladin and his forces are well ensconced in the wilds, is Tom Hayden saying that we should foggetabotit? As Bush since then gave the Al Quaida leaders legitimacy as war lord entities with prisoners of war, "enemy combatants" "to not surrender to" depriving them and us from using ordinary criminal procedures to seek criminal justice is
Hayden now giving them more legitimacy ?

Doesn't Hayden think that using two brigades from Iraq is considered by Barack only as a start of a holding action in Afghanistan until we rebuild our overstretched military?

At what point is Pakistan's refusal to accept help in capturing or killing Bin Ladin a matter of a country "harboring terrorists" that was an initial reason for going into a country and approved by the United nations but now being used as a reason for rattling sabers against Iran?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama is a fraud - coming Police State
Posted by: Gonnuts on Jul 17, 2008 9:49 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not only will this fraud continue wars he'll escalate the one against us.

To all you Obamabots he just announced plans for a one-million Civil National Security Force, a teenage spy network. Think of Hitler Youth on steroids. If you think the coming Martial Law (and it is coming) is going to be bad wait until you have armed teenagers on power-trips roaming the streets. That's the "change" you can look forward to. Google: Secure Corp.

We have FEMA camps already built. The coming economic collapse and food riots alone would be enough to round us up, but that's not enough for the Illuminati, they need to totally destroy any remnants of individuality and freedom.

I know it sounds nuts, but it's all documented. All you have to do is a little research. These people don't hide what they're doing. Google: Operation Northwoods, Georgia Guidestones, study Freemasons, read a fricken book.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Kucinich and impeachment - Do this now and pass it on!
Posted by: foreverhope on Jul 17, 2008 1:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kucinich is taking names from supporters of his articles of impeachment against the BUSH/CHENEY Admin.

This is something we can do NOW and it IS important! PLEASE CALL AND PASS THIS ON:

1-202-224-3121

You can also let Rep. Conyers know you appreciate the work he is doing to bring justice and possible indictments against Rove and others in the BUSH regime, same number.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No Saber Rattling in Pakistan
Posted by: vivachavez on Jul 17, 2008 8:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pakistan is on the verge of an islamic revolution a la Iran in 1979. Any U.S. raids or bombings on Pakistani territory would swell nationalist pride which is exploited by the fundamentalist muslim political movement. If Musharaff did not quickly condemn and retaliate he would be forcibly removed from office and replaced by an imam or ayatollah who would allow the Taliban and Al Qaeda free reign in their country.

America cannot go to war with Pakistan because that country has nuclear weapons and 160 million people.

Face it, the border region of Pakistan and Afghanistan are safe havens for the Taliban and Al Qaeda with strong civilian support. Aggression by America would have a serious blowback effect.

Afghanistan is a failed state a la Iraq and will require a lengthy and highly expensive occupation to bring any stability which invariably would involve more humanrights abuses, indefinite and unjustified detention of thousands, and corruption by defense contractors.

The American public needs to be made aware of just how difficult and fargone Afghanistan is and the geopolitical concerns that hamstring military force.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sounds like
Posted by: xmvince on Jul 18, 2008 10:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sounds like Obama is just throwing ideas out into the public to see how we react.. I doubt he would actually go through with a plan this stupid..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Afghanistan and Pakistan
Posted by: HomelandColors on Jul 18, 2008 11:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Iraq was a unnecessary war but Afghanistan is where 9/11 was planed and where the Taliban harbored Osama Bin Laden along with Al Qaeda. We still haven’t caught Bin Laden and the Taliban is still powerful enough to regain power in the country. Many of them hide in Pakistan. I think war is a terrible thing and I think we as Americans do our selves and our soldiers a disservice when we take the George “Wish I was a cowboy” Bush approach that led us to Iraq. However, people who want to kill us live in Afghanistan and Pakistan and they are also terrorizing the local populations. Iraq was unjust and unnecessary, but Afghanistan is both a just war and a necessary one for us and the region. As for Pakistan, we aren’t going to war with them but with terrorist who run across the border and hide in the mountains. They are technically our allies and we shouldn’t have to go in their country except in the direst of circumstances.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Which Part of This Piece is a Joke?
Posted by: michaelo on Jul 19, 2008 6:50 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The rush to Democratic Party opportunists like Obama by "progressives" like Hayden have now left them with dangling on the end of Obama's petard (yuck!)

These are the petty politicians up for sale to the highest bidder that are debutantes of the new corporate state ruling class. The more sophisticated are those of the Democratic Party, like Kerry, Clinton, once upon a time Gore, and of course a man of many colors, Lieberman.

Ones like Obama are simply following their success path to membership in this ruling class.

That this coterie of "progressives" are so shallow in principle that they will take another "anyone but McBush" is either testament to their failed principles or hope to ride on the coatails of the next president of fraud.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No stability possible in Afghanistan without Iranian help
Posted by: Garvagh on Jul 20, 2008 12:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The US should be encouraging Iranian investment in Afghanistan, and this includes building roads, power lines, etc. Even achieving a reasonable degree of stability in Afghanistan is impossible without Iranian assistance.

Barack Obama risks wading into quicksand when he calls for a substantial increase in American military forces in Afghanistan, and voices concern about Iranian involvement in that country.

A complete US withdrawal from Iraq should be carried out within the next 18 months, and I very much doubt any of these forces should be moved to the Afghanistan theatre.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A very bad idea
Posted by: rafey on Jul 21, 2008 7:22 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is, indeed, an exceedingly bad idea and is just one of a number of reasons I no longer support him. I shall probably voting for Nader or writing in some name or other come November.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A very bad idea Posted by: lywog
The real reason for wars
Posted by: slider123456 on Jul 22, 2008 6:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our current economic system is the real reason for these wars the more I understand it is doomed to fail due to interest. When you really consider money you come to the conclusion that it's value is not exactly our faith in it that gives it value but the faith that it can obe exchanged for a product. A product we as a society make. The banks do not make the products so why are they getting a percentage of every single product we make and ever single service we provide.
If the interest was removed from banks we would all get that extra percentage for the work we do the bank does not produce these goods why are we paying them for something we make.
Another way to put this is that we produce 10 billion dollars worth of products and the bank buys it of us for 5% less than it is worth and this happens for everything we make. Then within that system we have 10 billion dollars worth of goods but only 9.5 million dollars worth of purchasing power to buy it back from the bank so we have to either borrow 500 million or lay people off because we are overproducing. The banks walk away with 5% of everything we make though.
All the imbalances inflation/deflation unemployment due to overproduction are due to interest and would all disappear if interest was removed. These imbalances are easily hidden when our overproduction is sold to another country which gives us the difference to pay for 500 million interest. But causes that country to suffer since they are paying our interest and going deeper into debt themselves until they live like all 3rd world citizens do.
This is also the reason why we have to continually work longer hours every year for the same quality of life.
There is a lot of resistance to this idea because it is hard to believe we are being used so badly but we are. There is also alot of circular logic to try and deny these facts because they are hard to accept. But it basically comes down to this:

Our planet is a closed system like an island. Now if I were on an island and lent someone a $100 and charged him %5 interest at the end of the year he would not have enough money to pay me back.
Some people say but my property would be worth more but the banks interest is always above the average inflation rate. So say inflation was %2 I could refinance at $102 but I would still owe $105. I would have to borrow the difference and pay compounded interest on it forever.

This is one of the most important problems on our entire planet this is not just a little bit of money it compounds upon itself forever. If you will take the time to understand what I am saying here you will realize how important this is and I implore you to let people know. The only way we will ever stop all the suffering that is caused by this is by spreading the word. This is the no.1 cause of wars as we try to balance our deficit and pay the interest.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The real reason for wars Posted by: slider123456
Imperialism
Posted by: sicntired on Jul 27, 2008 12:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The US is so tragically bad at it,you would think they'd have learned by now.For a country that owes it's existence to tossing out a foreign ruler they sure like to impose themselves on other countries.Obama is just letting the MIC know that all's well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]