The so-called Sunni Awakening, in which American forces formed tactical alliances with local sheikhs, has been credited with dampening the insurgency in much of Iraq. But new evidence suggests that the Sunnis were offering the same deal as early as 2004—one that was eagerly embraced by commanders on the ground, but rejected out of hand at the highest levels of the Bush administration.
If true, and your son or daughter came home in one or more boxes in 2005 or 2006 just so some moron(s) could make more money, would that be enough to push one or more parent(s) off the edge?
If true it also shoots a massive hole in the current republican "Obama is spending your grandchildrens money for his socialist agenda today"
If true, and your son or daughter came home in one or more boxes in 2005 or 2006 just so some moron(s) could make more money, would that be enough to push one or more parent(s) off the edge?
I'm being perfectly serious: hasn't this been known to a practical certainty for years? It's almost the best short summary of the rationally recoverable reasons for the conflict: so that some assholes could make a bunch of money. (Which assholes? Well, look who made all the money!)
Quote:
If true it also shoots a massive hole in the current republican "Obama is spending your grandchildrens money for his socialist agenda today"
I don't see the connection myself; maybe I'm just missing it. But even if it came labeled with 30 metre-high bright orange letters reading "It is stupid to say that Obama is spending your grandchildren's money for his socialist agenda today," it still wouldn't shoot any sort of hole in the Republican/conservative approach. The trumpeting of their messages by the scream machine could not be less related to the question of whether those messages are true, or whether the people who recite them are sincere.
The point is that trillions of dollars were wasted on a conflict that could've easily been shortened, so bitching about Obama running up a deficit is really freaking hypocritical.
Please. Like the Dems didn't know what was going on, approve measure after measure and "emergency budget" after "emergency budget". They are complicit - always have been. It's not like there was sense or honesty coming from either camp on this.
I am viewing the whole thing with a certain amount of rather angry schadenfreud - watching them tear into each other using the most twisted "I didn't know but couldn't have told you what I might have actually known and still can't" "arguments" is kind of funny. In a sick sick way.
No one's talking about members of Congress. Obviously Congress blows, but Obama didn't ever approve of the war in Iraq. Sure a lot of Democratic members of Congress did but no one actually likes them except maybe some of their constituents. I don't see your point. It's possible to say spending is necessary now while it wasn't then without being hypocritical, but bawwwwwing about spending now when there were trillions of dollars flushed down the drain in a needless conflict is sheer idiocy.
If true, and your son or daughter came home in one or more boxes in 2005 or 2006 just so some moron(s) could make more money, would that be enough to push one or more parent(s) off the edge?
I'm being perfectly serious: hasn't this been known to a practical certainty for years? It's almost the best short summary of the rationally recoverable reasons for the conflict: so that some assholes could make a bunch of money. (Which assholes? Well, look who made all the money!)
We all thought this, but we didn't have proof, nor an attorney general willing to even think about putting together a case. The Jury is still out on what Holder will do. If this is valid, is it finally enough proof to force the current administration haul those responsible before a judge?
My concern is if the evidence keeps piling up and they keep dragging their feet, will some one take the law into their own hands. And would this then cause a major over reaction by the other side?
Not only that - but a full investigation would indeed blow the cover of the Dems - including Obama - I mean, he's re-instituting military tribunals, Guantanamo might be closed - eventually - but the people kept there will merely be transferred elsewhere in the main, and etc etc.
To say nothing of the question of "the Right War" - he almost immediately invaded Pakistan, thereby opening a third front, has intensified "action" in Afghanistan, and Iraq continues. "Redeployed" does not mean "brought home". Soldiers in Iraq will not be coming back - they'll be going elsewhere.
He had also not lobbied against the war - and made no effort to stop funding when he was a senator.
The canard I heard on the NPR yesterday of "well, you can say one thing on the campaign trail, but the reality hits you when you get into office" is just that - an excuse to tell the public what it wants to hear one minute and retract the next. He won on massive anti-war sentiment. He is not an anti-war president, was not an anti-war candidate. Never mind that his kids go to a Quaker school (which is a laugh riot, considering the "values" he is teaching them by bombing civilians and endorsing torture).
The point is that trillions of dollars were wasted on a conflict that could've easily been shortened, so bitching about Obama running up a deficit is really freaking hypocritical.
No, I get that. It just seems relatively minor in comparison with the demonstrable fact that the war (ON TERROR!!! and Iraqis) itself was launched to enrich a few and consolidate conservative power. The fact that it did more of both by continuing long enough to help secure a late-2004 presidential win isn't big news, I can't help thinking.
Not only that - but a full investigation would indeed blow the cover of the Dems - including Obama - I mean, he's re-instituting military tribunals
I'm pretty much under the impression that (at least most of) the people being tried under military tribunals couldn't get a fair civilian trial because public sentiment has already turned so thoroughly against them. If I'm wrong feel free to correct me though. In any case I'm certainly not happy about this but on the other hand if it gives him more political capital to pursue other parts of his agenda like universal health care and green legislation I'll just hope it gets fixed somewhere along the line.
Quote:
Guantanamo might be closed - eventually - but the people kept there will merely be transferred elsewhere in the main, and etc etc.
They won't be tortured, that's something.
Quote:
To say nothing of the question of "the Right War" - he almost immediately invaded Pakistan, thereby opening a third front, has intensified "action" in Afghanistan, and Iraq continues. "Redeployed" does not mean "brought home". Soldiers in Iraq will not be coming back - they'll be going elsewhere.
re: Afghanistan and Pakistan, what the hell is he supposed to do, let those situations continue to deteriorate as the U.S. did after the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan? The United States is directly responsible for the poor conditions there through years of failed foreign policy. If the United States does not clean up the messes it has created, it will reap the consequences just as it did when it reaped the consequences of 9/11 for its actions in the eighties. I do not approve of the combat any more than anyone else does, but at the same time I do not think simply withdrawing all troops from the region would make anyone better off in the long run.
Quote:
He had also not lobbied against the war
So countless speeches made condemning the war don't count?
Quote:
and made no effort to stop funding when he was a senator.
Probably because it would have been used against him in the election. Would you rather he stuck to his principles and lost the election to McCain?
Quote:
The canard I heard on the NPR yesterday of "well, you can say one thing on the campaign trail, but the reality hits you when you get into office" is just that - an excuse to tell the public what it wants to hear one minute and retract the next. He won on massive anti-war sentiment. He is not an anti-war president, was not an anti-war candidate. Never mind that his kids go to a Quaker school (which is a laugh riot, considering the "values" he is teaching them by bombing civilians and endorsing torture).
I understand that. Obama may express idealist sentiments, but he is at heart a pragmatist. I remember the last time Democrats had an idealist in the White House - it was in the late 1970s, and he couldn't anything done because no one in Congress was willing to work with him. I'd vastly prefer a left-wing idealist who *could* get things done, but sadly the political climate where such a thing could happen doesn't exist in America yet. At this point Obama is probably the best thing that could realistically have come into office in this country. I vastly prefer him to the alternative and think roundly condemning him for not living up to the highly unrealistic ideals everyone expected of him when he came into office is grossly naïve.
Note that I'm barely to the right of Chomsky and find myself filled with utter despair about the future of this country. But let's face it, it's in better hands than it was last year and it's pretty much a pipe dream to think that the president at least could be any more idealistic. Small steps in the direction of progress are still steps in the direction of progress, and while we shouldn't hesitate to call leaders out on their bullshit we also need to keep a sense of perspective and give credit where it is due.
Not only that - but a full investigation would indeed blow the cover of the Dems - including Obama - I mean, he's re-instituting military tribunals
I'm pretty much under the impression that (at least most of) the people being tried under military tribunals couldn't get a fair civilian trial because public sentiment has already turned so thoroughly against them. If I'm wrong feel free to correct me though. In any case I'm certainly not happy about this but on the other hand if it gives him more political capital to pursue other parts of his agenda like universal health care and green legislation I'll just hope it gets fixed somewhere along the line.
No - it's because the "evidence" against many of the detainees is hearsay, and much of it was gathered under torture. These are things not admissible in civilian or military courts.
Quote:
Guantanamo might be closed - eventually - but the people kept there will merely be transferred elsewhere in the main, and etc etc.
Quote:
They won't be tortured, that's something.
No guarantee of that. The secret prisons in places like Poland and other Eastern Euro countries are not exactly secret because they're so cushy... Extraordinary Rendition to an Egyptian holding cell is also not so hot.
Quote:
To say nothing of the question of "the Right War" - he almost immediately invaded Pakistan, thereby opening a third front, has intensified "action" in Afghanistan, and Iraq continues. "Redeployed" does not mean "brought home". Soldiers in Iraq will not be coming back - they'll be going elsewhere.
Quote:
re: Afghanistan and Pakistan, what the hell is he supposed to do, let those situations continue to deteriorate as the U.S. did after the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan? The United States is directly responsible for the poor conditions there through years of failed foreign policy. If the United States does not clean up the messes it has created, it will reap the consequences just as it did when it reaped the consequences of 9/11 for its actions in the eighties. I do not approve of the combat any more than anyone else does, but at the same time I do not think simply withdrawing all troops from the region would make anyone better off in the long run.
Explain, please, how bombing a civilisation into near extinction, allowing their libraries and museums to be looted and burned, and killing of masses of the population is "fixing" things? That's just Iraq. Explain to me how bombing villages (and villagers) counts as helping to fix the problems?
Add to this the current rapproachment with Taliban forces in the works. How is it that the mistake made in the 80's of supporting them is to be corrected by reunifying with them now?
Quote:
He had also not lobbied against the war
Quote:
So countless speeches made condemning the war don't count?
Not when followed by his actions, no. Expanding the front to a third country, intensifying "action" in Afghanistan and approving money spent on Iraq undoes any pretty words.
Quote:
and made no effort to stop funding when he was a senator.
Quote:
Probably because it would have been used against him in the election. Would you rather he stuck to his principles and lost the election to McCain?
That is a specious argument, considering that he won on massive anti-war sentiment. The only Dem who actually acted like an anti-war candidate was quickly abandoned by his party (Kuccinich, who, once again, played the role of herder of the left back into the Dem Camp). And, yes, I would rather a principle be stuck to than sold out for political gain. Two things are going on here - he is unprincipled and the principles he *claimed* are what got him in.
Quote:
The canard I heard on the NPR yesterday of "well, you can say one thing on the campaign trail, but the reality hits you when you get into office" is just that - an excuse to tell the public what it wants to hear one minute and retract the next. He won on massive anti-war sentiment. He is not an anti-war president, was not an anti-war candidate. Never mind that his kids go to a Quaker school (which is a laugh riot, considering the "values" he is teaching them by bombing civilians and endorsing torture).
Quote:
I understand that. Obama may express idealist sentiments, but he is at heart a pragmatist. I remember the last time Democrats had an idealist in the White House - it was in the late 1970s, and he couldn't anything done because no one in Congress was willing to work with him. I'd vastly prefer a left-wing idealist who *could* get things done, but sadly the political climate where such a thing could happen doesn't exist in America yet. At this point Obama is probably the best thing that could realistically have come into office in this country. I vastly prefer him to the alternative and think roundly condemning him for not living up to the highly unrealistic ideals everyone expected of him when he came into office is grossly naïve.
Note that I'm barely to the right of Chomsky and find myself filled with utter despair about the future of this country. But let's face it, it's in better hands than it was last year and it's pretty much a pipe dream to think that the president at least could be any more idealistic. Small steps in the direction of progress are still steps in the direction of progress, and while we shouldn't hesitate to call leaders out on their bullshit we also need to keep a sense of perspective and give credit where it is due.
I am not filled with despair. I think Obama needs to be looked at for what he is - what he has done. A lot of "hope" was placed - wrongly - in him, and it is coming back to bite people. I do not think this is the best we can do.
And it's 1,2,3, what are we fighting for?
Don't ask me I don't give a damn,
The next stop is I-I-ran,
And it's 5,6,7, open up the pearly gates,
Well it ain't no time to wonder why,
Whoopee! We're all gonna die....
...be the first one on your block
to have your boy come home in a box!
Oh this war is such a reminder of the days of my youth...
My first rock concert was a Country Joe and Frank Zappa concert.
__________________ Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful.
No - it's because the "evidence" against many of the detainees is hearsay, and much of it was gathered under torture. These are things not admissible in civilian or military courts.
If that's really the case, it's shitty, but I want a source on that.
Quote:
No guarantee of that. The secret prisons in places like Poland and other Eastern Euro countries are not exactly secret because they're so cushy... Extraordinary Rendition to an Egyptian holding cell is also not so hot.
And your evidence that these things are still happening is where?
Quote:
Explain, please, how bombing a civilisation into near extinction, allowing their libraries and museums to be looted and burned, and killing of masses of the population is "fixing" things? That's just Iraq.
Citing things that happened in 2003 as reasoning against actions in 2009 is beyond disingenuous, and leads me to suspect that the rest of your post is rather dishonest as well. If anything like that is still happening, then again, I need a source, because I read a number of leftist blogs and haven't heard anything about them.
Quote:
Explain to me how bombing villages (and villagers) counts as helping to fix the problems?
It isn't. That shit's retarded. It's also not the military strategy being used - indeed, Petraeus explicitly deplores the practice in his counterterrorism manual, which I happen to have a copy of in my room. He notes that for each insurgent kiilled in such a fashion it creates at least two more, which hardly contributes to combating terrorism in an effective manner.
Doing nothing and allowing the Taliban to take over the region would be equally retarded.
Quote:
Add to this the current rapproachment with Taliban forces in the works. How is it that the mistake made in the 80's of supporting them is to be corrected by reunifying with them now?
Again, source.
Quote:
Not when followed by his actions, no. Expanding the front to a third country, intensifying "action" in Afghanistan and approving money spent on Iraq undoes any pretty words.
Something tells me you wouldn't be happy unless he removed all troops from foreign countries immediately. Troops aren't going to leave Iraq immediately; it's not as though the country's perfectly at peace yet, nor is the Iraqi army even fully trained from what I understand.
Quote:
That is a specious argument, considering that he won on massive anti-war sentiment.
Er no, he won on massive "Holy shit the economy is fucked" sentiment. The war was secondary in the minds of most voters, as is clearly demonstrated by looking at any polling results.
Quote:
The only Dem who actually acted like an anti-war candidate was quickly abandoned by his party
My point exactly. An actual anti-war candidate would have been unelectable in the system we have now. I wanted Kucinich or Gravel to win in the primaries, but I also knew neither of them had the slightest chance in hell. Even had they made it through the primary system, the corporate media would have utterly destroyed them.
Quote:
And, yes, I would rather a principle be stuck to than sold out for political gain.
Unfortunately, the American political system punishes holding to principle because it is deliberately designed to stifle direct democracy. The Founding Fathers feared something they referred to as the "tyranny of the majority." Obama is virtually the best candidate that could emerge through the system unscarred.
Quote:
I am not filled with despair. I think Obama needs to be looked at for what he is - what he has done. A lot of "hope" was placed - wrongly - in him, and it is coming back to bite people. I do not think this is the best we can do.
I do not think this is the best *we* can do. I think it is the best our political system can do. Until the system is reformed, the results of our political processes will be invariably shitty.
Former US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has been accused of using quotes from the Bible in his briefings to George W Bush during the Iraq War.
The quotes were placed on the cover of the briefings alongside images of US soldiers, GQ magazine has reported.
...
One cover page featured pictures of US soldiers at prayer and US tanks in Iraq, underneath a passage from the Book of Isaiah: "Their arrows are sharp, all their bows are strung; their horses' hoofs seem like flint, their chariot wheels are like a whirlwind."
Another briefing showed a picture of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein beneath a quotation from the First Epistle of Peter: "It is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men."
Bush may have extended the war on purpose?
Linear Mode
